What happened to that “free” public education?

By Linda

My favorite TV commercials at this time of year are the ones for Staples, advertising school supplies. Right now there is one featuring an “old school” junior high gym coach who reads of list of supplies ending with a “jump drive.” The gentleman looks a little puzzled when he reads that last item and says he doesn’t know what the jump drive is for, but assures us “they’ll be jumping.”

The advent of shopping lists for back to school is a fairly recent occurrence — well at least from my quickly aging perspective. When I was growing up we didn’t shop for school supplies; we shopped for clothes. The schools supplied pencils and paper. Once we got to high school we were expected to have a binder full of paper and bring our own pencils. And once we got to geometry we needed a compass. Now days parents are presented with ever growing lists of supplies at the beginning of the school year and are told their children need to bring those supplies with them during the first week of school.

My next door neighbors have three children: two in elementary school and one in high school. She and her husband, like many people, have been hit hard by this economy. They struggle to meet their rent and other routine bills. Among the items on the lists they were given for their 2nd and 3rd graders this year are such things as Zip-Loc Bags (1 box small, 1 box large), Expo white board markers, washable colored markers, colored pencils, Sharpies, “Flair” felt tip pens, Post-Its, baby wipes, boxes of regular pencils, boxes of “non-clickable” pens, pencil pouches (no pencil boxes allowed), spiral notebooks, erasers, pencil sharpener, accordion folders, paper clips, glue sticks, liquid glue, white out, paper, scissors, stapler, and boxes of tissues.

As a substitute teacher I am sympathetic to the plight of the school districts and teachers, but I have to say I was pretty blown away by the extensive lists, which do not contain any sort of statement acknowledging that some are not in a financial position to supply all of these items on the first day of school. I told my neighbor not to stress out about buying all of the requested items, but just to send her kids with the basic necessities such as pencils and paper. The California constitution guarantees students a free education. Nowhere does it require that parents provide zip-loc bags.

Over the years it seems that our constitutionally guaranteed ”free public education” has been eroded by way of government cutbacks, increased costs and higher socio-economic expectations. Parents until now have generally played nicely, dutifully buying up carts full of school supplies, writing checks for school gym clothes and uniforms, ponying up for PTSA dues, generously funding private foundations to support the schools, and forking over thousands of dollars so that their children can participate in team sports and school related activities.

And many parents remain supportive, especially in upscale communities such as La Cañada-Flintridge where the school’s foundation is hoping to raise $2.2 million in support of the local school district this year . San Marino and Manhattan Beach both raise twice that amount each year, primarily by asking parents to contribute $1,000 or $2,000 per year. In these areas, where the average home value exceeds $1 million, and unemployment is low, people just dig deeper and give more.

But here in Santa Clarita, as well as in other places, there are stirrings of discontent amongst parents who are feeling the pressures of meeting their obligations, making their smaller paychecks stretch further, and still wanting all the goodies that money can provide for themselves and their children.

Last week a lawsuit was brought against the Hart District which alleges that fees are being charged for team sports and school-related activities, and that students are excluded from those activities when their parents are unable to pay. Of course the Hart District superintendent denies this charge, saying, “No students are denied the opportunity for the lack of funding.” (Signal)

Yeah, right. I have to disagree with Mr. Challinor here. I attended meetings for parents when my daughter expressed an interest in trying out for the cheer and dance teams at Hart. At the cheer meeting they passed out a schedule of fees and the due dates for those fees. The total amounted to $3,500. Not reflected in that total was the requirement that each student had to be enrolled in outside gymnastic lessons. And not one word was said about financial assistance. “Sorry, my dear,” I told my daughter. We can’t afford it.”

Maybe we should have called a lawyer instead.

Santa Claritans aren’t alone. Last September a lawsuit was filed against the state of California by the ACLU which alleges that more than 30 school districts in the state charge students fees for books and supplies that should be provided at no cost. (LA Times)

And in January of this year, a new bill was introduced (AB165) which would very specifically make it illegal for schools to impose fees for educational activities.

Of course there isn’t really a “free” anything. Somebody pays for education, and that somebody is the taxpayer. Whether we pay in the form of school fees, developer fees, or property tax or income tax, education must be paid for. The question to resolve is, how can we make it as equitable and as painless as possible?

Comments (49)

NTTAugust 13, 2011 at 2:52 pm

It gets worse. Players pay to be on a sports team and then sit on the bench all year. One nice little scam is your son makes JV, pays the fee, then a few weeks in the coach wants him to move up to varsity. You didn’t think the JV fee covered varsity did you?

Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 7:48 pm

It breaks my heart to hear that middle class, working class and poor kids are denied the opportunity to participate in extra-curricular school activities, like sports or cheerleading, because of money demanded by the Hart District and the coaches of the “teams”. Back in 1984 the California Supreme Court decided Hartzell v. Connell 35 Cal.3d 899, 201 Cal.Rptr. 601, 679 P.2d 35 which has not been overturned, qualified or superseded by any statute. The CIF and other school sports sanctioning bodies do not have the power to ignore or modify the decision. In short, in Hartzell v. Connell the California Supreme Court said that school districts cannot charge fees for extra-curricular activities. So I have to ask whether the Hart District has been weaseling around the Hartzell decision, hoping no parent will notice. To give one an idea of the circumstances described in the Supreme Court opinion, here is their breadth of extra-curricular activities examined in the case: “The Santa Barbara High School District (District) offers a wide variety of extracurricular activities, ranging from cheerleading to madrigal singing, and from archery to football. Many of these activities are of relatively recent origin. For example, in 1956, Santa Barbara High School fielded six athletic teams while today there are thirty-eight. Prior to the 1980-1981 school year, any student could participate in these activities free of charge. The programs were financed by a combination of District contributions (mostly state aid and local tax revenues), ticket sales, and fundraising activities conducted by the constituent high schools. In the spring of 1980, the District school board (Board) decided to cut its budget by $ 1.1 million. This decision reflected a drop in revenues due to the combined effects of inflation, declining enrollment, and the adoption of Proposition 13. 1 Among the items to be reduced was the District’s contribution to the high school extracurricular programs. The Board considered two plans for adapting the programs to fit its reduced budget. The first plan called for a major cut in interscholastic athletic competition, including the reduction of the high school program from over 30 teams to only 8 and the elimination of interscholastic competition at the ninth grade level. Under this plan, the surviving programs were to remain open to all students free of charge. The second plan provided for a less extensive cut in athletic competition — elimination of the ninth grade program only. To make up the difference, it proposed to raise money by charging students fees for participation in dramatic productions, musical performances, and athletic competition. The Board chose the second option. Under the plan finally adopted, students are required to pay $ 25 for each athletic team in which they wish to participate, and $ 25 per category for any or all activities in each of the following four categories: (1) dramatic productions (e.g., plays, dance performances, and musicals); (2) vocal music groups (e.g., choir and madrigal groups); (3) instrumental groups (e.g., orchestra, marching band, and related groups such as the drill team and flag twirlers); and (4) cheerleading groups. Thus, a student who desires to play football in the fall and tennis in the spring, in addition to participating in a dramatic production, must pay $ 75. A more musically inclined student, who plays an instrument, sings in a group, and performs in a musical, also pays $ 75…Each of the affected activities is supervised by school personnel, nearly all of whom are teachers. The teachers are compensated by one of two methods: extra pay (in the form of a “stipend”) or “release time.” The stipends are paid partly from general school revenues (derived mostly from taxes) and partly from fees. Under the “release time” policy, teachers are “released” from one hour of regular teaching duties for each hour spent supervising extracurricular activities. The activities are sponsored by the schools and their respective student bodies. School personnel handle preparations, including arrangements for facilities and ticket sales. In an attempt to ensure that the fees would not prevent any students from participating, the District has implemented a fee-waiver program. Upon a showing of financial need, a student may obtain a “scholarship” to participate without paying the fee. The standard of need is similar to that of the free lunch program. The fee-waiver policy has been supplemented with an outreach program. Teachers and coaches are asked to inform their principals of any students who, though expected to participate in an activity, do not do so. These students are then interviewed by the principal to determine whether the fee prevented them from participating. The District’s three high schools granted a total of seventy-seven waivers. Four students were denied waivers, but were permitted to delay payment. There was no evidence that any student was prevented from participating because of the fees. Shortly before the start of the 1980-1981 school year, Barbara Hartzell, a taxpayer with two children in the public schools, and the Coalition Opposing Student Fees, a grouping of community organizations, 5 filed this taxpayers’ action against the District, various school officials, and the members of the Board. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that defendants’ fee program violates the “free school” and equal protection guarantees of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., arts. IX, § 5, IV, § 16, I, § 7) The fee-waiver policy has been supplemented with an outreach program. Teachers and coaches are asked to inform their principals of any students who, though expected to participate in an activity, do not do so. These students are then interviewed by the principal to determine whether the fee prevented them from participating. The District’s three high schools granted a total of seventy-seven waivers. Four students were denied waivers, but were permitted to delay payment. There was no evidence that any student was prevented from participating because of the fees. Shortly before the start of the 1980-1981 school year, Barbara Hartzell, a taxpayer with two children in the public schools, and the Coalition Opposing Student Fees, a grouping of community organizations, 5 filed this taxpayers’ action against the District, various school officials, and the members of the Board. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that defendants’ fee program violates the “free school” and equal protection guarantees of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., arts. IX, § 5, IV, § 16, I, § 7)… The California Constitution requires the Legislature to “provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district . . . .” (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 5, italics added.) This provision entitles “the youth of the State . . . to be educated at the public expense.” ( Ward v. Flood (1874) 48 Cal. 36, 51.)…Plaintiffs assert that the imposition of fees for educational extracurricular activities violates the free school guarantee. They are correct. ” Two California Courts of Appeal subsequently relied on the Hartzell case, in striking down fees charged by school districts for driver education courses. In doing so, those Courts of Appeal made some equally interesting observations and comments about the clarity of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hartzell: California Assn. for Safety Education v. Brown, 30 Cal. App. 4th 1264 (1994 6th Dist.) “On appeal, they argue (1) fees charged by a high school district for driver training violate the free school guarantee of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 5); (2) the refusal to use DTPAF funds to pay for driver training constitutes an illegal expenditure of funds; (3) the state breached its contractual obligation to reimburse school districts for driver training expenses; (4) the DTPAF co

