Selling Books To Students

It appears the rules in New York are the same as in California--you can't compel students to buy class materials, even at a loss:

An award-winning Brooklyn English teacher’s decision to provide each of his students with a copy of the Mary Shelley classic “Frankenstein” has thrust him into a real-life horror story.

Todd Friedman, a 29-year public-school veteran who teaches at Midwood High School, was put on administrative duty — and faces possible termination — after the city Department of Education slapped him with disciplinary charges.

His crime: He personally ordered 102 paperback copies of the novel from a publisher last September for his Advanced Placement students.

Friedman, 61, paid for the books out of his own pocket — about $220 with shipping — then sold them to students for $2 apiece to recoup most of the expenses.

What if this is true?

He noted that students spent $6 for “Hamlet” at the school bookstore, triple what he asked to recoup his layout for “Frankenstein.”

“Nobody had an issue with that,” Friedman said. “This has been going on for decades.”

I don't think the guy should be fired, but I'm forced to wonder exactly why students should be paying for books at all at a public school.  If this book is part of the curriculum, why doesn't the school have it?  And if it's not part of the curriculum, why is he teaching it?

There are a lot of questions here, and any sunlight that shines on the problem will be good.

It's About Darned Time!

It's been illegal for years, but still, teachers and schools publish list of school supplies that students must bring.  I've been waiting for someone to file a lawsuit, and that day has come--and with it, even more clarification about illegal fees:

When thousands of seniors in the Elk Grove area receive their high school diplomas in the coming weeks, some will wear caps and gowns free of charge.

Parents have long shelled out money for caps and gowns, along with yearbooks and grad-night tickets, to help celebrate the end of high school. But for the first time, the state has called on school districts to provide graduation attire at no cost to students or their families if required during the diploma ceremony.
The guidance stems from a new California law, which took effect last year and strengthened a prohibition on charging fees for integral parts of public education.

In the last 12 months, activists and parents across California have filed scores of state appeals challenging districts that require families to pay for such items as Advanced Placement exams, classroom supplies, workbooks and uniforms. Supporters say the new law ensures that low-income students have access to the same essential campus activities as their peers.

Knowledgeable parents are testing the law’s boundaries. In the San Juan Unified School District, several people challenged schools for posting supply lists last summer, taking aim at the backpack and binder shopping trips that have long been a back-to-school hallmark. 

I can't understand the requirement for having the school district pay for AP exams unless they're requiring students to take them as part of being in an AP class.   In recent years I've won the argument at my school and our AP Calculus teachers have class sets of TI-Inspire calculators for students, they no longer require students to purchase calculators for the class.

In August 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union released its “Pay to Learn” report documenting dozens of cases in which California school districts violated the state constitution by requiring students to pay fees for tests, workbooks, science labs, physical education uniforms, lab fees, art supplies and more.

This is a situation wherein I completely support the ACLU and believe they are on the right side of the issue.

A fellow teacher told me today that he was surprised that I would take this position, that I wouldn't expect parents to be responsible for their own children and their supplies.  Here's my rationale:  in public education, I don't want a two-tiered system with one for the haves and one for the have-nots.  We have determined that universal public education is a public good and everyone is entitled to the same opportunities within the public education system.  If the rich want to pay more for their own kids, that's entirely fine--but they do it outside of public education, either through extracurricular community programs or through private school.  Within our public education system I cannot tolerate the idea that some students might not be able to take certain classes because they cannot afford the fees--such an idea is anathema to me.  This is why I've fought illegal fees for so long, and this is why I celebrate whenever I hear about another blow struck in favor of all our students.

Besides, the state constitution says that the state is to pay for education.  We in the schools need to follow the law.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/05/6377866/california-to-schools-students.html#storylink=cpy

Illegal Fees In California Schools

It's been a lonely battle, and I didn't know that progress was being made on this front, but a longtime reader who shares my passion about illegal fees just posted a comment on this post--a "dispatch from the front", as it were.  California law has been clarified and is no longer up for interpretation.

Ed Code Section 49010:

ARTICLE 5.5. Pupil Fees [49010. - 49013.]

  ( Article 5.5 added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 776, Sec. 1.)

  

49010.  

