<p>“Often the parents just refuse to buy the stuff.”</p>
<p>come on folks, we are talking about at most $25 here. No big deal. In my company during the start of school season the demand for pensils, clips, pads outstrip the inventory.</p>
<p>I guess people just forget to do cost-benefit analysis. For $10-$15 they may be jeopardizing their annual salary of thousands of dollars.</p>
<p>The replies on this post have been illuminating and have given me second thoughts. I still argue that the districts should be supplying some items, but good points have been made about families that can’t (or won’t) contribute, therefore punishing the student (if he/she can’t join everyone else at a field trip, for example).</p>
<p>As for the hand sanitizer and tissues, O.K. teachers, you’ve convinced me. Better to have the stuff in the classroom during cold season than having the kids trot back and forth to the washroom for tissues all day long.</p>
<p>I found the discussion about the principal who refused the parent contributions telling. He or she made a valid argument; if parents frequently raise funds for needed or worthwhile activities and items, the towns will refuse to provide said funds, like most other politicians at budget allocation time.</p>
<p>In our district, the lists are made available online and in the stores.
The middle school PTA purchases the different colored binders, etc and sells the package at a very reasonable cost as a fundraiser. They buy in bulk and go to the trouble of packaging up the appropriate supplies for each grade.
I liked the color coded system.
Even in elementary school, the list is long. My favorite was the homework folder. Had a big “HW” on the cover. The right pocket = “Right Back” = homework or permission slips. The left pocket= “Left Home” = notices, calendars, reminders, graded papers, etc.
Our suburban district has very high school taxes and unless a family has a home valued at $350K and only one child, the district loses money. High school is huge and overcrowded. Remedy was adding more classrooms and a state of the art gym and workout facility for the athletic teams. Did I mention the indoor pool? The new theatre?
A huge expense for our district is retirement funds and additional health benefits for employees.
A few years back, the local Catholic school was almost denied the building permit for additional classrooms and a “cafetorium” due to the shortage of 2 parking spaces. The town approved the permit when it was pointed out that if the school closed, it would dump 340 students into the public schools.</p>
<p>uscucladad - I work for the food service director in our district. I hear your frustration, but your post represents many common misunderstanding about how school lunch works. If your public school district participates in the National School Lunch Program, which almost all public districts do, there are specific rules they have to follow.</p>
<p>The first thing to know is that the Nat’l School Lunch Program is under the USDA, not the Dept of Ed. It’s funding is separate, and your school lunch program’s funds are kept in a revolving account separate from the rest of your school district. Monies in that account CANNOT be used for anything but the School Lunch program. Believe me, the rare years that we’ve managed to turn a “profit” the School Board would have loved to take that money and do something else with it, but they are forbidden by law from doing so. Good thing, because most years we barely break even and last year we had a substantial loss because we spent a ton of money repairing & replacing old cafeteria equipment. We get an extra 28 cents in federal & state subsidies for every full-priced meal we serve. If you wanted to give us an extra 28 cents that’s fine, but the money would go into the food service account, and your district couldn’t use it for anything else.</p>
<p>As for paying extra to help to cover the cost of free/reduced meals, under the NSLP your school district already being fully reimbursed for those meals. Every day I track how many of those meals we provide, and every month submit the paperwork to the state for reimbursement. The state/federal gov’t send us about $2 for every reduced price meal and $2.50 for every free meal we serve. Paying the “extra subsidy” isn’t going to give your district any more money to buy supplies. (I’m not aware of programs to provide breakfast & lunch to “families” of free/reduced kids, perhaps that is a San Diego County program?)</p>
<p>If by non-subsidized meals you mean bringing in outside food (ie a McDonalds or Dominoe’s outlet in the school), you should know that when a school district participates in the National School Lunch Program, it is illegal for ANY competing food to be sold anywhere in the school during lunch. (Including school fundraisers - a rule which is often overlooked by sympathetic food service directors). </p>
<p>NSLP may seem restrictive, but your food service program probably couldn’t run without it. In our district only 5% of kids qualify for free/reduced, but the gov’t subsidies for those meals and the 28 cents for the other meals accounts for 15 - 20% of our income. In a district with more free/reduced kids, NSLP would account for more of their income. Also NSLP allows us to buy USDA commodity foods at very low prices (contrary to popular belief, commodities are NOT free, and they constitute only about 1/4 of the food we sell. Still they are VERY cheap and represent a large savings in our cost of buying food).</p>
