HSLDA throws CA charter homeschoolers under the bus

[Roadrunner]

I think that CA has been the easiest state to homeschool so far and I am worried that we aren’t going to be as privileged going forward. Not only charters are under attack (rightfully in some instances), but I fear private homeschools are also under increased scrutiny following Turpin case. No matter what we think ideologically about charter versus private homeschoolers or what we think about HSLDA, we can all agree that having various options  is beneficial to us all. 

When my kids were in public school, everything was pod by the school (school trips, even school supplies like pencils). I don’t know which pot the money came from (school or PTA), but having state guidelines on how to spend public money isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Our local PS has an extensive music program including instrument instruction, bands, orchestras, so I think charter funds used for music teachers isn’t a problem, but Disneyland seems to be stretching it. 

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, Plum said:

At the same time, there are many awesome opportunities that public school students have access to that I as the lone homeschooler do not. I certainly don't have all of the resources and available programs that ps has. 

 

But you do have access to them; you choose not to use them in favor of a different kind of education if your own choosing. Homeschooling or privately provided education is not something all PS'ers have access to, but all hs'ers have access to a public education.

My perception is that public charter students want public funds for their privately provided education and justified economically or not, it can look as if that money is needed for actual public schools and being used for these great, expensive trips or programs that are AWESOME, but not exactly necessary when ed budgets are tight everywhere.

Edited June 18, 2019 by EmseB

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

In California, those fees are not allowed to be charged in public schools. I always find it so strange when I hear all of the fees charged in other states because my experience was all in CA. 

This isn't entirely true. Fees are allowed for most things (including field trips and educational activities) as long as kids who can't afford them are not denied access because of inability to pay. Plus fundraising and such is allowed, so it's not like the district is footing the bill for all these things.

http://newsroom.ocde.us/the-20-fees-public-schools-can-legally-charge/

[EmilyGF]

When we lived in CA, I was suspicious of the charters because they didn't seem to have any teeth. I was diligent, but it always surprised me how positive the assigned teacher was. She basically was used to people who did and showed the absolute bare minimum and she had no power to require any more. (This wasn't actually a charter but a different alternative education homeschool program through the public schools.)

I do believe that public money needs to come with strings attached or it leads to abuse (as indictments show). That means, in schools, teachers have requirements, students take tests, and in some cases, lousy schools are rearranged with new management. 

As a homeschooler, I WANT a certain level of requirements because that protects homeschoolers from people who are said to be homeschooling and aren't (like the students playing hooky who are labeled homeschoolers so the school can have better attendance stats; this happened in my town). I think people using homeschool charters should demand a slightly higher bar to protect their charters from folding due to people who are mismanaging funds or failing to educate their students. The numbers provided in the article are terrible, though I'll admit the writer is not a fan of charters!

[Sarah0000]

CA charter homeschooler here and here's my personal experience with the one charter school we've been with. Next year we are trying out a different one that will hopefully be better in terms of spending funds.

It is HARD to spend funds on basic schooling supplies like paper, pencils, rulers, ink, etc. Why? Because when I try ordering that stuff I get complaints that it's too much administrative work for them to order dozens of individual items. I get a $100 Office Depot card each semester. I can order boxed supply kits that are suppose to go with specific science or art curricula. I would be happy to spend much more of my funds on basic, consumable supplies which I doubt the general public would resent. I would also looooove to spend my funds on literature books but then I would have to return them and I simply can't keep them in great condition all year. Maybe the general public wouldn't resent that spending.

Perhaps private lessons and classes are more expensive in CA? The funds definitely do not stretch to covering a full school year of multiple private lessons, especially when there's a 25% budget cap for funds on PE.

They do offer schoolwide educational field trip vouchers. You must fill out a bunch of paperwork of what the student learned, go during a school day, targeted educational goals, etc. Local school sponsored field trips require checking in and completing the assignment. I'm guessing this is similar to brick and mortar public schools.

So, just speculation, but I wonder if these cases of families willy nilly getting extravagant extracurriculars and field trips covered by the charter is more a matter of specific school/administrator corruption than anything else.

[frogger]

3 hours ago, chiguirre said:

YES!!!!!

I am shouting. Clearly, a bunch of people didn't bother to read through the thread or even think through the Disney example. Their educational programs are well known. It's not just a day going on the rides, it's actual classes that use Disney's resources.

My dd did a choir program at Disney World. It was an actual program with rehearsals and a performance. 

I live in a city without an amusement park but in my experience, the best home school science programs were offered by the "fun" attractions. Our science museum, aquarium (which has a couple of rides) and the zoo all put together nice hands-on programs that regular home school coops or mom-at-home just couldn't pull off.

 

It has nothing to do with whether it's educational or not but whether it is the best bang for your buck. Would you be outraged if you found out that the school district paid for a $200 per book curriculum that a $20 per book curriculum taught just as well, or probably better. 

 

Does that happen all the time in districts?

Yes.

 

Why?

Because taxpayers who are struggling to pay the bill aren't the ones making the decision. When you overspend in one area that automatically takes away opportunities in other areas, whether it be not having something more useful in another area of the district or whether you are wrecking havoc on the taxpayers budget and stressing parents more which isn't good for the kid's either. 

It sounds like the school districts in CA are awash in money so maybe it's only fair that homeschoolers go to Disney via taxpayers. I'm curious if the taxpayers are happy though.

Our districts are fighting taxpayers/voters for every dime. We will be lucky to have buildings to use at this point. There are fees for lots of stuff and teacher lay offs are the yearly news only to have most hired back. So we are in a different situation entirily. 

 

 

[EmseB]

Just now, kdsuomi said:

Yes, but in practice that means no charging. The only thing we were to pay for in my entire educational career was a field trip to San Diego Diego. The "cost" was $5, but even then they couldn't require it. 

I think it must vary wildly by district because that is not my experience with the schools in my area, nor in the previous districts we've lived in (I've been in CA off and on for the last five years, and before that I attended CA public schools myself). PS kids here are constantly fundraising for band trips or sports teams. The money is not coming from state/district educational funds, unless we're talking financial hardship waivers. And almost certainly no one is going to Disney or camp or overseas without paying or fundraising. Plus, the schools here ask for a $100 donation from all students at registration, and they ask for each kid to bring community supplies for the classroom. Of course this means some don't pay and no one has to pay if they can't, but practically this works out way differently IME than what you're talking about. Of course, maybe the moms here are exaggerating about fees and donations they are asked for, but the kids coming to my door selling stuff to find their extracurriculars seems to not be a small thing. :shrug:  And football games and such definitely sells tickets and concessions to raise money.

[Lawyer&Mom]

15 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think it must vary wildly by district because that is not my experience with the schools in my area, nor in the previous districts we've lived in (I've been in CA off and on for the last five years, and before that I attended CA public schools myself). PS kids here are constantly fundraising for band trips or sports teams. The money is not coming from state/district educational funds, unless we're talking financial hardship waivers. And almost certainly no one is going to Disney or camp or overseas without paying or fundraising. Plus, the schools here ask for a $100 donation from all students at registration, and they ask for each kid to bring community supplies for the classroom. Of course this means some don't pay and no one has to pay if they can't, but practically this works out way differently IME than what you're talking about. Of course, maybe the moms here are exaggerating about fees and donations they are asked for, but the kids coming to my door selling stuff to find their extracurriculars seems to not be a small thing. :shrug:  And football games and such definitely sells tickets and concessions to raise money.

 

Fundraisers for extracurriculars in CA?  Yes. But I never had to pay a fee for taking Ceramics or French like you would at our public school here in WA.  So weird to CA me.  