For purposes of this article, the following terms have the following meanings:

(a) “Educational activity” means an activity offered by a school, school district, charter school, or county office of education that constitutes an integral fundamental part of elementary and secondary education, including, but not limited to, curricular and extracurricular activities.

(b) “Pupil fee” means a fee, deposit, or other charge imposed on pupils, or a pupil’s parents or guardians, in violation of Section 49011 and Section 5 of Article IX of the California Constitution, which require educational activities to be provided free of charge to all pupils without regard to their families’ ability or willingness to pay fees or request special waivers, as provided for in Hartzell v. Connell (1984) 35 Cal.3d 899. A pupil fee includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(1) A fee charged to a pupil as a condition for registering for school or classes, or as a condition for participation in a class or an extracurricular activity, regardless of whether the class or activity is elective or compulsory, or is for credit.

(2) A security deposit, or other payment, that a pupil is required to make to obtain a lock, locker, book, class apparatus, musical instrument, uniform, or other materials or equipment.

(3) A purchase that a pupil is required to make to obtain materials, supplies, equipment, or uniforms associated with an educational activity.

(Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 776, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2013.)

 Ed Code Section 49011:

49011.  

(a) A pupil enrolled in a public school shall not be required to pay a pupil fee for participation in an educational activity.

(b) All of the following requirements apply to the prohibition identified in subdivision (a):

(1) All supplies, materials, and equipment needed to participate in educational activities shall be provided to pupils free of charge.

(2) A fee waiver policy shall not make a pupil fee permissible.

(3) School districts and schools shall not establish a two-tier educational system by requiring a minimal educational standard and also offering a second, higher educational standard that pupils may only obtain through payment of a fee or purchase of additional supplies that the school district or school does not provide.

(4) A school district or school shall not offer course credit or privileges related to educational activities in exchange for money or donations of goods or services from a pupil or a pupil’s parents or guardians, and a school district or school shall not remove course credit or privileges related to educational activities, or otherwise discriminate against a pupil, because the pupil or the pupil’s parents or guardians did not or will not provide money or donations of goods or services to the school district or school.

(c) This article shall not be interpreted to prohibit solicitation of voluntary donations of funds or property, voluntary participation in fundraising activities, or school districts, schools, and other entities from providing pupils prizes or other recognition for voluntarily participating in fundraising activities.

(d) This article applies to all public schools, including, but not limited to, charter schools and alternative schools.

(e) This article is declarative of existing law and shall not be interpreted to prohibit the imposition of a fee, deposit, or other charge otherwise allowed by law.

(Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 776, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2013.)

Ed Code Section 49012:

49012.  

(a) Commencing with the 2014–15 fiscal year, and every three years thereafter, the department shall develop and distribute guidance for county superintendents of schools, district superintendents, and charter school administrators regarding the imposition of pupil fees for participation in educational activities in public schools. The department shall post the guidance on the department’s Internet Web site.

(b) The guidance developed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not constitute a regulation subject to the requirements of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

(Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 776, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2013.)

Ed Code Section 49013:

49013.  

(a) A complaint of noncompliance with the requirements of this article may be filed with the principal of a school under the Uniform Complaint Procedures set forth in Chapter 5.1 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations.

(b) A complaint may be filed anonymously if the complaint provides evidence or information leading to evidence to support an allegation of noncompliance with the requirements of this article.

(c) A complainant not satisfied with the decision of a public school may appeal the decision to the department and shall receive a written appeal decision within 60 days of the department’s receipt of the appeal.

(d) If a public school finds merit in a complaint, or the department finds merit in an appeal, the public school shall provide a remedy to all affected pupils, parents, and guardians that, where applicable, includes reasonable efforts by the public school to ensure full reimbursement to all affected pupils, parents, and guardians, subject to procedures established through regulations adopted by the state board.

(e) Information regarding the requirements of this article shall be included in the annual notification distributed to pupils, parents and guardians, employees, and other interested parties pursuant to Section 4622 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations.

(f) Public schools shall establish local policies and procedures to implement the provisions of this section on or before March 1, 2013.

(Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 776, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2013.)

All of this is searchable on California Legislative Information web site, now located at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTextSearch.xhtml.

I'll make sure this information is disseminated at my school.

