<p>Unless a district checks, what would prevent an address to be merely a drop box for dozens of students to use for fake residency? People in the good districts could sell use of their addresses. </p>
<p>Could be a nice little home-based business.</p>
<p>"Well, the constitution starts with ‘All men are created equal’ but it does not elaborate much on entitlements that make sure all men remain equal. Make of that what you wish."Sewhappy #100</p>
<p>The Declaration of Independence begins with “All men are created equal” - not the Constitution.</p>
<p>some posters are displaying an appalling lack of knowledge about known facts, such as what is actually in the Constitution. reminds me of a former governor who managed to mangle facts effortlessly…</p>
<p>TatinG, that is why distrcts have started checking. One district was alerted to a bus stop where parents dropped the kids off. They identified the children, followed the parents home, then did a surprise visit to both the supposed address and the actual address. 15 kids were out in days. The punishment, the kids went back to their own district, but the district money would stay at the “wronged” district since the kids were enrolled on the funding qualification day. so these parents that gamed the system actually hurt their own district even more. </p>
<p>As for education being a right-that is exactly what Occupy Wall Street is espousing. It may be something that we Americans beleive to be true, either through the courts or legislation. As for now, the states have declared that public education is a right, but local districts are free set their own requirements.</p>
<p>Investigation of pupil residency has been a huge issue in north east urban districts for years. New Jersey districts have been known to hire full time private detectives to ferret out a pupil’s true domicile. Often the districts have overreached and gone after parents whom were former residents but recentlly moved out of the district. Courts in NJ have tended to side with the parents when they can demonstrate an attempt to comply with the law (families taking in the children of deceased or infirm relatives, for example). Interestingly, NJ does have a tuition provision. But it’s full of restrictions that discourage families from leaving failing or “poorly integrated” school districts. Those families typically end up at independent and religious schools, or moving altogether if feasible.</p>
<p>Yes, yes. Thomas J and the Declaration. Was in a hurry.</p>
<p>Calling people dumb for a mangled factoid because they don’t align with your world view is just lame. </p>
<p>I think my point was pretty clear.</p>
<p>That said, I support public education. And a number of entitlements.</p>
<p>Do have a lovely day, Menlo. You’re always such a gracious presence on CC.</p>
<p>“even with education, the rich have the right to pay for a better product.”</p>
<p>I agree, though I have some qualms about considering certain school districts “public” in the strictest sense. The line between public and private is fuzzy when small, essentially gated communities where every house is $1 million+ run their own school district. It looks an awful lot like a community-run private school. I don’t dispute the right of these districts to exist, but I think we ought to have a conversation about whether they ought to get funding from the state like the other “public” schools. If you exist solely for the benefit of a small number of members who buy their way in…you’re kinda private. In my mind, these schools occupy a third, hybrid category.</p>
<p>Its a sad day in the US educational system when “facts” about US History are now called “factoids”…</p>
<p>I wasn’t sure what a factoid even was, so I looked it up.</p>
<p>*fac·toid/ˈfaktoid/
Noun:<br>
A brief or trivial item of news or information.
An assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.
*
Inaccuracy in language drives me bats.</p>
<p>That’s a slippery slope Hanna.</p>
<p>Adding, now that I’m at my desk instead of my phone, re: “I don’t dispute the right of these districts to exist, but I think we ought to have a conversation about whether they ought to get funding from the state like the other “public” schools.”</p>
<p>This is total hogwash. Our school district isn’t “public,” it is public. As one of the wealthier districts in a poor state, we already get shorted by the state in funding. You might be surprised at the level of parent involvement and cash outlay that keeps services in my district from sliding too far. </p>
<p>It’s de facto privatization, which goes directly against the tenet of a free, quality public education and undermines the concept; our town’s “parent tax” is fairly steep, and although approximately 25% (I would have to pull the data which I can’t do right now) of the homes here have a market value below $250k, it is assumed by onlookers that all in town are wealthy and can easily pay of out pocket to support the level of public education that some other districts receive from the state. Our faculty salaries are lower than those of surrounding towns, and we manage to retain a high percentage of teachers (not all) despite that through serious engagement of most of the town in public education.</p>
<p>Once you start talking about making wealthier school districts another “tier” (your words), with all families of means essentially having their kids in private schools, public education becomes further devalued in this country than it already is. </p>
<p>Upper middle class investment in public education is what is keeping it on life support in the face of many attempts to gut and dismantle it!</p>
<p>The more I look at the problem of educational inequity in this country, the more I support the availability of vouchers for those who are looking for a way to rescue their own children out from under the trap of low-performing school districts. I do see the problems inherent in wide-spread use of address fraud for more affluent school districts. You can’t blame wealthier parents for doing everything in their power to insure their children get the best education they can afford, nor for being concerned about the ways in which address fraud weakens their own children’s schools over time. After all, who doesn’t love their children? </p>
<p>But, for many parents in poor school districts, love doesn’t necessarily entail the mandate for a first class education. Love urgently and immediately means keeping their children’s bellies full, clothing on their backs, and a roof over their heads, and this task alone is often so daunting that anything else seems overwhelming. Plus, having never themselves grown up in an environment in which academic excellence was a priority, some parents are literally blind to the ways in which a good education might help their children achieve a better life than they’ve had. In fact, many of them have never personally known anyone for whom academic excellence didn’t land them in the category of social outcast. But, for the parents who do get it, for those who are desperate to provide their children with the best chance possible, we must provide them with avenues for doing so.</p>
<p>Let me restate: California schools are given a per pupil allotment whether your school is rich or poor. Poor schools (in achievement or in population) are given extra money by the federal government. Middle class schools can fundraise which includes adoption by companies and the usual bookfairs. Guess what? There is equity and our schools stink.</p>
