If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
California school funding
Cathy Kearns writes:
I agree with your post, though, to be precise, as a parent of Los Altos elementary, we are not basic aid, but receive the amount of money per student any "rural" school would get. (Much less than say, Ravenswood, the local disadvantaged district, or San Jose Unified, our large urban district, and about 1/3 of what Palo Alto receives per student.) I'm not sure what you mean by "receives per student", but Los Altos School District had revenue of $7749 per student in 2001-02 (112% of the average in the state, for elementary districts). Palo Alto Unified School District had revenue of $10749 per student (149% of the average in the state, for unified districts). That's more, but it's certainly not three times as much! For California, you can look up these numbers at http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/ (click on District reports and then select Financial statement). Of course, Palo Alto has such high local property tax revenue because it's *both* a very expensive place to live, and also has a lot of commercial real estate. Los Altos has the expensive homes, but not so much commercial real estate. Funding of school districts based on whether they happen to have commercial properties located within them is certainly one of the many shortcomings of the California system. We are hoping to become a basic aid district as houses turn over and property taxes go up. We did pass a local parcel tax, at $597 a parcel to make up the difference, but right now, if the state passed a law that all schools would be paid the per student, we would get much more money. You left something out of this sentence, so I don't know what you're trying to say. The (what) per student? As noted above, the Los Altos School District does receive more tax revenue per student than the statewide average (but not hugely more). David desJardins |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
Elisabeth Riba wrote in message ...
chiam margalit wrote: The greatest reason for why sped costs so much is that every kid in the schools has a diagnosis these days. I think it's partly a circular phenomenon. For whatever reason, the school isn't meeting a child's needs, so the parents get an IEP for that student, then other parents see that the school is doing better for the children with IEPs, so *they* get IEPs, and so on. As if! It doesn't work that way. I've mentioned before that I do educational consulting as a side business. I do this because I know how to wrangle services that most parents can't possibly negotiate. I'm a professional advocate for LD kids, and I have a large number of clients ongoing. With that said, I have *never* met a parent who can just 'get' an IEP for a child. Even with an attorney in hand (and I work with one) and a hired gun advocate, parents can't just demand an IEP for their child. They have to go through a very lengthy and complicated assessment period for their child, and the schools are required to look at the big picture to determine if the student is lagging so far behind as to need special services. Many more kids get passed over than actually get services, even in states like MA where they have extra strength SPED laws (766). Many more parents don't want their child to be labeled SPED, which they see as stigmatizing, and so do not go through the IEP process until their children are very very far behind, if at all. Maybe, if schools could be more accomodating in the first place, parents wouldn't feel the need to go through the added cost of IEPs and SPED in order to get their kids a decent education. As I said, my husband reports that when he was growing up, most of the gifted students had some form of IEP/sped, because that was the only way to get special services for the gifted students. Well, that's one data point. One. Gifted students in MA do not get any special services. They no longer have resource rooms in most schools except for the very impaired learners, as most children are mainstreamed into regular classrooms. So your husbands claims are really just not relevant, since they're a single data point in a huge morass of stories. BTW, giftedness is NOT a learning disability (obviously) and so does not qualify for an IEP in most states. There are some that will accept giftedness as a reason for individualized education, but most do not. There's also a matter that schools are now expected to educate everybody, rather than just warehousing disabled students or expelling troublemakers. It's a societal change in expectations of what minority students deserve (and I'm including the disabled as special ed). Yes, that is a problem. Schools have always been expected to educate everyone, as that is their charter. What I think you're trying to say is that schools now are expected to give an *appropriate* education to every student. In the old days, blind and hearing impaired kids went to school but they often didn't have special services and were expected to learn just like everyone else. I went to elementary school with a blind boy in my class, and other than braille books, he had *no* special accomodations. Not any. [Sunday's Boston Globe article had an article on this aspect. To quote: So much has changed, and so quickly, that it is difficult even to recall practices that were taken for granted barely two generations ago. Consider what was commonplace in education. School principals in the Southwest expelled students who dared to speak Spanish on the playground, and the same treatment was given to native French-speakers in Louisiana. Miscreant students had fewer rights than accused criminals. Athletics was a boys' club, with girls relegated to the cheerleading squad. Native American children were shipped off to government-run boarding schools, where they were drugged with Ritalin into submissiveness as their history and traditions leeched out of them. Mildly retarded or emotionally troubled youngsters got little more than babysitting in classrooms far from ``normal'' students. Severely disabled youngsters, regarded as ``uneducable,'' were locked away in institutions or left to vegetate at home. