Conference moira::parenting_v3

    a P.S. to this, am I limited to a school in MA only?  Since our town
    is located only a few miles from Thompson CT.
    
    Lyn

See note 1017 in NOTED::MASSACHUSETTS (KP7 or SELECT to add to your notebook).

This new law is so entangled in "legal wording" that the only understanding I
have of it is when the local newspaper prints "what action" (if any!) your
local school will (or will not!) take as "mandated" by this law ...
still confused?!!!!

BEFORE THE LAW, I was told by the Northboro Elementary School "administrator"
(or whatever his title is!, I just remember that he was extremely helpful,
pleasant and SUPPORTIVE!) that:

.  since Juli did NOT qualify to attend Shrewsbury's kindergarten BECAUSE
   her birthdate was 9/2 (not prior to 9/1) AND Shrewsbury was guaranteed to
   discount any attempt Jim/I made to appeal this

that Northboro WOULD accept her (because Northboro's birthdate cutoff is
12/31) PROVIDING THAT:

.  Juli was NOT accepted by Shrewsbury (birthdate), but did qualify by
   Northboro (birthdate);
.  Juli passes the prescreening "first attempt" (no retakes allowed!);
.  and we pay the tuition (K: $2500/year, 1st: $5000/year); and
.  we provide all transportation (and pickup on sick and/or snow days).

I guess I'm not sure just why Northboro will accept Juli, but they said
they will!  The administrator did say that:  if Juli's ready and passes
the screening tests, we (as parents) believe she should be in school ...
it's not the school district's place to REFUSE HER!  Northboro will accept
her.

----------------- AS FOR THE LAW! ---------------------------------------

From what Jim/I can "gather", Weld is kind of miffed (along with many, many
parents!) about the school districts "turning away" children who ARE READY
for school (e.g. they pass the screening tests!) and HAVE A RIGHT TO GET A
PUBLIC EDUCATION! ... so he says (I think?):

	if a child has been refused schooling in THEIR town, but
	has been accepted in another town ... then the refusing town
	gets to pay all related expenses (not sure if this is only
	restricted to the tuition or if it does (or should!) include
	transportation expenses).

I know that a town is responsible for paying both tuition AND transportation
expenses for children attending "outside" vocational high schools (because
the town does not provide the service and thus gets to foot the bill for
the services).

----------------- WHAT I FIND INTERESTING! ---------------------------------

Is that the Shrewsbury School Committee changed a rule ... and the language
is very difficult for any layman to understand! ... but Jim/I seem to think
it says:

	since none of our (NON-Shrewsbury) teachers have requested the 
	"acceptance" of their children into the Shrewsbury School District 
	THIS YEAR, we will repeal this "benefit" (this year?).

My guess is that Shrewsbury can make it very difficult for the townspeople
to get their own kids into their own school system, YET the Shrewsbury teachers
(who don't live in Shrewsbury!) can enroll their kids (free of charge?) into
the Shrewsbury School District?

Doesn't sound terribly fair (or "profitable"!) to me?!!!!!!  In fact, sounds
mighty darn discriminatory!

Geeesshh!
Dottie

    There is a good (but lengthy) discussion of this in the Massachusetts
    notesfile.
    
    All that aside...the "school choice" law Gov. Weld signs is designed to
    "provide students with the opportunity to attend a public school in a
    community other than that of the student's residence if the school
    committee of the potential receiving district chooses to participate in
    the program.  The cost to the receiving district will be reimbursed by
    the Commonwealth from funds drawn from the sending districts Chapter 70
    allotment."  (excerpted from a memo from Harold Raynolds, Commissioner
    of Education).
    
    School districts have always been "permitted" to accept non-residents
    if they so chose.  Non-residents, however, paid tuition as they would
    to a private school.  As I see it, the major impact of this law is that
    non-residents can now have non-resident tuition paid from a public fund.
    
    A town school committee must vote to participate in the above choice plan. 
    To date, there are 17 (I believe) school systems participating.  
    
    There is also no provision for transportation in the choice plan. 
    Non-residents are left to their own devices as to how to get to and
    from school.
    
    LZP
     
    

>                       Non-residents, however, paid tuition as they would
>    to a private school.  As I see it, the major impact of this law is that
>    non-residents can now have non-resident tuition paid from a public fund.
    
	I don't particularly want to take this down a rat=hole but just 
	have to put in my two-cents     .......... FLAME ON......

	What really bugs me about this whole thing is that if it met
	the "rules" and I wanted to, I could send my child to another town's
	public school for no-extra-charge (after all, we all pay our fair
	share of taxes for the town school already)....but if I choose
	to send my child to a "private" school in the same or another town,
	I not only get to help subsidize the public schools with my taxes
	but ALSO get to pay tuition for the "private" school   !!!!!

	If Weld wants to allow people to send their children out-of-town,
	at with "non-resident tuition paid from a public fund", seems 
	only fair that he allow the same for those of use who chose other
	alternatives for educating our young !
    
	OK< I've said my piece  ....
	FLAME OFF !!

	thanks for letting me put in my two-cents !
Debbi J

    Further down the rathole...
    
    I agree with the private school tuition!  But there's another piece
    to this thing I haven't seen too much about - your town/city can
    actually end up loosing quite a bit of money.  
    
    If I understand it correctly, if your town spends $3500 per student, 
    and the town you choose to send you child to spends $7500 per student, 
    it's the $7500 that's taken out of your town coffers, not just the $3500 
    they've allocated per student!  Can anyone verify if this is correct?
    
    All in all I think the school choice plan *could* be a good idea, but
    needs more work.  There are quite a few towns that are rejecting the
    plan because of the finances and vague wording.
    
    Conni

    
    RE: .5
    
    The use of public funds for private schools has been found to be in 
    violation of the Massachusetts constitution. Therefore it would require
    a constitutional amendment. It is also unlikely that one could not
    include parochial schools under the "private" definition. This would
    require, at a minimum, a long drawn out federal court battle that
    likely would be a loser.