School choice

[bcla]

A part of the problem is how we fund our schools. In many school districts, funding is done via property taxes which in turn are based on property values. Assume a person buys a house in a highly rated school district and that home is more money than in a neighboring town solely because of the school district. In turn, the property taxes paid by that homeowner may be significantly more than the neighboring town. Is it then fair that a family from the neighboring town who hasn't paid the same taxes can choose to send their kids to the higher rated school district? When a school district is better funded by the wealth in the district, it gives it an advantage and the ability to provide options for the kids that other schools can't. Perhaps if all schools were funded equally and not reliant on property taxes, some of this gap could be mitigated.

Depends. I live in a large, mostly poor district. I happen to live in one of the more affluent parts of the district. Some parts of the district deal with gang violence, but we live in one of the lowest crime communities in California. It's kind of weird that way.

Per pupil spending is pretty uniform throughout the district; I think it might even be fairly uniform throughout the state. However, the schools in more affluent areas have the highest performance. Part of it is that there's more volunteering going on at the affluent schools because a parent might not work and has time for it, along with fundraising. However, I contend that a big part of it has to do with the more affluent families generally doing better in school.

The effects of volunteering and fundraising can be pretty interesting too. There's a nearby city (Albany, CA) with a highly regarded school district. It's considered an extremely desirable place for families, even though homes tend to be small bungalows. They have three elementary schools. One is on the relatively less affluent side of town with more immigrant families as well as the UC Village housing complex that serves as UC Berkeley's housing for married students or students with children. The parents with children in that elementary school generally have less time to devote to volunteering and fundraising. However, the parents got upset because the funds raised for the other elementary schools weren't shared. They complained and there was some sort of settlement that created a joint fundraising effort. Before that, the programs paid for by the fundraising were discontinued in order to level the playing field.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/12/09/demographics-put-ocean-view-pta-at-disadvantage/
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Albany-schools-pool-fundraising-for-academic-2309837.php
http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2014-02/albany-school-district-levels-parent-fundraising-playing-field

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2044721,00.html
School budgets are so strapped these days that parent groups are not only battling to keep basics in the classroom, but some parents are even fighting one another. The superintendent in Albany, Calif., last fall suspended PTA-funded chess, music and art classes at two elementary schools after the parents at a third school complained they couldn't afford a similar curriculum. Why, the parents at Marin and Cornell elementary schools wondered, is the PTA at Ocean View trying to keep our kids down?

"It's kind of sad," says Edel Alon, an information-technology analyst and the Ocean View PTA president, who thinks private money in public schools can create inequality. "Parents have gotten into some pretty feisty arguments."​

 

[Colleen27]

Per pupil spending is pretty uniform throughout the district; I think it might even be fairly uniform throughout the state. However, the schools in more affluent areas have the highest performance. Part of it is that there's more volunteering going on at the affluent schools because a parent might not work and has time for it, along with fundraising. However, I contend that a big part of it has to do with the more affluent families generally doing better in school.

While that is undoubtedly a factor, per pupil funding doesn't tell the whole story. Much of the time, in much of the country, more affluent areas are also newer areas. Newer schools mean less money for maintenance, more energy-efficient structures which means less spending on utilities, more integrated technology infrastructure that doesn't need expensive retrofitting, etc. In my state per pupil funding can vary pretty widely from one district to another, but it isn't unusual to find higher instructional spending in suburban districts than in the Detroit schools despite the fact that those suburban districts get a couple thousand dollars less per pupil. Because the operational costs of a district like mine, where the oldest buildings date back to the 1980s, are very different from a district where some of the schools were built a century ago.

 

[Mickeynutty]

I am very pro school choice.