School Supplies

I've written many times about the illegal fees charged in so many of California's classrooms.  Our law is extremely clear, even though it's ignored to the point that my own school district, whilst having policies that comport with the law, also lists teacher "student supply lists" right on our district's web page!

It's a lonely battle to fight but I do in fact fight it.  I don't know what the law is in Michigan, but I'm glad someone there is picking up the fight:

School may be on break but school supplies are causing quite a controversy in Birmingham.

The parents of a 6th-grader at Derby Middle School have filed a lawsuit, possibly a class action suit, against Birmingham Public Schools claiming the district is violating state policy by asking families to pay for supplies used in a public school...

"This lawsuit doesn't have any merit," said attorney Timothy Mullins. "There is nothing inappropriate about asking parents to pay for certain school supplies."

I don't care which way the law goes; either parents can be asked to pay for certain things, or they can't. What I can't tolerate is having a law that is clear and explicit--and totally ignored.

Hat tip to reader Steve K for the link.

Why Do We Need A New Law To Restate The Old Law?

It's already state law that California's K-12 schools can't charge for courses, materials, participation in athletics/cheerleading, or just about anything else. I've written about this so many times that I even have a special label (illegal fees) on the topic. So what gives here?

California’s K-12 schools have been charging fees for certain classes, sports and clubs, a practice the state Assembly has voted to end.

Democratic Assemblyman Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens said Thursday it is unconstitutional to require students to pay for books, lab equipment and art supplies, among other fees.

His bill, AB165, passed 50-17 and goes to the Senate. It also prohibits schools from making such payments a prerequisite for joining teams or clubs.

Why do we need a new law, since this has *always* been the law? If people weren't following the old law, why do we think they'll all of a sudden obey the new law?

A Story That Makes Me Proud of California Law

I cannot imagine having to pay fees for school. Yes, my son's school tries to charge some fees, and I fight them every time--I even have an "illegal fees" category for blog posts!--but even his school doesn't go crazy like this one in Ohio does:

Karen Dombi was thrilled when her three oldest children were picked for student government this year—not because she envisioned careers in politics, but because it was one of the few programs at their public high school that didn’t charge kids to participate.

Either the government provides a free public education for all, or it doesn't. None of this "we'll provide a baseline, but you have to pay to run track or take Spanish" crap. All you socialists out there, you can't support this, can you? You can't support a two-tier education system, with one tier for the haves and one for the have-nots, can you? I'd like to think that this is an area on which we can find common ground.

Not Far Enough

I'd hoped (against hope) that the ACLU would see this through to the end, but it looks like they're going to settle, in every sense of the word:

The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the state in September in an effort to stop schools from charging illegal fees for uniforms, locks, gym clothes, athletic “spirit packs” and other dues, may settle the case this week.

Mark Rosenbaum of the Southern California Branch of the ACLU said he could not disclose details of the expected settlement, but said one option would involve the state Board of Education taking on an enforcement role.

There's so much more to this issue than PE costs. Lab fees in science, "material fees" in shop and art classes--these are just the tip of the iceberg. It costs over $2000/year to be a cheerleader at my school.

ACLU Sues Over Illegal Fees

It's a drum I've been beating for a very long time. Even this year, my own school tried to charge a "locker fee", but after I raised a stink and they looked into it, they acknowledged that the fee was illegal and offered to refund the money to any student who paid it.

California schools may soon take this issue a bit more seriously, as the ACLU is now suing:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the state of California on Friday for allowing school districts to charge students for books, uniforms, classes and other basic supplies.

The suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges that more than 30 districts require students and their families to pay for basic supplies that are supposed to be provided at no cost. Districts cited in the lawsuit include Beverly Hills, Burbank and Long Beach.

It will be interesting to see if the suit looks into the fees charged for school athletics and cheerleading :-)

I don't often agree with the ACLU but I'll give them props when they do something right--and this is definitely one of those times.

I Met With Our District Superintendent Today

As I wrote last week that I would, today I met with our district superintendent regarding illegal fees charged in our schools.

I'm notoriously bad at reading people, but she gave me every reason to believe that she took my concerns seriously and was sincere in her resolve to correct the issue. She told me that as an Associate Superintendent in another district she was involved in the same issue, and therefore was aware that the specifics I brought to her attention were real and needed correcting. What with summer vacation fast approaching this obviously isn't something about which she can gather information immediately, but committed to getting in touch with me in August to let me know her progress.

