 |
 |
By KERRY BENEFIELD
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Ask any parent with a child in a California public school and they likely will say that a free education isn’t really free.
There are transportation fees, field trip costs, uniform deposits, classroom supply lists and increasingly, according to the ACLU, fees for textbooks and enrollment in particular classes.
The existence of those fees in public schools prompted a lawsuit in September, alleging “pay to learn” practices are on the rise throughout California.
While the suit is moving forward, ACLU officials said it will be dropped if Assembly Bill 165, which would prevent schools charging for elements of a core education, becomes law.
The bill, which cleared the Assembly on June 2, passed the Senate subcommittee on education Wednesday on a 6-1 vote.
“We saw such a surge of complaints,” said Brooks Allen, director of education advocacy for ACLU of California.
“It was not the change in quantity, but the change in subject of the calls. Previously we might have received complaints of schools charging for extracurriculars. We started receiving more and more concerns about core academic” classes, Allen said.
But what constitutes core academic services versus extracurricular has raised some concern in Sonoma County that field trips, band competitions and other higher-cost events might fall by the wayside if schools no longer are allowed to ask students to pay.
“I’m inclined to think that those trips are going to be few and far between if fundraising is inadequate for every kid to go,” said Gerry Blue of Rohnert Park. Her son was in the Analy High School band program for four years before graduating in 2009.
At Analy, band students are asked to pay about $100 to participate in the class but it’s not required and students aren’t penalized if they don’t pay, Blue said.
“The music program gets so little,” he said.
“In principle, I agree with the bill, but my concern is that it’s going too far,” he said. “The California Constitution requires that a free education be offered to all California students, so the definition of what exactly is a free education is where I’m a little bit (unsure). It’s kind of a gray area.”
AB 165 defines the key educational programs as “activity that constitutes an integral fundamental part of elementary and secondary education or that amounts to a necessary element of a school activity, including, but not limited to, curricular and extracurricular activity.”
It further prohibits fees “charged to a pupil as a condition for registering for school or classes, or as a condition for participation in a class or an extracurricular activity, regardless of whether the class or activity is elective or compulsory, or is for credit.”
Sonoma County educators said fees for transportation, art materials, lab costs and supplies in vocational courses have been in place for years, but those will have to be re-evaluated if AB 165 becomes law.
“We used to have lab fees and some other things, so you will see districts modifying that,” said Steve Herrington, superintendent of Sonoma County schools. “I have never been a fan of charging kids fees. They should be entitled to a free education.”
But Herrington also questioned how AB 165 would be interpreted if it is signed into law.
“What is basic education? And what is extra?” he said.
Both Herrington and Allen acknowledged that some fees straddle the line between mandatory and voluntary, potentially putting students and their families in an uncomfortable position.
“Sometimes it’s very clear, very obvious,” Allen said. “Look, it says, ‘You must pay $85 to take physics,’ that’s a required fee and clearly violates the law.”
But what if a student can’t afford or doesn’t have access to the 10 novels on an Advanced Placement English teacher’s recommended summer reading list?
“If that is required, ‘You have to read these,’ then the school has to provide some access to where you can get copies of those 10 books,” Allen said.
Assemblyman Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said his bill is meant to address the subtle economic peer pressure that can exclude some students from activities.
“As a former band drum major, I don’t want to do anything to eliminate our school programs and music programs and extracurricular activities,” he said. “We are not excluding fundraising or donations for different programs. We are simply saying it cannot be a condition for participation.”
“I’m not saying that school districts were doing this with any malice, but this was going on,” he said.
Blue said that in the current economic climate, if parents are precluded from donating to their own student’s activities but rather directed to chip in for the entire group, some may pull back their support.
“If that is the way it has to be, I’m not sure those trips will happen,” he said.
In Petaluma, district officials last year conducted their own audit of where fees were being charged and for what.
“Sports is a good example,” said interim Superintendent Steve Bolman. “We ask for donations. We get about half the people donating, half the people don’t. Everyone plays.”
But that gap in funding invariably puts pressure on booster clubs to fill in the gap, he said. And if boosters can’t provide the funds, the payments don’t get made.
“The only things we pay for in sports is the coach’s salary and salary-related benefits,” Bolman said.
Music and theater booster groups are under the same pressure to support programs.
