Why do we need 126 school districts on Long Island? (New York: home, transfer)

[OhBeeHave]

So there you have four people within just one family group who did not "enjoy the subsidy of others".

Devils advocate: did you or your siblings attend public or private schools?

[AlexisT]

We all pay for services we don't use. I pay Social Security taxes. I am 31 years old, and it is unlikely the system will be solvent by the time I come to collect... but I still have to pay in. (Social Security has, and always has had, a large pay-as-you-go element, so my taxes today are paying for the pensions people are collecting now, not just being saved for my retirement.) This isn't about whether I begrudge the taxes--it's just that it's no more or less fair than the childless being asked to pay for schools. Or the healthy paying the same insurance premiums as the sick.

Saying that people who don't have kids shouldn't pay school taxes is a misunderstanding of the entire basis of how public services work.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by llama8

Historically, throwing money at poor school districts does not increase achievement. If it worked, more places would do it!!! I doubt the money given to Roosevelt by the state will drastically increase student performance.

Prioritizing education increases achievement and unfortunately that is learned at home. Wyandanch does not have money trouble where they can't afford to educate its students. Many people there don't care about school. Graduation rates are a joke...it has nothing to do with funding. Short of paying the kids to attend, how will a few SMARTBOARDS really affect graduation rates. The Catholic schools operate on far lower funding than any public school and they have superior education results!!!!! I bet most private high schools recieve less tuition and no state aid when compared to Wyandanch. Based on your theory...Wyandanch should get better results than Chamindade or Sacred Heart..They don't because the issue isn't funding!!!

Consolidating schools will only create a mediocre district. Richer areas will be robbed by poorer areas...and nothing will change. If you don't believe me, read up on the issue. This is a socio-economic cultural issue.

It has quite a bit to do about $$. Quite simply it generally takes more $$ to educate poor students than wealthy students. Its not about people not caring about the education in the area, its about the $$ not being there to deliver what is needed in order for the schools to help overcome the economic problems in the area. In Wyandanch and Roosevelt your dealing with a student body which is quite poor, in Chaminade your dealing with a student body which is mostly upper middle class.

[longislandmike]

Originally Posted by Smash255

It has quite a bit to do about $$. Quite simply it generally takes more $$ to educate poor students than wealthy students. Its not about people not caring about the education in the area, its about the $$ not being there to deliver what is needed in order for the schools to help overcome the economic problems in the area. In Wyandanch and Roosevelt your dealing with a student body which is quite poor, in Chaminade your dealing with a student body which is mostly upper middle class.

Interesting point made here...could you please share with us, MORE, about "how" it "taks more $$ to educate poor students than wealthy students" ?

I am thinking that if this is so, is it that "they" spend LESS money to educate poor students...older, used books, poorer quality of learning facilities, they accept "lower quality" teaching and support staff, etc. .

If it costs MORE, one would "think" that they would spend the money on higher quality of same.

Or is that a misunderstanding ?

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by Smash255

It has quite a bit to do about $$. Quite simply it generally takes more $$ to educate poor students than wealthy students. Its not about people not caring about the education in the area, its about the $$ not being there to deliver what is needed in order for the schools to help overcome the economic problems in the area. In Wyandanch and Roosevelt your dealing with a student body which is quite poor, in Chaminade your dealing with a student body which is mostly upper middle class.

If you took a motivated Roosevelt student, a kid whose mother is barely scraping by but knows the value of an education, and placed him in Chaminade, he would excel.

Parents who value education, who respect the law, and who have the audacity to discipline their children, and show an interest in their school work will see their children do well. Involved parents and the teachers make up the combination necessary to create a student who want to learn. This transcends poverty and wealth.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. No matter how much money is poured into the coffers of the poor districts, if the motivation is not there, students aren't going to learn.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by longislandmike

Interesting point made here...could you please share with us, MORE, about "how" it "taks more $$ to educate poor students than wealthy students" ?

I am thinking that if this is so, is it that "they" spend LESS money to educate poor students...older, used books, poorer quality of learning facilities, they accept "lower quality" teaching and support staff, etc. .

If it costs MORE, one would "think" that they would spend the money on higher quality of same.

Or is that a misunderstanding ?

Well if you look at spending per pupil it is generally the lowest in the poor districts. They don't have the $$ to buy the newer textbooks or afford to get the higher paid & quality teachers. Now that isn't a knock on the teachers in these districts, but they don't have the ability to retain some of them because of costs. You also have more $$ be spent on various programs in these districts such as free lunches and what not. Now it does lead to more state aid, but the increased aid generally is not enough to overcome the overall economic factors. I just don't think its fair to say some areas the people don't care about the education, they just don't have the funds & resources available in order to provide the same type of education as you see in other areas.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

If you took a motivated Roosevelt student, a kid whose mother is barely scraping by but knows the value of an education, and placed him in Chaminade, he would excel.