I came away from the meeting pleased, and am curious what her plan for overcoming decades of inertia will be.

Illegal Fees Charged In Schools

I have an appointment with my district superintendent next week, the purpose of which is to discuss the charging of illegal fees in our schools. Having tackled this issue for many years now I'm quite aware of what the legal requirements are, and I have no doubt that many of the fees we charge are unlawful.

Landing in my lap yesterday is a report from the San Diego County Grand Jury. Scroll down to Fact Set Seven, page 11/15, to get to the findings regarding certain fees charged in San Diego schools. The grand jury found that in every case the fees were illegal.

This report will certainly strengthen my claim that our district should probably stop this practice sooner rather than later.

Illegal Fees In Schools

Just to make sure that we don't forget one of my favorite windmills at which to tilt, the following came from a mailing from the California Department of Education:

School fees, tuition and charges largely prohibited by state law
by Staff
Parents have become accustomed to teachers sending home pleas for help in paying for routine classroom supplies that education budgets no longer seem to cover. But in today’s severe economic times, some districts may be taking the notion of outside support to an extreme – and perhaps in some cases coming dangerously close to breaking state law. Given the tendency for districts to look for support wherever they can, it is important for fiscal managers to remember the rules. An existing opinion from the state attorney general specifically prohibits schools from charging for such things as: A tuition fee or charge as a condition of enrollment into any class or course of instruction. This includes summer school, for which there is no specific authorization for tuition and thus is prohibited. Membership fees as a condition of qualification for student athletics or any other curricular or extracurricular activity sponsored by the school. Even a minimal admission fee to attend a fair, exhibit or similar activity that is otherwise part of a school’s educational program is not permitted. Districts are reminded that Article IX, Section 5 of the California Constitution provides for a free school system: “The Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district at least six months in every year.” Subsequent opinions from the state’s Attorney General have also consistently said that school districts do not have authority to levy fees for any elective or compulsory class. Further, districts may not require security deposits for locks, lockers, books, class apparatus, musical instruments, uniforms or other equipment. A 1984 state Supreme Court ruling found that schools may charge fees for “recreational” but not “educational” activities. The court also said that extracurricular programs – such as after school sports and band – are considered an integral component of public education. The court also held that a fee-waiver policy for needy students does not supersede the laws prohibiting these types of fees and charges. Education Code does authorize some fees under some conditions including: transportation to and from school; food services; lost books or defaced school property. Charges for transportation costs of field trips may be imposed, although codes also say that no pupil can be prevented from taking a field trip because of a lack of funds. Education Code also states that paper, pens, ink and “other necessary supplies for the use of the schools shall be furnished under the direction of the governing board of the school district.” The Attorney General has interpreted that section to also mean that districts must provide art material for art classes and mechanical drawing sets; cloth for dressmaking classes and wood for carpentry shop; gym suits and shoes for P.E.; bluebooks for exams; and paper for essay assignments. (This article is complete.)

Above The Law

I don't know what it is about some administrators. How do they they think they can get away with blatantly violating the law?

At my own school, for instance, teachers now charge illegal fees a little more surreptitiously than in the past, and our principal seems to make no effort to make it stop--he's certainly not put his foot down, by any stretch, and his boss has fought me every step of the way in my fight against these fees.

That, however, doesn't floor me as much as what I read in the March 2009 issue of the CTA mouthpiece rag. If only part of it is true, this story of administrator chutzpah is still horrifying:

The Education Code plainly states that teachers have the right to determine a student's final grade. And that right was upheld recently when a Superior Court Judge ruled that administrators violated the law by changing the final grades of 89 students attending Central Valley High School in Ceres last year.

The grade changes were made months after teachers had submitted the grades and without the teachers' consent...

Changing grades based on test scores was adopted by the district as an "incentive" for students to try harder on (standardized) tests. Grades were made higher--often increasing by as much as one letter--and never lowered...