LindaAugust 15, 2011 at 8:31 pm

Perhaps I’m naive, but my first guess is that there is no plot on the part of Hart District personnel to evade the law; more likely it is a combination of ignorance and lack of proper supervision and communication on the part of district administrators. The sad thing is that lawsuits will undoubtedly lead to further cuts in programs and services by diverting funds to lawyers. (Thanks a lot, Jaime Castellanos. So glad you got out while the getting was good. Hope you and your wife are taking advantage of that health insurance. Robert Challinor: Maybe you ought to consider attending a few parent orientation meetings for school related activities this year to get a handle on reality.)

Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 9:30 pm

The class action lawsuit, and the tentative settlement agreed to by the Attorney General’s Office, Morrison & Foerster and ACLU as plaintiffs counsel, goes well beyond sports and into other fees which school districts are charging, e.g. mandatory purchases of uniforms or gym suits with school logos, extra books, work books, etc. Obviously school districts around the state want the settlement to be a “real” class action settlement so that it cuts off the rights of individual students and parents to sue for actual damages and reimbursement of monies paid. The thorny issue is what happens to the separate claims/lawsuits like the claims of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit described in The Signal article. MoFo and the ACLU want the deal terms the Attorney General’s Office agreed to, which are detailed in the second link I posted below. Heaven only knows what the geniuses in the Legislature want, other than a raise and less work.

LindaAugust 15, 2011 at 9:46 pm

I doubt many parents will be interested in suing for the occasional materials fee for art and science classes or gym uniform. But some might be interested in recouping the thousands of dollars they spent on football, color guard, cheer, dance, and show choir….

Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 8:42 pm

News update: The ACLU already filed a class action lawsuit against the State under the Hartzell case, relating to the issues of just the sort of fees the parents on this website are complaining about. The case is Doe v. California, LA Superior Court Case No. BC 445151. In early 2011, there was a tentative settlement upholding Hartzell, with the State making further concessions to make sure that the State’s school districts were not charging illegal fees for class room materials, supplies, uniforms or extra-curricular activities. However, the finalization of the settlement is stalled at least temporarily, and the litigation is continuing, at least for now. There is a case review on 8/19/11 4:00 pm in Department 322 of the LA Superior Court at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005. of the two links below, the first describes the filing of the case by ACLU with the assistance of Morrison & Foerster, one of California’s most pre-eminent and expensive law firms. The second link is a warning to school districts about the consequences of the potential settlement, written by a lawyer who regularly represents school districts. See: https://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/103041 http://www.martindale.com/education-law/article_Kronick-Moskovitz-Tiedemann-Girard-A_1220816.htm The settlement was to have already been in effect for this school year, so if these illegal fees are still being charged this year it will be important for parents to “save those receipts” and be ready to make written claims to the Hart District demanding reimbursement and then to sue the Hart District for a refund, in small claims court. I suspect that school districts around California are scared to death about the potential dollar volume of their liability for years and years of violating Article 9, Section 5 of the California Constitution and the dictates of the Supreme Court from the Hartzell case.

LindaAugust 15, 2011 at 8:57 pm

Thank you, CS. The ACLU lawsuit is no doubt the same one I referenced above, and it does appear as though it will have widespread consequences for team sports in the Hart District. I didn’t know about the tentative settlement. Maybe someone should let the Signal know….they pour a lot of effort into covering those sports in this town.

Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm

While the deal terms of the settlement are interesting, the game isn’t over until the ink is drying on the documents. While I was running internet searches looking for the Case Number of the class action, I ran across reference to a case filed for a poor kid from the San Gabriel Valley, who was kept off a sports team because he couldn’t afford to pay the fees. His school district ended up paying $300,000 to settle the claim for violation of the kid’s civil rights. Under most scenarios that would be $180,000 for the kid and $120,000 for his lawyer. If I were the lawyer for the Hart District, I would be telling the Hart Board to drop the fees now, before more plaintiffs file claims and lawsuits against them. Then again, my favorite judge, now retired, who sat in Dept. 86 of LA Superior Court and dealt with lawsuits against public agencies, once said that the only remedy taxpayers have for stupid decision making by elected officials is to vote them out. I think the incumbents who will be up for election next time may end up very sorry they didn’t drop the fees this year because it’s not just poor kids who can sue. Every parent who has pays the fees this year can sue. Every parent who says “Honey I can’t afford the fees even though we’re not poor” also can sue, if they can convince the kid can convince the court that’s what Mom or Dad said.

Lori RivasAugust 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm

Harper’s ran a great article in 2005: Class participation: how local fund-raising promotes school inequality. The content made a lasting impression on me (obviously, since I am still referencing the article). You can access the article on the Harper’s website if you have a subscription, or pay for one of those article-gathering sites, like HighBeam, to read it. Asking parents to pay for school supplies is much more insidious that it seems.

Lori RivasAugust 13, 2011 at 4:42 pm

Basically, the article argues that local non-profits to benefit schools (like, parent-led boosters clubs for particular schools or districts), essentially overturns Brown v. Board of Education, because it is the wealthier communities that can pay for the so-called “extras,” while poorer communities cannot. The author argues that, in California, this is a fall-out of Prop 13.

LindaAugust 13, 2011 at 4:58 pm

I agree to a point. On the other side of the spectrum, you have Title I schools like McGrath, which benefit from extra federal dollars because enough of the students fall below the poverty line. At McGrath teachers don’t prepare long lists of required supplies. Often they find a corporate sponsor (like Staples) to provide free back packs stocked with everything the kids will need. The schools in the middle of the spectrum have a tougher time of it I think.

Lori RivasAugust 13, 2011 at 6:32 pm

I would have a really difficult time buying that so-called middle class schools have a rougher time of it than those who qualify for Title 1. Students in Title 1 schools come from communities that are impoverished in so many ways, that Staples-sponsored backpacks is almost like a Band-Aid. Plus, I think middle class is near an oxymoron in Santa Clarita. What is the median family income here, almost $100,000? Sure, housing is higher here, but I think a $100,000 annual income is at least upper middle class, by most any standard. The real litmus test, if one argues that Title 1 schools have it better than middle class community schools, is, would you give up your kids spaces, and send your kids to the Title 1 schools? And, would you trade your house, and living standards, and income, for one of those within the Title 1 school boundaries?