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/08/24/the_other_civil_rights_movement/ All true. But now the turnaround is just as ridiculous. My son has a friend whose parents (with my help) negotiated a special placement for their GT/LD child in a private school setting that is costing our school district $65K/year. Yes, it's a great placement for this boy, but I don't feel that he really *needed* such an accomodation and tried to get the parents to consider a similar school-based program in one of our middle schools, but they didn't want to and went full guns blazing in front of the school board to get this placement. My son, with the same issues, is mainstreamed into a regular classroom setting, which is more in keeping with my beliefs that children should be with like peers rather than warehoused into special populations. Finally, I think schools have become more rigid in certain aspects. Have you ever read Thom Hartmann's Hunter/Farmer metaphor for ADHD? Given the percentage of children who have ADHD, our schools are not being designed to accommodate such students *without* bringing IEPs into the picture. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but ADHD is not a reason alone to get an IEP. Unless a child has ADHD and a learning disability, the best you can hope for is a 504: The Rehabilitation Act 1973 Section 504 Students with disabilities are protected by an additional source, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Even students whose disabilities are not recognized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are covered under the civil rights of Section 504. A Section 504 states that no individual with a disability can be denied access to any program or activity that receives federal funds because of his/her disability. Programs that receive federal funds must be accessible to people with disabilities. They must be barrier free. "Reasonable accommodations" such as interpreters, assistive devices, transportation, etc., must be provided when needed. For example, as academic requirements have increased, budgets have decreased, and schools try to squeeze in more learning without increasing hours, recess and physical education are frequently eliminated, Recess disappears in middle school anyhow. What takes it's place is passing time in the halls, which gives kids frequent breaks to socialize and jump up and down. I know people sound the alarm that recess is going to disappear, but I haven't seen any evidence of this. I *have* seen recess that is no longer supervised unless by parent volunteers, but I don't see cutting recess as a cost cutting measure. Additionally, PE in my school system has been paid for solely by the PTO for many many years, without incident. I don't have a problem with that. My children are athletic, skinny, and well toned, and none of that is caused by their 2x/week PE classes. giving energetic children fewer chances to burn off excess energy, possibly *increasing* problems in class. [Can you imagine a full workday without any break?] Yes, I can and do. I work straight through every day because I want to knock off earlier to get to my kids. I haven't eaten lunch at work in many many years. Additionally, as a teacher I wasn't even allowed bathroom breaks when I needed to go, so this isn't a huge leap for me at all. And don't get me started on lengthy high-stakes pass-fail multiple-choice tests. On that one I'm completely with you. I hate the damn things. But what I hate more is that the day after they're done with the tests, academic learning ceases to happen in our schools. Which really does support the 'teach to the test' theory. Marjorie |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
California school funding
If you look closely, I was wrong, from the state Los Altos
receives $4446 per student, 3rd from the bottom in Santa Clara County. Palo Alto Unified receives $7194, not quite double. Los Altos spends $7550, Palo Alto $10415. The difference, in the case of Los Altos, comes from a $597 parcel tax on each parcel passed under the 2/3 voter rule, state grants some received from applications filled out by volunteers, and a Los Altos Educational Fund donation of $1.2 million, culled mostly donations of $600 per student supplied by students families. I noticed Palo Alto also came up with over $2000 a student from local taxes. Yep, if an affluent community really wants to, it can pay for its own schools. Not that I'm saying that's fair, but unless all schools are funded to the top schools, parents who can are going to put out to ensure their kids get a good education. "David desJardins" wrote in message ... Cathy Kearns writes: I agree with your post, though, to be precise, as a parent of Los Altos elementary, we are not basic aid, but receive the amount of money per student any "rural" school would get. (Much less than say, Ravenswood, the local disadvantaged district, or San Jose Unified, our large urban district, and about 1/3 of what Palo Alto receives per student.) I'm not sure what you mean by "receives per student", but Los Altos School District had revenue of $7749 per student in 2001-02 (112% of the average in the state, for elementary districts). Palo Alto Unified School District had revenue of $10749 per student (149% of the average in the state, for unified districts). That's more, but it's certainly not three times as much! For California, you can look up these numbers at http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/ (click on District reports and then select Financial statement). Of