Teachers learned that the new grading policy would be initiated when they were informed by their principal that he was sending a proposal to be approved by the superintendent. Teachers were then asked whether they wanted the policy to apply to one semester's grade or to both. They were sent a consent form asking whether they would prefer to have clerical staff make changes to grades or change grades themselves. There was no option on the form to decline.

English teacher Susan Engstrom and social studies teacher Mirilyn Wood refused to vote on whether the policy should be for one or two semesters--and also refused to sign the form--on the basis that the policy was illegal, based on Education Code section 49066...

The two CUTA members were ordered to meet with administrators and accused of insubordination and unprofessional conduct. Letters of reprimand were placed in their personnel files.

So they took the case to court and won. What California Educator doesn't tell us, though, is whether the ruling included an order by the judge to have the letters of reprimand removed, apologies given, etc. You'd think for a union magazine, those would be big parts of the story. Their absence is a beacon to me.

And what does Section 49066, one of my favorite sections of ed code, say?

49066. (a) When grades are given for any course of instruction taught in a school district, the grade given to each pupil shall be the grade determined by the teacher of the course and the determination of the pupil's grade by the teacher, in the absence of clerical or mechanical mistake, fraud, bad faith, or incompetency, shall be final.
(b) The governing board of the school district and the superintendent of such district shall not order a pupil's grade to be changed unless the teacher who determined such grade is, to the extent practicable, given an opportunity to state orally, in writing, or both, the reasons for which such grade was given and is, to the extent practicable, included in all discussions relating to the changing of such grade.
(c) No grade of a pupil participating in a physical education class, however, may be adversely affected due to the fact that the pupil does not wear standardized physical education apparel where the failure to wear such apparel arises from circumstances beyond the control of the pupil.

How any administrator could think, in light of the law quoted above, that he'd get away with what the Ceres principal tried to do, is far beyond me.

Illegal Fees--Not Just For California Anymore

Click on my illegal fees label to see the posts I've written about the illegal fees we charge in our schools. I don't make such claims lightly, either; I quote ed code, court cases, and the opinion of the state attorney general. I was the driving force behind my district's new policy, approved by the school board last year, clarifying which fees can be charged and which cannot. I'm not convinced we follow that policy all that much, but at least it's in black and white should I ever decide to push the issue.

Parents in Maryland are fighting a similar fight.

This past August, WTOP first brought to light the issue of a group of parents pushing Montgomery County Schools to dump the fees they charged for everything - from dictionaries and workbooks to towel and locker fees for gym class.

Now, after months of review, Montgomery County School Superintendent Dr. Jerry Weast has issued a 17-page memo outlining a policy shift.

Parents will still have to pay for some items, but the fees will be cut by 60 percent to 70 percent.

In California, just about any fee charged at a school is illegal--whether or not the class is required for graduation. That we allow schools and school boards to get away with such illegality is a travesty.

A "Super" Time Regarding Illegal Fees

3 1/2 years ago I first raised the issue of illegal fees with my principal. A year ago this past summer I elevated the issue to district level. Our new superintendent asked me to meet with my principal's boss and/or the district legal counsel, and if they couldn't resolve the issue to my satisfaction, that he'd meet with me.

Today I took him up on his offer.

My boss' boss and the district legal counsel both dismissed me, hoping I'd go away. The superintendent welcomed me today by saying that if nothing else, I win an award for persistence. I apologized for taking his time, telling him that his two underlings did him a disservice by refusing to address the issue with me, forcing him to take his time to do so.

It was a very pleasant half-hour. My limited experience with him, and from what I hear from others who have met with him, seem to jibe--he's a very well-meaning, good man. I sensed nothing but sincerity from him.

I certainly didn't point fingers at my principal or my school, as we both know this is a district-wide problem. I made sure to stress that I'm not on some crusade just to cause problems, that I address this problem from three different viewpoints:

1. As a teacher, who's a part of the system that's acting illegally. We enforce all sorts of rules on kids (no cell phones, no gum in class), so we should, as a minimum, abide by the law.
2. As a parent of a student who will be in junior high next year, and junior high is when such fees often start in earnest.
3. As a former high school student in a single-parent household, who couldn't have participated in a number of activities if we'd have had to pay for them.

I offered suggestions on how we might tackle the problem. I told him we don't even need to "eat the entire shark" at once--that we could address the most grievous offenses, fees in classes, first, and next year tackle fees for athletics and cheerleading. Our athletic directors should, however, start addressing the issue now.

