Jump to content

Menu
The Well-Trained Mind Community

HSLDA throws CA charter homeschoolers under the bus


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, TechWife said:

Disney Education is a great resource and the classes have a great reputation overall.  By way of personal experience, my son took a photography class through the program at Epcot - he said it was by far the most informative and helpful of all the art classes he took in high school (including at the CC and the Art Museum). So, yeah, I wholeheartedly believe that a lot of education can occur at amusement parks with careful planning.

Disney Youth Programs - Including Properties of Motion Physics (you know, roller coasters and such).

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.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

HSLDA has always maintained that it only gets involved in homeschool situations where there are no taxpayer dollars involved.  They aren't throwing anyone under a bus, they simply disagree with you an

I'm often greatly bothered by HSLDA purporting to represent all homeschoolers in the media. They go in and say that such and such a thing is or isn't mainstream in homeschooling. It's like, you don't

The newspaper should have interviewed EdChoice or some other charter school related group. What is the point of interviewing HSLDA for an article about charter schools? This does not help clarify the

I don't know enough about the charter school system in CA to weigh in. I don't live in CA. But here in the Midwest, I have to pay for the field trips that my kids go on, whether through a private school or public (I have kids enrolled in private and public schools). DS15's DC trip with the public school this year was over $800, and we are charged for other school trips, both big and small. Perhaps some public schools fund these trips, but in my experience over several school districts, both as a parent and from when I was a student, the funding comes from the parents.

And I don't think it's crazy for tax payers to want funding to go to curricula rather than Disney (or other similar experiences). Our state provides no finances for homeschoolers, except for a disability scholarship.

Edited by Storygirl
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Listen, if I don't begrudge public schoolers one or two not-so-educational field trips in a year - and I really don't! - then I am not going to draw the line at homeschoolers who use public funds doing the same thing.

You know what's educational about a trip to the amusement park? It's the student's reward for slogging through math all year when they'd rather have goofed off. They got their education, now they get their treat, and I'm really okay with that. I'm not okay with the HSLDA being their usual obnoxious selves.

 

Except: In the public schools those not-so-educational field trips are not being funded by taxpayer dollars. They are being fundraised and paid for by parents. That's what we are trying to say.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kiwik said:

Which may be the problem.  Do HSLDA represent the people the article was about? If not why ask them.  

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes 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.

My nieces attended a school that did a big Sea World trip each year (local to them-they also did trips to Legoland and Disney)-and the kids weren’t allowed to ride rides until after 3:00-and a bus went back to the school at 3:00. Only those kids who had permission to stay later and an adult to supervise were allowed to stay later. 

 

And, no, they were not fundraising for these trips (although I do think the school probably got discounted rates). This was a STEM magnet, and it was part of their program. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t read the whole thread, but my thought reading some posts:

 where I am, there are now a lot of fees at public schools.  This has been a change from when I was in school.

Fees for art classes, fees for field trips, fees for sports, fees for materials in non academic classes (cooking or shop for example).  And at start of year a general “activities” fee. 

If there were a trip to an amusement park, even for academic purposes, there would be a fee (entrance, tickets, food etc, probably not school bus)

 

 if there were special transportation needed, such as for a long distance band performance opportunity, money would be raised for that. there’s a good bit of kids doing things to raise money for special trips or events

playground equipment upgrade was covered by community fundraising 

Some other places public schools have dropped down to only having the bare bones academics

Edited by Pen
ETA: I’m not in California
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

No, it's not that I didn't think through how great these programs are when I posted. There are amazing educational opportunities in a lot of places that your average PS student can't access because they are too expensive. When you havr hs'ers using state educational dollars to do these things, negative attention is going to be attracted because it looks as if the state is finding a bougie private school experience for some kids, while kids in their own public schools go without. 

Hs'ers may be able to argue that they are saving the state money overall, but you're not going to be able to make that case on the optics of a Title I school vs taking your kid to Disney with the same district's ed money. It is going to attract the kind of negative attention that charter hs'ers don't want. It looks like frivolity and waste OR like a very unequal allocation of educational reaources. School districts have the same problem with optics and appearances of how they spend their dollars.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

I haven’t read the whole thread, but my thought reading some posts:

 where I am, there are now a lot of fees at public schools.  This has been a change from when I was in school.

Fees for art classes, fees for field trips, fees for sports, fees for materials in non academic classes (cooking or shop for example).  And at start of year a general “activities” fee. 

If there were a trip to an amusement park, even for academic purposes, there would be a fee (entrance, tickets, food etc, probably not school bus)

 

 if there were special transportation needed, such as for a long distance band performance opportunity, money would be raised for that. there’s a good bit of kids doing things to raise money for special trips or events

playground equipment upgrade was covered by community fundraising 

Some other places public schools have dropped down to only having the bare bones academics

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that Disney is educational - or, let's say it "can be" educational.  So can that one lady's trips to Morocco, Denmark, etc. etc. etc. all in one year.

But the vast majority of kids in the USA have no access to that kind of education because no, their schools do not have tax-funded cash for that.

Sure, when I was in public school, the state spent money on me, yippee ... I got the joy of being in an ugly, leaky building with old books and staff ranging from crabby to idiotic to helpful to criminal, being rushed and bullied and mostly ignored, and using their cheap scratchy toilet paper.  And this is the rationale for why charter homeschoolers should get paid trips to Disney?  My first trip to Disneyland (part of a bigger trip on a discount ticket) occurred when I was in my 20s.  My first trip to Orlando (again part of a bigger trip), I was in my 30s.  I just don't see it as a right to have taxpayers fund that.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, EmseB said:

No, it's not that I didn't think through how great these programs are when I posted. There are amazing educational opportunities in a lot of places that your average PS student can't access because they are too expensive. When you havr hs'ers using state educational dollars to do these things, negative attention is going to be attracted because it looks as if the state is finding a bougie private school experience for some kids, while kids in their own public schools go without. 

Hs'ers may be able to argue that they are saving the state money overall, but you're not going to be able to make that case on the optics of a Title I school vs taking your kid to Disney with the same district's ed money. It is going to attract the kind of negative attention that charter hs'ers don't want. It looks like frivolity and waste OR like a very unequal allocation of educational reaources. School districts have the same problem with optics and appearances of how they spend their dollars.

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. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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. 

 

Maybe it has always been so.  When I was in ps myself it was in CA.  

But I recall few public school field trips at all, and none to Disneyland type places.   Maybe my area and era were too poor

Perhaps I dunno, Beverly Hills and Newport Beach type places we’re doing that.  

We visited a fire station. And a tire factory. And a dairy.  One such trip per year. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes 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. 

 

 

That could be solved by giving homeschool students access to those wonderful resources.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by EmseB
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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/

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

Maybe it has always been so.  When I was in ps myself it was in CA.  

But I recall few public school field trips at all, and none to Disneyland type places.   Maybe my area and era were too poor

Perhaps I dunno, Beverly Hills and Newport Beach type places we’re doing that.  

We visited a fire station. And a tire factory. And a dairy.  One such trip per year. 

I'm from a poor area, but a well run school district, and we typically went in one field trip a year, and they were similar to the trips you went on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EmseB said:

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/

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by SKL
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 99.9th percentile for a 4th 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.    

 

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by madteaparty
Hilarious typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

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.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...