[moonflower]

15 hours ago, EmseB said:

For all those Disney trips or amusement park trips for honor roll or band or physics, there was always significant fundraising done and if the student couldn't raise the money through selling candy or whatever, they paid the difference. There may have been a scholarship fund for less privileged kids, but it was not funded from general PS dollars (in my CA public schools when I was growing up). In 8th grade a trip to DC was offered and the cost was totally paid for by students. Maybe I'm dating myself, but at the time it was about $1k and a very small percentage of the class actually went. The only people who might have had their way paid were teacher chaperones.

I can almost guarantee that regardless of what homeschoolers want to count as educational, and even if it *is* educational, the general public does not feel gracious about educational dollars going to homeschoolers should be for Disney or other hugely privileged activities while they watch their kids teachers paying out of pocket for minimal supplies in the classroom. It just isn't a good look.

It is one thing for me to put a rollercoaster physics day in my portfolio to show the district, or to write down my kid's swim lessons as PE. It's another thing entirely for other swim lesson parents to hear me bragging about how I got the district to pay for it with my homeschooling funds while they've done PTA fundraisers for basic stuff for their school and paid for their own swim lessons.

 

 

Yes, but then do you say to them, well, you get free childcare 35 hours a week?

[EmseB]

4 minutes ago, moonflower said:

 

Yes, but then do you say to them, well, you get free childcare 35 hours a week?

No, but maybe I wish I had the cajones to say that...but I think most people would be put off (to say the least) by thinking of their kid's education that way, true or not. I think there is an interesting truth there, that many people will put up with a lot of bull in the school system as long as they don't have to worry about where their kids are while they are working or whatever. But I think it probably doesn't mean much when they look at the things that hs'ers might use public funds for. They don't see it as "I'm going to a Disney photography class with my kids in lieu of taking advantage of free state-provided childcare".

[moonflower]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I mean if the government builds a road but I think that road is ugly, I can choose not to drive on the road.  But what I can't do is demand a private jet to fly me over that road.

The fact remains that you "could" have access to those public school resources if you chose to.  So really, you "do" have access unless your child is literally unable to attend there - in which case special needs funding would be appropriate.

 

 

the idea is that driving on that road costs more than demaning a private jet to fly over it (in this case) - accessing public school is more expensive for the state than giving a homeschooled student $5k or whatever.  This is because the parent is providing full-time childcare, paying for nursing, janitor work, food, supplies, utilities, building maintainence.

the private jet is not cheaper, it's just cheaper for the state because homeschooled parents are footing a huge bill (the income of the homeschooling parent) that public school parents do not have to pay.

[moonflower]

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

No, but maybe I wish I had the cajones to say that...but I think most people would be put off (to say the least) by thinking of their kid's education that way, true or not. I think there is an interesting truth there, that many people will put up with a lot of bull in the school system as long as they don't have to worry about where their kids are while they are working or whatever. But I think it probably doesn't mean much when they look at the things that hs'ers might use public funds for. They don't see it as "I'm going to a Disney photography class with my kids in lieu of taking advantage of free state-provided childcare".

 

Oh I get that the optics are terrible.  But I think it suggests what people take for granted about public schools - just how much service the government is providing through them, and the nature of the service.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, moonflower said:

 

the idea is that driving on that road costs more than demaning a private jet to fly over it (in this case) - accessing public school is more expensive for the state than giving a homeschooled student $5k or whatever.  This is because the parent is providing full-time childcare, paying for nursing, janitor work, food, supplies, utilities, building maintainence.

the private jet is not cheaper, it's just cheaper for the state because homeschooled parents are footing a huge bill (the income of the homeschooling parent) that public school parents do not have to pay.

But the road still goes past your house, and the school is still there and could accommodate you.  The cost of making that school available is largely a fixed cost regardless of the fact that some kids in the district don't attend.  So your taxes are paying for the access even though you don't use it, just like your taxes pay for a road you don't drive on.  Also all the folks who don't have kids in school at all are paying their share, not getting a rebate for not using the resource.

As a private school user, I am paying my (income-adjusted) share of the public schools that my kids don't attend, plus I am paying for the private school tuition, plus I pay for their school field trips, plus I pay out of pocket for goodies like Disney, horse riding, etc. etc.  I'm not getting a check from the government to thank me for not warming a seat in the public school.  That's not how it works.  (Free day care indeed, LOL.)

I'm not against charter schools, but it is a trade-off.  A publicly-funded charter shouldn't mean kids are getting fancy perqs as part of the deal.

Edited June 18, 2019 by SKL

[moonflower]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

But the road still goes past your house, and the school is still there and could accommodate you.  The cost of making that school available is largely a fixed cost regardless of the fact that some kids in the district don't attend.  So your taxes are paying for the access even though you don't use it, just like your taxes pay for a road you don't drive on.  Also all the folks who don't have kids in school at all are paying their share, not getting a rebate for not using the resource.

As a private school user, I am paying my (income-adjusted) share of the public schools that my kids don't attend, plus I am paying for the private school tuition, plus I pay for their school field trips, plus I pay out of pocket for goodies like Disney, horse riding, etc. etc.  I'm not getting a check from the government to thank me for not warming a seat in the public school.  That's not how it works.  (Free day care indeed, LOL.)

I'm not against charter schools, but it is a trade-off.  A publicly-funded charter shouldn't mean kids are getting fancy perqs as part of the deal.

 

Well full disclosure, I would be fine with the government cutting you a check to spend on private school.

[SeaConquest]

First, I want to apologize for the flounce. I was just too emotional yesterday to deal with a big debate. I shouldn't have started the thread if I wasn't prepared for the pushback. I guess I thought people would be more supportive and I just couldn't take it yesterday with everything I had going on. So, my apologies.

Second, setting aside the HSLDA issue, I described the article as a hit piece because, IMO, the journalist was incredibly biased in her reporting. She used loaded language throughout the piece, characterizing us as an "extreme" form of school choice and taking "advantage of the school's money." Homeschool charters were also not accurately described throughout the article. For example, we cannot purchase "anything that [we] want" from vendors. Critically, she painted all homeschool charters across California with the same broad brush when they do not all operate in the same ways. She writes, "With home school charters, there doesn’t have to be a set curriculum. Students only have to meet virtually with a teacher once a month and turn in one work sample for each meeting - a sample that the teacher doesn’t grade, according to parents." What I think she meant to say is that SOME educational facilitators at SOME homeschool charters allow families to unschool (use experiential learning in lieu of a curriculum) during the K-8 years. SOME educational facilitators at SOME homeschool charters allow parents to meet virtually with them and SOME allow only one sample per learning period (again, only K-8). The way this article is written will no doubt lead the public to believe that this is going on at all or most homeschool charters and that is patently false. And to describe our schools in this way, when they are under tremendous scrutiny by the legislature, does a real disservice to tens of thousands of families who have already been failed by traditional public schools.

Third, given how few Black homeschoolers there are (and PoC homeschooling generally), I was very upset that Ms. Akpan's photo was used as the "face" of an article about the purported misuse of educational funds. The other blogger mentioned looks much more like the face of homeschooling and yet Ms. Akpan made the cover. Why? Also, Ms. Akpan has one child. Yet, she is pictured with several children (who are nieces and nephews). So, I ask you: which blogger looks more like a homeschooler and which blogger looks more like a racist stereotype about a Black woman with a gaggle of kids milking the system? The racist undertones were palpable and unacceptable.