<p>Anyway, I could turn your hair gray with stories of gov’t waste and inefficiency, almost all of which started with someone’s idea of a regulation to ensure that the gov’t didn’t waste money! My point is that giving extra money to your school lunch program is a nice idea, but it won’t help your district buy supplies or pay for field trips. School lunch is its own separate animal from the rest of your school budget.</p>
<p>I’ve gone to schools in Minnesota, Virginia, and Tennessee and have had school supply lists at all of them. Not to mention in Tennessee we have class fees that range from $2 - $20 depending on the class. Gotta love the public school system.</p>
<p>School supplies, school supplies… every august the family lines up at what ever place is promoting cheap school supplies and loads up. My wife teaches and the whole family pitches in. We also open our checkbook and purchase alot of stuff for the classroom. The $250 deduction is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but that usually is about a couple months expense of the school year. Supplies lists are designed to make the classroom run smoothly. With kids, every person that needs to use the restroom, wash their hands or sharpen thier pencils… is a distraction to another student. So, if some of the items seem redundent, it is for another reason the requests are made, usually to avoid disruption of the learning process. </p>
<p>God bless all those parents whom when a class field trip might cost $5 a student, send $20 and don’t worry about getting change back. </p>
<p>For the complaints about pools, gyms and auditorums all I can say is you don’t get it. An education is many things put together to make a whole person. Arts, Atheletics develope an individual along with text books.</p>
<p>Can you really generalize and say “here in the Northeast” or here in whatever state? I think this probably varies by school district to school district. We have never had to buy tissues or regular office supplies. We have had certain elementary school teachers that wanted certain colored folders. We’ve always had to buy our kids their own personal supplies like binders, pens and pencils, etc. but our schools even supply tissues (cheap, rough ones) for the teachers. When my kids had colds I would just give them a portable pack to take to school if they had a light cold and make them stay home if it was too bad. </p>
<p>Pennsylvania school districts pay for school busses to transport students who live in their districts that attend private and parochial schools. No one pays extra for that. It’s only a been a couple of years that parents have had to pay for kids to play sports in our district. So far, our band and orchestra kids get a free ride because their classes are graded. Since most all of the five schools in our district are semi-rural, the vast majority are bussed. Every single school has a corn, soybean or hayfield next to it!</p>
<p>“For the complaints about pools, gyms and auditorums all I can say is you don’t get it. An education is many things put together to make a whole person. Arts, Atheletics develope an individual along with text books.”</p>
<p>sure, but they don’t have to be architectural wonders either.</p>
<p>“srcameron, have you ever heard of a carpool? And do you read the newspaper? I see that you live in Boston. I live in Mass, too, and a LOT of towns around us (suburbs) charge for the school bus.”</p>
<p>I go to college in Boston, but I grew up in Florida. I’d like to think I’m not totally ignorant, and I think the condescending tone is a little unnecessary. Property down in Florida is much more spread out (or it was when I was in grades k-8, before everything was built up) than it is in most of the northern suburbs I’ve visited. My middle school, for example, was 10 miles away from my house, and we lived in town. Maybe I could have carpooled, but my parents, as well as the majority of my friends’ parents, were so busy working that I hardly think expecting them to chauffeur kids around in the middle of the work day would have been realistic. Nor do I think the lower income families, of whom there are many in my county, would have found it easy to pay out of pocket. Maybe your school district spends differently, but I think it’s a totally unreasonable expectation that when the majority of the students do not live within close proximity of the school, buses should not be provided. It isn’t that I don’t read the paper, it’s that this isn’t really common practice where I’m from (a quick google search turned up no such stories or information in the town I’m from or any of the surrounding counties).</p>
<p>In Massachusetts, school districts are required by law to bus, free of charge, students in grades K-6 who live more than 2 miles away from their school. They are not required by law to bus any able-bodied student in grades 7-12, no matter how far away they live from the school. So the vast majority of districts have stopped paying for it. If you want busing, you pay - around here, it’s now about $350, with some districts as high as $500/year, with reduced rates for additional siblings. It doesn’t matter how “spread out” anything is (and there are plenty of rural communities in Massachusetts; they’re just not around Boston); two miles is two miles.</p>
<p>Most school districts also charge for sports participation now; some have even eliminated many of their sports. There really isn’t that much of a choice.</p>