<p>Vouchers? I read that a voucher would be $5,000 TOPS per year. So…religious school charge $14.000 per year. The truly excellent prep schools over double that, plus “voluntary” contributions. So, where will the shortfall be made up? It won’t. There are some scholarships, but not enough spaces for every child who’s parents want them to go to those prep schools.</p>
<p>My parents’ generation (and before) understood education and staying out of trouble were the basic key to success. Why is this a mystery? Or more to the point why do any of the posters feel that this is a mystery for the poor?</p>
<p>My housekeeper has four children. She is divorced (her husband was abusive) and raised her children alone. All have graduated from high school. The two youngest are in college, one a freshman, one in graduate school. It didn’t take a brain surgeon to direct her children to get to school everyday. That was the kids’ job: get to school, learn English and help out. They have done all that. And, as one who contributes three or four times a year to the hometown in central America THAT is where there are few venues for success. And my legal housekeeper is helping them by sending clothing, books and toys. And guess what? The kids are reading. Lots of Raffi music and books have helped these kids, without computers become literate and begin to be successful.</p>
<p>A rich school or a high performing school doesn’t guarantee success. It helps. I know plenty of kids from good schools and rich families that, with all the benefits, fell flat on their faces. But success or failure begins at home. And if a parent doesn’t know that their kids have to get to school, even a not so good one (and hasn’t been visited by social services to assist them in understanding this) I’m sorry, they’re dumb as toast.</p>
<p>“That’s a slippery slope Hanna.”</p>
<p>I’m pointing out an existing slippery slope, not creating one. Lots of planned communities have quasi-public services like recreation centers, water/sewer, security, etc., that are paid for by a levy on all homeowners. There’s never a question that those services are private, even though there is no “membership” in the private community other than buying the home. I don’t think the schools in these communities are so different from their private police force and sewer system, yet under current law, one is wholly private and the other wholly public. Should statewide public safety funds subsidize the private security force in a planned community? What’s the distinction between the security guards and the schoolteachers?</p>
<p>“I’m sorry, they’re dumb as toast.”</p>
<p>No argument here. There are lots of dumb as toast people in this world. Also lots of folks who are irresponsible, addicted, ignorant, mentally ill, and/or doing a rotten job of parenting for no apparent reason. The question is, what should the rest of society do about their kids?</p>
<p>
So your daughter got to crow that she was on a state championship team, and that justified dishonesty? That team should be stripped of its state championship.</p>
<p>CTTC: First I should point out again that this team was very deep. We could have won (the several times we did) going five deep into jv. This sport has an individual component, and at this level all the teams had people playing at the national level. This was, sorry, fun but a diversion. The “crowing” lasted the day and it was done. The big leagues were the private competitions which was where college scholarships or going pro were won or lost. (Please note: Andy Roddick and Mardy Fish played 1 and 2 respectively on their high school teams. Think they won?_</p>
<p>In addition (the secret to big time sports, public or private) nothing is kosher about top teams. Our public school played against private schools and a few public schools. There was, unfortunately, district jumping…never good and not acceptable. But then again you had the private schools who could do what they wanted and did. Minority scholarship and disadvantaged student scholarships (remember those wonderful fundraisers?) went to top ranked white upper middle class students as an enticement to get them to enroll.</p>
<p>And since we knew all the top players, our team played it the closest to clean. Not excusing the lapses, just saying we knew (and they knew_ who was who.</p>
<h1>116, I am sorry, but I think somebody is having delusions of grandeur, or a very misplaced sense of reality.</h1>
<p>Not until CTTC commented on your previous comment and I heard your reply did I realize what it was all about. After your first comment, I only thought you were doing a kindness to allow the out of district girl to play. I didn’t realize there was an ulterior motive.</p>
<p>Somebody should remove you as a person involved with high school sports. No, all teams don’t cheat, all schools don’t fund raise and lie about where the money goes, in fact the whole thing is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is that if you are engaged in a crime is that you mention it.</p>
<p>Hanna: I have no idea what you are talking about. In my state every town (planned or not–is there something wrong with planning?) pays through property taxes for its schools, firefighters, and police force. Towns with wealthy citizens have to pony up MUCH more out of pocket than poorer districts because of the state funding formula. </p>
<p>I’m not complaining, it is what it is. Undereducation of other people’s children is a drag on the state’s economy in addition to being wrong. All kids deserve a fair shot. I’m just wondering what you could possibly mean.</p>
<p>Almost completely off-topic, but… As mentioned, I live in an affluent community with excellent public schools. According to the school profile in the past three years my kid’s former high school sent graduates off to Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Caltech, MIT, 7 of the Ivy’s and lots of other excellent schools - as well as a bunch of kids to the local community colleges and Cal States. They offer 23 AP classes. The academic quality of the school is high. Not far away are a couple of private schools. Their academic offerings are, frankly, not quite as good. And their student’s standardized test scores are a bit lower than those of the local public schools. Now, there are districts in the area where the schools aren’t so good. But what I simply don’t understand is why parents who live in my school district spend beaucoup bucks to send their kids to academically *inferior *private schools.</p>
<p>There are a lot of things I don’t understand, of course…</p>
<p>Snowdog - in California school funding is independent of municipal funding - school districts are not run by the city government. And the funding is centralized and almost impossible to understand.</p>
<p>Kluge - we went private for high school for our kids because our public system was a mess, seriously. “Gone with the Wind” was going to be the first reading for my son’s honors 9th grade English class!</p>
<p>Anyway, when we transitioned to a very good private high school I encountered a lot of parents who lived in communities unlike our own where the public school was terrific. I finally came to understand the big draw – Sports! At the private school, there was a no cut policy so kids could play several sports, mom and dad could go to lots of games. It was worth the tuition for them.</p>