I pointed out, though, that if we wait for a lawsuit, we'll lose, and then the fees will stop immediately by court order, throwing entire programs into chaos.

Yes, I compromised, meaning I wouldn't raise a stink if these fees went on for just a little longer as long as there's a plan for eliminating them as soon as possible with minimal chaos.

The next step is his. I'll keep you informed about what happens.

Schools and Drug Testing

I was once "thanked and dismissed" from jury consideration because I'm former military, had kicked people out of the army for drug use, and have a friend who's a cop. I'm not a fan of drug use at all, and no, I don't accept the libertarian "it's my body" argument. I do, however, think that marijuana should be legalized, and no, I don't smoke it.

So you know where I stand on drugs.

In Tennessee, student athletes can be tested for drug use--I'll ignore, for the moment, why only athletes are tested and not others who represent the school--but recently the state attorney general opined that testing random athletes violates state law. Specifically, he said, state law requires that there be a reasonable suspicion of drug use before students can be tested.

The opinion doesn't bar schools from drug testing, but it could leave them open to court challenges, said Rich Haglund, legal counsel for the state board of education.

So what are some schools doing? They're testing their students anyway.

You can hear the leftie cries of "it's to protect the children!" all the way out here on the Left Coast. Apparently, "protecting the children" is far more important than a) following the law, and b) the constitutional rights of those children.

Yes, I know that children have fewer rights than do adults, and even support the reasoning behind that fact. However, I don't see that reasoning as supporting random drug testing. Even children should be presumed innocent of crimes before there's adequate reason to believe they're not, and the fishing expedition that is random drug testing assumes just the opposite.

Random drug testing is right up there with the Transportation Security Administration (the federal idiots at the airport)--window dressing so some politician somewhere can say he or she is "doing something" about a problem, but that actually accomplishes next to nothing.

What should we do about kids' taking drugs? I don't have a complete answer to that yet. But I know the solution does not include having random students, or even random athletes, pee in a bottle.

And schools that continue to do this now that they've been told that the top law enforcement officer in the state thinks it's illegal? They deserve to get hit with the lawsuits that will come--just like my school district deserves to get hit with the lawsuits that will eventually come from the charging of illegal fees.

I can forgive breaking a law inadvertently. I can't forgive a government entity knowingly and willfully violating the law.

Bribing To Get Into The Good Schools

What's the difference between paying for services (SAT prep classes, essay-writing coaches, and personal interviews) and just paying the school a bribe directly in order to get in? The latter seems to be the way things work in Russia these days, and Vladimir Putin, anti-corruption crusader that he is, is going to put a stop to it. He's going to institute a national standardized test, a Russian SAT, to replace the more subjective and "bribe-able" local admissions tests.

Breaking News on School Fees

Today's major Sacramento newspaper reports:

A Sacramento Superior Court judge has backed the Folsom High School music boosters' practice of asking parents for donations to support extracurricular activities.

The ruling by Judge William M. Gallagher centers on the issue of whether the boosters were requesting or requiring students to pay to participate in the school's various bands. (emphasis mine--Darren)

Gallagher's one-page judgment, issued late last week, contains no explanation for his decision overturning a small-claims court award to Donna Kinsella, a Folsom parent who has argued that students shouldn't have to pay dues to take part in the high school's band programs...

Vroom (President of the Music Boosters) said no student has been denied participation because of an ability to pay and that in some cases scholarships have been provided.

Kinsella said Wednesday that she couldn't afford to appeal Gallagher's decision.

It's unfortunate that Ms. Kinsella cannot afford to appeal this decision, as the case law is entirely on her side. The precedents are clear--whether or not a student can afford to pay, required fees are illegal. Even so-called scholarships are expressly prohibited.

This case has no bearing on my issue in my own school district, though, where we're charging students for classes taken during the school day (as well as for sports uniforms).

Update On My Fight Against Illegal Fees At School

For three years now I've talked to my principal about the illegal fees we charge for classes and activities at my school. While he understands the issue, these fees predate his tenure by many years and currently are not causing any difficulty among the parents, so he focuses his attention on more immediate concerns. Essentially, he doesn't want to spend the enormous "political capital" that would be required for change on this battle that doesn't seem to be important enough.