LindaAugust 13, 2011 at 7:44 pm

Believe it or not, plenty of middle class people live within the boundaries of McGrath, Newhall and Wiley Canyon schools (all of them Title 1 schools) and they not only survive, but thrive. Many of them live in houses I could not afford to buy. What is more, some of those students are the children of certificated staff. The Newhall District is extremely fortunate to have very dedicated teachers and administrators who are committed to doing all they can to see their students succeed. But let me make it clear: I am not arguing that poor people have it easier than middle class people. I’m just saying that those schools which have strong fund raising foundations and/or extra funding in the form of Title 1 funds have an edge.

Lori RivasAugust 13, 2011 at 8:23 pm

Got it. I understand your point about financing schools, and that the two extremes have revenue not available to those in the middle. And I understand that neighborhoods feeding into some local, Title 1 schools also include richy fancy pants households. Would you rather that, say, richy fancy pants families pay more support into, say, Wiley, rather than draw from Title 1? That seems to be the argument against Prop 13 – if we paid property taxes based on home value, not just purchase price, then the state would generate an increasing amount of school funding, to be distributed equally among all state public schools. I’m not informed enough, either way, on Prop 13. I found the arguments placed forward in the Harper’s article compelling, though.

LindaAugust 14, 2011 at 8:23 am

I’m not in favor of people being taxed out of their homes, which was the impetus for the passage of Prop. 13 many years ago. And I don’t know how you would exclude “fancy pants” families from benefitting from Title 1 funds since the funds are spent in any number of ways that benefit the whole school. I do think we need better funding mechanisms for schools though. And better oversight for how districts handle that money. LA Unified is notorious for wasting money.

Phil EllisAugust 14, 2011 at 9:32 am

Anybody that blames problems with school funding on prop 13 knows not what he is talking about. Please read the Serrano cases.

Occassional PosterAugust 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm

Unfortunately, Serrano and Prop 13 are often conflated, but the relationship is not as linear as many believe. The first Serrano ruling came 7 years prior to Prop 13 and while those who pressed for Prop 13 sighted Serrano, there was balance in education funding before Prop 13, Serrano took care of that. What Prop 13 did was effectively freeze educational funding. The majority of the funding for schools is derived from local tax revenues. Those revenues can’t rise above the Prop 13-controlled level of tax increases, currently capped at 2 percent per year (most years it never hits 2 percent). However, that’s less than inflation. School district fall behind. BTW, there is caveat in Serrano that allows schools that collect local taxes in an amount more than the per capita funding the district would get under the revenue limit structure to forgo funding equalization from the state and become a basic aid district. These are the Beverly Hills and Athertons of the world. So the rich continue to get more obscenely richer.

Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 10:07 pm

And the Hartzell v. Connell case in the California Supreme Court specifically recites facts saying that one of the reasons the Santa Barbara school district adopted extra-curricular activity fees was because they lost revenue due to Proposition 13. Whether that was true is lost in the sands of time, but realistically both the shift of school funding to the state and Proposition 13, 218 and 62′s limitations on public agencies ability to enact new taxes/fees/assessments without voter approval, as well as the sour economy, all have contributed to the schools funding shortfalls.

Lori RivasAugust 13, 2011 at 4:45 pm

I think that I can send a PDF of the article to anyone interested.

DubiousAugust 13, 2011 at 5:53 pm

A problem which no one seems to want to address is that there are many school districts which have to look at the costs of replacing textbooks, lockers, restroom facilities, etc. which are continually being trashed and defaced by students.

Capt. GeneAugust 13, 2011 at 8:27 pm

Start here: http://www.payscale.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

Mr PerezAugust 14, 2011 at 12:48 am

Interesting link Gene but being from Illinois, and from a family of teachers, I can tell you that NO ONE in my family is making 58K a year as a teacher. They are making under 40K and that’s after having worked in the field for over 10 years. Couple that with how much they spend out of pocket to ensure students have the items they need to be taught the state mandated curriculum, that salary dwindles away. My wife also comes from a family of teachers here in California and their salaries are WELL, WELL below that 70K salary. So where is the money going to? Union heads? Administrators? Food contracts? Where?

Mr PerezAugust 14, 2011 at 12:50 am

I will say that the additional school item list is much smaller for my kids here in Cali than it was back in Chicagoland. And the curriculum was much more challenging there as well. Really makes you think.

lesliejoyAugust 13, 2011 at 9:26 pm

When my daughter was a Freshman at West Ranch, I found it odd that a couple of classes that were required for graduation had a class fee. I just didn’t think it was right at the time. I did send in the fee for the science class and was going to send in the fee for the art class later. The art teacher actually had the nerve to call me at home for the money, TWICE! First time was a message on the machine and the second time I talked with her myself, (I guess I didn’t write the check fast enough). Anyway, it kind of felt like shakedown to me.

Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 10:14 pm

I’m sure the plaintiff’s lawyer in the lawsuit against the Hart District would LOVE to talk to you. One might be able to excuse the teacher for not knowing the fee was illegal, but his/her Principal, the Superintendant and the Hart District Board member should have known better, and should have made sure the teaching/coaching staff was properly instructed….unless the Hart District Board received bad legal advice from its regular lawyers. Naaa, Newport-Beach-Barbie-Went-to-Law-School is too smart to give bad advice to her clients in private, even if she’s all bluster in person.

Coastal SageAugust 13, 2011 at 10:54 pm

Interesting column. Sounds like I wrote it. Today I got stuck paying for the “supplies” list for my grandson’s kindergarten class. An infuriating $45 worth of stuff Californians’ taxes are supposed to pay for. The trick is that each school district is mandated to have books and supplies budget, by the State, but the districts use the books and supplies budgets for other things, and then stick it to the parents or grandparents. All of the above occurs in the context of Article 9 of the California Constitution, and two of that Article’s sections written long ago: SEC. 5. 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, after the first year in which a school has been established. SEC. 7.5. The State Board of Education shall adopt textbooks for use in grades one through eight throughout the State, to be furnished without cost as provided by statute. The sections, above, have not been updated by the voters, however there is a substantial body of appellate court opinions saying that California’s children are entitled to a “free public education” and that no fees can be charged for extra-curricular activities. It’s common, but sad, when illiterate school Superintendents and School Board members “defy the law” which includes case law decided by California courts. A new round of litigation will, hopefully, spur some clarifying education on this supplies and fees issue. However the more practical problem is what to do about the supply lists sent home by presumptuous school teachers, working in school districts where Principals and Administrators are so well paid they drive Mercedes. While I was tempted to write my grandson’s Principal a note to tell her to F off, instead I am packing up the supplies and sending them to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson, with a note (cc’d to the Principal and the Teacher) saying that last time I heard there were to be “No new taxes”. I will write off my donation to the state, and if the State Superintendent of Public Instruction wants to send the supplies to my grandson’s teacher at state expense, in terms of postage, he can do so.

LindaAugust 14, 2011 at 8:09 am

That’s an interesting way to handle it, Coastal Sage! Let us know if you get a response. I do think that part of the problem is the higher expectations and “materialism” (sorry, can’t think of a better word) of our culture. Once upon a time we had pencils and crayons. Now, we must have pencils, crayons, colored pencils, colored markers, colored pens, and whiteboard markers. Once upon a time we had glue. Now we must have glue sticks, which are very handy, but relatively expensive, quickly used up, and wasteful because the containers are not refillable. Once upon a time, baby wipes, zip-loc bags, white out, and post-it notes didn’t exist. Now our classrooms can’t function without them? Doubtful. The same goes for sports and activities such as cheer. When I was in high school, the cheerleaders learned some fun cheer routines taught to them by a volunteer staff member and they went to the games to cheer for our teams. Now cheerleading is a “sport” unto itself and the schools compete by hiring professional choreographers and coaches and sending competitors to nationwide competitions. It is all unnecessary and expensive and it results in the exclusion of many students from participating in what could be a fun and healthy activity. In these tough economic times, I think we all should make better distinctions between what we want and what we “need.”

Serendipity631August 14, 2011 at 1:15 pm

Thank you, Linda, for this common sense post. Rather than buying individual white boards for the students, and then asking parents to buy special markers to use on them, we could have them use paper,pencils and crayons – what do you think? Also it’s amazing how teachers can get their point across to students without glue sticks, post-its, baby wipes and Zip-Loc bags. Seriously, I know how the kids would love to have all that fun stuff in their desk everyday, and how much of the list stuff makes teachers’ jobs easier, but we have all had to make changes in our lives and cut back on the unnecessary “stuff.” Parents, you actually have a right to say NO, they don’t really need that stuff at school – they will be provided with paper, pens, crayons, pencils, erasers, scissors, rulers and more. Teachers will be provided with paper, paperclips, staplers, staples, xerox machines, pencils, pens, laminating machines, 3 hole punches, papercutters, diecuts, construction paper and more, and it will be a great and successful year. If my child shows up to school without the EXPO fine line white board markers in every color, will it affect their grade?

