Conference moira::parenting

	Contact the office of the Superintendent of Schools in the community
to which you wish to apply. He/She should have an application available for you
to fill out. The School Choice Law is very specific about discrimination. Most
participating districts fill slots based on a first come first served basis.
The district is allowed to set slots by class so that there may be only one 
first grade slot and ten second grade slots depending on staff and space. The
only way you can "influence" the placement is by getting your application
in before everybody else. 

re: .1
	I think that some districts use a "lottery" in the event that there 
were more applicants than available slots.  If that's so, then there is no way 
to increase your child's acceptance, even if you apply early.  In any case, 
when you contact the superintendent's office as Mike suggests, find out all 
you can about the selection process, and make sure that your paperwork is 
filled out correctly.  You might also check on how many choice openings the 
school anticipates having (or if they don't have that, how many they had last 
year).  That might help you gauge your chance of getting one of the choice 
slots.
	Also, it doesn't matter if YOUR school district accepts school choice 
students, only if the school district you're applying to does. 

Clay

    Perhaps this isn't the place for this discussion, but
    I think this is a terrible program.  I dont see any way
    that transfering scarce money from poor schools to rich
    schools solves the problems of education.  I only see this
    as pandering to the all too prevailing attitude 'help me
    get MINE and to he** with everyone else'.

    we need true school reform...but this provides no solutions
    to the problems that make some schools bad in the first place.
    bob

If your idea of school reform is to take more of my money and spend it
on an already inefficient school system, then I say no.  However, if by
school reform you mean getting rid of bad teachers, forcing bad schools
to be better, etc, then I am all for it.

Whether the program is good or bad is almost an emotional issue on the
range of politics and religion.  It can easily degrade in discussion.

One of the purposes, as I understand it, is that students will go to the
better schools (which are not always in the richer communities).  This
will force the schools that are not as good to do something to fix them.
Why should a student be forced to a rundown, gun and knife wielding school
in Boston when they can go to a clean, well run school in Lexington (just
for example)?

I don't profess to know the answers to this problem.  I vacillate.  Sometimes
I think that regionalizing is the answer.  But then I decry the lack of
student loyalty and say that smaller schools tied to an individual town
would accomplish this.

One thing we definitely need is for teachers to give a full year's work
for the full year's pay they get.  We need to find a way to reward the
good teachers and "punish" the bad teachers.  We need less administration
in the school system and more teachers.  Above all, we need schools that
we can be proud of that are clean, well lit, and the children can take
enjoyment in going to.  In some ways, I think as a school is allowed to
be dirty and rundown, the students then take this as a sign and just make
things worse with vandalism and all else.

Ed..

    What we need are more parents who have the guts to support
    their administration in disciplining the poorer teachers.
    This is a VERY scary thing.  Most parents are so afraid that
    the teachers 'take it out' on their kids that they dont
    dare do anything (except complain a lot to each other).

    What we need is stronger, good administration from the school
    board on down.  Most school boards cheerlead for their school
    with no real critical analysis or they view their jobs
    as beating down the school budget in any way possible.  We need
    school boards setting true education direction for administration
    who are held accountable for achieving it.

    What we dont need is a process that allows a small percentage of
    the kids to attend some other 'good' school at GREAT expense
    to all the rest of the kids left behind.

    you mention something that I always hear regarding 'school choice':

>   This will force the schools that are not as good to do something
>   to fix them.

    What would this forcing mechanism be?  I'm really at a loss here.
    Local pride?  (oh no, there are kids who dont want to go here!).
    To me, this idea is based on the view that schools could be better
    if they just tried harder and by making them compete with other
    schools, this will happen.

    For example....lets say there is a teacher in your school that
    MANY people dont like....Ms. Jones who teaches 4th grade.  She's
    been there for a long time.  Some people have always sent their
    kids off to private school after 3rd grade to avoid her.  Some
    come back after 4th, most dont.  School Choice will make it even
    easier for people to avoid her as more parents will apply to other
    local schools for 4th grade positions.

    Has school choice really done anything to fix the problem?

    My real problem with school choice is that funding consists of a
    large transfer of money from one town's school budget to another.
    This amount is not based on the incremental cost to the recieving
    town or the incremental savings by the sending town...it produces
    a huge profit in the recieving town at the expense of the sending
    town.  Losing a small number of kids will cause a town to have to
    fire an entire teacher.  This is not a program that works for the
    good of the children as a whole.

    I think school choice is really a movement toward taking education
    away from the public sector completely and making it only
    private.  Special needs kids will be taught at their parents great
    expense (hope you dont have one).  Poor kids wont get much of
    an education.  Not my problem.

    I find it real scary that so many people seem to be embracing
    this view of 'school reform'...and so many politicians.
    bob

In your scenario, if the school administration is doing their job, they
should be asking the question - why are we losing so many students after
3rd grade?  The answer to this question may be the bad teacher, or it
may be other things.  But if it is the bad teacher, then they should do
something about it.

It is a reasonable concern that if a parent complains about a teacher that
teacher will take out a "punishment" on the child.  There is absolutely
no control over the teacher.  Unless they are guilty of molestation or
physical abuse, and a principal or whatever sees it in person, there is
almost no way to get rid of the teacher.  Then the child is hurt by a
parent who was only trying to help the child.

The school choice program may not be perfect, but it is a first step
towards better schools.  Personally I am not against a voucher system that
would allow the parents to go to private schools.  If the cost was more than
the voucer, the parent would cover the cost.  The private schools, in many
cases, give an education at least as good, if not better, at a lower cost.