So, what does homeschooling actually look like for us? Sacha and Ronen are enrolled in two different charters, and their policies vary. Sacha's charter (Dimensions -- formerly Dehesa) is more rigid than Ronen's (Inspire -- he was with Valiant before they closed). Because Sacha is 2e, he received extensive special education testing through his charter school, and his individualized educational plan has enabled him to study math, science, and language arts at a high school level (even though he is just finishing 4th grade), while still interacting regularly with his age peers in enrichment classes held at our charter's resource center in San Diego. Sacha hit the ceiling on his state testing last year and most recently, he took the PSAT 8/9 (administered by the charter for him) and scored in the 99.9^th percentile for a 4^th grader. Ronen is too young for testing. So, yes, charter students do test. But, you have to understand that there is a very large percentage of special ed students in homeschool charters. These are kids who struggled in traditional public schools. Of course many of them are going to struggle with testing!

Re accountability, we meet at least every 20 days with our educational facilitators (in person with Dimensions; Valiant allowed online meetings via Zoom, so we did that; Inspire currently allows either), who review our work samples (one for each subject at Dimensions; one per learning period at Valiant; I don't yet know what Inspire requires), talk with my children about their learning activities in each subject, and enjoy a long-term, mentoring relationship with their students.

I believe Valiant gave us $2400 in funds (I never paid that much attention, to be honest), plus $500 in the summer. There has been a bit of charter school funds arms race the past few years, so Dimensions has been changing its funding each year. Their new policy is that each child will not have a specific amount of funds. The facilitators will have a budget for the kids on their rosters that they will be able to use to help support the kid's learning plans. So, no more wasteful spending. Some kids will get more to support their learning plans; some kids will need less. With a set amount of funds, you did often see people try to spend every last penny on "consumable" items -- things they could keep/use. Both Dimensions and Inspire have a lending library, where you can borrow any nonconsumable items, like textbooks, etc. It doesn't cost any funds to use those items, which is great. So, I only end  up using my funds on consumable workbooks, online classes, PE classes, and games. We do a lot of gameschooling, so I buy a lot of board games with funds. So, that is my vice. We already had Six Flags and Sea World passes, etc. I've never bought any amusement park passes with funds. So, yes, we use curriculum. And yes, some schools are more supportive of unschooling than others. But, we still have to take the prescribed California classes and meet the Caifornia standards -- people just going about meeting those standards in different ways, according to their child's needs.

Re the funds... what I don't think people understand is that, if the funds go away, an entire economy that has sprung up around the use of these charter school funds will be devastated. For example, my friends own a music school. They used to not have much of an income stream during the middle of the day except for a few toddler classes and some old people taking up piano in retirement. Now, they have tons of homeschoolers using charter funds to study music. That will be destroyed up and down the state of California. All the field trip vendors -- gone. Lots of livelihoods will be destroyed. And don't think the price of online classes at your favorite vendors won't go up if California charter homeschoolers disappear. Next time you sign up for an online class, notice how many of them are vendors for California charters. We are subsidizing the cost of many of your classes. If our money goes away, those students will disappear and those classes will not run. So, yeah. This is a big deal.

Yes, some charters have played loosey goosey and walked the line. People always push boundaries. It happens. But, let's not vilify tens of thousands of homeschoolers (again, the majority of California homeschoolers use charters) because some people played fast and loose. Oh, yes. Someone asked about the administration. Charters are managed by charter management companies -- not by school districts. School districts authorize charters and collect money as authorizers. Because so many public school students have been fleeing traditional schools and running to charters, the large school districts are pushing back by lobbying for with this anti-charter legislation. They are pissed because very small and very poor school districts have been the ones authorizing homeschool charters. A charter is allowed to operate in its county and in the counties contiguous to it. So, if you get a tiny school district in LA County (see the Acton school district in the high desert -- outskirts of LA County) to authorize you, you can now enroll student in LA County and all the counties that touch it. So, you only need to get a few desperate authorizers to run your charter in the most populous parts of the state. (The superintendent of the tiny Dehesa school district was also indicted for skimming of the top -- so it isn't just the charter who was involved.)

The charter management company collects money for managing the back end. In the case of Valiant, the A3 management charter management company took down the entire school because they were making up fake students and enrolling them in the school's summer program. The A3 folks were pocketing the money the state paid for these students to be enrolled in the school over the summer. All the educational facilitators lost their jobs and students (like my little one) lost their school. Now, the school itself is being lambasted in the media by reporters and the HSLDA, who don't understand sh*t about the way homeschool charters in CA work.

I am happy to answer any questions.    

 

[EmseB]

4 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Fundraising is not nearly the same thing as charging for things, though. As far as sports, only cheerleaders fundraised regularly, and other extracurriculars didn't much either. However, maybe it's because almost all of my experience has been in a well run but low income district. They knew almost known of the kids could pay for anything so they expected nothing of the sort. 

We even got brand new softball uniforms with our names (so only for personal use) my freshman year, and most of the girls on the team didn't even pay towards them. 

 

The only point with fundraising as it relates to charter funds is fundraised money is not coming from educational dollars, but is essentially donations or private income for those things. If a ps parent busts their butt selling popcorn to fund a band field trip and then hears about homeschoolers taking a music camp courtesy of state educational dollars, they feel a bit, uh, slighted.

It is honestly refreshing to hear that there are low income schools that are run well enough to supply all the basics plus extra curriculars, uniforms, etc. Kind of strange IME of going mostly to suburban middle income districts where everything cost money, which is why I looked up the claim that CA public schools couldn't charge fees for things, and the statement that I initially found incredulous since people I know pay for the things you're talking about or have to raise money some other way. 

 

[madteaparty]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

I never thought I would align with HLSDA on anything, but I do on charters, and hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Goodness me too. You’ve no idea how far from that demographic I am. 

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by madteaparty
Hilarious typo

[SeaConquest]

Oh, one thing that I forgot to mention. What I described about our requirements is for K-8 at our schools. Once you get to high school, it is a whole different ball game. They have different tracks, depending on whether you are heading to a UC school or not, and like any public school, their graduation requirements do vary. I don't know all the specifics about what they have to do, but I do know that it is more work and the teacher decides the grades -- not the parents. So, there is a drop off of people who find that high school is just too onerous and not worth it. You're not going to find a lot of high schoolers spending their time at Disneyland.

[moonflower]

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

Personally, I think it's pretty simple (most of the time).*

Public funds go to public goods, private goods (schooling at home) are paid for by private funds. 

At the very least, public funds going to private goods should be means tested.  If you don't really notice how much public funding you get for your private schools, my feeling would be that you are not in dire need of that public funding. But there are obviously more objective ways to manage that.

If you can't afford a private good without public funds otherwise (like a physics trip to Disney), then you have the option of accessing the publicly available alternative. If the alternative doesn't exist publicly (no physics class offered at a local school or college) then maybe you have a case to apply for funding to allow your child to have a customised physics education.

*Re students with additional needs - if public school is unable to accomodate your child, and your only option is to educate them at home, then there is a strong case for public funds being made available for that student to access what they should - but can't - access at school.  Many taxpayers who are not so keen on the whole Disney thing could be shown that funding special needs accomodations is an issue of equity and access.

 

 

 

 

 I can see the argument for this, and my ideal schooling situation would be good public schools in a stable society.  It's just that I'm not sure we are ever getting back to that, and certainly we don't have it now in most (any?) places I've lived, so I've become pretty individualistic about it.

[Arcadia]

My kids were in public school for K to 4th grade in California. There is two funding systems; local control funding formula and basic aid. My school district falls under the basic aid category, property tax revenues were high enough even during the property/mortgage crisis years.  Quoted below explains in non legal terms the basic difference, the legal stuff is on this link https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/pa/calc17p2.asp

“CUSD is a LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula) school district in which the State of California sets the target funding on a per-student basis uniformly. This is because Cupertino does not generate enough property tax to meet the target funding level on its own. Palo Alto, by contrast, is a “Basic Aid” district because they collect enough property tax to exceed its per-student funding target, so they keep all the locally collected property tax AND a small amount of State funded "Basic Aid”.