Timothy Myers SRAugust 15, 2011 at 7:36 am

Linda: There has been an arms race and an entire industry built around youth sports and extracurricular activities over the last three decades, and I have been a willing participant in it. Our sons played tennis from the age of six which required membership in a tennis club (Paseo) and private coaches. They both ended up being starters on the dominant (locally) Valencia High Tennis team but it required a continuing investment of about $200-$300 per month from the age of seven on. Our daughter was also involved in dance at a similar cost. When people spend this kind of money from youth on, they expect feedback in the form of competitions and results, so the high school dance team and cheer squad become highly competitive with the attendant costs that primarily go to hire choreographers and actually pay the coaches who used to be volunteers. Thus, at the Hart Cheer orientation meeting the parents who had been funding this from kindergarten were not at all sticker shocked by the cost. I am particularly heart broken by the Valencia high summer tennis camp they run in the evenings for about four weeks. About 100 to 120 hopefuls show up to compete for about 10 slots on the JV team (the varsity and half the JV slots are realistically already committed to incumbents). Those ten were pretty much predetermined 9 years ago when they took their first rally class at the Paseo Club. About two weeks before term the coaching staff will present a list of students “qualified” for the Advanced Tennis PE class, and that is pretty much the roster for the team.

LindaAugust 15, 2011 at 9:05 am

Tim, I wouldn’t label it an “arms race” but more of a “class war.” And clearly some parents have a problem with the costs involved, or there wouldn’t be lawsuits. It really doesn’t matter if they knew going in it would be costly — when people lose their jobs and can no longer afford the payments, their children are told they can’t play. And suddenly the lifestyle they’ve spent years cultivating for themselves and their children isn’t possible any more. (Say, didn’t you just write a column on Sunday about this very phenomenon?) It’s nice that parents like you have an extra $1000 a month to fund such activities for your children, but I wonder if you would be quite so smug and bragatory if your children’s budding sports careers had come to an involuntary and abrupt end due to financial hardship. Personally, I have never been a big fan of competitive team sports in school (even college), and I’m even less a fan now that we are in such financial straits with our schools. I think that parents who want their kids involved in such sports should have to fund club competitions and leave the schools out of it, period. To the extent that school facilities and staff are used for such activities, the parents of the students involved should pay to cover the costs, plus a little extra. And leave the school’s name out of it, unless you pay to use it. (Hey it’s called “capitalism!”) I am a believer in sports for physical fitness and health. To that end, money for physical education in schools should be focused on the welfare of the entire student body, and not on the ego gratification of the “upper class.”

Timothy Myers SRAugust 15, 2011 at 9:16 am

Linda: “Extra $1,000?” I think it is more about priorities. Our family has only ever driven Toyotas, not Lexuses or BMW’s. We have owned our home since 1996 and did not spin up to a “higher” neighborhood in the early 2000′s like many. Also, FYI, our family took at 30% hit to income in 2003 (since thankfully, restored) when our three youngest children were in the throes of all their activities, but we re-prioritized and pushed ahead. It can be done!

LindaAugust 15, 2011 at 10:48 am

Well I suppose every income bracket has their own notions of what constitutes a sacrifice. Clearly, yours are different than mine. And perhaps our priorities are different as well. I drive a 10 year-old (paid for) Toyota, and never had the option of “trading up” for a bigger house. I stayed home with my daughter for many years, leaving a lucrative job to do so. My priorities are making the mortgage payment and paying our basic bills (including medical expenses); then comes the money for things like sports activities. There is no $1,000 there. Shocking, but true. So thank goodness I don’t have three kids who expect tennis lessons at the Paseo Club. If I did, they would be out of luck.

Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 12:55 pm

Wow. Is this really the norm for public schools today? Talk about unfair advantages for the wealthy in public school. I don’t even come near spending $1000/month in education expenses, for all *4* of my kids. Who has extra money like that? Similar to Linda, we drive used vehicles (Toyotas, early 90′s). We’ve been in the same home since ’93 (2 bedroom, about 1100 sq ft). A big family vacation for us is a camping trip. Our biggest monthly expense is groceries, because I am quite picky about what I feed my family.

Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 6:59 pm

Our cars are early 2000′s. Don’t know how I lost that decade.

Phil EllisAugust 14, 2011 at 9:39 am

While there may be no “new taxes” the legislature keeps decreasing the amount paid per student. If the schools still received what they received just a few years ago, there would be a big difference. Schools still have the same (if not higher) costs, yet the state keeps reducing school funds.

Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 10:22 pm

Perhaps if the Hart District had not pushed bond measures to fund grandiose high school facilities beyond what the State considers to be basic buildings, and instead had asked voters to approve parcel taxes to increase school operational funding like some other districts do, there would have been more money to pay for student services and activities, and less money to pay the F.O.S. on land purchase, consulting, renovation and new construction deals.

spineflower2August 16, 2011 at 11:19 am

Two bonds measures and we still have no Castaic HS. No extravagent spending there! But perhaps spending elsewhere has drained their capital funds as you describe.

Your Web GuruAugust 14, 2011 at 8:52 am

You’d think with modern technology being what it is, that educational institutions would see the benefit in “Kindling” their textbooks, which would save printing, shipping and vandalism costs. Just sayin’…

LindaAugust 14, 2011 at 9:13 am

I’m sure that day is coming. The sticking point will be providing e-readers to all students. Of course they will be lost, damaged or “forgotten” at home just like the textbooks are. But it will certainly save money despite that, not to mention the backs of the school librarians and other staff who must schlep those books around and inventory them every year…..

Saugus DadAugust 14, 2011 at 10:25 am

I remember back when I went to school. I got a big fat pencil at the start of the year and paper when I needed it. No Charge!

Your Web GuruAugust 14, 2011 at 4:08 pm

No kidding. The extent of my school supply preparation included: Bic Pen: 19 cents Peechee Folder: 15 cents Notebook paper: I can’t recall, but I’m sure it was less than a buck. By high school I figured out that if I left the pen and paper at home, I could hit up the pretty girls for them on the first day of class. It worked about half the time!

Timothy Myers SRAugust 15, 2011 at 7:22 am

SD: Didn’t you ride a dinosaur to school?

rnddudeAugust 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm

As I walk mu dogs past the local elementary school, and see all of the SUV’s queing up to pick up their kids in the afternoon, I recall my own (admittidly ancient) school experiences. I walked to school from elementary thru the middle of high school, no matter the weather. Participation in school sports and band required no money, only an interest to do it. Corporal punishment (more than a passing familiarity with the swat plank) was still in vogue, there were dress and hair length codes (thankfully overturned). Is it better of worse now? I don’t really know, but it certainly is different. It was a shocker when my son wanted to play Hart football and had to pay a not insignificant amount of $$$ to do so, as well as do fundrasing for the team.

IHeartSCVAugust 15, 2011 at 2:39 pm

Linda, regarding your school supplies opinion, I agree. I think the school shopping lists are more often the fantasies of teachers than necessities (e.g., the students will be organized this year if only they have enough highlighters and index cards and binders to implement my special filing system). Yes, I’m blaming the teachers, or maybe some cabal of office supplies retailers and administrators. Bring a paper and pens, clickable or otherwise. And I’m inclined to rank my-kids-can’t-afford-cheerleading-or-tennis-fees rather low on the list of global injustices. Like you said, someone ultimately has to pay for it, and I see things staying the same (kids pay to play) or sports leaving the schools entirely to be equally unfair to everyone.

Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 5:30 pm

The fundamentals of a public school education are always in flux: one season, the arts get higher standing, another season, test scores are the big expenditure. You may think the arts are not fundmamental, I happen to disagree, while Tim may argue that sports were the activity around which all other academics pivoted. The point being, we’ll never agree on what constitutes a good, high school education. However, as a society, we have committed to providing equal educational access to all, to level the playing field, so all our young people come out of high school on equal footing. That’s the theory, anyway. So, if schools are charging for sports, or clubs, or whatever, then that automatically draws a line between the haves and the have nots, and therein lies the problem. The child that graduates from public high school with a million parent-funded, school activities has a distinct advantage over the student whose parents could not afford those high school activities. I realize there are a million ways that a wealthier student can still come out ahead, at least on paper, through private leagues and experiences, but shouldn’t public school be a place where, whatecer is offered, is equally available to all students, regardless of income? Isn’t that the whole point of public education? And isn’t that, in large part, what Brown v. Board of Education sought to correct — equal access to all?

Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm

I am inclined to say yes. How would you construct an argument otherwise? I would add, also, that resourcefulness is a fabulous skill to develop, and I bet that, with the chess example, kids could come up with an affordable and/or creative way to obtain/make chess boards and pieces.

Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 8:19 pm

So, I guess it is a matter of kind of public school system you would support. I would prefer a system that serves all, rather than a system that discriminates based on income. That’s where I would draw the line – access to all over diversity of activities.

Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm

Yeah, I guess I would be okay with reducing the breadth and depth of activities, though only for the purposes of this discussion. I just don’t know enough to assert my opinion as correct. Seems like, if necessary, cutting services in order to serve everyone is consistent with my understanding of equal access to all. To clarify, I do fully support a system that discriminates based on cost and logistics, ie, there can only be 10 cheerleaders, so not every girl in school will get pompoms, but that distinction should not be made on ability to pay. I find education reform fascinating. No doubt, my vision for public school varies greatly from the existing system – one reason why I homeschool. I don’t propose to have answers, only ideals, but I fully enjoy the discussion.

spineflower2August 16, 2011 at 11:23 am

Prop 13 is again the boogyman. But is it still significant in fact? I would like to see some data showing how many years people are staying in their homes. Upon sale, assessed values reset, negating any “Prop 13 effect.” Only those who are staying in their homes for a long time are affecting tax revenues to any significant extent. The average has historically been about 5 years or less. In fact, this was one of the criticisms of Prop 13 at the time it was passed, and in fact why then-Gov Brown opposed it. Commercial properties sell far les soften than residential, so the main effect of Prop 13, after the initial rollback, was to shift the property tax burden from businesses to homeowners. The difference has been dramatic. Makes me say “phooey” to those who say California taxes businesses too much. We are subsidizing them through policies such as those embedded in Prop 13.