You cannot assume that the schools will just correct themselves.  What 
other method would you use?  More money?  No way!  Does not work.  it has
been proven.  We have spent more money over the last 5-10 years and have
gotten progressively worse schools.  Where is the correlation between the
money and better schools?

I agree we need parental involvement.  We also need schools to stop doing
things that are not in their purvue - like various medical testing, social
education, etc.  There is no reason for schools to be doing things like
handing out condoms and the like.  Let them concentrate on education and
learning.  In this way, I often think that the one-room school house was
possibly more effective.  It was a personal education with a personal
touch by the teacher.  Granted there were also alot of negatives.  This
is where the economies of scale come in place.  But, maybe we have gone
to the negative marginal return.

This is by no means an easy problem to resolve.  And I doubt it will get
any easier.  We all have to be willing to work together, in a non-adversarial
method, to help our children.  Parents also need to be sure to help their
children with homework and learing skills.

Ed..

    I suspect few people realize what a deal public education
    really is.  I read about all these private schools that are
    'cheaper'.  Have you looked into it?  None in my
    area.  I've heard there are Catholic Schools, subsidized by the
    Church.  I know of reasonably cheap schools near where I
    live that charge close to the 'average cost per pupil' of the
    public schools.  But try to enroll a special needs student there.
    Ask about bussing.  And why are they affordable?  They have to
    compete with public school.  Without public school their prices
    would skyrocket.

    Public schools have a lot of special costs that all come
    under the heading "Open to Everyone".  And if they dont
    offer the VERY special services that your child needs, those
    services are provided elsewhere with full transportation and
    service costs taken right out of the school budget.

    I still just keep hearing this attitude "Hey....I can buy
    a better education for my kids elsewhere.  Those 'other' kids
    are not my problem".  I find this very sad.
    bob

RE: .3

	Misinformed again.

	School choice in Massachusetts doesn't "transfer" money from the
	sending town to the receiving town. 

	If the sending town loses less than 2% of it's students then the
	state deducts 50% of the receiving community's per per pupil cost or
	$5,000 (below the state average) which ever is less from the expected
	state aid for the sending community. The sending community loses a 
	student but still gets 50% of the cost of that student to spend on
	others. The receiving community gets 75% of it's per pupil cost up
	to $5,000. Part from the state aid account and the rest from a
	legislative appropriation. 

	If the sending town loses more than 2% of it's students it is
	reimbursed for the full amount for every student. Thus if a school
	of 1,100 loses 100 students to a town with a $4,000 per pupil cost
	it theoretically has $300,000 that would have gone toward educating
	the 100 to add to the education of the 1,000 remaining. 

	In cases last year, such as Brockton/Avon and Gloucester/Manchester
	there were enormous disparities in communities and large losses could
	have occurred to already strapped cities if the legislature had not 
	stepped in. In areas, such as Holliston/Hopkinton, where the per pupil
	cost difference is nearly nil there has been clear improvement and a
	recognition by the community of problems that need fixing. I think
	we need to wait and see how this develops over time. The legislature
	will most likely make more changes soon. If they don't fix some things
	then the program will die as communities opt out and no new communities
	join.

    I'm glad to hear that the state has changed the rules slightly.

    I still contend that School Choice does transfer money
    from one town (one school) to another.  At least I dont see any
    other way to interpret it.

    If I assume that all towns spend an average of $4000 per student,
    then when a student attends another school through the school
    choice program, the state takes $2000 from our town and gives
    $3000 to the other school.  Doesn't this sound like a transfer
    of money?

    The problem is that the cost to run the school does not go down
    by $2000 when one student leaves.

    Students could leave for many reasons, not just because another school
    is 'better'.  I think this punitive transfer of money to another
    town hurts our town.  I am opposed to it.

    I think it would be fair for the state to reduce its local aid to
    our town by the amount of its 'per pupil' state funding.  But not
    by 1/2 our full per pupil cost.  The states local aid 'per pupil'
    was what this year?  $100?  Plus part of our bussing costs.

    Our school has become a much better school in the past 5 years.
    The main reason is that many people who used to send their kids to
    private school are now sending them to our local school.  This
    is partly due to the economy (they cant afford it as easily as they
    could before), partly because several of the local 'affordable'
    private schools are now very full and it is hard to get in, and
    partly because there is a growing feeling that supporting the local
    school is the 'right' thing to do.  By not leaving the school, these
    parents are now working with the school to make it better.  These are
    the parents with the educational energy to really change a school.

    I think this is the correct model.  Not making it easier for them
    to go elsewhere.
    bob

re:                      <<< Note 375.7 by EOS::ARMSTRONG >>>
                           -< Cheap private schools >-

WOW, you pushed my hot button - we don't live in New England, but here are
some details......

>    I suspect few people realize what a deal public education
>    really is.  I read about all these private schools that are
>    'cheaper'.  Have you looked into it?  None in my
>    area.  I've heard there are Catholic Schools, subsidized by the
>    Church.  I know of reasonably cheap schools near where I
>    live that charge close to the 'average cost per pupil' of the
>    public schools.  But try to enroll a special needs student there.
>    Ask about bussing.  And why are they affordable?  They have to
>    compete with public school.  Without public school their prices
>    would skyrocket.

