That's a rather lengthy lead-in to this story, wherein students are required to get $20 from their parents and then give the money to the school in order to shore up the school's operating budget. No, I'm not kidding.
Her daughter came home from school with instructions to “accomplish chores around the house with the goal of being paid by me for those chores the sum of $20,” Wellington wrote on her blog. “She would then have to hand the full $20 over to the school to make up for the shortfall in their overall budget.”Hard to believe.
Her daughter’s participation, according to the information the school sent home, was mandatory. So you’re supposed to shake mom down for $20 and give it all to the teachers - no questions asked?
You’ll be stunned to learn this happened at a school in New Jersey.
And isn’t it interesting that this school was sending its little Johnnies and Julies home to collect, not for a field trip or class pizza day, but for the actual operating budget of the school. As in teacher salaries and benefits. This puts even more pressure on the kids. After all, now it’s nice Mrs. Johnson’s paycheck at stake.
9 comments:
Actually, based on the way their Governor addressed his teachers recently, as recapped in your blog with your seeming approval, I find this absolutely NOT surprising. More wrong, but not surprising.
Which comments did Christie make that you think justify or even explain this behavior?
It may be a fairer assessment than paying property taxes. When you have some families living multiple families to a single family residence, they aren't paying their share and the folks who play by the rules are carrying the weight. Maybe it need to be a per bedroom assessment on all residences.
I don't disagree with his comments as much as I disliked his tone and attitude. Regardless of how you feel about unions, there is a process by which contracts are negotiated, and it doesn't involve the governor or press conferences. And, as professionals, teachers are underpaid. As bad an example as the teacher in the crowd gave, the Governor's curt, dismissive response, which I wager was based more on gut feeling than fact, showed a disdain for education funding. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that a school would be short, or that they might employ a tactic such as was described. Once again, I don't agree with it; I'm just not stunned.
The governor doesn't like what teachers unions have become, and somehow it doesn't surprise you that the unions would resort to something like this? That kind of logic, as well the actions of these teachers, do not bespeak the professionalism of teachers of which you spoke.
No, I'm not. The school isn't given enough money to operate, so it tries to get money however it can. Asking for money from your customers is by definition more professional than digging in to your own pocket, and it's probably more professional than failing to provide a top quality service. Doesn't make it right, and I'd be on the phone complaining -- but if that was their goal, good for them. It's an excellent way of making lack of funding concrete to parents -- and students. Putting on a happy face and doing without won't foster change. Also, nothing in this article indicated that this was a union policy, though, and I doubt seriously that it would be. And, if it is a school wide policy, its likely point of origin is the administration.
Ellen . . . I don't know how education is funded in your state, but in California, funding education via property taxes was ruled unconstitutional, and is now done through the general fund. The parcel taxes levied by some communities are a trivial percentage of the budget. Also, there is a de facto bump in the property tax for more bedrooms, since larger houses assess at a higher value . . .
Property taxes. The problem being that the "property poor" districts won a lawsuit to get money from "property rich" districts. The poor and rich designations come from commercial taxes and retail. Ironically, in Houston, some of the most expensive residential real estate is under deed restrictions that prevent anything more extensive than retail. So while the homes may be $300K or more in value, the district is considered poor. In the meantime, my district which is minority majority is considered "rich" even though most schools sport portables because they can't afford to build. It's a mess.
Aren't arcane tax laws fun? I have long supported a system where government is funded SOLELY by income taxes, made as progressive as the populous chooses to make them. This would eliminate problems like this, and probably make government less spend-crazy.
Post a Comment