Parents who value education, who respect the law, and who have the audacity to discipline their children, and show an interest in their school work will see their children do well. Involved parents and the teachers make up the combination necessary to create a student who want to learn. This transcends poverty and wealth.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. No matter how much money is poured into the coffers of the poor districts, if the motivation is not there, students aren't going to learn.

That isn't to say the motivation isn't there in a district such as Roosevelt, but is there in Chaminade. The difference between the resources between the two are stark.

[totallyfrazzled]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

Devils advocate: did you or your siblings attend public or private schools?

We attended public school in East Meadow from the mid-1950s to the mid/late 1960s. At that time it was (and may still be?) your "Life with Father" stereotypical white blue-collar area. The vast majority of the girls took Typing and Office Practice (if they weren't planning to go to Beauty School after graduation) in order to be able to land a job as a typist or secretary for however many years before they ended up married and pregnant. The boys who weren't fixated on athletics (or the Honor Society kids) took Woodworking Shop, Engineering Shop, Auto Shop, etc. The district was really big on football....

That was a completely different educational scenario from what we see nowadays. The only 'extras' were Band and Chorus and school sports teams. There was no swimming pool. There was no planetarium. There was no separate gym/workout room. Kindergarten was only for a half day. You had to live a lot farther from school in order to qualify for a bus. The majority of students weren't involved in afterschool activities unless they were involved in the 3 aforementioned activities or cheerleading... because there were hardly any clubs or afterschool activities available other than those. Fraternities and sororities were the main visible extracurriculars going on but they were not subsidized by the school (and may also have gone the way of the dinosaur). The majority of the students (especially the girls) were not in a college track. What I'm trying to convey is that there were none of the frills that today's parents expect.

I have no idea what property taxes my parents paid or how much were for school taxes. What I do know is that my mom had a budget of $15/week for food and we certainly weren't starving; and that at my first job in 1967 I earned $50/week before taxes.... And so, since everyone we knew was in the same income level and no one was being foreclosed on, I can only assume that the property tax burden vis-a-vis income level was probably considerably lower than it is today.

Taking the education genealogy a step further: My father and his 2 brothers went to a parochial boarding school until they were each 16. My grandmother (my grandfather left when the boys were very young) worked 3 jobs (days, nights as a waitress, and weekends cleaning houses for 'rich people') for the money to send them there. My mother grew up in a small Pennsylvania coal mining town and went to the school run by the local Slovak Church; fifth grade was as high as education went in places like that in those days. There was no such thing as junior high or high school. College was unheard of. If you finished the 5th grade you were considered prepared enough for life. And amazing as it may seem in this day of laundry-list-size educational "must do"s and "must take" and "must score" .... they both not only came through just fine but were two of the most hardworking, honest, ethical, down to earth people I have ever known. With not one high-priced educational "frill" in their lives, ever.

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by longislandmike

You would like your tax dollars, as high as they are and going higher, going into a, virtual, sinkhole, every year ?

What other things would this effect ?

For example, wouldn't it also "drag down" the property values ?

I'm sure there would be an eroding tax base in this total area, because of the HORROR School; what kind of Maniac would move into the area, who had the money, NOT to do so ?

It seems that one would effect, the other, somehow.

It's no accident that these BAD schools, suffer on their own. Basically, it's what has been called gerrymandering...but for schools. While EVERYONE has concentrated on this practice on the electoral process, ALL THE BUSSING in the WORLD, hasn't helped cure our country of this. And it's NOT going to stop.

Whether it's Class or Color, people are going to do this, in one name or another, and it's so institutionalized and ingrained in our Society, it's not going stop. For one reason or another, it's going to exist.

What I meant was I think crooks had a good idea with tying a politician into the school districts as it could help with responsibility and accountability. Right now it's a faceless mass of bureaucracy.

As for bussing, no, not interested. If I wanted that I could move to NC where they bus kids who live within walking distance of a school 45 minutes away to a different school and then make them attend class in flimsy trailers. (As an aside, I don't understand why trailers are even legal to live in, let alone warehouse students in, considering what happens to them when there is a natural disaster.)

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

Devils advocate: did you or your siblings attend public or private schools?

Both. I attended a non-parochial private school for 1 year (8th grade) but was able to convince my parents to let me attend regular school in my own neighborhood by improving my behavior and study habits.