My husband and I are members of our school's finance committee.  The real
cost of educating one student is $1800 per year.  The public schools in
out neighborhood average about $4000 per year.  Our PARISH does some 
subsidizing based on financial need for families who cannot afford the
tuition.  The entire parish has made a committment that no child will be
forced to leave our school because of $.  Since we live in the heart of the
peace-dividend recession, this tuition assistance cost over $100,000
last year.  

The largest cost difference I can see between our school and the local public
schools is administrators.  Our school, grades K-8 has about 600 pupils,
with ONE principle, ONE vice-principal and two very nice secretaries.
The school board, finance committee, health room, etc, are staffed by 
volunteers.  

>    Public schools have a lot of special costs that all come
>    under the heading "Open to Everyone".  And if they dont
>    offer the VERY special services that your child needs, those
>    services are provided elsewhere with full transportation and
>    service costs taken right out of the school budget.

The same issue, different flavor is the *nonsense* about bi-lingual teacher 
aides. The local public schools were forced to get rid of their specialists in 
reading, music, art, physical education etc.. because they are required by state
law to hire bi-lingual aides.

All these services including 24 hour counseling services are available for 
our $1800 per child tuition.
  
[FLAME ON]
Our school's population is now around 70% NON-caucasion, more non-English 
speaking children enter our Kindergarten every year than in the 6 district 
public schools combined . (They are about 70% caucasion, 30% minority). I still 
don't understand why non-English speaking children have to be taught in 
their native language. (80 Dialects in our part of California). If I moved
to SRI LANKA - would I expect them to hire a teacher so my children could
learn in AMERICAN - for FREE?????
[FLAME OFF]

Rochelle

There is a thread through these responses that doesn't hold true necessarily
in all cases.  This is that private schools only take the "easy to educate"
students and leave the special needs students for the public schools.

You in the US are so fortunate to have public schools that respond to special
needs students in a public school environment.  Here, these students are shunted
off into special schools without contact with the "normal" world.  This includes
students who have learning disabilities, are retarded, or are disruptive.

In fact the only way a parent can get the disabilities of a special needs student
dealt with is to put them in a private school.  My son's school has a Down's
Syndrome student in the French section.  They took both of my boys in priority
because they had significant problems dealing with the over structured Swiss
public system.  Private systems here are the ones who are most flexible in
dealing with these students.

As to the last response (Rochelle?), yes, if I got moved to Sri Lanka, I would
darn well expect some consideration to be made for the fact that they don't
speak the native language (although, a better example might be Japan or China 
since they are taught mostly in English in Sri Lanka :-)  I see children
entering both Swiss and private schools here and the amount of care taken in
relieving cultural stress while introducing a new language is critical in
the child's adjustment and later success in school.  In the Geneva public 
school, depending on the age of the child (like up to age 15), the first years
marks are not counted and they have extra classes in French to help the children
integrate more quickly.  In the international program, many classes are not
open to children (like a non French speaker entering the French program after
the primary grades) because of the impossibility of bringing their language 
skills far enough to pass exams.  Beginner classes are offered at all levels
for both French and English but there might not be a third year Italian course
if there are not enough students who want to study it.

If you have a significant portion of a school that speaks something other than 
the primary language of the school then I think you have to deal with that.

Cheryl

    re: 375.11 TANNAY::BETTELS -< It's not the same all over >-

    Cheryl-

>There is a thread through these responses that doesn't hold true necessarily
>in all cases.  This is that private schools only take the "easy to educate"
>students and leave the special needs students for the public schools.

    Its not that private schools only take the 'easy to educate' kids.
    When a child needs services that the public school does not provide,
    they do get sent to private schools, or a nearby public school that
    does provide those services, at the town's expense.  The town is
    required to pay the cost of the school plus the cost of the
    transportation to get there...and for special needs children, this
    transportation cost is significant, special vans, specially trained
    drivers, etc.  The private schools that only take the 'easy to educate'
    kids are the ones who's costs get compared to public schools.
    They are the ones that people actually PAY to send their kids to.
    The town clearly would prefer to provide those services locally,
    and this is often the best thing for the child also.  But it may be
    cheaper for the town to pay the cost to transport and tuition the child
    to a neighboring school or a private school.
    bob

    re:    <<< Note 375.10 by NEWPRT::WAHL_RO >>>

    Rochelle
    Glad to hear you are active in your child's school...and sorry
    to hear that it is not the local public school.  I suspect that
    $1800 is probably close to the average cost per pupil in our
    schools also...if you dont count all the extra things that
    public schools provide.

    I suspect that if the largest cost difference you can see is the
    administration, you haven't looked as closely at the costs of the
    public school compared to your parish school.  Our local public
    school, K-6, has about 200 kids, one pricipal, and one secretary.
    The pricipal gets about $40K....not insignificant, but that's
    it for administration.  We also do lot with volunteers.  We also
    actually cost about $4000 per student.

    I guess you dont like the services that your public school is
    required to provide (ESL would be one of them).  Be thankful that
    you dont require them.  You could probably find a state to live in
    that requires fewer services of its schools.  People flock to
    California for the quality of its education.  Sort of a double edged
    sword, isn't it.
    bob

Public education is absolutely free here and of minimal cost (like a few hundred
francs per year) for university.  But it is a take it or leave it business.  The 
public school system does not pay private schools for any special needs.  If
you don't like the minimal offering, you pay dearly to get it elsewhere.