As an LCFF district, CUSD receives the base funding amount that is about $7500 per student. By contrast, Palo Alto’s per student spending is around $14,000 per student. Since Cupertino has a very low percentage of special needs and/or low-income students, CUSD does not qualify for any additional funding. As a result, CUSD is in the lowest 25th percentile of spending per student as compared to other school districts in California.” https://www.unitedcupertino.org/single-post/2017/03/05/CUSD-IS-IN-REAL-FINANCIAL-CRISIS

Ocean Grove which is a popular public charter on the vendor system gets this amount of funding from state http://ias.cde.ca.gov/lcffsnapshot/snapshotrv.aspx?FY=2018&ID=7dEZkRzjdg/uT0C1mNttqJwExwR5RSd7bevvuEa8WiV/ofDKxGaAYmJmgR/5Sodd

 

[Arcadia]

As for field trips and stuff, our experience was that we pay and pay, the PTA fundraise and fundraise to cover those not paying for whatever reasons. There were well to do parents that refuse to pay because they believe everything should be free. There was a mom in my kid’s class who refuse to pay and her mom (maternal grandma) paid because she felt bad that they can easily afford and PTA would be paying for her granddaughter if she didn’t.

For the brick and mortar public school:

Classroom supplies

- teacher gets an annual $100 stipend.

- Relies on generosity of parents to contribute in kind, especially for tissue paper and white board markers. My kids’ room parents collect monetary donations from parents twice a year for the teacher (about $300 gets collected each time).

Classroom library

- teachers bring their own books from their personal collection

- Parents buy off their kids’ teachers’ wish list during Scholastic book sales 

Music instruments for school time music class

- parents pay for instrument rental from outside sources for school time band. There is a limited amount of donated instruments for families who couldn’t afford to rent an instrument. Kids without instruments would be in school time choir.

Field trips

- $8 per kid for school bus when destination is free but public transport is not viable  e.g art museum

- light rail when destination is free and accessible by light rail e.g. Tech Museum, Christmas in the Park San Jose

- $20 per kid for trip to pumpkin patch farm 

- at most 5 to 6 field trips for K, at most 3 field trips for 1st to 5th. 

PE

- there is a PE teacher for K-8th grade. The rest of PE lessons were done mostly by parent volunteers. My neighbor would do some of the PE lessons for my kid’s class (her son was my son’s classmate). 

For the online public charter school:

Music lessons were online and no instruments required. Basically singing and theory.

PE was DIY and parents just log the required hours. 

Field trips

- parents drive and chaperone kids for free destinations and there is a limit on number of kids so parents need to register once the particular field trip’s registration opens up e.g. Tech Museum, In-N-Out Burger kitchen tour

- paid field trips. We paid $6 per kid for a pizza place where kids get to make a pizza and get a slice, parents just sit around. We paid $20 per person for Monterrey Bay Aquarium. Parents drive and chaperone. Payment is typically collected by mail in check when registering. 

[Carol in Cal.]

20 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

In California, those fees are not allowed to be charged in public schools. I always find it so strange when I hear all of the fees charged in other states because my experience was all in CA. 

I’m not so sure about this.

In a ‘poor’ school I volunteered at, older kids were invited to a week-long science camp if they were English proficient.  (That was a subset of the overall student body.). The principal raised funds from local tech firms to pay for this, but it was part of the curriculum; however, it was ‘optional’ so if she didn’t get enough funds, the parents had to pay for it themselves.

Also, although team sports are part of the curriculum at the local middle school and high school, uniforms are not provided and parents must purchase or fundraise for them.  Music is unheard of—purely extra-curricular.

[Carol in Cal.]

16 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

Fundraising is not nearly the same thing as charging for things, though. As far as sports, only cheerleaders fundraised regularly, and other extracurriculars didn't much either. However, maybe it's because almost all of my experience has been in a well run but low income district. They knew almost known of the kids could pay for anything so they expected nothing of the sort. 

We even got brand new softball uniforms with our names (so only for personal use) my freshman year, and most of the girls on the team didn't even pay towards them. 

I think fundraising COVERS charging for things.  At least in my district, if there was no fundraising for uniforms the parents paid for them or the kids did not participate.

[SanDiegoMom]

5 hours ago, Arcadia said:

As for field trips and stuff, our experience was that we pay and pay, the PTA fundraise and fundraise to cover those not paying for whatever reasons. There were well to do parents that refuse to pay because they believe everything should be free. There was a mom in my kid’s class who refuse to pay and her mom (maternal grandma) paid because she felt bad that they can easily afford and PTA would be paying for her granddaughter if she didn’t.

 

My daughter went through 4-9 in Public school in CA, and the twins were in k-2.  The PTA fundraising was exhausting -- they paid for so much of the school materials themselves.  Projector lightbulbs? Carpet in the library? Music program? Band program? All paid for by the PTA.  And then who do you think was paying the PTA through all these fundraisers? The parents themselves.  Sure a lot of the events they threw were fun for the kids, but it was so much work for the PTA, and all the money came from the parents or possibly the community (which still meant parents had to go out and beg for money) . Plus the amount of money I spent on school supplies to send with the kids, and then to restock the teacher's supply throughout the year probably amounted to $300 a year easily. Probably much more.  Parents don't get reimbursed for that. 

My daughter's band fee was $600 per year, then we paid for the private lessons which were apparently not very optional for her band, plus paid for all the band trips. The 1st or 2nd grade educational trip to Legoland which included a physics class on site was still paid for by parents.  

Funding for CA schools is really messed up, and the fact that my kids has 30 students in their 2nd grade class and my daughter had 42 in her PreAlgebra class was extremely frustrating.  I can understand why public school parents would be resentful. I can totally understand.  

However the article really came off pretty biased and honestly cringeworthy.  Especially this one: "This model of vendor-based, home school charters is an easy way to make money, home school advocates say."  Really? Who? How many homeschool advocates say that?  Ugh.  

I personally don't have a problem with funding for homeschoolers or charters that are well run (and I'm sure the majority are!) . I feel in this case they are blaming the charters because fixing the school funding problem is much harder.  If all the schools HAD more funding and parents didn't have to volunteer and pay so dang much, maybe they wouldn't need to find a scapegoat to blame. Maybe.  

 

[Roadrunner]

I must live in a very wealthy district. Our school provides musical instruments for free. There are no extra fees involved. We never had to buy any school supplies. In fact my kids were given pencils to bring home. All field trips were paid by the school system and there was no fee for anything (entrance, bus... nothing). We fundraised twice a year for the school. I have no idea what that money was spent on, but our elementary school had science lab, music program, foreign language... you name it.

[Arcadia]

1 hour ago, SanDiegoMom in VA said:

However the article really came off pretty biased and honestly cringeworthy.  Especially this one: "This model of vendor-based, home school charters is an easy way to make money, home school advocates say."  Really? Who? How many homeschool advocates say that?  Ugh.  

 

I know a charter school vendor who got greedy because his clients are mainly parents with kids enrolled with Ocean Grove, Connecting Waters, Fame, Hickman, Visions, Pathways.  The annual price hikes means homeschoolers not using charter school funds start looking for cheaper alternatives. Also there is lots of talk on the ground that getting approved as a charter school vendor is an easy process. So while the charter schools may not be making easy money, vendors might be viewed as earning tax payers money easily. 