In late July I learned some amazing news--that the budget for our school's student government is about $120,000 (wow!), about $80,000 of which goes to support our athletic programs. Knowing that Hartzell v. Connell states that athletics and cheerleading are considered part of the school curriculum, and knowing that student body monies aren't supposed to be spend on curricular items that the school would otherwise pay for, I contacted our school district's legal officer to question if this practice was legal. I also mentioned (illegal) fees we charge for classes at school.

She forwarded my email to several people; honestly, I believe this was an attempt to intimidate me. It worked for all of about 5 seconds, when I remembered the old British saying: in for a penny, in for a pound. The Rubicon is crossed, the die is cast, the battle is engaged.

Two of the people she forwarded my message to were my principal and his boss. My boss' boss tried to explain how we have Board Policies that allow what we're doing, that there's nothing wrong--nothing to see here, please move along.

I've researched this topic for several years now. I've discussed the topic with people who initiated and won lawsuits against school districts for such fees. I've received very clear information from the state Department of Education on the topic. I know of which I speak. And there is something to see here, and I will not move along. I don't know for sure whether the student government spending is legal or not, but I do know that the fees we charge for classes and activities are not. That is now the battle.

It was requested that I send specific information about illegal fees we charge. I said I'd rather discuss these face-to-face, and offered to meet in person.

Silence. For almost a month. Not only did I feel ignored, I felt dismissed. And I'm not one to be dismissed easily.

Last week I emailed our superintendent. He's been on the job a year and I haven't heard a negative thing about him yet. The one time he spoke to our staff he seemed to impress everyone--he certainly impressed me. I thought I'd give it a chance. Last Sunday I received an email from the superintendent. The tone was very calm and reasonable. He said he'd forward my email along to the legal counsel and my boss' boss, and that he himself would meet with me if I couldn't resolve the issue.

A couple days later (this past week) I received from the legal counsel an email I can only describe as "snippy". Again, she stated that she can do nothing because I haven't given her any specifics. I told her that I don't want to address this as a problem solely at my school, dealing only with the fees that I know about--this is a systemic issue, district-wide, and we should discuss the macro issue in person. During the course of that conversation, of course, the micro issues would arise. I'm waiting to hear back from her.

My principal is obviously not pleased with me. No one likes it when the boat is rocked. In my email communications I've bent over backwards to point out that this isn't an issue he's created--these fees have been in place for years, all across the district. I'm doing everything I can to keep this problem from being directed only at our school. That's apparently not enough. You know when you're in someone's dog house, and I'm smelling the Alpo right now.

But what can I do? My training at West Point taught me to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong. Everything I know about leadership says that we adults must set the example for the students, and not ask the students to do anything we're not willing to do ourselves. We expect them to follow our rules, but don't follow the law ourselves. We expect them to rat their friends out (grafitti, vandalism, etc.) but we stand by while the law is broken. We expect them to respect us, yet act in ways that don't merit respect. This is something I have to do if I'm to be able to look myself in the mirror each day.

I'll endeavor to limit the damage. I'll treat this as an opportunity to improve our district, not trash it. I'm acting within the system--I haven't gone to the press, or to the school board, or to any anti-public school organizations, or to any legal foundations that specialize in fights like this one (and yes, I know who they are). I hope we can all resolve this without having to get down in the mud.

I'll keep you posted.

Yet Another Post On Illegal Fees

I've written before about the illegal fees charged at my school. Today I saw our Student Government budget for the coming year--and 75% of it is devoted to funding athletics and cheerleading. There are two things wrong with this:

1. By ed code, student body monies are not supposed to be spent on curriculum items.
2. California's courts have ruled that athletics and cheerleading are part of the school curriculum.

I've had enough of pussy-footing around with this issue. I emailed our district's legal counsel.

Non-profit Foundation Created To Augment School District Money

Here in California, local property taxes do not pay for schools--since poor areas could only support poor schools, the state Supreme Court ruled that such a funding mechanism was inherently unjust and hence unconstitutional. Now the state, using some byzantine rules and formulas, doles out money to school districts.