We pay over $12,000 per year for _each_ of our sons in fees alone.  Books, 
sports, field trips, extra curricular activities, lunches (school lunch is
$7.00 a meal, my kids take sandwiches), transportation, etc. is extra.  If I had
a special needs child (which my unconventional second son probably is :-) I'd
happily do whatever I had to do to have him in this environment and not in the
public schools.

A friend had his daughter evaluated as a clear dyslexic by a Swiss psychiatrist
in the third grade when they hit the logic path she needed to go further.  There
was a way around her problem but the only solution offered him by the Swiss
authorities was to put her in a special school for mentally retarded students.
He coughed up the money for private schooling.

At least you have laws which says that the schools must address _all_ students'
problem and not just the select 20% who arechosen to go on to university.  Here,
we pay for that privilege.

Cheryl

    
    Re: .14 
     

>    Public education is absolutely free here and of minimal cost ...
    
    This is not a personal comment for anyone and I don't really have
    anything to add to the schooling question, but I am getting the feeling
    from this notes string that Public schools are thought of as being 
    "free".  They are not free.  In Texas (my native state) everyone who
    owned property (including businesses) paid school taxes.  Here in the
    UK, everyone who pays taxes, pays for the schools.  
    
    It is like the National Health Service here.  I get really fed up with 
    polititians who go on about how it is "free at the point of delivery" 
    hoping that most people will only hear the "free" part.  The NHS is not 
    free to everyone.  The only people to whom it is free are those who pay 
    no tax and those who are unemployed.  The rest of us pay for it very dearly 
    thank you very much.
    
    So public schools are costing you the same way private ones are.  It's
    just that with public schools there is this middleman called the Tax 
    Assessor and Collector.
    
    Sorry for the rathole.
    
    LaDonna
    

    re: <<< Note 375.15 by ROCKS::LMCDONALD >>>

    >So public schools are costing you the same way private ones are.

    Not exactly the same way...if you choose to send your kids to
    private school, you pay for this ON TOP of the taxes you pay
    to support the public schools.

    Of course, a lot of people would rather change this and decide for
    themselves whether they choose to pay their 'school cost' to a public
    or private school.  this is generally called a 'voucher system'.
    School Choice is just the first step down this road.
    bob

Of course you are right when you say we pay for public schooling through taxes
but I think I meant that in the spirit of the discussion and as Bob said,
nothing on top of taxes.  And you certainly can't complain about taxes in
Switzerland which come to a MAXIMUM for the very richest of about 35%.  Nost
people pay around 20%.  Of course, in the Geneva area there are all the 
international employees who DON'T pay taxes, can send their cildren to the 
public schools for free, and additionally get a major portion of private
schooling paid by their organisations.

The other issue is that, I think, most Americans have a rather close relation
to the money paid in taxes and the education it supports.  If I still remember
correctly from the "old" days, mostly the education system is supported from
property taxes raised and spent locally.  Some of the more innovative attempts
at changing the system (equalizing districts, vouchers, etc.) come from state
or federal money _on top_ of the local funding.  But the focus is still local
and a citizen can affect their local school system by actively participating 
and working on the school board etc.

Our system is exactly the opposite.  Public schools do not have school boards.
The largest part of our tax is the cantonal tax (like state tax), the next 
largest part is the local tax and the smallest part is the federal tax (which 
mostly supports the army and federal road system).  The taxes are all income
taxes.  The state Department of Public Instruction determines the program
and funding of the schools.  Locally the commune can influence only the 
facilities which are paid for out of local taxes.  If you want to change this,
the only way to do so is through a popular referendum at state level.  The 
Swiss in this regard are extremely conservative.  The latest major change to
the Swiss system was several years ago when it was decided that all schools
in Switzerland would begin their school years in the fall (many Swiss German
systems started in the spring).  Last year the Genevans decided to give every 
other Saturday free.

Cheryl

I agree that public schools are not "free".  We pay for them dearly.  It
is this reason that I favor a voucher system.  The requirement should be
that we have to send our children to school for 12 years.  Any school.
Much like DEC requires that you have some form of a medical plan - any
plan whether it be yours or your spouse's.  In this way, towns like
Chelmsford would finally get rid of all of these "deans" and other
administrators.

If the current school setup is the most efficient method, then I fault
the schools for a lack of education of the taxpayer.  Each yeat they
come to us crying poor.  They say they need money.  But they don't
show any cuts that mean anything.  They don't explain why they need so
many administrators.  They don't say why they can't have one principal
handle 2 or 3 schools, rather than just one.  They don't explain why
our children have had their programs cut so that administrators can go
to school conferences on the town (or have them on school time in the
school).

I think it is these things that cause taxpayers to get to the point of
refusing to pay any more.  Any just taking money from one town to give
to another town is ridiculous.  What that says is that a town that is
innefficient and cannot handle it's programs will be rewarded for it.
If a town contains citizens that are able, and want, to spend more for
their children, then why penalize them?  The less we have the state 
involved, the more money that is available for the town.  If we were
able to cut the Mass state tax from the current 6.75% (I think it is
still at that level) to a level of even 4%, we would have that much
more money that we could dedicate to our towns.  By giving this money
to the towns, they would not have to keep cutting the school budgets.
Then, maybe they would be able to get more efficient.

In any case, I have no problem with a voucher system.  I think it would
benefit all persons in the state (and country).

Ed..

    Ed, I still dont see the overall benefit from a voucher
    system.  Although you say you favor it, you dont provide
    any reasons why it is 'good'.

