<p>
That’s what I think. I understand others might think I am being heartless, but in light of the fact that the kids do have to be educated appropriately, the only difference I can see is getting to pick and choose the classmates. I am not heartless.</p>
<p>I think as long as “school money” is tied to a set of buildings in a defined area, we will have a hurdle. Maybe schools should be more organic. Right now, we’re pretty tied to existing facilities and, in my area, teachers who want to stay in the same spot. Maybe the money should be divvied up by state, per student and funds follow the kid. Much as, in some cases, special ed money follows the kid to a location that bundles services- or many states that have math-sci or governor’s academies.</p>
<p>Zmom, I don’t think you are heartless- I do think we each only know what’s happening, where we know it is happening. </p>
<p>One point in keeping the neediest special needs kids in the local school was heterogeneity and convenience. I’d ask if that best serves those kids.</p>
<p>And, when “we” speak of our kids making the most of a dreadful school, “we” are their fallback, their strength. Without dismissing other sorts of families, can we look at this from the perspective of kids who don’t have that and shouldn’t be expected to stick in a problem school? Not math geniuses, but good kids who shouldn’t be asked to put up and shut up, while conditions improve, if they ever do-?</p>
<p>ZM, because if program like that are needed for just a few students it would probably be as expensive, if not moreso, than sending them to a private school. Economy of scale needs to be taken into account.</p>
<p>
I’m not opposed to that, but I really do favor oversight and accountability, particularly with safety and ceritification issues. I know public schools are far from perfect, but I do think that there are procedures in place and that in many places things like background checks and physical safety are taken care of. I just don’t want tax dollars to pay for private schools. I guess I am being dogmatic.</p>
<p>We have a public school here (I know that this is NYC and therefore big) that serves only Down syndrome students. The facility is monitored to be safe for their particular needs, which include climate control and other services. Great place.</p>
<p>lookingforward-- if the divvy was on a strictly per student basis, how could the special needs student get the services needed? The cost of services whether the student is mainstreamed or not still is going to be greater that for the “average” student.</p>
<p>
I’m not disagreeing with you. I really do see your point and I know that you are right. But for me, if there are only a few students with a particular situation, then they probably are at the extreme needs end of the scale and I would be fine with it. It’s just a matter of (for me) not making it a situation where the wealthy and connected can opt out on the public dime and poor, less connected kids who are just as needy can’t. I guess what I’m saying is that if the child can be educated appropriately in a public school setting, that should be done.</p>
<p>Ideally, if the child can be educated appropriately in a public school setting I am with you. What about the fact that it’s not happening? What about the fact that it then too often falls on parents to fill the gap? And not all parents are created equal?</p>
<p>Every tale of “my kid did just fine” (in a failing school) can miss just how much we’re the reason.</p>
<p>07Dad, I think the thread only just turned to special needs. I think they already do cost more than others-?</p>
<p>
The kids whose parents would be motivated enough/resourced enough to advocate for private school placement would definitely be motivated to fill the gap. And the reverse is true, as well. But when you say “it’s not happening,” in terms of special education students, what do you specifically mean?</p>
<p>I’m not comfortable in saying (except extreme cases) that public schools can’t do the job. If that is really the case, then we have a very big problem that is greater than this aspect.</p>
<p>^ Maybe that’s a problem in NYC, but honestly, I have never heard of people trying to scam a private school education for their kid(s.) Maybe I am naive, though. I do know one person whose son was allowed to go to a private school due to his learning disabilities, but after a few years - due to intensive work by the private school - he was able to return to his district’s school. He just graduated from college last year. This was in a very wealthy school district in Westchester.</p>
<p>
I don’t think you are naive. I think this is simply more of a numbers and diversity driven problem. There are a lot more people in the system here, so there will always be a bunch of everything (and by this I mean people who are happy to milk the system), and also many lawyers and many private schools. I think those things don’t all come to play in a smaller setting. Also, as a I said, my daughter is a special education teacher. Here, special education students are much, much, much more likely to be minority males and some other families want no part of placement in classrooms with them. Areas that are less diverse don’t face this issue in the same way. This is NOT THE CASE for most special education parents. Most are fine, upstanding people doing the best for their kids. I am specifically speaking about the subset who will do or use anything to gain what they want. I just happened to see some of this in two places: my prior law firm and as a school leadership team member in middle school. It happens. It really does. It is not universal and in some cases private school placement is the only appropriate placement.</p>
