Conference moira::parenting

    Thanks for typing all that!
    
    Can you elaborate on the following:
    
    - tenure is repealed - don't unions have some say in this?
    - charter schools - what are they
    - extended school time - does this mean a longer school year?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Lucy

Also, where is all of this money coming from?  You hit it at least at
one point - prop 2.5 repeal.  This is the first step toward 20% tax increases
across the board.

There is no reason for the state to be funding ANY of the schools.  We
need to CUT state spending, and thus taxes.  With more money available,
people would be able to fund other programs in other ways.  I don't
appreciate my money going to Boston to fund their schools (which is where
most of it would go).

Some of the other things, like removing tenure were positive.

I don't know if I agree with year-round school, which I read in there
somewhere.

Ed..

	Tenure repeal:

		Tenure is a law defining a process of appeal for the dismissal
		of a teacher. The union's may lobby the legislature but the
		last time I looked they didn't pass the laws. Teachers,IMHO,
		do need protection from the political process and protection
		of their academic freedom. The real question is whether we
		can find a better way to remove those who are hiding behind it.

	Charter Schools:

		Let's say you and ten other parents want to start a school. You
		would need to tell the state how you intended to run that school
		and why it was unique. If the state agreed then you would get a
		state grant to start the school and, ultimately, public funding.
		Most charter schools will be used to experiment with curriculum
		and learning environment.

	Extended school time:

		I think what will happen here is that, over a 4 to 5 year 
		period, the time-on-task for students will be better defined
		and extended. Things like school pictures, spinal exams, and
		other extranious things handled by schools today will not
		be counted as part of the school day. Half days will count as
		half days. The state law will likely be changed from a minimum
		number of days to a minimum number of hours. In communities
		the decision to extend the year or the day or remove things
		from school time provides greater flexibility. The bottom line
		is that we spend less time today trying to learn as much as
		our competitors. We should spend more time at it instead of
		trying to cram it all in.

	Prop 2.5

		First of all you didn't really read what I wrote. There is no 
		repeal of prop 2.5. The proposal on the table allows for a
		one time increase, over a five year period, to bring the local
		levy limit in line with what the property value and personal 
		incomes of the community say that community can afford for 
		education. There are a limited number of communities that would
		even be eligible for this option. Please note the words ONE TIME.
		You state there is no reason for the state to fund schools. I
		suggest you read the Massachusetts Constitution, the General
		Laws, and rulings of the Mass. SJC on the subject of the right
 		to and control of education. Public Education is a state 
		function not a local function. You would also be surprised to 
		learn that under this financial proposal Boston's state aid 
		under chapter 70 (the current state education aid law) would be
		dramatically reduced due to the large tax base available to them.
		Also there is nothing in there about year round school(see 
		above). One last comment - the proposed change to Prop 2.5 was
		originally in the Governor's bill.

	I have a dilemma I would like to here folks opinions about.
For me this is a very serious issue so I would appreciate answers
in that vain.

	The state of Massachusetts, last year, removed the mandate
for public schools to transport children in grades 7-12. The state
has also historically reimbursed at low rates for transportation
(currently 40% of actual cost for students 1.5 miles or more from
school). For children in K-6 transportation is only mandated for
those who live more than 2 miles from school. The community in
question has a centralized system consisting of 1 building for
K, 1 for Elementary (1-3), 1 Middle school (4-7), and 1 High
School (8-12). In order to conserve financial resources the following 
program is under consideration:

	A fee of $150 per child will be charged to any student who
wishes bus transportation and is considered outside of the state 
mandate. Thus for all students living less than 2 miles from school
and all students in grade 7-12 transportation will be optional and
on a fee basis.

How would you feel if this were being considered in your community?

    Given that school is mandatory, this feels more unfair than
    a user fee for Sports, for example.

    I think the school should give something else up or charge a user
    fee for something more 'optional' than transportation.
    bob

    One fee that has been proposed in one of the local districts was a
    parking permit fee.  This makes more sense, as people who can afford
    cars for their kids can probably afford $60.00/year for the kids to
    park at the schools.  
    
    Charging for bussing strikes me as penalizing those who can least
    afford to transport their kids.  
    
    Meg

We already charge a user fee for Sports and for other extra-curricular activities
and are looking at possibly increasing that. The Athletic budget is a net 
equivilant of 4 buses. 

We already charge a parking fee of $25 per year to High School students who wish
to bring their own car to school. 