However, I doubt there's any school district in the state that thinks it gets enough funding. Some schools and districts get around this issue by simply flouting the law and charging illegal fees. In the first of those two links I proposed several legal ways for districts to get around the illegal fee issue; one that didn't occur to me was creating a charitable foundation.

Spurred by the field trips, art lessons and well-equipped classrooms they remember from their own school days, parents and community leaders are launching a nonprofit foundation to raise money for the cash-strapped San Juan Unified School District.

The charitable organization will make its debut the first day of school, sending students home with fliers asking parents to lend their support.

It's questionable whether the San Juan District is truly "cash-strapped"; there are plenty of arguments that can be made that show the district spends its money in not the wisest of fashions. Undisputed, though, is that the number of field trips and other "exotic extras" is down from years past.

So here we have parents' being asked to donate money to a foundation, the purpose of which is to provide students with more than just the basic, state-sponsored education. Is that a good idea or bad?

Some experts say foundations are a partial return to the days when districts' reliance on local property tax led to funding imbalances eventually ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.

"These organizations create inequities because they're organized around schools and school districts," said Bill Koski, a professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in education policy. "To what extent is it appropriate for them to have tax-deductible status when they do create such inequities?"

I'm not sure about law, but I can answer that last question with some common sense. There will always be inequities between rich and poor--one of the great benefits of being rich (I just assume here, never having been rich) is being able to provide so much for your children. The state provides money for an adequate education for all students; there's nothing immoral or unfair about well-off people helping to ensure that their children receive more than an adequate education. Not receiving a benefit is not the same as being shortchanged; in other words, children in poorer areas are not being shortchanged because children in more well-off areas get more. In fact, it's quite socialist to insist that richer parents shouldn't provide more for their children because doing so isn't fair, somehow, to those who aren't so rich.

And let's remember here, the richer parents already are paying taxes to support their schools. The money they'd be giving to this foundation is above and beyond their taxes, it's a donation. The state isn't creating any so-called funding discrepancy, as it did when local property taxes determined school district budgets. Is there really a reason, other than class envy, not to support foundations of this type?

There is one, and only one reason, but it's not the reason our Stanford Law professor quoted above gives. That reason is that field trips, lab equipment, etc. are not "exotic extras" but are, in fact, valuable and integral components of the curriculum and should be budgeted by the schools, districts, and state. Fix that underlying issue, and the need for these foundations evaporates. Short of that, though, seeking voluntary donations (as opposed to charging illegal fees or just doing without) is the best approach. Here's an applicable quote from the article:

"I would rather that no foundation needed to exist at all," Wake said. "I would much rather there would be enough funding … but our kids are in school now. We can't sit down and wait for there to be enough."

But let's get back to socialism, as this concept of what's fair just won't go away.

On the other hand, it's not clear how much inequity really results from the work of foundations. Researchers at San Diego State University found only about 7 percent of California's elementary and unified districts with foundations raised more than $100 per student in 2001. And the vast majority of foundations didn't use the money in a way that promoted inequity by affecting resources such as class size and technology, they found.

In districts where income levels vary widely -- such as San Juan Unified -- foundations may help distribute donations more equally across wealthier and poorer areas, advocates point out.

Apparently, one way to sell this idea is to point out how fair it is to low-income kids within this particular district--whose schools already get Title I money. I know, I taught at a Title I school. I never had to ask more than once to spend any amount of money I wanted to. No, I didn't waste your tax dollars; at heart I'm a very frugal person. But my point remains that schools in poor areas have access to money that schools in better off areas do not.

Here's another interesting point from the article:

Eventually, Wake said the foundation will play a role in driving programs across the district, perhaps finding businesses to sponsor a theater program for all third-graders or paying for all fifth-graders to learn to type.

Apparently great minds think alike. Notice what I said in a previous post regarding ways to fund what I call "margin of excellence" programs:

Solicit corporate sponsorships. The FujiFilm Photo Lab, the Michael's (arts and crafts store) Art Gallery.

So what is the bottom line? Should we fault parents for banding together to solicit donations in order to improve education across their school district? Or should we support them for not accepting the status quo and for putting forth extra effort to ensure that students across the district receive more than an adequate education?

I think you know where I come down on this issue. Feel free to share your thoughts by leaving a comment.