<p>The thing to keep in mind, ZM, is that most places-even large cities, are not NY. I’ve never heard of an entire public school for Down’s kids. That’s wonderful-but not possible in most any other sized district. The same could be said for almost any other special needs population-in NY you have volume that doesn’t exist in other places, so finding the right program for a kid is much harder. AND you have laws requiring the certain things regarding special needs. Some districts simply can’t offer all things to all special needs kids exactly as they need it in any kind of volume, nor would sitting them in a regular room with an aid be the way to go.</p>
<p>So you do end up with districts paying for special needs kids to get the education MOST appropriate for them in private schools. While it might chap your hide, these kids are legally mandated to be taught in the best setting according to their needs. I used to work at a small special needs school back east. Some of the kids couldn’t possibly have gone to their public schools, but at our school we graduated some and they became employable. So I am fine with public money paying for services that really do give the neediest of students the educations they deserve if a district doesn’t have the programs to offer them.</p>
<p>Zmom, I am not focusing on special needs kids. Separate comments.</p>
<p>“Maybe the money should be divvied up by state, per student and funds follow the kid.”</p>
<p>I don’t want to give up local control of my school district and what we, in our district, decide is the appropriate amount to spend on education each year. I also don’t want my districts budget to be at the mercy of the state - who could decide without voter approval to slash it.</p>
<p>
I completely, emphatically agree with this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Private schools do background checks too, and iron-clad teacher tenure can keep abusive or incompetent teachers in the public school classroom. For example:</p>
<p>[Brentwood</a> superintendent says ‘legal limitations’ kept abusive teacher in district - San Jose Mercury News - January 16, 2013](<a href=“Brentwood superintendent says ‘legal limitations’ kept abusive teacher in district – The Mercury News”>Brentwood superintendent says ‘legal limitations’ kept abusive teacher in district – The Mercury News)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I get to choose who teaches my children tennis, piano, art, gymnastics etc., but when it comes to the more important decision of who will teach my children all academic subjects in elementary school for a year, I am ignored unless I go private and pay twice for their schooling. This only makes sense if the system is structured for the benefit of the people working in it rather than the people it is supposed to be serving.</p>
<p>Do we really need to say, over and over, that one scary anecdote doesn’t make “truth.”</p>
<p>*The kids whose parents would be motivated enough/resourced enough to advocate for private school placement would definitely be motivated to fill the gap. *</p>
<p>I’m not talking about you and me, Emily or another. I’m talking about kids who can make a giant leap, if not forced to endure a failing school for (false?) principles of what’s good for others. Low SES, striving families, not able to do for our kids what “we” can do. Not savvy to the intricacies, not able to offer academic support on the level “we” can. Maybe with some reading and simple math- not as tasks become more analytical (which they do, in lower school.) The benefit is to them, their neighborhoods, our communities, if we allow them to blossom.</p>
<p>Not talking about the earlier poster comments about “inflating” private school stats or remedying disruptive kids by sending them to the nuns to deal with. Talking about bright lights. Should we, as the public, fund some of the expense to send them to a good charter? </p>
<p>In my area, these charters are opportunity schools, not “outs” for you and me. Designed for low SES kids, roughly on grade point, with families that will support the education- but can’t take over to the extent “we” can.</p>
<p>“I get to choose who teaches my children tennis, piano, art, gymnastics etc., but when it comes to the more important decision of who will teach my children all academic subjects in elementary school for a year, I am ignored unless I go private and pay twice for their schooling. This only makes sense if the system is structured for the benefit of the people working in it rather than the people it is supposed to be serving.
Beliavsky is online now”</p>
<p>School property taxes are not tuition. You are not paying tuition for your child(ren) to go to school. You are paying school property taxes so your district has a public school system where everyone can go to school for free, which is guaranteed in every state’s Constitution. One pays the same amount in school taxes whether they have no children, 1 child, 5 children or 10 children in the public school system. It is not tuition and should not be thought of as such.</p>
<p>lookingforward, I think you don’t know my situation. I know that Emily is a very educated accomplished woman and I suspect that you are accomplished and educated, as well, but I am neither of those things and my husband is not fully literate, so I understand from strivers.</p>
<p>The point I am making, which co-exists nicely with yours is that the kids whose parents are able to pay the lawyers and advocates are wealthy and savvy. It’s the kids whose parents aren’t that way who languish. I don’t think the solution to failing schools is to pull out the kids of the most motivated parents on taxpayer dollars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you read the newspaper you know that the problem of teacher tenure keeping incompetents and abusers on the payroll is more than anecdotal.</p>
<p>[‘Rubber</a> Rooms’ In New York Schools Cost City $22 Million A Year For Teachers Awaiting Hearings | Huffington Post | October 16, 2012](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>'Rubber Rooms' In New York Schools Cost City $22 Million A Year For Teachers Awaiting Hearings | HuffPost New York)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Private schools don’t have teachers in rubber rooms, because they cannot afford to.</p>