<p>Emily, why couldn’t this be done by larger than a school district? LA Unified must be huge, but many are not. Could the aggregate state funds be apportioned per student? Or?</p>
<p>Cosmic, why all this about inflation at privates? You look for kids who are prepared- the focus isn’t always on grabbing the math geniuses…</p>
<p>Bay, I don’t know that he meant that he wanted to enroll his daughters in a school specifically denoted as progressive, but as the son of a teacher and someone active in education causes I would imagine he’s aware of the history of progressive education. I think his point may be that in some parts of the country it’s not possible to find the qualities found in the education Damon received.</p>
<p>In a very small nutshell progressive education is about hands-on learning, problem solving and critical thinking as opposed to rote memorization.</p>
<p>According to Damon, “I mean, I pay for a private education and I’m trying to get the one that most matches the public education that I had, but that kind of progressive education no longer exists in the public system. It’s unfair,” Damon said, according to the Mail.</p>
<p>[Matt</a> Damon loves public schools for your kids, but not his | The Daily Caller](<a href=“Matt Damon loves public schools for your kids, but not his | The Daily Caller”>Matt Damon loves public schools for your kids, but not his | The Daily Caller)</p>
<p>But:</p>
<p>“These progressive principles have never been the predominant philosophy in American education.”</p>
<p>[A</a> Brief Overview of Progressive Education](<a href=“http://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/articles/proged.html]A”>A Brief Overview of Progressive Education)</p>
<p>Damon couldn’t with the best and the brightest in standardized tests (by his admission he was a poor test taker), so now he’s “progressively” educated.</p>
<p>Apparently it hasn’t occurred to him that his kids may have a different learning style than him and might actually be bright.</p>
<p>It strikes me that so many folks don’t want to spend a dollar more than they have to, for some other guy or for the benefit of some other segment of society. But you are easily asking bright kids in lousy schools to “make the sacrifice,” stay there, all for the benefit of those others-</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I understand it, this is how the vast majority of public schools in CA are funded. The property tax revenues from all over the state go into one big pot that is apportioned by the governor and legislature. Schools in low-income areas will get more than those in high income areas.</p>
<p>Boy, some people seem to be bitter. Damon can send his kids to any school he wants.
It’s his money. They’re his children. It’s his choice (along with his wife). What’s the big deal? People should spend less time worrying about what other people do and focus on their own family.</p>
<p>
Well it seems that progressive education worked for him.</p>
<p>
Because private schools almost always require an application which looks for both superior academic performance and a lack of disciplinary issues (which are inter-related). </p>
<p>Let’s say that the private schools are willing to take anyone in the top 50th percentile of the public school (a far more generous number than I have yet heard anywhere) - in this case, ANY student taken by the private school thereby lowers the average performance of the school, not-so-incidentally reinforcing the idea that the school is failing!</p>
<p>Meanwhile, outside of a handful of private “elites”, most private schools have a non-voucher student body that is pretty ordinary - for all the rich smart kids they get in, they have as many or more dumb smart kids (because it turns out that entry requirements are often more lenient for those with money and/or connections). By adding in the smart, motivated, disciplined students from public schools, they not only add revenue they also improve the overall academic performance of their student body. Which inflates the apparent quality of the school - what seems like superior instructional quality is really heavily influenced by simply enforcing admissions standards.</p>
<p>*Because private schools almost always require an application which looks for both superior academic performance and a lack of disciplinary issues (which are inter-related). *</p>
<p>Say what? Superior? You sure? *lowers the average performance of the school, not-so-incidentally reinforcing the idea that the school is failing! * Yikes. What I’d call a pre-conceived notion, sure seems. Kind of like the “they do it to manipulate USNWR” theory.</p>
<p>Not exactly how it works in my area. But, maybe in yours.</p>
<p>"Emily, why couldn’t this be done by larger than a school district? LA Unified must be huge, but many are not. Could the aggregate state funds be apportioned per student? Or?</p>