In Geyserville, fees have been largely abandoned because so many students there are considered economically disadvantaged that they are exempted from fees anyway, said Superintendent Joe Carnation.
“It’s always been my contention … that we cannot charge for transportation and cannot charge a kid a fee,” he said.
Under financial pressure, that district has cut all funding for athletics, turning to boosters to fund middle and high school volleyball, track, soccer, basketball and softball for the coming school year. Last year, boosters picked up 80 percent of the tab.
But Carnation acknowledged the reality of school budgets sometimes differs from the letter of the law.
“I’ve paid the fees like other parents,” Carnation said.
Lara does not expect AB 165 to dismantle programs that now rely on fees and fundraising to stay afloat, but said the fundraising portion will have to step up even more to cover all students who want to participate.
“I know our schools are strapped and I know that we in Sacramento are not doing anything to solve it and keep burdening them with more cuts,” Lara said.
He said he considers sports, band, theater and other so-called extracurricular activities part of a student’s core education — not an “extra” subject to fees.
“They play a vital role, so I don’t think we can separate one or the other,” he said.
Staff Writer Kerry Benefield writes an education blog at extracredit.blogs.pressdemocrat.com.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Lo-
Take it to the SCOTUS. Your arguments, I’m sure, would cause the justices to change their minds.
I agree with those bemoaning the terrible job in teaching the basics including world history.
This ridiculous State is more concerned with passing legislation to make the sexual orientation of historical figures more important than history itself.
My guess is that is of little consequence in classrooms of the more advanced countries on this Globe who routinely clean our clocks when it comes to education.
We can’t see the forest for the trees in this Country when it comes to education.
Bear, I like your reply and call for solutions. California bends over backwards more than nearly any state in the USA to ensure we educate EVERYONE. We spend an inordinate amount of money on the remedial programs versus gifted.
Frankly, if you don’t pay taxes, your kids don’t go to school here. The problem is that then we have a country full of the uneducated. So a “simple” start is handling our horrific immigration problem. Those tax dollars alone would help.
Then I propose that the state of California shall spend no more money annually on a prisoner then we do on a young student looking for a chance to succeed (beware corrections unions). Just think, we spend about $8k per kid here in Sonoma County (plus or minus) compared to $30,40,50k per year for a criminal…..? Heck, split the difference! Lose the idiotic movie and popcorn night in jail (yes, it’s true) and let a kid play a sport, get some tutoring, learn a second language, see a counselor or play an instrument. Our priorities are goofed up…maybe not ours – we here seem to at least care enough to be talking about it.
Bear- we all depend on educating the children whether we have kids or not. I would much rather educate children who will contribute to society in a positive way with my taxes than it going to 4 wars (Pakistan, Afganistan, Libya, and Iraq-soldiers still there) and tax breaks to the rich. Afterall, the rich depend on an educated workforce.
When our children can’t even tell you where they live on a map, have no clue about the world around them, the people in it, or how dependent we are as a species on this planet remaining healthy it doesn’t bode well for anyone living on it.
Other countries focus on educating their children. China, Japan, all of Europe (all of which are way ahead of us in education) because they see the benefits for their countries’ future economically.
And it keeps crime down (okay-maybe not in big corporate financial)and kids occupied in a productive way.
I was too harsh in my first post. In today’s paper I read that only 12% of high school seniors had a passable knowledge of history. As in “who fought in WW2?”
This is appalling to me. If you don’t know the simplest elements of history, we as a country are doomed.
I am childless, so I have paid taxes to EDUCATE the children of others. I growl when this does not occur. I growl when parents do not help their kids get educated. I growl when taxes are endlessly cut and everyone asks “where’s the money?” I growl when people game the system by having 3, 4 or more kids and their taxes cannot possibly cover the cost of schools for their children.
The kids all deserve the education we got, and the tax/school deal our parents got.
Of course, we could all go to private or home schooling. But I think this would destroy public education, cost way more than you think, and change the nature of this country.
We’re all complaining, but I don’t hear any solutions.
Hammer-I ask myself the same question. My grandchildren in elementary school are given a long list of supplies to bring to school. Cost with backpack, $50 each. I know teachers who spend a lot for supplies and teaching aids each year.
When I went to school (a very small northern CA school)nothing was charged. We had driver’s training, all the sports, buses taking us to games and field trips and to and from school. We were able to borrow instruments from the school. If a trumpet was already out, you played the trombone. The only thing we paid for were gym clothes and they were cheap cotton.