NTTAugust 13, 2011 at 2:52 pm
It gets worse. Players pay to be on a sports team and then sit on the bench all year. One nice little scam is your son makes JV, pays the fee, then a few weeks in the coach wants him to move up to varsity. You didn’t think the JV fee covered varsity did you?
Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 7:48 pm
It breaks my heart to hear that middle class, working class and poor kids are denied the opportunity to participate in extra-curricular school activities, like sports or cheerleading, because of money demanded by the Hart District and the coaches of the “teams”. Back in 1984 the California Supreme Court decided Hartzell v. Connell 35 Cal.3d 899, 201 Cal.Rptr. 601, 679 P.2d 35 which has not been overturned, qualified or superseded by any statute. The CIF and other school sports sanctioning bodies do not have the power to ignore or modify the decision. In short, in Hartzell v. Connell the California Supreme Court said that school districts cannot charge fees for extra-curricular activities. So I have to ask whether the Hart District has been weaseling around the Hartzell decision, hoping no parent will notice. To give one an idea of the circumstances described in the Supreme Court opinion, here is their breadth of extra-curricular activities examined in the case: “The Santa Barbara High School District (District) offers a wide variety of extracurricular activities, ranging from cheerleading to madrigal singing, and from archery to football. Many of these activities are of relatively recent origin. For example, in 1956, Santa Barbara High School fielded six athletic teams while today there are thirty-eight. Prior to the 1980-1981 school year, any student could participate in these activities free of charge. The programs were financed by a combination of District contributions (mostly state aid and local tax revenues), ticket sales, and fundraising activities conducted by the constituent high schools. In the spring of 1980, the District school board (Board) decided to cut its budget by $ 1.1 million. This decision reflected a drop in revenues due to the combined effects of inflation, declining enrollment, and the adoption of Proposition 13. 1 Among the items to be reduced was the District’s contribution to the high school extracurricular programs. The Board considered two plans for adapting the programs to fit its reduced budget. The first plan called for a major cut in interscholastic athletic competition, including the reduction of the high school program from over 30 teams to only 8 and the elimination of interscholastic competition at the ninth grade level. Under this plan, the surviving programs were to remain open to all students free of charge. The second plan provided for a less extensive cut in athletic competition — elimination of the ninth grade program only. To make up the difference, it proposed to raise money by charging students fees for participation in dramatic productions, musical performances, and athletic competition. The Board chose the second option. Under the plan finally adopted, students are required to pay $ 25 for each athletic team in which they wish to participate, and $ 25 per category for any or all activities in each of the following four categories: (1) dramatic productions (e.g., plays, dance performances, and musicals); (2) vocal music groups (e.g., choir and madrigal groups); (3) instrumental groups (e.g., orchestra, marching band, and related groups such as the drill team and flag twirlers); and (4) cheerleading groups. Thus, a student who desires to play football in the fall and tennis in the spring, in addition to participating in a dramatic production, must pay $ 75. A more musically inclined student, who plays an instrument, sings in a group, and performs in a musical, also pays $ 75…Each of the affected activities is supervised by school personnel, nearly all of whom are teachers. The teachers are compensated by one of two methods: extra pay (in the form of a “stipend”) or “release time.” The stipends are paid partly from general school revenues (derived mostly from taxes) and partly from fees. Under the “release time” policy, teachers are “released” from one hour of regular teaching duties for each hour spent supervising extracurricular activities. The activities are sponsored by the schools and their respective student bodies. School personnel handle preparations, including arrangements for facilities and ticket sales. In an attempt to ensure that the fees would not prevent any students from participating, the District has implemented a fee-waiver program. Upon a showing of financial need, a student may obtain a “scholarship” to participate without paying the fee. The standard of need is similar to that of the free lunch program. The fee-waiver policy has been supplemented with an outreach program. Teachers and coaches are asked to inform their principals of any students who, though expected to participate in an activity, do not do so. These students are then interviewed by the principal to determine whether the fee prevented them from participating. The District’s three high schools granted a total of seventy-seven waivers. Four students were denied waivers, but were permitted to delay payment. There was no evidence that any student was prevented from participating because of the fees. Shortly before the start of the 1980-1981 school year, Barbara Hartzell, a taxpayer with two children in the public schools, and the Coalition Opposing Student Fees, a grouping of community organizations, 5 filed this taxpayers’ action against the District, various school officials, and the members of the Board. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that defendants’ fee program violates the “free school” and equal protection guarantees of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., arts. IX, § 5, IV, § 16, I, § 7) The fee-waiver policy has been supplemented with an outreach program. Teachers and coaches are asked to inform their principals of any students who, though expected to participate in an activity, do not do so. These students are then interviewed by the principal to determine whether the fee prevented them from participating. The District’s three high schools granted a total of seventy-seven waivers. Four students were denied waivers, but were permitted to delay payment. There was no evidence that any student was prevented from participating because of the fees. Shortly before the start of the 1980-1981 school year, Barbara Hartzell, a taxpayer with two children in the public schools, and the Coalition Opposing Student Fees, a grouping of community organizations, 5 filed this taxpayers’ action against the District, various school officials, and the members of the Board. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that defendants’ fee program violates the “free school” and equal protection guarantees of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., arts. IX, § 5, IV, § 16, I, § 7)… The California Constitution requires the Legislature to “provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district . . . .” (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 5, italics added.) This provision entitles “the youth of the State . . . to be educated at the public expense.” ( Ward v. Flood (1874) 48 Cal. 36, 51.)…Plaintiffs assert that the imposition of fees for educational extracurricular activities violates the free school guarantee. They are correct. ” Two California Courts of Appeal subsequently relied on the Hartzell case, in striking down fees charged by school districts for driver education courses. In doing so, those Courts of Appeal made some equally interesting observations and comments about the clarity of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hartzell: California Assn. for Safety Education v. Brown, 30 Cal. App. 4th 1264 (1994 6th Dist.) “On appeal, they argue (1) fees charged by a high school district for driver training violate the free school guarantee of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 5); (2) the refusal to use DTPAF funds to pay for driver training constitutes an illegal expenditure of funds; (3) the state breached its contractual obligation to reimburse school districts for driver training expenses; (4) the DTPAF co
LindaAugust 15, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Perhaps I’m naive, but my first guess is that there is no plot on the part of Hart District personnel to evade the law; more likely it is a combination of ignorance and lack of proper supervision and communication on the part of district administrators. The sad thing is that lawsuits will undoubtedly lead to further cuts in programs and services by diverting funds to lawyers. (Thanks a lot, Jaime Castellanos. So glad you got out while the getting was good. Hope you and your wife are taking advantage of that health insurance. Robert Challinor: Maybe you ought to consider attending a few parent orientation meetings for school related activities this year to get a handle on reality.)
Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 9:30 pm
The class action lawsuit, and the tentative settlement agreed to by the Attorney General’s Office, Morrison & Foerster and ACLU as plaintiffs counsel, goes well beyond sports and into other fees which school districts are charging, e.g. mandatory purchases of uniforms or gym suits with school logos, extra books, work books, etc. Obviously school districts around the state want the settlement to be a “real” class action settlement so that it cuts off the rights of individual students and parents to sue for actual damages and reimbursement of monies paid. The thorny issue is what happens to the separate claims/lawsuits like the claims of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit described in The Signal article. MoFo and the ACLU want the deal terms the Attorney General’s Office agreed to, which are detailed in the second link I posted below. Heaven only knows what the geniuses in the Legislature want, other than a raise and less work.
LindaAugust 15, 2011 at 9:46 pm
I doubt many parents will be interested in suing for the occasional materials fee for art and science classes or gym uniform. But some might be interested in recouping the thousands of dollars they spent on football, color guard, cheer, dance, and show choir….
Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 8:42 pm
News update: The ACLU already filed a class action lawsuit against the State under the Hartzell case, relating to the issues of just the sort of fees the parents on this website are complaining about. The case is Doe v. California, LA Superior Court Case No. BC 445151. In early 2011, there was a tentative settlement upholding Hartzell, with the State making further concessions to make sure that the State’s school districts were not charging illegal fees for class room materials, supplies, uniforms or extra-curricular activities. However, the finalization of the settlement is stalled at least temporarily, and the litigation is continuing, at least for now. There is a case review on 8/19/11 4:00 pm in Department 322 of the LA Superior Court at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005. of the two links below, the first describes the filing of the case by ACLU with the assistance of Morrison & Foerster, one of California’s most pre-eminent and expensive law firms. The second link is a warning to school districts about the consequences of the potential settlement, written by a lawyer who regularly represents school districts. See: https://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/103041 http://www.martindale.com/education-law/article_Kronick-Moskovitz-Tiedemann-Girard-A_1220816.htm The settlement was to have already been in effect for this school year, so if these illegal fees are still being charged this year it will be important for parents to “save those receipts” and be ready to make written claims to the Hart District demanding reimbursement and then to sue the Hart District for a refund, in small claims court. I suspect that school districts around California are scared to death about the potential dollar volume of their liability for years and years of violating Article 9, Section 5 of the California Constitution and the dictates of the Supreme Court from the Hartzell case.
LindaAugust 15, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Thank you, CS. The ACLU lawsuit is no doubt the same one I referenced above, and it does appear as though it will have widespread consequences for team sports in the Hart District. I didn’t know about the tentative settlement. Maybe someone should let the Signal know….they pour a lot of effort into covering those sports in this town.
Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm
While the deal terms of the settlement are interesting, the game isn’t over until the ink is drying on the documents. While I was running internet searches looking for the Case Number of the class action, I ran across reference to a case filed for a poor kid from the San Gabriel Valley, who was kept off a sports team because he couldn’t afford to pay the fees. His school district ended up paying $300,000 to settle the claim for violation of the kid’s civil rights. Under most scenarios that would be $180,000 for the kid and $120,000 for his lawyer. If I were the lawyer for the Hart District, I would be telling the Hart Board to drop the fees now, before more plaintiffs file claims and lawsuits against them. Then again, my favorite judge, now retired, who sat in Dept. 86 of LA Superior Court and dealt with lawsuits against public agencies, once said that the only remedy taxpayers have for stupid decision making by elected officials is to vote them out. I think the incumbents who will be up for election next time may end up very sorry they didn’t drop the fees this year because it’s not just poor kids who can sue. Every parent who has pays the fees this year can sue. Every parent who says “Honey I can’t afford the fees even though we’re not poor” also can sue, if they can convince the kid can convince the court that’s what Mom or Dad said.