<p>I don’t know since each school district (in the state I live in) gets different amounts of state aid depending on the needs of the district, and districts differ on what they spend per pupil. If one district spends more per pupil than the district where the student is coming from, one is asking the tax payers of that school district to subsidize a student from another school district with out the ability to collect the difference since they don’t pay property tax in district.</p>
<p>“As I understand it, this is how the vast majority of public schools in CA are funded. The property tax revenues from all over the state go into one big pot that is apportioned by the governor and legislature. Schools in low-income areas will get more than those in high income areas.”</p>
<p>That is not how it works in NY. I am pretty sure the state gets no money from local property taxes. The state education aid to localities comes from the general fund and the lottery fund.</p>
<p>^ok but this thread is about Matt Damon’s educational choices in CA. There is no issue about inequitable funding in CA. At least from the low-income advocate’s position.</p>
<p>
I don’t see why people think this would only be for ‘high achievers’ since that’s not the complete cohort of many private schools and regardless, many of the kids in private start in K or first when they’re still relatively empty slates and not yet ‘high achievers’. And since we’re talking about private businesses here there would likely be more new schools added to the mix to meet the need and the need goes beyond the ‘high achievers’ to those looking for a decent learning environment even if the kid’s not at the top of the class. One needs to look beyond the current paradigm and envision what the landscape would evolve to if there were a voucher system. Who knows, maybe the Bill Gates foundation would establish some private schools in some areas where they’re most needed and use the vouchers to cover the ongoing expenses (just an example).</p>
<p>Bay, I was asked a question about why state money couldn’t follow a student so I gave one reason why - at least in my state - why it couldn’t work. </p>
<p>Is it really equitable in CA? I know when my sister’s H was going to take a job in SF and she was house hunting the best school districts required parents to pay additional money, apart from prop. tax to the district. This was about 15 years ago so perhaps this is no longer done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is unlawful in CA, so I doubt it happened. CA public schools cannot even require their students to bring a sheet of paper to class, let alone pay additional money.</p>
<p>Well, that is what she was told but it was a long time ago (in the 90’s,) so maybe it’s changed since then.</p>
<p>Some info on funding of California public schools - </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120523_Education_Funding_PB.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120523_Education_Funding_PB.pdf</a></p>
<p>It appears that roughly 30% of the funding comes from local property taxes, fees, and other local funds. I assume that means the funds stay local. I also assume that this ratio changes by locality - i.e. localities that have more money and/or are willing to spend more. It sure seems to me that the money available to a particular school would vary district by district since some districts clearly collect much more in property taxes than others and some areas pass school bond measures while others don’t. I’ve got to think a location like Pacific Palisades has more money available for the local schools than, for example, Stockton.</p>
<p>I’ve never heard of a district charging more money unrelated to property taxes (and related - sometimes special school fees for new home construction) or taxes/fees due to school bond measures. emilybee - maybe this is what your sister’s H was referring to.</p>
<p>No, it had nothing to do with a bond issue. She had been very concerned about moving from Scarsdale given how bad the schools in CA were due to Prop 13, but was relieved when she was told about the extra funding the district she was most interested had. Now it might be that the relocation person from the new company was giving her incorrect info.</p>
<p>Good editorial about Damon.</p>
<p>[Schooling</a> Matt Damon - Michelle Malkin - Page full](<a href=“http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2011/08/05/schooling_matt_damon/page/full]Schooling”>http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2011/08/05/schooling_matt_damon/page/full)</p>
<p>Many CA school districts pass additional property taxes for schools to supplement state funding. I was on the board for my elementary school for 4 years. We were charged with funding extra programs with our budget. Ours paid for music and dance teachers. Other schools added computers and some paid for teacher education and enhancement. Taxpayers voted for the additional expense because they cared about improving the schools. Communities that didn’t pass additional taxes can’t always pay for the extras.</p>