course, Palo Alto has such high local property tax revenue because it's *both* a very expensive place to live, and also has a lot of commercial real estate. Los Altos has the expensive homes, but not so much commercial real estate. Funding of school districts based on whether they happen to have commercial properties located within them is certainly one of the many shortcomings of the California system. We are hoping to become a basic aid district as houses turn over and property taxes go up. We did pass a local parcel tax, at $597 a parcel to make up the difference, but right now, if the state passed a law that all schools would be paid the per student, we would get much more money. You left something out of this sentence, so I don't know what you're trying to say. The (what) per student? As noted above, the Los Altos School District does receive more tax revenue per student than the statewide average (but not hugely more). David desJardins |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
x-no-archive: yes
Noreen wrote: But I do applaud your helping out with the special audio equipment and so I'd say that is helping out the schools also, even though you wish to emphasize how unobligated you are help them out. I want to make a quick comment regarding this. The schools are legally required to provide my daughter with the system so that she has "equal access" to an education. If it turns out that when the school year starts, the school hasn't dealt with this -- we may end up buying one for our daughter to use -- NOT one to donate to the school district. We wouldn't be doing this out of the goodness of our hearts but because it's really helpful to my daughter's education if she can adequately hear the teacher. Personally, I'm frustrated that the school district may choose not to comply with the law and purchase the system, as the law requires. There are additional funding sources available if the district wishes to seek them out. So the applause isn't called for. I'm really done talking about this, now. beeswing |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
California school funding
Cathy Kearns writes:
If you look closely, I was wrong, from the state Los Altos receives $4446 per student, 3rd from the bottom in Santa Clara County. Palo Alto Unified receives $7194, not quite double. I think you're seriously misunderstanding something. Here's the actual revenue breakdown: Los Altos School District local funds $6162 (per student) state funds $1449 Federal funds $138 Palo Alto Unified School District local funds $8999 (per student) state funds $1481 Federal funds $318 The local funds include property taxes (ad valorem taxes and parcel taxes) and donations. You can see, from these numbers, that the difference in funding is almost entirely due to the greater property tax revenues in Palo Alto (I think donations are similar in the two districts). Again, this data is all at http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/ David desJardins |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
dragonlady wrote in message ...
In article , (chiam margalit) wrote: The real problem with this is for gifted kids who are also learning disabled, but so smart that they are able to keep up with their grade level. They work and struggle to maintain C's, when they should be getting A's -- but, because they are not falling behind in their grade, they cannot get the special help they need to deal with their learning disabilities. When I lived in Mass, I knew two families who finally gave up and either put their child in a private school or started home schooling -- they clearly had exceptionally bright kids, but the kids were getting more and more unhappy and discouraged because they couldn't keep up. In both of those cases, the kids got the special help they needed to overcome specific, diagnosed (privately) disabilities, and, eventually, returned to do very well in the public schools. I'm not sure what the solution is -- but there does seem to be something terribly broken when a child has a clear disability, but, because they are so bright they are able to barely keep up, they don't get the specialized help they need to truely meet their potential. You are definately preaching to the choir here. There are two advocates in the Boston area that specialize in GT/LD kids, and they're starting to make a difference in *some* districts. I had a kid last year in Needham that I represented who had been kicked out of his private school (long long story) and was profoundly gifted but had fairly severe LDs plus some other problem, and hearing loss. This family got *great* accomodations from a district that is not known for being generous, but only because there were 2 advocates and an attorney at the IEP meeting. He's doing very very well in public school! What most parents don't understand is that GT kids with LDs can get a 504 (my son has one) and the schools have to follow it to the letter. Most parents have never heard of 504 and nobody in the school system is going to tell them out it. Only parents who are willing to either do a ton of research or hire an advocate (we're not cheap, either) will get the accomodations their kids need. One thing I've discovered is, the poorer the district, the more willing they are to find and fund outside help because they do not have the resources within the district but can get money from 766 sources in MA. Waltham is a good example of this, sending their severe ED kids into Boston private hospital-based programs instead of sponsoring a program for ED kids within their schools. Unbelievable as it might seem, MA is a lot more willing to deal with SPED issues than is CA, and NY seems to be the best state I've dealt with so far. Marjorie meh |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
California school funding
"Cathy Kearns" wrote in message m...