 

[bcla]

While that is undoubtedly a factor, per pupil funding doesn't tell the whole story. Much of the time, in much of the country, more affluent areas are also newer areas. Newer schools mean less money for maintenance, more energy-efficient structures which means less spending on utilities, more integrated technology infrastructure that doesn't need expensive retrofitting, etc. In my state per pupil funding can vary pretty widely from one district to another, but it isn't unusual to find higher instructional spending in suburban districts than in the Detroit schools despite the fact that those suburban districts get a couple thousand dollars less per pupil. Because the operational costs of a district like mine, where the oldest buildings date back to the 1980s, are very different from a district where some of the schools were built a century ago.

At least in my district, there has been a lot of modernization going on. There have been bond measures for increased school construction. I used to pass by my kid's school over 20 years ago on a regular bike ride. I didn't recognize it on our orientation visit. The public elementary school where I went has some of the original building, but most of it has been expanded since I went there. These are the two highest performing elementary schools in the district. I occasionally visit other parts of the school district and see what's going on. They also have fairly new buildings, as it would be untenable to see the building funds only going to the schools in more affluent areas. As far as I can tell, building maintenance is separate from funding that goes to classroom instruction.

When you look at the published test scores, the two elementary schools in the most affluent areas do the best, even though the district spends money more or less evenly on all schools. However, I've noted that the school fundraising is a big part of it, and we don't have anything like the Albany, CA issue where one school's PTA complained. It would be frankly difficult to do that in our district, as it's pretty large and diverse.

I would guess that the better performing schools can be the most desirable for teachers. A lot of the less experienced teachers don't have seniority and are at the less affluent areas. Still, we've got a few fairly new teachers, but they somehow got in as part time teachers, and because they live in the school's boundary lines. One was a private school teacher, while the other is part time. Both had kids going to our school.

 

[mummabear]

The parents with children in that elementary school generally have less time to devote to volunteering and fundraising. However, the parents got upset because the funds raised for the other elementary schools weren't shared. They complained and there was some sort of settlement that created a joint fundraising effort. Before that, the programs paid for by the fundraising were discontinued in order to level the playing field.

That is ridiculous!
I personally believe that if you don't take part in the effort of the fundraising then you don't get the benefit of it.
To say I'm too busy so I want you to sort out our school too shows a very entitled attitude.

When you look at the published test scores, the two elementary schools in the most affluent areas do the best, even though the district spends money more or less evenly on all schools.

Interesting here in NZ we have "reverse" funding. Schools are rated on a decile system based on the socio economic make up of their zone, a decile 1A school has the most funding coming from the poorest neighbourhood, a decile 10 school gets the least funding coming from the "richest" neighbourhoods. With the belief that the parents can afford to make it up, we are at a decile 10 school, a letter went home at the end of the term advising that the school donations had dropped from the budgeted 52% of families paying to 47% paying and that they desperately needed the money.

I personally think school funding should be even on a per pupil basis with the school given money as needed(on a yearly basis) and his won't be even as some schools one will neeed something big and another won't.
I think the social factors (school breakfast/lunch programs:here only decile 1/2 schools have one everyone else takes a packed lunch, and programmes aiming at providing school supplies, clothes etc) at the decile 1A schools are very important as ty effect the students ability to learn but should be funded as a seperate program than the education budget.
The worst off are the decile 5, don't get enough from the govt and the parents don't have the money to make it up.

 

[asta]

While that is undoubtedly a factor, per pupil funding doesn't tell the whole story. Much of the time, in much of the country, more affluent areas are also newer areas. Newer schools mean less money for maintenance, more energy-efficient structures which means less spending on utilities, more integrated technology infrastructure that doesn't need expensive retrofitting, etc. In my state per pupil funding can vary pretty widely from one district to another, but it isn't unusual to find higher instructional spending in suburban districts than in the Detroit schools despite the fact that those suburban districts get a couple thousand dollars less per pupil. Because the operational costs of a district like mine, where the oldest buildings date back to the 1980s, are very different from a district where some of the schools were built a century ago.