I find it appalling that the things that made school enjoyable, like art, music, PE, sports are all being shelved. The teachers are teaching to tests for government money. Critical thinking skills are on the back burner. History, social studies, geography, SCIENCE, literature are all giving way to basic reading and math.
Our future are our children. Education is the key for them and this country. We need to focus on making sure they get the best education possible. Children qualifying for college should have the opportunity to go without graduating with crippling lifetime loans.
If the result of this is to “ban” parents from doing fund raising for their school and/or child’s class then the ACLU is way off base.
Parents involved with school fundraising generally are those most motivated to see their children do well; eliminating that from the equation because of “do good” litigation is insane.
We need MORE volunteers across the board, not less.
Stuff it ACLU.
Humm…maybe part of the problem is that “back in the day” the only language that we spoke as a society in public, for the most part was English and there was not the “pride” in keeping one’s heritage alive and not bothering to teacher our children English and letting the kindergarten and other teachers take on that burden. The teachers/school didn’t have to cater to all the special needs of those who didn’t know of language of the country that we live in…plus the “free” education should be for CALIFORNIA LEGAL CITIZENS not everyone who want to come over tap into the resources and take, take ,take and not give anything back…because min. wages jobs are NOT paying back a ton of taxes each year and if you are living here as an ILLEGAL resident then there is an even bigger chance you are not paying taxes at all! So if someone is wondering why things have gotten so bad for the schools maybe it is what we as California’s have allowed to occur, same thing can be said for our medical/hospitals (medicare, medi-cal) , welfare, and all the other “free” programs….open your eyes people…it’s fine to help others when you can but if you can’t you need to put a stop to it…if you want to live in this county then it needs to be done the LEGAL way and the right way or there is nothing but problems.
Education is and never has been free. We pay for it either directly in private tuition and/or indirectly via taxes. Those paying private tuition are actually paying double, as they still most likely pay taxes that then are distributed to their public schools.
If you look at the newly passed budget, K-12 and Higher Education are 39% of the total general and special fund expenditures. Health and Human services makes up 31% of that budget (included because some money spent is for children in public schools). Together, education and health and human services are 70% or current State Budget. We all pay into the State revenue stream via some form of tax, i.e. personal income, corporate, highway, motor vehicle, Insurance, liquor, tobacca, etc….not to mention the CA State lottery. So the idea that education was ever free is outright false. The real difference is that those who pay tuition directly to non-public institutions probably get more say in their children’s education then those who pay via taxes. The ironic thing is that if you sat down and estimated the percentage of the taxes you pay annually that go to your child’s education, you may be surprised to find you pay as much or slightly more then the private tuition others are paying, especially once you factor in all the additional costs/fees discussed in the above article. Are you getting the same or comparable quality???? I’m not sure, but I’m leaning towards no currently. It’s an interesting question to think about.
I thought the lottery money was going to fix all the schools hahahah! **eye roll
Better get a handle on this before SB48 goes into effect!
How does the ACLU propose these things get paid for? Fund raising? Then the “wealthy schools” will charge forward and the “poor schools” will lag behind and the ACLU will have another “injustice” to fight against and reason to exist.
The ACLU has done great things along the way, but writing no tolerance legislation is an absolute mistake!
What happened? In my day the schools asked for nothing. I was on the baseball team, basketball team and in the chess club. Took physics and chemistry and never paid for anything. I did pay for my class ring.
How has the school system changed to cause the schools to continually ask for the students to pay? Somebody please explain this to me.
This one is problem to wrap my head around.
I was a swimmer/water polo player back in my day. Good at it enough to be recognized for college monies.
We had mostly free traveling, but we all took up the side expenses. Kids whose parents couldn’t chip in didn’t have to pay. To codify, and make it another ZERO-TOLERANCE crappy bill makes no sense.
They call them ‘extra’, but from my schooling experiences they all were part of my educational experience.
I have bought clarinets and trumpets.The pawn shops are a great source. If a family was low-income, they could borrow one.
I could go on and on, but please beware of the zero-tolerance bandwagon.
Some ‘fees’, or costs, are very willingly born by some parents anyway.
A general rule of no forced costs is fine, but they will screw it up and ban all costs,even ‘voluntary’..
What a concept! Pay for the cost of educating your own children?