If you look closely, I was wrong, from the state Los Altos receives $4446 per student, 3rd from the bottom in Santa Clara County. Palo Alto Unified receives $7194, not quite double. Los Altos spends $7550, Palo Alto $10415. The difference, in the case of Los Altos, comes from a $597 parcel tax on each parcel passed under the 2/3 voter rule, state grants some received from applications filled out by volunteers, and a Los Altos Educational Fund donation of $1.2 million, culled mostly donations of $600 per student supplied by students families. I noticed Palo Alto also came up with over $2000 a student from local taxes. Yep, if an affluent community really wants to, it can pay for its own schools. Not that I'm saying that's fair, but unless all schools are funded to the top schools, parents who can are going to put out to ensure their kids get a good education. I have close friends who live just above Palo Alto in Woodside, which makes Palo Alto look like Poverty Row. Woodside has one elementary/middle school, and a high school that they 'share' with a part of Redwood City (much less affluent). Woodside has a yearly auction fund raiser for the schools, and they raise close to a million dollars on this auction every year. That money is used for specials, PE, and other things the town can't raise in property taxes. Down the Peninsula, where my kids attend school, we've also got a very affluent community and a very large commercial tax base (thank you Apple Computer!). We have one fund raiser for our elementary school too, a walk-a-thon where the kids raise a goodly amount of cash also for specials, PE, etc. But it isn't even close to what Woodside raises in their one school. Schools in our district prefer to ask parents to pay one fee at the beginning of the year (currently $150/family) rather than be nickeled and dimed to death with fund raisers. We have 670 students in our elementary school, so that's a goodly amount of cold cash raised. Our per pupil spending is $6,257. Much less than Palo Alto, but we consistantly rank equal to or above them in the yearly scores. And we consistantly rank in the top 5 in the entire state, usually number 1 or 2. Money isn't everything, evidentally! Marjorie |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
California school funding
Cathy Kearns writes:
I think you're seriously misunderstanding something. Here's the actual revenue breakdown: Los Altos School District local funds $6162 (per student) Now where is this chart? I'm looking at http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigat...%2Fprofile%2Ea sp%3Flevel%3D06%26reportNumber%3D16 It shows Los Altos receives $4446 under Revenue limits. For Los Altos that is not property taxes, as we don't reach the basic aid limit. For us that is state funds. I think you're looking at the same chart, but you're not understanding it. There's a line that says "Subtotal, Revenue Limit Sources." This means, in the context of state law, local property taxes (not including the parcel tax), plus supplemental funds from the state which are mandated to bring the district up to its "revenue limit". (Thus, the "revenue limit sources" for a district will always total at least as much as the "revenue limit" for that district, but may be greater if the local property taxes are already above the revenue limit.) You can see, looking at the chart, that the $4446 figure is just obtained by adding $4062 under Local Property Taxes and Fees and $384 under State Aid. It's not all (or even mostly) state funds. If you add up the different types of state and local funds, ignoring which are "revenue limit sources" and which aren't (essentially just a technicality), you get the figures I posted. LAEF, the district wide educational foundation last year gave the district $1.2 million to ensure small class sizes and keeping programs for its 4000 students. (This is in addition to $1 million raised in spring of 2002 to keep the class sizes small, less than 20 K-3, less than 30 4-8.) PAFE, the similar district wide foundation, gave $350 thousand for its 10,000 students. That's true, but I think there's more giving to the individual schools in Palo Alto. However, it certainly may be that there's more total giving in Los Altos; that wouldn't surprise me. My point is it probably takes closer to the $10k Palo Alto spends per student to have a good educational program. Until all districts get that, the more affluent districts are going to try and make up as much as they can. Some are better at making it up than others. (See Woodside Elementary.) I think we both agree about that. David desJardins |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Suing a school 4 child endangerment & neglect FWD: | Kane | General | 4 | June 7th 04 12:38 AM |
Expelled from school - What now? | Mike | General | 17 | April 3rd 04 06:12 AM |
Students increasingly being arrested for school offenses | Doan | General | 0 | January 7th 04 05:51 PM |
Philly public schools go soda free! email to your school board | Maurice | General | 1 | July 14th 03 01:05 AM |
Virtual school seeks Iowa funding | [email protected] | General | 4 | June 29th 03 12:55 AM |