New schools aren't necessarily better. I live in an extremely fast growing area. New elementary schools are opening almost every year and the county can't keep up. While the buildings are new, many of the facilities are not up to the level of established schools. The libraries in particular have considerably fewer books. Books build up over time due to donations and book fair proceeds. Many times playgrounds also look a little bare until fundraisers put more equipment on them. I live in an extremely low tax state so other states might better equip their new schools than we do.

 

[Suger Mag]

We have school choice, and my issue isn't so much with choice, but charter schools. I hate that our funding goes to them, when they're really a private school. They can choose to not accept kids with IEP's etc.. (which they of course do not take) so they get the "better" kids and kids who need a lot of extra funding to service stay in the public school close to home which has now LOST funding to the charter school. Bankrupts the public school.

Every homeschool family I know (and I know a lot of them) don't want any government involvement at all. Whether that's $$ or whatever. 99% of them do not interact with their local schools at all, even for sports etc...So I don't think anyone needs to worry about them draining all the money.

It's complicated, that's for sure, and I hope everyone stays as civil as this thread has been. It could go a lot farther in finding solutions than the attitude that's been around lately.

Aren't you in Mass? Maybe different charter schools in part of the state work differently, but that is not true of the Charters in my area of Western Mass, All of the charters here (South hadley, Hadley, Greenfield Ma) that I have had personal knowledge of ... all have no choice about accepting special needs. All of them admit students based on a lottery and special needs students are treated the same in the lottery system (Not the Shirley Jackson type lottery thankfully LOL), but if your number is drawn, then you get in. My husband was the special education/ adjustment counselor for 6 years at a Chinese language Immersion Charter school in Hadley, Ma... they even had to expand their special education department because they had so many kids getting admitted that needed services.

 

[scrhsa]

My girls have been homeschooled, been in private,Catholic school and in public school. By far they learned the most homeschooling. We almost sent our youngest to another highschool in the next county even though we would have had to pay for it. And there was NO WAY we could have afforded the closest Catholic school..not to mention it being almost 45 minutes away. She's a senior now and looking back..we should have. Her current HS is a rural ,county school. It's huge and football driven. So much so that the lighting/sound system in the auditorium was 30 yrs old yet they can budget in a million dollar upgrade to the stadium. It really hasn't been a good fit for her. I almost took her out to homeschool several times also. But my husband was keen on keeping her where she is. Though I understand that we are rural so there isn't much call for a multitude of schools, I would have LOVED more choices for my girls.

 

[piccolopat]

You have the option to live in a less expensive area, where the schools are not that great for less of a tax burden. Many retirees had children who went to public schools, so yes, they should be paying school taxes. Just off the top of my head, I am thinking a childless couple, who never had children who went to public school should get some kind of a tax break.

Would you also give a tax break to families that never used the police, fire department, library? Supporting schools benefits the entire community, not just people with kids. The problem in my area is how this is funded. For example, someone who owns a house pays significantly more school taxes than someone who owns as condo that is valued the same. My taxes are almost four times what they were when we moved here even though the house value only doubled.

 

[kamik86]

Depends. I live in a large, mostly poor district. I happen to live in one of the more affluent parts of the district. Some parts of the district deal with gang violence, but we live in one of the lowest crime communities in California. It's kind of weird that way.

Per pupil spending is pretty uniform throughout the district; I think it might even be fairly uniform throughout the state. However, the schools in more affluent areas have the highest performance. Part of it is that there's more volunteering going on at the affluent schools because a parent might not work and has time for it, along with fundraising. However, I contend that a big part of it has to do with the more affluent families generally doing better in school.