[SeaConquest]

8 hours ago, Arcadia said:

My kids were in public school for K to 4th grade in California. There is two funding systems; local control funding formula and basic aid. My school district falls under the basic aid category, property tax revenues were high enough even during the property/mortgage crisis years.  Quoted below explains in non legal terms the basic difference, the legal stuff is on this link https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/pa/calc17p2.asp

“CUSD is a LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula) school district in which the State of California sets the target funding on a per-student basis uniformly. This is because Cupertino does not generate enough property tax to meet the target funding level on its own. Palo Alto, by contrast, is a “Basic Aid” district because they collect enough property tax to exceed its per-student funding target, so they keep all the locally collected property tax AND a small amount of State funded "Basic Aid”.

As an LCFF district, CUSD receives the base funding amount that is about $7500 per student. By contrast, Palo Alto’s per student spending is around $14,000 per student. Since Cupertino has a very low percentage of special needs and/or low-income students, CUSD does not qualify for any additional funding. As a result, CUSD is in the lowest 25th percentile of spending per student as compared to other school districts in California.” https://www.unitedcupertino.org/single-post/2017/03/05/CUSD-IS-IN-REAL-FINANCIAL-CRISIS

Ocean Grove which is a popular public charter on the vendor system gets this amount of funding from state http://ias.cde.ca.gov/lcffsnapshot/snapshotrv.aspx?FY=2018&ID=7dEZkRzjdg/uT0C1mNttqJwExwR5RSd7bevvuEa8WiV/ofDKxGaAYmJmgR/5Sodd

 

 

I am shocked that Cupertino is a poor district. I used to live in Cupertino and although there are a lot of first-generation immigrants, there are also a ton of highly paid tech workers who live there (not to mention the Apple campus). The property values are astronomical, and there should be corporate sponsorship, so color me shocked that the district isn't well funded.

[SeaConquest]

8 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

 

I know a charter school vendor who got greedy because his clients are mainly parents with kids enrolled with Ocean Grove, Connecting Waters, Fame, Hickman, Visions, Pathways.  The annual price hikes means homeschoolers not using charter school funds start looking for cheaper alternatives. Also there is lots of talk on the ground that getting approved as a charter school vendor is an easy process. So while the charter schools may not be making easy money, vendors might be viewed as earning tax payers money easily. 

 

But, what's wrong with this? They are providing a service -- outside enrichment classes -- for a fee. The charter school is simply paying the fee. If the vendor provides a service that lots of students want, then more students sign up with the vendor. How is that greedy? That just sounds like capitalism to me. Like I said, my friend's music school didn't have much of an income stream during the middle of the day until the charter students started coming to their homeschool music classses. They have very popular music classes and so lots of charter students have enrolled. Their music school is a non-profit, by the way, and they do tons of outreach into poorer neighborhoods, give scholarships to people who can't afford music classes, etc. So, that charter money is indirectly helping to grow and fund those programs as well. https://www.rmcsandiego.com/

[EmilyGF]

44 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

But, what's wrong with this? They are providing a service -- outside enrichment classes -- for a fee. The charter school is simply paying the fee. If the vendor provides a service that lots of students want, then more students sign up with the vendor. How is that greedy? That just sounds like capitalism to me. Like I said, my friend's music school didn't have much of an income stream during the middle of the day until the charter students started coming to their homeschool music classses. They have very popular music classes and so lots of charter students have enrolled. Their music school is a non-profit, by the way, and they do tons of outreach into poorer neighborhoods, give scholarships to people who can't afford music classes, etc. So, that charter money is indirectly helping to grow and fund those programs as well. https://www.rmcsandiego.com/

The charter school money allows the fees to be inflated beyond what the market would accept in most areas. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, EmilyGF said:

The charter school money allows the fees to be inflated beyond what the market would accept in most areas. 

California cost of living requires that fees be inflated beyond what the market would accept in most areas. Housing costs in San Diego are 684% of what they are in Memphis. Overall COL is 110% more. https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/memphis-tn/san-diego-ca/33000

 

And looking at the rates for group music classes at the site posted vs what I charge for similar homeschool classes here, honestly, they basically are charging the same amount I am, once you account for that 110% cost of living increase. And my guess is that they are paying far more for rent due to that 684%. 

I suspect it the case that the vouchers are making classes and opportunities MORE available to people who do not use charters, not raising the price. A class of 10 costs me the same as a class of 5 to run-but until I have classes of 10 reliably, I cannot lower the rate for each child because I need to cover those expenses-or cancel the class. I suspect what folks will see in CA is that these homeschool classes will get more expensive, not less, and that a lot of programs will end up dropping daytime classes. 

[SeaConquest]

7 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

California cost of living requires that fees be inflated beyond what the market would accept in most areas. Housing costs in San Diego are 684% of what they are in Memphis. Overall COL is 110% more. https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/memphis-tn/san-diego-ca/33000

 

And looking at the rates for group music classes at the site posted vs what I charge for similar homeschool classes here, honestly, they basically are charging the same amount I am, once you account for that 110% cost of living increase. And my guess is that they are paying far more for rent due to that 684%. 

I suspect it the case that the vouchers are making classes and opportunities MORE available to people who do not use charters, not raising the price. A class of 10 costs me the same as a class of 5 to run-but until I have classes of 10 reliably, I cannot lower the rate for each child because I need to cover those expenses-or cancel the class. I suspect what folks will see in CA is that these homeschool classes will get more expensive, not less, and that a lot of programs will end up dropping daytime classes. 

Exactly. I don't think it's any coincidence that the explosion in online classes made available to all homeschoolers has corresponded with the explosion in charter school money from the largest state in the nation (the majority of whose homeschoolers use charters). Take away that money, less classes run for everyone. 

Sure, some vendors might be price gouging. Greed happens. There are greedy vendors selling to the military, to the public schools, etc. But, on balance, IMO, charter schools have been a net positive for both families (enabling them to have enrichment opportunities in their homeschool they might not otherwise be able to afford) and for the economy as a whole (providing jobs and opportunities for others in the community writ large to benefit from the charter school dollars).

[SKL]

43 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Not necessarily. I know of many low income districts that have those things and at no cost to families. My niece is currently in a pretty well of school, and they also are never "charged" for anything. I bet certain districts are more wary about getting found to not be following the law than others. 

Also, where I live, they don't bother to charge anyone if a substantial % of kids would need subsidies or be left out.  Either they raise the funds to pay for everyone, or they find cheaper activities.

[EmilyGF]

30 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

California cost of living requires that fees be inflated beyond what the market would accept in most areas. Housing costs in San Diego are 684% of what they are in Memphis. Overall COL is 110% more. https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/memphis-tn/san-diego-ca/33000

 

And looking at the rates for group music classes at the site posted vs what I charge for similar homeschool classes here, honestly, they basically are charging the same amount I am, once you account for that 110% cost of living increase. And my guess is that they are paying far more for rent due to that 684%. 

I suspect it the case that the vouchers are making classes and opportunities MORE available to people who do not use charters, not raising the price. A class of 10 costs me the same as a class of 5 to run-but until I have classes of 10 reliably, I cannot lower the rate for each child because I need to cover those expenses-or cancel the class. I suspect what folks will see in CA is that these homeschool classes will get more expensive, not less, and that a lot of programs will end up dropping daytime classes. 

Having lived in CA (Santa Barbara and San Diego) the rent prices were my experience, the increased availability to non-charter families was not.

[SeaConquest]

18 minutes ago, EmilyGF said:

Having lived in CA (Santa Barbara and San Diego) the rent prices were my experience, the increased availability to non-charter families was not.