<p>A story about building a gym: one of our elementary schools needed a new gym and cafeteria. No argument there - it was really necessary. The committee appointed to do so drew up plans (with an architect, of course) that would serve the needs of the elementary school population. Then the recreation department and the parents council got involved - make the gym larger, and raise the roof so that adults could play basketball after hours! Eventually they got their way through lobbying, the price of the addition doubled, and the school department’s budget was charged! Do I believe that kids need gym, and sports, and a place to play? Absolutely! But I don’t want the schools paying for things not necessary for their own students.</p>
<p>Lafalum:</p>
<p>Thanks for the background. I was referring to me paying whatever it actually costs for the meal rather than have part of it subsidized by taxpayers (although I pay plenty in taxes). If any extra funds stayed within the food service program to update equipment, pay higher salaries to workers, improve the quality of the food, or to provide more subsidies to those who need it most, then that would be fine. I just wished I would have had the option. </p>
<p>My kids went to a private school and didn’t switch to the public until around middle school age. The comparison was interesting. This private school didn’t have meals available - kids would bring in their lunch from home (I think they had milk available). It was surprising at the public how many kids didn’t bring a lunch from home and purchased the school lunches with their choice typically being whatever was the least healthy option for them and most of the kids were from families who could well afford to provide a lunch or pay full price. My kids did end up bringing their lunches every day as they did when in the private and we ended up not buying any of the school lunches - especially after finding out I couldn’t pay full price (sounds weird but I wanted to pay my own way).</p>
<p>We don’t pay for busing. We don’t pay for sports or band participation either. We also don’t pay for AP testing. </p>
<p>It sounds good but we have a huge city/county school district with lots of problems that are far worse than paying for activities.</p>
<p>
Excellent point. Here in NJ, we have over 600 school districts. That’s 600 little fiefdoms, with 600 teachers unions, 600 contract negotiations, 600 PTOs with varying degrees of involvement/power/generosity, etc., etc., etc. We have no busing in my town, as all 7 schools are within walking distance. Busing is reserved for special ed kids. That’s a huge savings. Our town has million$$+ homes and apartment buildings funneling kids into the same elementary school. Some of the richest people in town don’t lift a finger while others in that category have made generous donations of time & $$. Likewise, there is no uniform level of involvement for the struggling families. The towns bordering us have completely different socioeconomic populations with very different needs & problems. Blanket statements really aren’t useful.</p>
<p>School supplies & theri expense can really get people riled up. As property taxes feed our NJ school budgets, any cash layout, however small, can drive people in our highet-taxed state crazy. Just on principle alone. As a classmom, we are not allowed to ask for more than $5 per child for the end-of-year party/teacher gift. A few send nothing, but most throw in a $20. It works, somehow. Some teachers are selfless, while some are collecting their generous paychecks & counting the days till retirement. The levels of dedication & competence span a wide, wide range. </p>
<p>What I’ve found about teachers and their supply needs is that offering a specific item will be accepted much quicker than a generic “let me know what I can help with.” For example, I asked if the teacher would find 25 matching plastic shoeboxes useful for each kid to have a supply box. A simple, $25 purchase that helped keep things organized for her & the kids, but one she would no doubt feel awkward asking for on her own. If crayons are selling at Target for 25cents a box, what the heck…just pick up enough for a class & fork over the $6.25. Send in some looseleaf packets that go for a quarter. Lysol wipes, tissues, whatever. The teachers will appreciate any supplies or pass on those that they can’t make use of.</p>
<p>Simba, I agree that architectural wonders are not needed. Much of those municipal structures are the modern day equivalent of the Pharoh’s tombs. Just enormous egos & demonstrations of political power.</p>
<p>there are no school buses for High School in my district</p>
<p>I had to pay for public transportation for my son to get to all 4 years of high school. Low income got free tokens in the past. I paid $1 apiece with free transfers. </p>
<p>Starting this year, anyone living >1 mile from school will get a free transit pass (only good for going back and forth to school - not weekends/nights). That would have been a savings of about $300 or so a year for me.</p>
<p>Chedva and StickerShock.</p>
<p>I’m familiar with Jersey City, NJ, a place now known as the “Gold Coast,” but still suffering from [very] inferior public schools. The district (i.e. the state) built a very attractive multi-story building for a charter school (elementary level). Included in the building is a nice new full size gym that the members of the city’s uniformed services (fire and police) use for their off-hours basketball games. And apparently, public (non educational) events are held in the new building as well. I don’t know if the general fund from the city contributed to the construction.</p>