The effects of volunteering and fundraising can be pretty interesting too. There's a nearby city (Albany, CA) with a highly regarded school district. It's considered an extremely desirable place for families, even though homes tend to be small bungalows. They have three elementary schools. One is on the relatively less affluent side of town with more immigrant families as well as the UC Village housing complex that serves as UC Berkeley's housing for married students or students with children. The parents with children in that elementary school generally have less time to devote to volunteering and fundraising. However, the parents got upset because the funds raised for the other elementary schools weren't shared. They complained and there was some sort of settlement that created a joint fundraising effort. Before that, the programs paid for by the fundraising were discontinued in order to level the playing field.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/12/09/demographics-put-ocean-view-pta-at-disadvantage/
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Albany-schools-pool-fundraising-for-academic-2309837.php
http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2014-02/albany-school-district-levels-parent-fundraising-playing-field

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2044721,00.html
School budgets are so strapped these days that parent groups are not only battling to keep basics in the classroom, but some parents are even fighting one another. The superintendent in Albany, Calif., last fall suspended PTA-funded chess, music and art classes at two elementary schools after the parents at a third school complained they couldn't afford a similar curriculum. Why, the parents at Marin and Cornell elementary schools wondered, is the PTA at Ocean View trying to keep our kids down?

"It's kind of sad," says Edel Alon, an information-technology analyst and the Ocean View PTA president, who thinks private money in public schools can create inequality. "Parents have gotten into some pretty feisty arguments."​

See this is the kind of thing I find ridiculous.

Yes in a perfect world all students would have the same oppurtunities. However it seems stupid to me to tell parents that you can't buy your kids X because other schools don't have it. I"m sorry but the world doesn't work that way.

 

[mefordis]

Would you also give a tax break to families that never used the police, fire department, library? Supporting schools benefits the entire community, not just people with kids. The problem in my area is how this is funded. For example, someone who owns a house pays significantly more school taxes than someone who owns as condo that is valued the same. My taxes are almost four times what they were when we moved here even though the house value only doubled.

Good points.

 

[morgan98]

You have the option to live in a less expensive area, where the schools are not that great for less of a tax burden. Many retirees had children who went to public schools, so yes, they should be paying school taxes. Just off the top of my head, I am thinking a childless couple, who never had children who went to public school should get some kind of a tax break.

I am part of a childless couple who will never and has never used the school system. Having a strong education system benefits everyone, so I do not feel like I should not contribute to a well educated community. All the various taxes we pay are used to fund a myriad of services we do not use or use to varying degrees.

Interestingly enough, the county I now live in, Cobb County Georgia, exempts homeowners from school taxes when they turn 62. Only 5 more years for my husband! I was not aware of this when we purchased the home, but I must admit it is a nice benefit if it lasts.

 

[cabanafrau]

That is and isn't true...



Public school choice and charters are two different things in Michigan. Public schools are mandated to provide the same services for choice students as they provide for students in their district, so they're not allowed to cherry pick in any way. Charters, on the other hand, aren't allowed to outwardly cherry pick by requiring an application process or specific GPA or anything like that, but they also aren't required to provide special ed, ESL, busing, school lunches, etc. So while they can't "officially" cherry pick - a child with an extensive IEP theoretically has the same chance at admission as a high-achieving student - for all practical purposes they can and do exclude students with special needs. Because unless that IEP student can handle class without accommodations the charter school simply won't meet his needs.



.

My comments reflected choosing one public school district over another. I did not factor in charters.

 

[penn19]

I wish we could change our mindset of what makes a "good" school. I wish our district would just cut the crap and educate the students. All students. But hey, we are getting a nice, new $70 million football stadium. To be fair, it's bond money but, priorities......

 

[JediBonas]

I have to say this has been quite interesting for me to read. I'm in upstate NY and we don't have any vouchers or charter schools, pretty much just public or religious private. I went to public HS and private college and always said I'd send my kids to public school, I feel like I got a great education at mine. Here I am now doing what I swore I would never do: my kids are in a private catholic school. It was a VERY hard decision for me (I am agnostic and don't really agree/want my kids to be exposed to religion like this), but in the end it ended up being the best choice for my son who really needs the smaller school and more attention. They are also way more proactive when it comes to his IEP. I do wonder what would happen if we had more choices on where to send them.