 

You haven't seen the homeschooling options explode in the past few years? Or, you mean they have changed from DIY stuff that parents used to put together in their garage or at a park to more organized stuff run by actual facilities? Because that last part I would agree with.

The homeschooling culture here in California has changed. You see more conservative religious and antivax/antigovernment folks filing PSAs and the more secular or less conservative religious folks in charters. However, we are having a big problem in the charter world with more religious folks moving to charters for the money and trying to get their sectarian vendors and materials approved. This puts all of us at risk as much as the Disneyland crap. We are working on getting the charters to tighten up the vendor approval process, but it is challenging because the religious vendors are purposefully trying to obfuscate the truth. Again, greed.

But, trust me. Those of us in the charter world are actively trying to police our own because we don't want to lose this phenomenal learning opportunity for our kids. I understand the jealousy and resentment, but the CA model IMO is really at the forefront of school choice. Like Farrar, that's why I was a bit taken aback by the pushback about alternative schooling methods on a homeschooling board.

 

[SeaConquest]

1 hour ago, EmilyGF said:

The charter school money allows the fees to be inflated beyond what the market would accept in most areas. 

 

I think what you will find is that the classes will just go away, not that they will get cheaper. For example, after Valiant was shut down, every other summer program vanished overnight as a precaution to ensure that there was nothing illegal going on at the other schools. Nobody wanted to take any chances, so poof, all the summer programs just gone. Guess what happened to all the cool summer classes that everyone was going to enroll their kids in? They didn't get cheaper; they disappeared. Suddenly, all the posts on the message boards were about what people were going to do instead without the money. The vendors didn't lower their prices; it just didn't make financial sense for them to do so. No one is getting rich teaching piano and parkour. Free movies at the park and the beach just got a lot more popular. Again, this will impact people outside of California re online classes if the charter money goes away.

ETA: Also, when people started charter shopping after Valiant blew up, one of the reasons Inspire got so many students was because they allow funds to be used year-round, and they also allow funds to roll over from year to year. So, it is not a use-it-or-lose-it system. So, people could use their funds in the summer and could save up funds for years when they expect pricier educational expenses. They also allow families to pool funds across kids (most schools allow this, to my knowledge). 

Edited June 19, 2019 by SeaConquest

[mom2scouts]

3 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

I think what you will find is that the classes will just go away, not that they will get cheaper. For example, after Valiant was shut down, every other summer program vanished overnight as a precaution to ensure that there was nothing illegal going on at the other schools. Nobody wanted to take any chances, so poof, all the summer programs just gone. Guess what happened to all the cool summer classes that everyone was going to enroll their kids in? They didn't get cheaper; they disappeared. Suddenly, all the posts on the message boards were about what people were going to do instead without the money. The vendors didn't lower their prices; it just didn't make financial sense for them to do so. No one is getting rich teaching piano and parkour. Free movies at the park and the beach just got a lot more popular. Again, this will impact people outside of California re online classes if the charter money goes away.

I don't know. In my state, homeschoolers don't get any money at all and have to pay their own way for everything. Vendors love when homeschoolers ask them to provide classes. As you said, many don't get much business during the day when most people are at work or school and they are more than willing to fill that time by reducing the regular prices for homeschoolers. 

[SeaConquest]

7 minutes ago, mom2scouts said:

I don't know. In my state, homeschoolers don't get any money at all and have to pay their own way for everything. Vendors love when homeschoolers ask them to provide classes. As you said, many don't get much business during the day when most people are at work or school and they are more than willing to fill that time by reducing the regular prices for homeschoolers. 

 

Yes, the classes are typically cheaper than what is offered to afterschoolers. I guess there is just some resentment on the part of the PSA folks because these classes used to be more DIY, homeschool community run, and now all those homeschoolers are with charters. So, there is less in the way of free/cheap DIY stuff and more in the way of paid classes through vendors, which can be tough in San Diego. Because of our super high COL, if you are living on one income, it is unlikely that you have much in the way of disposable income. I would wager that most people living LCOL areas have more disposable income simply because everything doesn't cost as much. So, the folks here often can't really afford all of the outsourced vendor classes without charter money (even if it is cheaper than the afterschoolers' price). Really, a lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck here because housing is so dang expensive. 

ETA: I know that there are some religious co-ops here if you go inland or north, but really nothing for secular folks. Really, most everyone secular that I know (except one family -- and they are diehard anti-vax) is with a charter, and in coastal/more populous areas of CA, there are just a lot more secular/less conservative religious folks.

ETA again: I am talking K-8. Once you get to high school, I do know more families who file PSAs, but their kids are mostly busy with dual enrollment at the community colleges. And socialization for secular folks who file PSAs for high school becomes a much more frequent topic of discussion once you start talking about older kids because of the loss of the charter community they are used to (and that's especially tough during the teen years).

Edited June 19, 2019 by SeaConquest

[mom2scouts]

27 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Yes, the classes are typically cheaper than what is offered to afterschoolers. I guess there is just some resentment on the part of the PSA folks because these classes used to be more DIY, homeschool community run, and now all those homeschoolers are with charters. So, there is less in the way of free/cheap DIY stuff and more in the way of paid classes through vendors, which can be tough in San Diego. Because of our super high COL, if you are living on one income, it is unlikely that you have much in the way of disposable income. I would wager that most people living LCOL areas have more disposable income simply because everything doesn't cost as much. So, the folks here often can't really afford all of the outsourced vendor classes without charter money (even if it is cheaper than the afterschoolers' price). Really, a lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck here because housing is so dang expensive. 

ETA: I know that there are some religious co-ops here if you go inland or north, but really nothing for secular folks. Really, most everyone secular that I know (except one family -- and they are diehard anti-vax) is with a charter, and in coastal/more populous areas of CA, there are just a lot more secular/less conservative religious folks.

ETA again: I am talking K-8. Once you get to high school, I do know more families who file PSAs, but their kids are mostly busy with dual enrollment at the community colleges. And socialization for secular folks who file PSAs for high school becomes a much more frequent topic of discussion once you start talking about older kids because of the loss of the charter community they are used to (and that's especially tough during the teen years).

I live in a LCOL area, but people here live paycheck to paycheck too and it's difficult to live on one income. Jobs aren't plentiful (and often disappear) and they pay FAR less than similar jobs in California. 

[SeaConquest]

17 minutes ago, mom2scouts said:

I live in a LCOL area, but people here live paycheck to paycheck too and it's difficult to live on one income. Jobs aren't plentiful (and often disappear) and they pay FAR less than similar jobs in California. 

 

I believe you. I know that people are struggling all across our country right now, which is ridiculous given that we are in this massive expansion. But, I will endeavor not to get [even more] political. I just know that people often relocate here because of the lovely weather and a sweet salary increase only to find that they were financially better off from whence they came. But yeah, it is sure tough out there for a lot of folks in what is supposed to be a boom time. G-d help us when the next recession hits. 😞

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mom2scouts said:

I don't know. In my state, homeschoolers don't get any money at all and have to pay their own way for everything. Vendors love when homeschoolers ask them to provide classes. As you said, many don't get much business during the day when most people are at work or school and they are more than willing to fill that time by reducing the regular prices for homeschoolers. 

Only if they can afford to do it. I can tell you that when I teach classes for homeschoolers, I tend to have to think of it as a volunteer opportunity, because honestly, I am lucky to clear my expenses. Homeschool classes are usually much smaller, so there is less income coming in, and I can’t cut much beyond that. The amount I can charge and get homeschooled kids is so low that I cannot afford to rent a room to host the class. And because of the wide age  range that it often takes to get enough kids to hold a class at all, often parents who want actual instruction put their kids in the after school classes because they can be more focused, even though they cost more. I did it for co-ops when DD was still actively participating, but I now only offer clubs (which are things my DD wants and are basically for her, her friends, and a few other kids who want to try it out each year) and private lessons/tutoring during the school day. 

