I read with interest regarding the recent ruling by a California court that children cannot be home schooled in this state unless by an appropriately credentialed teacher. I can’t help but think that this ruling will put an undue burden on the California school system.
In a budget year when the schools are faced with cutting off funding for sports, music, and other elective classes that enrich the student’s whole being are being cancelled, stuffing an additional estimated 166,000 students on to campuses around the state will certainly do nothing for the quality of education in the public schools.
But wait, what about the ADA money that the schools will be receiving as the result of 166,000 new arrivals? At the recently published average annual rate of $5,752, ADA payment per student that the schools currently receive, that means an increase in revenue of approximately $954,873,000 going into the schools’ budgets.
The fallacy of this ruling that will seeming bring about almost one billion in revenue is this: The parents of the 166,000 students are already paying taxes supporting a school system that they aren’t using and they won’t be paying any more when their kids attend public school.
My questions are these: If the money for the ADA that the schools will receive as a result of an increase of 166,000 students is already being collected by the state in the form of taxes, what are they doing with that money now? Since the state is cutting school funding and is receiving taxes from parents who are not sending their kids through the system, how do the courts and the state government think the schools can handle an influx like this without the quality of education suffering even further than it is now?
Probably in a few cases like the one in San Diego, home school quality may not be on a par with the public schools, but it should be the parents’ choice. One abuse of the process shouldn’t be used to penalize 166,000 kids whose parents want only the best for them.
The following is a letter sent to Chief Keller of the Truckee Fire Protection District and the Nevada County Board of Supervisors.
Dear Chief Keller,
In the public’s interest, I would like the following questions answered in open public forum at the March 18 hearing.
1. What are the rates paid for each piece of equipment listed on your O.E.S. contract/agreement M.O.U.?
2. How much money have you made from your fire suppression equipment hired off district in the last five years?
3. Does this money made off district go to the General Fund? If not, where does it go?
4. Are the wages paid to personnel who replace those who are off district taken from the general fund?
6. If equipment from surrounding agencies is used to replace your equipment that is off district, is it paid for by the general fund?
7. Is there an independent, third party monitoring the balloting for your assessment? If yes, who?
8. Why wasn’t this vote submitted to the entire public in an election?
Thank you for your time and keep up the good work.