 

[mtemm]

Aren't you in Mass? Maybe different charter schools in part of the state work differently, but that is not true of the Charters in my area of Western Mass, All of the charters here (South hadley, Hadley, Greenfield Ma) that I have had personal knowledge of ... all have no choice about accepting special needs. All of them admit students based on a lottery and special needs students are treated the same in the lottery system (Not the Shirley Jackson type lottery thankfully LOL), but if your number is drawn, then you get in. My husband was the special education/ adjustment counselor for 6 years at a Chinese language Immersion Charter school in Hadley, Ma... they even had to expand their special education department because they had so many kids getting admitted that needed services.

You are right, Charters in Mass. cannot and do not exclude kids on an IEP. My kids are all at a charter in metro west and I know several parents of kids who are in school with them and are on an IEP. From what they have said, our charter school has made their experience very positive.

I have heard the argument before about not accepting kids with issues, or on IEP's, but from what I have seen it has nothing to do with the actual Charter school. In Mass it's a straight lottery, your number is either picked or not. However you have to apply, and parents who are not engaged, or parents who believe the misinformation that gets floated around, are most likely not going to.

 

[mefordis]

I am part of a childless couple who will never and has never used the school system. Having a strong education system benefits everyone, so I do not feel like I should not contribute to a well educated community. All the various taxes we pay are used to fund a myriad of services we do not use or use to varying degrees.

Interestingly enough, the county I know live in, Cobb County Georgia, exempts homeowners from school taxes when they turn 62. Only 5 more years for my husband! I was not aware of this when we purchased the home, but I must admit it is a nice benefit if it lasts.

That's great relief for seniors!

 

[aprilgail]

Here, you choose your school by choosing where you live. Pretty much as simple as that. It's also very unusual in my area to have a "great neighborhood" in close proximity to a "bad neighborhood". There are certainly pockets, but not enough to have a serous impact on the demographics of the school either way. And as a result, a terrible school district boardering a terrific one is another thing you won't find.

We have a terrible school district that borders 2 good districts. You pick where you go to school by where you buy a house, you pay more taxes you go to a better school. You can choose to pay less taxes, live in a cheaper house in a bad area then you go to that school which is bad. Pay more, go to a better school. I don't think someone living in that area paying 2,000 in taxes should have the choice to go to a school where someone is paying 10,000 in taxes. Every year they catch a bunch of people using relatives addresses to send them to school in the next town over and they send them back to the district they are zoned for-not fair not paying taxes in that district and sending your kids there.

 

[cabanafrau]

I wish we could change our mindset of what makes a "good" school. I wish our district would just cut the crap and educate the students. All students. But hey, we are getting a nice, new $70 million football stadium. To be fair, it's bond money but, priorities......

Amen! I had an exchange at a meeting once where the former superintendent of our district was outlining why some of the (minimal) AP offerings were being eliminated, while funds were being spent to bring in more staff to expand athletic offerings, allow for more athletic teams. When I challenged the absurdity of an educational institution prioritizing team sports over academics he acknowledged it by telling me publicly that he would be able to eliminate social studies with less repercussions than he would face if he eliminated football -- largely due to the mass exodus under school choice.

Don't even get me started as to the disaster of that tail wagging the dog at the university level.

 

[cabanafrau]

I am part of a childless couple who will never and has never used the school system. Having a strong education system benefits everyone, so I do not feel like I should not contribute to a well educated community. All the various taxes we pay are used to fund a myriad of services we do not use or use to varying degrees.

Interestingly enough, the county I know live in, Cobb County Georgia, exempts homeowners from school taxes when they turn 62. Only 5 more years for my husband! I was not aware of this when we purchased the home, but I must admit it is a nice benefit if it lasts.

That type of idea may have appeal for many, and may even work successfully for quite a while. I wonder what happens when the demographics of a community may swing over time to a growing elderly population? Those types of issues arise from time to time in the metro Detroit area in relation to schools and many other community issues and the fallout tends to be messy.