I think almost every dance studio, music program, gymnastics gym, etc has tried to offer homeschool classes,and most haven’f lasted more than a few semesters/sessions. Even when they already had the building and were not paying rent on a per hour basis, as I do, the money coming in is not enough to pay the expenses. An excellent science program limped along a few years, but it was the after school crowd that paid to keep their doors open, and a significant number of the homeschool classes just didn’t form (for years I did my best to recruit and arm twist enough parents to sign up so DD could do it). My BK coached a homeschool gymnastics class that never had more than 3 kids. They tried for almost 2 years to “grow the program” and it never did. 

Most of the ones that have lasted are those subsidized by churches, where they are not paying room rent, which isn’t necessarily a good choice for a secular homeschooler.

I’m not saying that the CA plan should be adopted nationwide, but the fact is, more parents who can afford to pay for more classes, wherever the funds come from means that there will be more classes. As a homeschool mom, I can afford to teach a class that barely covers my costs at a co-op when I have a child taking another class at the co-op from a teacher who is barely covering her costs. But a business owner who is trying to actually stay in the black and make a living cannot do that. I am guessing there are far more people paying for their kids to take physics from someone who actually teaches physics using their voucher  than people using their vouchers to go to Disneyland and calling it physics. 

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by dmmetler

[SeaConquest]

I mentioned upthread that the anti-charter bills, currently before the legislature, were not really about us (independent study charter schools), but that we are getting caught in the crossfire. If anyone is curious about the larger context about the battle between the school districts, the teacher's unions, and the larger charter movement in CA, this is a good article for background:
https://calmatters.org/articles/charter-schools-california-far-flung-loophole-acton-newhall/

It's not that I don't see the need for charter reform; I do. It's just that the brick and mortar charters (the vast majority) and independent study charters are very different, and we are spending a lot of time trying to educate our legislators about that difference. This charter homeschooling thing is very confusing for both our legislators (and the media) to wrap their heads around, and even more difficult to try to regulate when they have no clue what's happening in our schools.

So, given that background re how much time is being spent by homeschooling parents, meeting with legislators to get them to understand and support our schools, perhaps that gives broader context to our frustration when HSLDA starts opining about our schools when they are already under so much scrutiny. 

[SeaConquest]

23 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

Only if they can afford to do it. I can tell you that when I teach classes for homeschoolers, I tend to have to think of it as a volunteer opportunity, because honestly, I am lucky to clear my expenses. Homeschool classes are usually much smaller, so there is less income coming in, and I can’t cut much beyond that. The amount I can charge and get homeschooled kids is so low that I cannot afford to rent a room to host the class. And because of the wide age  range that it often takes to get enough kids to hold a class at all, often parents who want actual instruction put their kids in the after school classes because they can be more focused, even though they cost more. I did it for co-ops when DD was still actively participating, but I now only offer clubs (which are things my DD wants and are basically for her, her friends, and a few other kids who want to try it out each year) and private lessons/tutoring during the school day. 

I think almost every dance studio, music program, gymnastics gym, etc has tried to offer homeschool classes,and most haven’f lasted more than a few semesters/sessions. Even when they already had the building and were not paying rent on a per hour basis, as I do, the money coming in is not enough to pay the expenses. An excellent science program limped along a few years, but it was the after school crowd that paid to keep their doors open, and a significant number of the homeschool classes just didn’t form (for years I did my best to recruit and arm twist enough parents to sign up so DD could do it). My BK coached a homeschool gymnastics class that never had more than 3 kids. They tried for almost 2 years to “grow the program” and it never did. 

Most of the ones that have lasted are those subsidized by churches, where they are not paying room rent, which isn’t necessarily a good choice for a secular homeschooler.

I’m not saying that the CA plan should be adopted nationwide, but the fact is, more parents who can afford to pay for more classes, wherever the funds come from means that there will be more classes. As a homeschool mom, I can afford to teach a class that barely covers my costs at a co-op when I have a child taking another class at the co-op from a teacher who is barely covering her costs. But a business owner who is trying to actually stay in the black and make a living cannot do that. I am guessing there are far more people paying for their kids to take physics from someone who actually teaches physics using their voucher  than people using their vouchers to go to Disneyland and calling it physics. 

 

 

 

 

You will notice that that article described a Valiant parent sending her little kid to Disneyland. First, Valiant is closed, so that isn't happening anymore. The other charter schools (to the extent that they even allowed them to begin with -- Sacha's charter never did) ended the amusement park gig last fall. So, the article was inaccurate right off the bat.

But, you are right, it was mostly little kids going off to Disneyland and having these other experiential type learning activities. Big kids are too busy meeting CA's requirements for big kids. And what I find so interesting about that fact is we hear all the time about how the younger grades have become so developmentally inappropriate, how kids should be out in the fresh air, experiencing the world, blah, blah, blah. But, when we actually take kids out to travel, and see, and touch, and experience the world with funds, we suddenly no longer consider it educational -- on a homeschooling board, no less. Which is it? Is it developmentally appropriate for young kids to be experientially learning or not? Must young kids be sitting at desk with a curriculum before we are OK with funds being used? Do we, as homeschoolers, have to replicate school at home before it is "educational" enough for funds to be used?  

[EmseB]

25 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

You will notice that that article described a Valiant parent sending her little kid to Disneyland. First, Valiant is closed, so that isn't happening anymore. The other charter schools (to the extent that they even allowed them to begin with -- Sacha's charter never did) ended the amusement park gig last fall. So, the article was inaccurate right off the bat.

But, you are right, it was mostly little kids going off to Disneyland and having these other experiential type learning activities. Big kids are too busy meeting CA's requirements for big kids. And what I find so interesting about that fact is we hear all the time about how the younger grades have become so developmentally inappropriate, how kids should be out in the fresh air, experiencing the world, blah, blah, blah. But, when we actually take kids out to travel, and see, and touch, and experience the world with funds, we suddenly no longer consider it educational -- on a homeschooling board, no less. Which is it? Is it developmentally appropriate for young kids to be experientially learning or not? Must young kids be sitting at desk with a curriculum before we are OK with funds being used? Do we, as homeschoolers, have to replicate school at home before it is "educational" enough for funds to be used?  

Uh, younger grades being too academically rigorous has almost zero to do with spending $2-3k on "experiences" for them in the younger/elementary years. That is such a false dilemma that I hope no one is using that as a talking point for this issue. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by EmseB

[SKL]

Yeah, I think when they talk about experiential learning for little kids, they are mostly talking about the kitchen, backyard, neighborhood, park, forest, beach ... places you can usually experience for free or close to free.

Though, for kids deprived of "lining up" at school, there is plenty of remedial line-standing at Disney.  So that is something.  😛

[SeaConquest]

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Uh, younger grades being too academically rigorous has almost zero to do with spending $2-3k on "experiences" for them in the younger/elementary years. That is such a false dilemma that I hope no one is using that as a taking point for this issue. 

 

Those experiences should be free? All the Lego robotics classes, the art classes, the outdoor schools -- should just be thrown together by parent volunteers, I suppose? I suppose that works if you don't have older kids you need to school. My younger goes to a charter vendor called 'Discovery of Learning' two days per week from 9-230. It is a play-based, multi-age, experiential learning program, and he loves it. He started at my older son's more schoolish charter and it was a horrible fit for him. He was miserable. So, we switched charters and signed up for Discovery of Learning. He is so happy. But, the program takes up a little more than $2000 of our funds per year, which seems perfectly fair to me considering it is all day, two days per week, for the entire school year. I'm just not seeing how this is somehow ripping off all the poor brick and mortar public school students, especially since we pay taxes too and they can join us anytime, if they choose. It is the best of both worlds for my son. He learns with me 3 days per week and gets to be with other kids in an experiential learning environment 2 days per week.