Quite frankly, many of us feel that the only thing we have left to give up
is teaching staff. 

    Our town is also considering dropping the automatic bussing of students
    who live within 2 miles, and weighing it against instituting a charge.
    I am not sure how far along the discussions have come, but they are
    occuring.
    
    I have mixed feelings - I lived under 2 miles from school growing up
    and walked grade 1 through grade 12, so I can see some sense in not
    having to provide bussing for children closer to school.  If the charge
    is instituted, at least you'd have a choice of taking the bus or no,
    whereas if they eliminate the bus service altogether for the kids <2
    miles from school, you can't even weigh the personal choice of paying
    or not.
    
    

    How much would the cost of running the route change if, say,
    half the kids did not ride the bus, but the route did not
    change very much?  In our town, I dont think the bus company
    would charge us much less.
    bob

Bob,
	That's exactly the point. We expect that we may be able to eliminate
some buses and stretch some runs if enough kids/parents opt to find their
own way back and forth. We can save some money just by going to a fee but 
the biggest savings would come from eliminating a bus or 2.

Mike

When I was in high school, they bused the kids within 2 miles of the school
only in the wintertime.  This was 10 years ago (wow, time flies!) at
Acton Boxboro RHS.  I can't imagine trying to walk to school this winter,
you'ld have to walk in the middle of the road with all this snow! They can
barely keep the roads plowed now they'ld have to worry about the sidewalks
as well.

Lynne

    I personally would have not problem with such a fee.
    
    I would be afraid, however, that the fee would be a
    true hardship to some families in the community.  Maybe
    you could set up some way for the fee to be waived in
    these cases.

    From an entirely different perspective -

    SET SOAPBOX/ON

    I have always found it troubling when people selfishly demand just the
    services THEY need, and try and eliminate services THEY do not need.
    For as long as I can remember, school budgets have been difficult to
    pass because many folks who don't have kids don't want to support that
    service with their taxes.  

    In my not-so-humble opinion - good support for schools is in EVERYBODIES
    best interest - whether or not you have kids in school.
    
    SET SOAPBOX/OFF

    A group or realtors (in Needham, I believe) recently went on an add 
    campaign to convince town residents that paying additional taxes to
    keep the quality of the schools up would also serve to keep property
    values up.

    I wonder if you could use the property-values argument to convince
    people in town to support better funding for you school.

    - Carol

There are two important questions on the issue of whether bussing should be
expected.  How good are the walking routes within the town?  How long are the
longest routes?

Walking within the 2 mile limit is not a great problem if all children within
that distance can get to school on dedicated walking paths, sidewalks that are
guaranteed to be cleared (ie: the town does it or enforces shoveling
ordinances) or extremely lightly travelled streets (ie: residential streets
not on main travel routes).

Walking outside the 2 mile limit can be a much greater problem depending on the
size of the town/school district.  When I was a kid I lived 5 miles from my
high school and jr. high school.  Most of the route was on main roads with side
walks.  I would not want my kid to be forced to walk that route.  Even if the
roads were safe, the question of an additional hour or more walking each way
makes this undesirable.  On the other hand my first elementary school was about
1.5 miles and I had and would have no problem with that walk (through our
subdivision and the neighboring one).  There were other kids inside the 2 miles
from that school who were bussed because there was no way to avoid walking
along very busy roads with no sidewalks.

In the end, all questions of cost must come after the questions of safety
are resolved.

Dick

 
	I have obtained an outline of the Senate version of the Ed. Reform bill
including the estimated funding increases by community. 

	Here's the scoop on School Choice:

	The Senate version expands the current voluntary program to a mandatory
program beginning next year. School districts would be required to annually
report to the Secretary of Education the capacity and anticipated enrollment
of each school building and thus the number of seats available for school
choice. If the secretary deems that the report of the capacity of said school
was not made in good faith, the secretary may determine the capacity based on
the average number of pupils per grade over the previous five years. Funding
is similar to the current system, $5K maximum, sending district eligible for
50% reimbursement, but sending districts spending below the foundation budget
receive no reduction in state aid. A transportation reimbursement system is 
provided is provided so that low income students can be transported with the
state reimbursing the costs. An aggressive parent outreach program is created.


Sounds like the state is going to pick up all these costs right? 

Later in the bill there is a provision that I'm surprised noone else has
picked up on. The Senate has exempted this bill from the local mandates
section of the general laws. This means that there is NO commitment to
fully fund anything in the bill.