    Today, in a great many ways including education, the rich have
    many choices open to them.  In Education, the current system
    allows them to exercise their choice of sending their children
    to private schools, but it does not subsidize that choice.  It does
    not penalize the rest of society for this choice.

    A voucher system will slightly expand the range of people
    who are wealthy enough to send their kids to private schools, as
    it will pay for part of their tuition.  But it will deduct the
    amount of that tuition 'voucher' from the public school budget.
    This will be a disaster for public school systems.
    I see this as just another way to benefit the rich at the expense
    of the poor.

    I'm in favor of a system that will educate ALL of our kids in
    the most efficient and effective way possible.  I'm not in favor
    of a system that will educate my kids but not my neighbor's.
    My neighbor's kids will grow up to become my neighbors in a few years.
    And I want to have educated neighbors.
    bob    

    I may again be 'still misinformed'...but here are some facts
    about Massachusetts School Choice:

    During the last school year, 834 students attended 28 'Choice Schools'
    at a cost of:
    	- 2.7 million paid by the State
    	- 2.1 million paid by the 'sending' schools.

    	This 2.7 million is being paid by all of us to benefit these 834 kids.

    During the current school year, about 3000 kids will attend 'Choice
    Schools', at about 3 times the above costs.  Next year the projection
    is 5000 kids (costing $18-$25 million).  We are all paying a lot of
    money to support the education of a small number of kids.

    During the last school year, half of the kids in 'school choice'
    were already going to private schools or were already tuitioned
    to their 'choice' school.  The change is just that now we all
    pay for it.

    During the last school year, all of the kids and their families were
    interviewed as to their reasons for being in the School Choice
    program.  In order of importance, the top 4 reasons were social
    (attending the 'right' school), sports, parent's convienence (nearer
    to home or work), and lastly acedemic.  One reason stated was to
    leave behind poor disciplinary records.

    600 students left the Brockton schools to attend the Avon schools.
    The Brockton schools are a disaster for those left behind.

    Affluent Manchester received $649,685, mainly from much poorer
    Glouchster.  Manchester had no real use for all this money and gave
    pay raises to their town employees, eliminated sports user fees,
    and hired away some of Glouchster's best teachers.

    This program benefits white students almost exclusively.  In
    Springfield, 62% of the students are minorities yet only 12 of the
    142 kids in School Choice are minority.  In Lynn, 40% are minority
    yet less than 3% of the 98 school choice students are minority.

    School Choice is a terrible program being politically pushed
    at the Federal level by the current administration (influenced
    by the religious right) and at the state level by entrenched
    Democrats (Billy Bulger) with an agenda to achieve a voucher
    systems allowing public funding of Parochial Schools.

    It is draining education dollars from all of our schools.  It is
    costing YOU money.  School Choice has been a financial windfall for
    the already well-off schools who participated.  It panders to the
    forces of greed and selfishness that we have inherited from the 80s.
    I hope you contact your state senator and representative and help
    fight against School Choice.
    bob

I would love to talk further about this topic, but I don't think I am going
to convince you to change your thoughts, and I know you won't change my
thoughts.  So, I guess we should just let this one be an agreement to
disagree.

Good luck,

Ed..

I note that Bob and a number of other noters have discovered the discussion 
of school choice and its companion topics, public funding of private schools 
and voucher systems, in CNOTES::EDUCATION_ISSUES.  I would suggest that's a 
better place to carry on the (imo) interesting and important discussion of 
these programs, from a conceptual standpoint.  I think parenting is better 
equipped to respond to individual questions, such as the questions listed in 
the base topic.

Hit <KP7> to add CNOTES::EDUCATION_ISSUES to your notebook.

Clay 
(wearing one moderator shoe and one noter shoe).

I"ve answered some of Bob's "facts" in the Ed_issues conference so I won't go
into them here. I do want to note something about the public/private issue, at
least in Massachusetts. The Boston Archdiocese Teachers Association has begun
to set up pickets at the Cardinal's residence. The 265 member teacher's union
has been without a contract for over a year. They are fighting for unemployment
insurance and a raise that would bring them closer to their public school
counterparts. According to the article, the average parochial school lay teacher
is paid $10,000 less than a similar teacher in the public schools.

    I suspect this is kicking a 'dead horse' in this conference.
    
    I am surprised that so few people (PARENTS) seem interested in this
    very important issue.  If you do read the Ed_issues conference
    you will see that really Mike doesnt dispute any of my 'facts'.

    You will also see that he defends the right of his school to lower
    their average classroom size by taking money (and kids) from their
    neighboring school.  Yet he defends that this is not called
    'making a profit' on the deal.  You can be sure that if Holliston
    is lowering their classroom sizes, their neighboring schools are
    increasing theirs.

    I think that if someone wants to go to school in Holliston, they
    should move there.  I dont think that the MANY kids left in their
    home schools should suffer at the expense of the FEW kids that
    go to another school at your and my expense.

    This is purely a RICH town versus POOR town issue.  The rich towns
    have the political power and will make out well under this law.
    I think its terrible.

    sorry for sounding a little emotional about this.
    bob

    I bet a lot of noters are like me in that their kids are not
    yet in public school, or they are still in learning mode on this
    issue. Silence does not equal lack of interest. It's a very
    complex topic; be glad there are not a lot of mis- or half-informed
    opinions being bandied around.
    