Lori RivasAugust 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Harper’s ran a great article in 2005: Class participation: how local fund-raising promotes school inequality. The content made a lasting impression on me (obviously, since I am still referencing the article). You can access the article on the Harper’s website if you have a subscription, or pay for one of those article-gathering sites, like HighBeam, to read it. Asking parents to pay for school supplies is much more insidious that it seems.
Lori RivasAugust 13, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Basically, the article argues that local non-profits to benefit schools (like, parent-led boosters clubs for particular schools or districts), essentially overturns Brown v. Board of Education, because it is the wealthier communities that can pay for the so-called “extras,” while poorer communities cannot. The author argues that, in California, this is a fall-out of Prop 13.
LindaAugust 13, 2011 at 4:58 pm
I agree to a point. On the other side of the spectrum, you have Title I schools like McGrath, which benefit from extra federal dollars because enough of the students fall below the poverty line. At McGrath teachers don’t prepare long lists of required supplies. Often they find a corporate sponsor (like Staples) to provide free back packs stocked with everything the kids will need. The schools in the middle of the spectrum have a tougher time of it I think.
Lori RivasAugust 13, 2011 at 6:32 pm
I would have a really difficult time buying that so-called middle class schools have a rougher time of it than those who qualify for Title 1. Students in Title 1 schools come from communities that are impoverished in so many ways, that Staples-sponsored backpacks is almost like a Band-Aid. Plus, I think middle class is near an oxymoron in Santa Clarita. What is the median family income here, almost $100,000? Sure, housing is higher here, but I think a $100,000 annual income is at least upper middle class, by most any standard. The real litmus test, if one argues that Title 1 schools have it better than middle class community schools, is, would you give up your kids spaces, and send your kids to the Title 1 schools? And, would you trade your house, and living standards, and income, for one of those within the Title 1 school boundaries?
LindaAugust 13, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Believe it or not, plenty of middle class people live within the boundaries of McGrath, Newhall and Wiley Canyon schools (all of them Title 1 schools) and they not only survive, but thrive. Many of them live in houses I could not afford to buy. What is more, some of those students are the children of certificated staff. The Newhall District is extremely fortunate to have very dedicated teachers and administrators who are committed to doing all they can to see their students succeed. But let me make it clear: I am not arguing that poor people have it easier than middle class people. I’m just saying that those schools which have strong fund raising foundations and/or extra funding in the form of Title 1 funds have an edge.
Lori RivasAugust 13, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Got it. I understand your point about financing schools, and that the two extremes have revenue not available to those in the middle. And I understand that neighborhoods feeding into some local, Title 1 schools also include richy fancy pants households. Would you rather that, say, richy fancy pants families pay more support into, say, Wiley, rather than draw from Title 1? That seems to be the argument against Prop 13 – if we paid property taxes based on home value, not just purchase price, then the state would generate an increasing amount of school funding, to be distributed equally among all state public schools. I’m not informed enough, either way, on Prop 13. I found the arguments placed forward in the Harper’s article compelling, though.
LindaAugust 14, 2011 at 8:23 am
I’m not in favor of people being taxed out of their homes, which was the impetus for the passage of Prop. 13 many years ago. And I don’t know how you would exclude “fancy pants” families from benefitting from Title 1 funds since the funds are spent in any number of ways that benefit the whole school. I do think we need better funding mechanisms for schools though. And better oversight for how districts handle that money. LA Unified is notorious for wasting money.
Phil EllisAugust 14, 2011 at 9:32 am
Anybody that blames problems with school funding on prop 13 knows not what he is talking about. Please read the Serrano cases.
Occassional PosterAugust 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Unfortunately, Serrano and Prop 13 are often conflated, but the relationship is not as linear as many believe. The first Serrano ruling came 7 years prior to Prop 13 and while those who pressed for Prop 13 sighted Serrano, there was balance in education funding before Prop 13, Serrano took care of that. What Prop 13 did was effectively freeze educational funding. The majority of the funding for schools is derived from local tax revenues. Those revenues can’t rise above the Prop 13-controlled level of tax increases, currently capped at 2 percent per year (most years it never hits 2 percent). However, that’s less than inflation. School district fall behind. BTW, there is caveat in Serrano that allows schools that collect local taxes in an amount more than the per capita funding the district would get under the revenue limit structure to forgo funding equalization from the state and become a basic aid district. These are the Beverly Hills and Athertons of the world. So the rich continue to get more obscenely richer.
Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 10:07 pm
And the Hartzell v. Connell case in the California Supreme Court specifically recites facts saying that one of the reasons the Santa Barbara school district adopted extra-curricular activity fees was because they lost revenue due to Proposition 13. Whether that was true is lost in the sands of time, but realistically both the shift of school funding to the state and Proposition 13, 218 and 62′s limitations on public agencies ability to enact new taxes/fees/assessments without voter approval, as well as the sour economy, all have contributed to the schools funding shortfalls.
Lori RivasAugust 13, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I think that I can send a PDF of the article to anyone interested.
DubiousAugust 13, 2011 at 5:53 pm
A problem which no one seems to want to address is that there are many school districts which have to look at the costs of replacing textbooks, lockers, restroom facilities, etc. which are continually being trashed and defaced by students.
Capt. GeneAugust 13, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Start here: http://www.payscale.com/teacher-salaries-by-state
Mr PerezAugust 14, 2011 at 12:48 am
Interesting link Gene but being from Illinois, and from a family of teachers, I can tell you that NO ONE in my family is making 58K a year as a teacher. They are making under 40K and that’s after having worked in the field for over 10 years. Couple that with how much they spend out of pocket to ensure students have the items they need to be taught the state mandated curriculum, that salary dwindles away. My wife also comes from a family of teachers here in California and their salaries are WELL, WELL below that 70K salary. So where is the money going to? Union heads? Administrators? Food contracts? Where?
Mr PerezAugust 14, 2011 at 12:50 am
I will say that the additional school item list is much smaller for my kids here in Cali than it was back in Chicagoland. And the curriculum was much more challenging there as well. Really makes you think.
lesliejoyAugust 13, 2011 at 9:26 pm
When my daughter was a Freshman at West Ranch, I found it odd that a couple of classes that were required for graduation had a class fee. I just didn’t think it was right at the time. I did send in the fee for the science class and was going to send in the fee for the art class later. The art teacher actually had the nerve to call me at home for the money, TWICE! First time was a message on the machine and the second time I talked with her myself, (I guess I didn’t write the check fast enough). Anyway, it kind of felt like shakedown to me.
Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 10:14 pm
I’m sure the plaintiff’s lawyer in the lawsuit against the Hart District would LOVE to talk to you. One might be able to excuse the teacher for not knowing the fee was illegal, but his/her Principal, the Superintendant and the Hart District Board member should have known better, and should have made sure the teaching/coaching staff was properly instructed….unless the Hart District Board received bad legal advice from its regular lawyers. Naaa, Newport-Beach-Barbie-Went-to-Law-School is too smart to give bad advice to her clients in private, even if she’s all bluster in person.
Coastal SageAugust 13, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Interesting column. Sounds like I wrote it. Today I got stuck paying for the “supplies” list for my grandson’s kindergarten class. An infuriating $45 worth of stuff Californians’ taxes are supposed to pay for. The trick is that each school district is mandated to have books and supplies budget, by the State, but the districts use the books and supplies budgets for other things, and then stick it to the parents or grandparents. All of the above occurs in the context of Article 9 of the California Constitution, and two of that Article’s sections written long ago: SEC. 5. 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, after the first year in which a school has been established. SEC. 7.5. The State Board of Education shall adopt textbooks for use in grades one through eight throughout the State, to be furnished without cost as provided by statute. The sections, above, have not been updated by the voters, however there is a substantial body of appellate court opinions saying that California’s children are entitled to a “free public education” and that no fees can be charged for extra-curricular activities. It’s common, but sad, when illiterate school Superintendents and School Board members “defy the law” which includes case law decided by California courts. A new round of litigation will, hopefully, spur some clarifying education on this supplies and fees issue. However the more practical problem is what to do about the supply lists sent home by presumptuous school teachers, working in school districts where Principals and Administrators are so well paid they drive Mercedes. While I was tempted to write my grandson’s Principal a note to tell her to F off, instead I am packing up the supplies and sending them to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson, with a note (cc’d to the Principal and the Teacher) saying that last time I heard there were to be “No new taxes”. I will write off my donation to the state, and if the State Superintendent of Public Instruction wants to send the supplies to my grandson’s teacher at state expense, in terms of postage, he can do so.
LindaAugust 14, 2011 at 8:09 am
That’s an interesting way to handle it, Coastal Sage! Let us know if you get a response. I do think that part of the problem is the higher expectations and “materialism” (sorry, can’t think of a better word) of our culture. Once upon a time we had pencils and crayons. Now, we must have pencils, crayons, colored pencils, colored markers, colored pens, and whiteboard markers. Once upon a time we had glue. Now we must have glue sticks, which are very handy, but relatively expensive, quickly used up, and wasteful because the containers are not refillable. Once upon a time, baby wipes, zip-loc bags, white out, and post-it notes didn’t exist. Now our classrooms can’t function without them? Doubtful. The same goes for sports and activities such as cheer. When I was in high school, the cheerleaders learned some fun cheer routines taught to them by a volunteer staff member and they went to the games to cheer for our teams. Now cheerleading is a “sport” unto itself and the schools compete by hiring professional choreographers and coaches and sending competitors to nationwide competitions. It is all unnecessary and expensive and it results in the exclusion of many students from participating in what could be a fun and healthy activity. In these tough economic times, I think we all should make better distinctions between what we want and what we “need.”
