Comments on: School fundraising inequities: Should Oakland follow Portland’s lead?

By: Debora

Debora — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:15:30 +0000

Katy:

Look at San Leandro School District and their education foundation SLED – http://www.sledfund.org/

It’s interesting that they have a similar school district with similar poverty in most of their school communities and they are still asking parents to give a dollar a month. I believe we need to ask more from those who can, but I believe that by asking everyone for a dollar a month they are saying that EVERY FAMILY should contribute to the schools. The foundation website shows other ways to raise money as well.

By: Jim Mordecai

Jim Mordecai — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:57:38 +0000

Also, note that RBB (State Administrator Ward’s budgeting system) was designed with an attendance component. Schools with higher attendance get more dollars per school site. A study of S.F. and Oakland’s student weighted budgeting systems found that in Oakland the money did not improve attendance. San Francisco did not include attendance in its budgeting system.

The RBB system increases inequality between middle class and poor Oakland schools, but the Board has not made the change to drop attendance from the RBB budgeting system.

Jim Mordecai

By: A Life Time Educator

A Life Time Educator — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:49:56 +0000

Unfortunately the conversation about PTA funds clouds the true problem. RBB, the districts current modle for funding schools is causing great inequities.
Schools with a more veteran staff or who have a large number of its population in the Special Education program have increased expenditures. But not increased revinues. Several of our small schools start off each year in the red. PTA funds are the only way that they can fund teacher resources, field trips, parent trainigs etc…
Unfortunately PTA funds are surplanting some of the basics that should be district funded.

By: peter

peter — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:25:47 +0000

Anon-
In that case I recommend you stating your main point more clearly and earlier in your posts, and avoiding inflammatory & incorrect statements that suggest title one funds are being spent on retreats. I am not trying to belittle your knowledge of the subject and I think that the “main point” you state above is as worthy of debate as any other opinion, however it is no assumption to suggest your knowledge of school funding is lacking—your statements about retreats and trading computers are simply factually incorrect, which reflects negatively on the rest of your posts.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:55:58 +0000

Peter– I don’t think catering for a teacher training is “lavish”, that’s your choice of wording. I am actually a California credentialed teacher, have worked in a Title I school, and know more than you may think or assume I know about things like Title I funding. My main point is that things are really broken across the schools in ALL areas, and taking from some schools, a la Robin Hood, isn’t going to fix anything in the short or long term. I do think it would be good to get the state and national representatives in on this, and maybe we oould say bye to the high-priced “consultants” while we’re at it.

By: peter

peter — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:28:55 +0000

Anon-
This is your quote from above:
“It’s also interesting to see how Title I money gets spent– one school recently had a wonderful catered retreat for the teachers.”
That makes it fair to say that at least YOU think title 1 schools are “blowing their money on decadent parties,” and also makes it clear that you don’t (or didn’t) know that restricted money is really restricted.
As far as why that school has so many computers I cannot possibly guess, but I can say that (again) since the money is restricted, of course they cannot trade the things they buy with it for other equipment (or money) at other schools.
This is not to imply in anyway that “haves” are in one area or that “have-nots” are in another area—it is a clarification of the laws that govern all this money! And if you don’t like the way it is governed, let your state and national representatives know. Mr. Smith clearly doesn’t, and is trying to adjust things so that ALL schools have access to discretionary funds like the few schools with fund-raising schools.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:07:05 +0000

Peter–

I don’t think it’s fair to say that parents think title I schools are blowing their money on decadent parties. I do know that the “restricted money” is really restricted. For example, a friend of mine teaches at a Title I school and wanted to use the money for new books and sorely needed supplies, but was told it had to be used for computers. According to my friend, her school has “computers coming out of its ears in every corner”. Why is that the case, and why can’t they share with schools in other places such as the hills, where not every classroom has a computer, and the ones they do have are mostly not working? I’m so tired of hearing/reading that the “at risk” kids are only in the flatlands and the “haves” are only in the hills! It’s just not that simple, and I also really, really like what On The Fence has to say.

By: peter

peter — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:53:52 +0000

A few points of fact before we get too carried away—
Some schools do receive more funding “per student” than others, but that is due to what is called “categorical” (or “restricted”) funding. This funding is received for a reason (the most typical is Title 1: students who are “at risk”), and the funds can only be spent on certain things that specifically assist the targeted students. Every expenditure has to be justified if it comes from categorical funds.
For example, if a school receives funding for English language learners, they will receive a certain amount for every language learner at the school and no more. This might make it look like some schools are funded at higher rates but in fact every language learner receives the same extra funding. Some schools just don’t have that many. Additionally, this funding can only be spent on items that would assist these students in learning English, which means no catered retreats, no supplies, no computer lab, etc.
Title 1 is the most well known and largest categorical fund, and as I mentioned covers students who are “at risk.” I do not know of any school in Oakland that does not receive these federal funds, but certainly some schools receive a lot more than others, and if you cross a certain threshold of students “at risk” you are funded for the rest as well (that threshold is pretty high, not sure the exact number but it’s more than 80%). There are schools in other districts that do not receive any title 1 funding for various reasons—some just don’t want to bother with the compliance, others wish to avoid NCLB-based labels & penalties (only schools that receive federal funding are at risk of being labeled “program improvement” no matter how lousy they may be). Again, these funds are to make up for what the students presumably do not receive due to their “at risk” status, not for catered lunches, etc. Much of this goes to supplies, as by law title one students MUST be supplied the paper, pencils, etc. that they need.
One area that does really change the bottom line from school to school is teacher salaries, which manifests itself in many interesting ways. Many experienced teachers are more interested in working at more affluent schools, which decreases the amount of general purpose (non-restricted) funds available. Also, as these schools are more affluent, they receive less from other funding sources… except from parents (many of whom seem to think that title one schools are blowing their cash on decadent parties!).
PS: much of what I wrote can be seen easily in the school by school budgets Katy posted, hopefully my words make them a little more understandable.

By: Concerned Parent

Concerned Parent — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:49:18 +0000

On The Fence, you are sooo right! We can only hope that our new superintendent and other decision makers read your words and take them into careful consideration as they plan for our schools and our children.

By: On The Fence

On The Fence — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:13:58 +0000

Nextset is on to something when he writes about OUSD needing to attract support or re-enfranchise the middle and upper middle classes. These are the folks who can and do leave the system for private schools, taking their funding, extra dollars and volunteer efforts with them.

Some middle and upper middle class families stay due to various personal and philosophical reasons. Many of these reasons are already for the ‘greater good’ as they could simply worry about their own brood and leave the system. My experience is that many of those families work VERY hard to make their public school option viable for their children and every other child who attends. Believe it or not, many of the families in the hills school struggle to give both financially and through their time for the benefit of MANY, MANY kids at their local schools. These schools are often models of success. Why would anyone want to thwart their efforts by taking away their HARD earned funds?

This model of biting the hand that feeds (volunteers/donates) does not work. The City of Oakland just tried this by initiating predatory parking fees against its tax base and citizenry and the outrage was monumental! I suspect that this would be the final straw for many families who are trying to make their public option work.