    Lucy

Holliston and Hopkinton (where most of our choice kids come from) are not RICH
communities. Our per pupil costs are roughly equal and below the state average. 
Why then are kids from Hopkinton and 20 other surrounding communities coming to
Holliston?

Holliston High School - National School of Excellence 1991

Holliston High School - Redbook award - overall excellence 1992

K-12 French immersion program

5-12 Spanish immersion program

Public Montessori program

    I think its GREAT that Holliston is a good school.

    I think its terrible that the communities surrounding it
    are being forced by state law to help fund it.

Hold on here.  The surrounding communities are NOT being forced to fund
the Holliston schools.  If they had a school system that was equal to
Holliston, the  students would not change schools.  The intent is not for
the schools that lose students to cry foul.  The intent is for those
schools to assess why the students left and make any adjustments that
would make them a better school.

This sounds so much like the crying that Boston's Mayor Flyn does whenever
he needs money.  He goes to the state and says give me money - I am
being cheated.

Why don't the schools look at what can be improved in their systems?
Could it be because there is no competition?  Well, welcome to the real
world - money is not unlimited, competition DOES exist, people have a
right to expect better for their children.

There is absolutely no reason why the not-so-wealthy towns (no town is
poor - talk with the real poor people) can't do what is needed to make
their schools excellent - both statewide and nationally.  Maybe they
should look at the better schools and see what ideas they can use.  Rather
than complaining (which always seems to be school administrators first
reaction to ANY change that they have not initiated - especially if it
was suggested by, heaven forbid, parents).

Ed..

    When a student in your town goes to school in another town,
    the state deducts money from your town and gives it to the
    other town.  You have no choice.  You are forced to fund their school.
    The other town makes a 'profit' on the deal...enough so that
    in Holliston's case Mike thinks its just great that Holliston
    is going to be able to reduce its classroom size with all this
    extra money.

    Students may change schools for many reasons.  When kids leave
    for ANY reason, your town is forced to give money to the other
    town (along with all the tax payers in Massachusetts).

    What we need is real school reform....lets change schools so they
    have to power to hire good teachers and fire bad ones, and so that
    the administration has the flexibility to make changes when
    necessary...like the starting time of school or the amount of
    'teacher contact time' or all of the other millions of little
    things involved in organizing the school that today get set
    in cement (contracts, written and implied) that force every school
    into a narrow, rigid behaviour.

    You didnt read in any of my notes that where i've said 'lets
    give schools more money'.  I'm not sure why you keep throwing that
    back at me.  There ARE towns that underfund their schools...that
    really could afford to pay more and are choosing not to.  I think
    this is really rare.
    bob

But nowhere are you saying that the schools losing students are not as
good as Holliston.  A parent has the right to send their child to the
BEST school they can.  In this case, Holliston appears to be that school.

As I said, the school losing students MUST correct whatever problems they
have that is stopping them from being a better school.  Why is Holliston
ranked as one of the best?  Why aren't the others?  These are the questions
that I don't hear getting asked.

When Holliston picks up a student, they also pick up the expense.  Why
shouldn't they be given funds to help cover that expense?

Ed..

  <<< Note 375.23 by FSDEV::MGILBERT "A man from Hope, A new beginning..." >>>

>I"ve answered some of Bob's "facts" in the Ed_issues conference so I won't go
>into them here. I do want to note something about the public/private issue, at
>least in Massachusetts. The Boston Archdiocese Teachers Association has begun
>to set up pickets at the Cardinal's residence. The 265 member teacher's union
>has been without a contract for over a year. They are fighting for unemployment
>insurance and a raise that would bring them closer to their public school
>counterparts. According to the article, the average parochial school lay teacher
>is paid $10,000 less than a similar teacher in the public schools.

Maybe they can contact UTLA (United Teachers of Los Angeles) for some pointers 
on negotiating.  They just won an injunction against LA Unified - the district 
was planning a 12% pay cut for the teachers.  UTLA could probably provide tips 
to UAW and TEAMSTER unions on the art of militant negotiations.....

BTW - LA Unified is the largest employer in the county of Los Angeles.

FYI, our diocese (Southern Calif) has guidelines for teachers pay which
sets their salaries at 80% of what the local public school teachers earn.  The 
benefit package is about the same.  These guidelines were put into place
about 15 years ago when the teachers in our diocese actually went out on strike.
(No union though)

    Nope...I'm not saying that the schools that are losing
    students to Holliston are as good as Holliston.

    I disagree that a parent has the right to send their child
    to the 'school of their choice' at no cost to themselves.
    This may be your opinion.  Its not mine.  We have local, town
    schools supported mostly by town taxes.  I would support having
    the state pay a higher percent of the school cost, moving the
    taxes from local property taxes to state (mostly income) taxes.
    As long as they are funded locally, I wont support the state
    taking local tax money and sending it to another town.

    I would support the state taking its 'per pupil' contribution
    and giving it to another town as payment for a student that
    attends school in that town.  And I think that should be enough
    to cover the real 'incremental' cost of that student attending
    school there.  This would be like that student's family 
    'swapping homes' with a childless family in that town.  The
    town would not recieve a cent more in taxes in that case and the
    state contribution would move from one town to another.

    I think that funding the recieving town any more than that is stealing
    from the sending town.  I think its criminal.  Towns like
    Holliston and Manchester are making out like bandits on this current
    law.  Mostly at the expense of their neighboring schools but also
    at all of our expense as they receive state tax money.