Edited June 20, 2019 by SeaConquest

[EmseB]

6 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Those experiences should be free? All the Lego robotics classes, the art classes, the outdoor schools -- should just be thrown together by parent volunteers, I suppose? I suppose that works if you don't have older kids you need to school. My younger goes to a charter vendor called 'Discovery of Learning' two days per week from 9-230. It is a play-based, multi-age, experiential learning program, and he loves it. He started at my older son's more schoolish charter and it was a horrible fit for him. He was miserable. So, we switched charters and signed up for Discovery of Learning. He is so happy. But, the program takes up a little more than $2000 of our funds per year, which seems perfectly fair to me considering it is all day, two days per week, for the entire school year. I'm just not seeing how this is somehow ripping off all the poor brick and mortar public school students, especially since we pay taxes too and they can join us anytime, if they choose. It is the best of both worlds for my son. He learns with me 3 days per week and gets to be with other kids in an experiential learning environment 2 days per week.

No, my point is that's not what people are talking about when they say elementary school shouldn't be so rigorous or school-ish. People are talking about letting kids have more recess, more free play, more read alouds snuggled in a lap or sprawled on the floor, more being in the kitchen baking with a parent, more time in nature, less butts-in-seats doing worksheets, less freaking out if someone can't read well when they are 5 or 6, and certainly not talking about scheduling more camps or programs for them. They are talking about things that cost very little money and free up a kid's time to not be entertained, or scheduled, or taught. They are talking about a kid sitting in their room with their stuffed animals, dolls, actions figures, houses, whatever and making up a story in their brain for an hour and acting it out. Or sitting and drawing or painting or painting or folding paper without someone telling them the "right" way to do it in an art class. Making a fort in the woods and mixing up "stew" out of pine needles and dirt and pretending to be lost on a desert island. That sort of stuff. The stuff that's all but gone from early elementary education, and even a lot of pre-schools and from a lot of home life since homeschooling has become all about classes, camps, robotics, programs, and making sure everyone has "experiences".

Most people (that I've ever heard talk about this issue) who are talking about academics in early elementary school being a problem aren't talking about needing $2-$3k for more programs or more scheduled classes; quite the opposite actually.

I have older-ish kids that I need to school. I spend time with the youngers first, doing read aloud, baking or kitchen work, teaching the K'er to read, write, and do simple arithmetic. Maaaybe some art, but I'm not usually crafty mom. They think that stuff up on their own, mostly. My little two have a ton of time to free play, entertain each other, themselves, do little mini-chores around the house...so in my mind it's a win-win. It honestly never occurred to me that someone would think that speaking about problematic academics in elementary schools would take that to mean they needed to spend a couple thousand dollars on scheduling some other experience or "outdoor school". I am lucky that there is a homeschool PE class weekly during the school year, and get-togethers locally that cost...about the cost of bringing snacks. It's really low-key. Sending my kids to school 2 days a week wouldn't really fit with our homeschool, though, for a lot of reasons, mainly time. I can't teach effectively and have good continuity at home while having my kids gone from our school two days a week to go to a different school. Well, I could, but I guess we'd be schooling year round, which I can't handle either, lol.

ETA: I just reread your post and laughed because I realized that my kids are also in a play-based, multi-age, experiential learning program for the whole day, every day and we just call it...being at home and living life. Maybe I *do* need the state to start paying me educational funds!!   (meant to be lighthearted, not snark...in case tone is questionable 😬)
 

Edited June 20, 2019 by EmseB

[kiwik]

On 6/19/2019 at 3:51 AM, Ellie said:

There is no one who represents all homeschoolers.

When someone is writing an article, he will try to find sources to cover all aspects of the topic. HSLDA covers one of those aspects.

But they aren't all homeschoolers.  They are a small subset in one state who use on line charters.  An organisation known to disapprove of on line charters seems an odd choice to talk to unless you are intending to cause controversy.

Edited June 20, 2019 by kiwik

[Condessa]

On 6/18/2019 at 11:16 AM, kdsuomi said:

In California, those fees are not allowed to be charged in public schools. I always find it so strange when I hear all of the fees charged in other states because my experience was all in CA. 

 

But they do, they just call them “donations” (at least where my family lives).  As in, “We need everyone to give a $100 donation for supplies for art class.” or “Everyone running in cross country needs to donate $250.”  Students who don’t pay aren’t kicked out of the class or extracurricular, but the things that the “donations” cover won’t happen—no supplies so they’re just doing pencil drawings all term, or no uniforms and meets.  Which means they’re not going to be passing AP Studio Art or competing in cross country without those “donations”.  (They do ask for enough to cover a few students with financial need.)

[Condessa]

A few years ago when we thought we might be moving back to San Diego I was looking into signing my kids up with a charter there, and at first I was excited to see that they provided more than twice the funds my kids were getting from our charter here—until I started looking at extracurriculars there, and found it would cover close to the same or a little less there than ours does here.  All the kids’ activities just cost so much more there.

Our charter here in Oregon does some fun, non-educational activities like pizza parties and trips to water parks that are organized by the regional managers, and families can choose to use school funds to participate in these.  But activities that families plan individually must be specifically educational.  I know our Educational Specialist with the school feels bad that we don’t get to participate in these activities, as we live too far away, but I don’t.  We are so blessed to be able to access some of the public education funding to allow our kids to learn things I otherwise couldn’t teach them on my own.  And we are happy that the balance of the public funds that would be allowed to my kids if they were in public school are going to help a small, previously struggling public school district thrive.  It’s a win-win situation.

I don’t understand the pushback against public funding covering educational activities that aren’t available in public schools.  Isn’t the whole push for school choice that is fueling the explosion of charter schools and homeschooling based on the idea that there might be better ways to allocate resources to provide the best education possible than what is available in normal public schools?  If you can apply the same resources to get either a traditional P.E. class, or a high-interest physical activity that builds strength and skill over time, how is it a better option to provide the basic P.E?  And if you can apply fewer public resources by leveraging your own time and efforts to get more high quality, high interest educational opportunities for your kid, all the better!  No one in public school has lost anything for having someone else use their time to apply public funds more effectively than a ps can.

I am, however, not comfortable with the idea of public education funds paying for Disneyland tickets.  Maybe a specific educational class located on the grounds, but not a trip to the theme park.

[EmilyGF]

11 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

A few years ago when we thought we might be moving back to San Diego I was looking into signing my kids up with a charter I don’t understand the pushback against public funding covering educational activities that aren’t available in public schools.  Isn’t the whole push for school choice that is fueling the explosion of charter schools and homeschooling based on the idea that there might be better ways to allocate resources to provide the best education possible than what is available in normal public schools?  If you can apply the same resources to get either a traditional P.E. class, or a high-interest physical activity that builds strength and skill over time, how is it a better option to provide the basic P.E?  And if you can apply fewer public resources by leveraging your own time and efforts to get more high quality, high interest educational opportunities for your kid, all the better!  No one in public school has lost anything for having someone else use their time to apply public funds more effectively than a ps can.

 

According to the (biased) article, part of the pushback is that the scores aren't better from kids in the charter overall. So the education dollars are being spent differently with worse results. 

If the goal is to try spending differently to get better education, you've got to show that the education is actually better beyond, "we like what we do."

Emily