Serendipity631August 14, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Thank you, Linda, for this common sense post. Rather than buying individual white boards for the students, and then asking parents to buy special markers to use on them, we could have them use paper,pencils and crayons – what do you think? Also it’s amazing how teachers can get their point across to students without glue sticks, post-its, baby wipes and Zip-Loc bags. Seriously, I know how the kids would love to have all that fun stuff in their desk everyday, and how much of the list stuff makes teachers’ jobs easier, but we have all had to make changes in our lives and cut back on the unnecessary “stuff.” Parents, you actually have a right to say NO, they don’t really need that stuff at school – they will be provided with paper, pens, crayons, pencils, erasers, scissors, rulers and more. Teachers will be provided with paper, paperclips, staplers, staples, xerox machines, pencils, pens, laminating machines, 3 hole punches, papercutters, diecuts, construction paper and more, and it will be a great and successful year. If my child shows up to school without the EXPO fine line white board markers in every color, will it affect their grade?
Timothy Myers SRAugust 15, 2011 at 7:36 am
Linda: There has been an arms race and an entire industry built around youth sports and extracurricular activities over the last three decades, and I have been a willing participant in it. Our sons played tennis from the age of six which required membership in a tennis club (Paseo) and private coaches. They both ended up being starters on the dominant (locally) Valencia High Tennis team but it required a continuing investment of about $200-$300 per month from the age of seven on. Our daughter was also involved in dance at a similar cost. When people spend this kind of money from youth on, they expect feedback in the form of competitions and results, so the high school dance team and cheer squad become highly competitive with the attendant costs that primarily go to hire choreographers and actually pay the coaches who used to be volunteers. Thus, at the Hart Cheer orientation meeting the parents who had been funding this from kindergarten were not at all sticker shocked by the cost. I am particularly heart broken by the Valencia high summer tennis camp they run in the evenings for about four weeks. About 100 to 120 hopefuls show up to compete for about 10 slots on the JV team (the varsity and half the JV slots are realistically already committed to incumbents). Those ten were pretty much predetermined 9 years ago when they took their first rally class at the Paseo Club. About two weeks before term the coaching staff will present a list of students “qualified” for the Advanced Tennis PE class, and that is pretty much the roster for the team.
LindaAugust 15, 2011 at 9:05 am
Tim, I wouldn’t label it an “arms race” but more of a “class war.” And clearly some parents have a problem with the costs involved, or there wouldn’t be lawsuits. It really doesn’t matter if they knew going in it would be costly — when people lose their jobs and can no longer afford the payments, their children are told they can’t play. And suddenly the lifestyle they’ve spent years cultivating for themselves and their children isn’t possible any more. (Say, didn’t you just write a column on Sunday about this very phenomenon?) It’s nice that parents like you have an extra $1000 a month to fund such activities for your children, but I wonder if you would be quite so smug and bragatory if your children’s budding sports careers had come to an involuntary and abrupt end due to financial hardship. Personally, I have never been a big fan of competitive team sports in school (even college), and I’m even less a fan now that we are in such financial straits with our schools. I think that parents who want their kids involved in such sports should have to fund club competitions and leave the schools out of it, period. To the extent that school facilities and staff are used for such activities, the parents of the students involved should pay to cover the costs, plus a little extra. And leave the school’s name out of it, unless you pay to use it. (Hey it’s called “capitalism!”) I am a believer in sports for physical fitness and health. To that end, money for physical education in schools should be focused on the welfare of the entire student body, and not on the ego gratification of the “upper class.”
Timothy Myers SRAugust 15, 2011 at 9:16 am
Linda: “Extra $1,000?” I think it is more about priorities. Our family has only ever driven Toyotas, not Lexuses or BMW’s. We have owned our home since 1996 and did not spin up to a “higher” neighborhood in the early 2000′s like many. Also, FYI, our family took at 30% hit to income in 2003 (since thankfully, restored) when our three youngest children were in the throes of all their activities, but we re-prioritized and pushed ahead. It can be done!
LindaAugust 15, 2011 at 10:48 am
Well I suppose every income bracket has their own notions of what constitutes a sacrifice. Clearly, yours are different than mine. And perhaps our priorities are different as well. I drive a 10 year-old (paid for) Toyota, and never had the option of “trading up” for a bigger house. I stayed home with my daughter for many years, leaving a lucrative job to do so. My priorities are making the mortgage payment and paying our basic bills (including medical expenses); then comes the money for things like sports activities. There is no $1,000 there. Shocking, but true. So thank goodness I don’t have three kids who expect tennis lessons at the Paseo Club. If I did, they would be out of luck.
Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Wow. Is this really the norm for public schools today? Talk about unfair advantages for the wealthy in public school. I don’t even come near spending $1000/month in education expenses, for all *4* of my kids. Who has extra money like that? Similar to Linda, we drive used vehicles (Toyotas, early 90′s). We’ve been in the same home since ’93 (2 bedroom, about 1100 sq ft). A big family vacation for us is a camping trip. Our biggest monthly expense is groceries, because I am quite picky about what I feed my family.
Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Our cars are early 2000′s. Don’t know how I lost that decade.
Phil EllisAugust 14, 2011 at 9:39 am
While there may be no “new taxes” the legislature keeps decreasing the amount paid per student. If the schools still received what they received just a few years ago, there would be a big difference. Schools still have the same (if not higher) costs, yet the state keeps reducing school funds.
Coastal SageAugust 15, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Perhaps if the Hart District had not pushed bond measures to fund grandiose high school facilities beyond what the State considers to be basic buildings, and instead had asked voters to approve parcel taxes to increase school operational funding like some other districts do, there would have been more money to pay for student services and activities, and less money to pay the F.O.S. on land purchase, consulting, renovation and new construction deals.
spineflower2August 16, 2011 at 11:19 am
Two bonds measures and we still have no Castaic HS. No extravagent spending there! But perhaps spending elsewhere has drained their capital funds as you describe.
Your Web GuruAugust 14, 2011 at 8:52 am
You’d think with modern technology being what it is, that educational institutions would see the benefit in “Kindling” their textbooks, which would save printing, shipping and vandalism costs. Just sayin’…
LindaAugust 14, 2011 at 9:13 am
I’m sure that day is coming. The sticking point will be providing e-readers to all students. Of course they will be lost, damaged or “forgotten” at home just like the textbooks are. But it will certainly save money despite that, not to mention the backs of the school librarians and other staff who must schlep those books around and inventory them every year…..
Saugus DadAugust 14, 2011 at 10:25 am
I remember back when I went to school. I got a big fat pencil at the start of the year and paper when I needed it. No Charge!
Your Web GuruAugust 14, 2011 at 4:08 pm
No kidding. The extent of my school supply preparation included: Bic Pen: 19 cents Peechee Folder: 15 cents Notebook paper: I can’t recall, but I’m sure it was less than a buck. By high school I figured out that if I left the pen and paper at home, I could hit up the pretty girls for them on the first day of class. It worked about half the time!
Timothy Myers SRAugust 15, 2011 at 7:22 am
SD: Didn’t you ride a dinosaur to school?
rnddudeAugust 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm
As I walk mu dogs past the local elementary school, and see all of the SUV’s queing up to pick up their kids in the afternoon, I recall my own (admittidly ancient) school experiences. I walked to school from elementary thru the middle of high school, no matter the weather. Participation in school sports and band required no money, only an interest to do it. Corporal punishment (more than a passing familiarity with the swat plank) was still in vogue, there were dress and hair length codes (thankfully overturned). Is it better of worse now? I don’t really know, but it certainly is different. It was a shocker when my son wanted to play Hart football and had to pay a not insignificant amount of $$$ to do so, as well as do fundrasing for the team.
IHeartSCVAugust 15, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Linda, regarding your school supplies opinion, I agree. I think the school shopping lists are more often the fantasies of teachers than necessities (e.g., the students will be organized this year if only they have enough highlighters and index cards and binders to implement my special filing system). Yes, I’m blaming the teachers, or maybe some cabal of office supplies retailers and administrators. Bring a paper and pens, clickable or otherwise. And I’m inclined to rank my-kids-can’t-afford-cheerleading-or-tennis-fees rather low on the list of global injustices. Like you said, someone ultimately has to pay for it, and I see things staying the same (kids pay to play) or sports leaving the schools entirely to be equally unfair to everyone.
Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 5:30 pm
The fundamentals of a public school education are always in flux: one season, the arts get higher standing, another season, test scores are the big expenditure. You may think the arts are not fundmamental, I happen to disagree, while Tim may argue that sports were the activity around which all other academics pivoted. The point being, we’ll never agree on what constitutes a good, high school education. However, as a society, we have committed to providing equal educational access to all, to level the playing field, so all our young people come out of high school on equal footing. That’s the theory, anyway. So, if schools are charging for sports, or clubs, or whatever, then that automatically draws a line between the haves and the have nots, and therein lies the problem. The child that graduates from public high school with a million parent-funded, school activities has a distinct advantage over the student whose parents could not afford those high school activities. I realize there are a million ways that a wealthier student can still come out ahead, at least on paper, through private leagues and experiences, but shouldn’t public school be a place where, whatecer is offered, is equally available to all students, regardless of income? Isn’t that the whole point of public education? And isn’t that, in large part, what Brown v. Board of Education sought to correct — equal access to all?
Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm
I am inclined to say yes. How would you construct an argument otherwise? I would add, also, that resourcefulness is a fabulous skill to develop, and I bet that, with the chess example, kids could come up with an affordable and/or creative way to obtain/make chess boards and pieces.
Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 8:19 pm
So, I guess it is a matter of kind of public school system you would support. I would prefer a system that serves all, rather than a system that discriminates based on income. That’s where I would draw the line – access to all over diversity of activities.
Lori RivasAugust 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Yeah, I guess I would be okay with reducing the breadth and depth of activities, though only for the purposes of this discussion. I just don’t know enough to assert my opinion as correct. Seems like, if necessary, cutting services in order to serve everyone is consistent with my understanding of equal access to all. To clarify, I do fully support a system that discriminates based on cost and logistics, ie, there can only be 10 cheerleaders, so not every girl in school will get pompoms, but that distinction should not be made on ability to pay. I find education reform fascinating. No doubt, my vision for public school varies greatly from the existing system – one reason why I homeschool. I don’t propose to have answers, only ideals, but I fully enjoy the discussion.
spineflower2August 16, 2011 at 11:23 am
Prop 13 is again the boogyman. But is it still significant in fact? I would like to see some data showing how many years people are staying in their homes. Upon sale, assessed values reset, negating any “Prop 13 effect.” Only those who are staying in their homes for a long time are affecting tax revenues to any significant extent. The average has historically been about 5 years or less. In fact, this was one of the criticisms of Prop 13 at the time it was passed, and in fact why then-Gov Brown opposed it. Commercial properties sell far les soften than residential, so the main effect of Prop 13, after the initial rollback, was to shift the property tax burden from businesses to homeowners. The difference has been dramatic. Makes me say “phooey” to those who say California taxes businesses too much. We are subsidizing them through policies such as those embedded in Prop 13.