    This law has got to change.
    bob

First of all, no local tax dollars are moving from sending to recieving 
communities. The money is all coming from state aid. Sending communities
recieve 75% of their per pupil cost or $5,000 whichever is less. $5,000 is
below the state average. Manchester and Avon, the two communities taking kids
from Gloucester and Brockton both spend well over the $5,000 they recieve. Thus
they are actually subsidizing the education of the children that come to their
schools. Holliston and hopkinton have similar per pupil costs. Hopkinton 
actually decided to really look at why they were losing students and are 
refocusing. Holliston had 125 students under school choice last year. About
70 of them from Hopkinton. This year we have 287 students and about 125-150
are from Hopkinton. But something very interesting happened this summer. In
April as Holliston and Hopkinton were preparing for town meeting Holliston 
was expecting to recieve 330 students and we had a waiting list of another
170. Most of these were Hopkinton students in grades 6,7,8. Hopkinton did 
their homework and built a budget based on the needs of students and parents
who were looking to leave. They wanted a "middle school/junior high" program
that worked and they were convinced their current one didn't. Hopkinton
recieved a 12.5% increase in budget from town meeting. They also approved a
$6M renovation to the High School building that would allow the creation of a
junior high school program. In September Holliston had no waiting list and
287 students instead of 330. When this year is over Hopkinton will have a higher
per pupil expenditure than Holliston because coupled with the budget increase
they also are being reimbursed for the lost state aid. Holliston will recieve
approximately $3,000 per student to provide an education to those 287 students
who came this year. Considering that our per pupil expenditure is higher than
that I find anyone who calls this profiteering to be way off base. Yes, for 
every 10 kids I can hire a teacher and that helps reduce class size. It takes 
another 5 kids to outfit a classroom. It takes another 5 to pay support staff
and do minimal maintenance. That's the simple formula of an old fashioned 
elementary school. Today we have, on average, 4-6 specialists who take all
of the elementary for Art, Music, Gym, Science, Reading, Etc. At the Middle
and High School levels each student sees 8-10 teaching professionals a week.
And we haven't begun to talk about the cost of administration, etc. And for the
record the per pupil cost figures used do not include transportation, cafeteria,
or any debt payments the school may have. 

As for local support, Holliston has been used by MBAE as an example of a 
community that meets what they deem to be a standard of effort. We expend
$8.00 per thousand in local tax dollars. That's still less than 60% of the
actual local appropriation (with state aid added) and less than 50% of our
total budget. Hopkinton spends $4.00 per thousand on a larger tax base with
a higher per capita income level.

Concerning your proposal to take the "per pupil" amount of state aid only. I
think this is ludicrous unless the state takes it's fair share of the burden.
The current state aid to schools is figured on a per capita basis not a per
pupil basis. Thus the figure isn't even close to the incremental cost of
educating a child. Last year communities recieved less than $400 per pupil. 

In an earlier reply you spoke about Education Reform. I agree with everything 
you said and have worked hard to see this come to fruition. We're almost there.
There one thing I'ld like to see that isn't possible in the Reform Bill but
may well come up in the next few years (at least in Mass.) and that is a
Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing a child's right to a free and equitable
public education.

    Mike, I think that your continued insistance that local tax
    dollars are not flowing from the sending to the receiving
    town just destroys your credibility in this forum.  To you
    it may feel like 'state aid'.  To the sending towns, when it has
    to be replaced with real local taxes, it represents local taxes.
    What we call the money does not matter.  REAL MONEY moves from one
    town to the other.

    I still have not read any facts justifying why the receiving town
    (Holliston for example) should get $3000 per student.  I contend
    that the real incremental cost to Holliston to fill an empty
    seat is almost $0.  If you have an empty seat and someone moves
    to town and fills that seat, your school budget is hardly impacted.
    There may be an impact due to a change in the bus route but this is
    not covered under school choice.  You do not have to hire any additional
    staff (teachers, aides, custodians, etc) due to that filled seat.

    When you fill empty seats, the full $3000 is profit.  You may use
    it to supplement your local budget (and thus not have to fire
    teachers like many other schools).  But it is still profit.

    I still contend that as long as you control the number of students
    you admit, the receiving students should just bring with them their
    state aide (I've seen figures from $400 to $750).  If that is not enough
    to cover your incemental costs, then don't accept so many or ANY choice
    students.  It should be plenty to cover the costs of filling an empty
    seat in a class.  Allowing you to make a profit at the expense of your
    neighboring schools is an outrage.
    bob

But it's okay if the parents pay....


Look I'm not going to argue the cost of educating a child with you. I've had to
develop that budget and increases in enrollment always have an impact. 1 child
may not have the impact necessary to hire a teacher or other staff but if
I waited for the one who did I would have to get 30-50K for that one and 
nothing for the rest? Sorry but I don't buy it. And if a community isn't 
putting enough of it's local taxes into the school system to provide a
quality education then I can't feel a lot of sympathy when kids and parents 
choose to walk away. The other phenomenon that appears to be occuring here 
is that we're getting lots of kids moving to town. Parents do fear that 
school choice will change and they will lose the option to send their kids
to a better school so they're taking no chances and moving to town.

>But it's okay if the parents pay....

I assume you mean 'private school'...still exists doesnt it?

>Look I'm not going to argue the cost of educating a child with you. 