<p>“sure, but they don’t have to be architectural wonders either”</p>
<p>Agreed, however, something like fieldturf, which is far more expensive than grass, may seem like a luxury to the average person. When actual use is more economical because it can take more abuse than a grass field and thus reduce injuries of students atheletes. But from the price tag, a bag of grass seed seems cheaper per square foot. </p>
<p>Our district faces a problem on the horizion, a new hs, but no new fields to go with. Their current stadium is grass and cannot make it through a season of both football and girls soccer even used only for games. Now it will get quadrupled up on and wear twice as fast. Knee injuries will rise. Somebody’s going to figure it out and get their college paid for, when the knee goes. Fieldturf would have helped reduce that risk. </p>
<p>I also have seen school districts use italian marble for walkways, when cement is a better choice. But that district is kinda snotty to begin with. No fun to work their games, kids threaten to sue you, parents just yell the stupidest things. Money without class.</p>
<p>
I used the generalization on the basis of the original question as to whether this is a “regional” issue or not. And of course one can talk about the particular state when talking about state law (re busing, or how schools are funded).</p>
<p>Opie, nothing caused more fighting in our town than the new turf field at the h.s. With drainage issues and associated costs, it came in at about $850,000G. The board of ed decided on permanant football stripes, which caused even more grief. The problem with my town is back room deals – had the true costs of maintenence & risk of injury been adequately communicated, the turf field would likely have been seen as a prudent move. For the 4th of July fireworks, the field couldn’t be used, so the anti-turf crowd was furious. But the pro-turf side never communicated how many games & gym classes could now be held one after another, with no worries about overuse/grass. </p>
<p>So often the BOE just moves forward without input because they just can’t stand conflict & are downright disdainful in their attitudes toward the public they serve.</p>
<p>A town near us has just had field turf installed on their football field with the cost being covered by “private donations” which a another name for the big home improvement store with their headquarters in town.</p>
<p>The last 2 high schools built in our district have had field turf put in but there has been much controversy over the cost versus the more basic needs that older schools are going without.</p>
<p>S played a scrimmage game on turf last Sat. He disliked it and hopes he never has to play on it again.</p>
<p>Our hs got a turf football/socccer/lacrosse field, and the town re-did the soccer/lacrosse fields at the local recreation area into turf as well, all about 2 years ago. I thought the screaming about “wasting taxpayer money” would never stop. But turf truly is more economical. No watering, seeding, fertilizing, no paying the facilities staff to re-paint lines every week. Last spring while the softball and baseball teams were fighting over who got use of the fieldhouse for practice because their fields were useless due to the rain, the lacrosse teams were walking past them on their way to & from practice on the turf field every day. All we had to do was shovel the snow off the turf and it was playable. It’s used by soccer, football, lacrosse, and phys ed classes - it can be used 24/7/365. It’s like getting 3 or 4 fields for the price of one grass field, with virtually no maintenence. (stickershock, we had the same problem with the July 4th fireworks the first year, but this year they were held there - not sure how they worked that out, maybe a fire-resistant tarp?)</p>
<p>Uclauscdad - please don’t feel bad about the 28 cent subsidy in the lunch prices, you actually do us a favor when your kids buy lunch. The more participation we have, the lower our cost/meal. Most private schools don’t bother with school lunch because they aren’t required by law to provide the free/reduced price hot lunches like the public schools. You’re right about the kids chosing the least healthy options, its a constant battle to come up with food kids will actually eat that can be purchased, prepared and served for $2.50. Our high school has a fabulous salad bar, though.</p>
<p>srcameron - I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to sound condescending. Your profile says Boston so I assumed you lived here, not attended college here. Chedva is correct about the 2 mile limit. The fees are a burden, especially to lower income families, but that’s what we’re forced to do when schools are funded by property taxes, and Mass makes it very difficult to raise property taxes more than 2 1/2% per year (which doesn’t even keep up with inflation!) We also pay $125/student/sport in our town. If the taxpayers hadn’t voted for a property tax increase this year the fees would have been $450/student/sport. But our district has kept class sizes reasonable, and I’m convinced that’s why our test scores stayed high. Priorities - academics first.</p>