I've never argued this. I've been discussing the incremental cost
of adding a child to your school.  When you control how many kids in what
grades are added to your school, only this incremental cost is important.
And I contend it is close to $0.

>if I waited for the one who did I would have to get 30-50K for that one

right....you would not accept that one.  You just accepted all the
others who were funding that one back in their home school.  When you
have this type of control over admission, you do not deserve a high
percent of the per student cost.

>And if a community isn't putting enough of it's local taxes into the
>school system to provide a quality education then I can't feel a lot
>of sympathy 

Ah..now we're getting down to it.  You should feel darn proud and extremely
lucky that you live in a town that has such a good school.  A lot of towns
are not so lucky, and I believe that luck has a lot to do with it.  But
dont look down your nose quite so hard at those around you.

>The other phenomenon that appears to be occuring here is that we're getting
>lots of kids moving to town.

This the only form of 'school choice' that I do support.  I applaud.
bob

Bob,

Whether you support it or not, the state is going to continue in the
direction of school choice and vouchers.  Accept it and work to make
it the best system in the country.

why should a parent be forced to send their child to a substandard
school just because they weren't able to get the school administration
to be responsive to either their or their child's needs?  Why should a
parent have to send their child to a Boston school and risk having he/she
shot or knifed or beat up?  I contend that they shouldn't.  School
choice helps them to go where their child WILL be safe and get a GOOD
education.

The city of Lowell has shown that more money does not make a good
school.  They have been throwing money at the school for I don't know
how long.  They have been losing students.  They are now starting to
put together a magnet style school system that will attempt to attract
the better students (in a style similar to the school for the arts in
N.Y. city).

It appears that you are not willing to listen to other thoughts, and
that you have your mind made up.  This is a shame.  For this is when
you lose the ability to assist in forming and shaping whatever program
is being put in place.  If it has things you don't like, then work to
move it more in the direction you want.  You may not get all the
way there (I suggest you definitely won't).  But, with a closed mind
you only succeed in turning off those you hope to convince.

Good luck,

Ed..

    I dont think i'm closed minded.  I do think that school
    choice is a bad program and should be eliminated until
    a good program can be created.  It will take a much more
    dramatic change to the way education is structured in
    Mass to make something like 'school choice' work.  I'm very
    willing to listen to and discuss these changes but
    I'm not willing to listen to discussion as to how its
    really okay for schools to make a profit on their neighboring
    schools.

>why should a parent be forced to send their child to a substandard
>school just because they weren't able to get the school administration
>to be responsive to either their or their child's needs?  Why should a
>parent have to send their child to a Boston school and risk having he/she
>shot or knifed or beat up?  

    They have the choice to work with their school system to improve the
    school.  They have the choice to move to a neighborhood that has the
    schools they want their kids to attend.

    This law does not give people in Boston the choice to send their child
    to a 'safe' school.  There are no schools participating that you can
    get to by public transportation from Boston.  Big surprise.

    This law is trying to avoid real school reform.  It helps the well
    off schools at the expense of the poor.  It panders to the same
    notion that cutting welfare will encourage lazy welfare mothers to
    go out and get work.  Cutting school budgets will finally get someone's
    attention and encourage schools to improve.
    
    As long as we have locally controlled and locally funded schools,
    I dont think that 'school choice' is a good idea....that society
    should fund a parents choice to opt out of working with their local
    school.
    bob

In this last reply and in a number of other replies you are making gross 
assumptions about people's abilities to provide for certain things. How
many people in Brockton or Gloucester do you know who can afford to move
to Avon or Manchester? How many people do you know who have both the access
and the time to influence change within a neighborhood school? Many of us
who have been involved in public education know the frustration of attempting
to influence within the current infrastructure. Next to the equality and
stability of funding the proposed changes in infrastructure are the most
important part of the current reform legislation. For these changes will 
allow parents more say in a neighborhood school and will set accountability
up the chain of command. 
If there is one thing I have learned over the years I have been involved in
public education it is that most educators know how to use the current structure
to avoid change. inovators have to learn to work within this structure and 
parents are frustrated by it because it takes years of being inside to figure
out how it all works. While I agree this law has some flaws that need to be 
corrected I also see it as a catalyst for change. It is waking up a lot
of people to problems they wouldn't face before. And if the education reform
bill passes intact it will allow for the state to act on behalf of children in
communities that don't wake up and face the music. The state will be able to
declare schools and school systems educationally bankrupt.

    Anyone know if Ayer, MA participates in School Choice?  They used to
    but I was told they no longer do.  I'm going to try calling the school
    and see if they can put me in touch with someone.  I wanted to see if
    anyone here knows. 
    
    Thanks,
    Lisa Cozzens

    
    Just got my answer, yes they do.
    
    Lisa

>    Anyone know if Ayer, MA participates in School Choice?  They used to
>    but I was told they no longer do.  I'm going to try calling the school
>    and see if they can put me in touch with someone.  I wanted to see if
>    anyone here knows. 

    When a school stops being a 'choice school', I think it is still
    required to continue with the kids that have started there.  So it
    may no longer accept new kids but still have some previous kids.

    I cant help but wonder where you live, that Ayer looks better than
    your community's school.  Perhaps Ayer is a great school.  I'm wondering
    what the attraction is.
    bob

Information about the Ayer School system....

I am a member of the Ayer Elementary School Improvement Council as
well as on the board of the PTO.  If anyone has any questions regarding
the school system I would be pleased to respond.   

Regards,
Karen Agule