December 6, 2009

How much is your school’s suggested donation? Part 2

Let’s continue this discussion!

How much is your school’s suggested donation? | SF Bay Area Home Price and Mortgage Insanity Blog – Burbed.com
How much is your school’s suggested donation?

Live in a Mansion Condo in Menlo Park! | SF Bay Area Home Price and Mortgage Insanity Blog – Burbed.com

SiO2 Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 7:34 am

Las Lomitas elem school foundation has a suggested donation of $1100 per child. AFAIK this is the highest among RBA schools. Most are around $700.

SiO2 Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 6:54 am

The amounts are usually published in the foundation’s newsletter.

Saratoga and Los Altos elementary are around $700.

The donations pay for things that are now extras in elem school, like art, music, P.E. Districts that don’t have the foundations may offer these but will charge the parents. Or they may not offer them at all.

On the bright side, property taxes are low if you held your house for 20 years. And those folks probably don’t particularly care about schools anymore.

So CA school spending is around $5500 for most schools (revenue limit) but is higher for ones that are funded by local prop tax (e.g. Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Palo Alto) – these range from $8000 to $12000. I’m not sure if those figures include the foundation donations are not.

Whereas in NJ (Burbed’s favorite) school spending between $12k and $20k per student!

It’s puzzling why it’s so low here. Our taxes are not as high as Rush Limbaugh would have you believe, but they are not particularly low either. The only thing I can come up with is that there’s relatively more children here per taxpayer. Or we spend money on other things – but we are low on spending on roads and infrastructure too.

Mike Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 7:55 am

Los Gatos suggests $600 for family with 1 child, and
$900 for family with multiple kids.

gallileo Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 10:12 am

Ahh, a subject near and dear to my heart. The PIE foundation for my kid’s schools in the slums of Palo Alto recommend $650 for one, $1350 for two and and $1950 for three.

Either someone can’t do simple multiplication problems or they really believe that multiple kids per family are more burdensome to the system than one.

This is all in addition to the PTA requested donations, which vary between schools, but average around $350. So I guess the total is $1000 per student in the slums of palo alto.

But don’t forget the library donations or the pertpetual fundraisers (you would think they could pick decent restaurants, but they don’t.)

Actually there’s more… here’s what else gallileo sent to me:

Hi Burbed,

You asked for a few of the donation appeals. Mostly they just hit the round file (after I donate–yes, the guilt trips work). But here are a couple from the Palo Alto Partners in Education newsletter that hasn’t met its maker yet.

Funniest thing is that the need for money never changes.

Gallileo

From the September 2009 PiE newsletter

Skelly says the district will work hard to be financially responsible and he hopes the community will continue to support our schools.  But he admits there are tough challenges ahead.  “I don’t think any one part of this solves our problem.   We have to be a little smarter and a little more careful with our resources.  It’s a combination of parcel tax, parent support, budget cuts, and using reserves that can put us in a position where we’re as strong as we possibly can be to meet the needs of kids.”   And the role of PiE will increase in importance in the face of the budget challenges over the next few years.  “My sense is that we’re really fortunate to have PiE at this point,” Skelly adds.  “In a strong economic headwind, people are still stepping up.  And I think those people who have the resources now have a special responsibility to help support the schools.”

From the November 2006 newsletter:

Klausner said it would be great if the district had more money for personnel resources.  “Letting the math specialists have more time to get into the classrooms, to be there with the teachers when they’re teaching and then documenting and sharing the best teaching strategies across the district — I think everyone would benefit tremendously from that, but like many things, it (this math specialist program) is way under-funded.”

Can someone explain how math specialists work with teachers? How does this all work?

And why aren’t these schools asking for more? If a private school like Harker can ask for $35,000 a year, why can’t these public schools ask parents to caught up at least $3,500?

The other day someone told me this stunning fact: “The grades of students were better before education became public and mandatory by the government.”

Let’s face it, isn’t it time we ended public school and privatized it so that only those who can afford get educated? That’ll definitely help our statistics!

Just a thought.

Comments (71) -- Posted by: burbed @ 5:13 am

71 Responses to “How much is your school’s suggested donation? Part 2”

  1. nomadic Says:

    The other day someone told me this stunning fact: “The grades of students were better before education became public and mandatory by the government.”

    That makes a lot of sense. At that time, only parents who really believed in education (and were involved, or at least pouring money into it) sent their kids to school. Of course back then there were plenty of menial, unskilled jobs that paid a living wage for the ones who didn’t go to school. Now it would just swell the welfare burden past our breaking point.

    Funny how no one wants to pay directly out of pocket for what I consider the two most important things in life: education and healthcare. All the bleeding hearts want the government or employers to provide them, and then they are taken completely for granted.

  2. DreamT Says:

    what discussion?:)

  3. Herve Estater Says:

    > All the bleeding hearts want the government or employers to provide them, and then they are taken completely for granted.

    But isn’t it exactly because they are so important that the government should provide them for “free” by taxing the sh*t out of people like Real Estater?

  4. Alex Says:

    But isn’t it exactly because they are so important that the taxpayers should provide them for “free”?

    ============

    I’ve corrected your statement to reflect reality. People should start replacing the word government with taxpayers.

  5. DreamT Says:

    Right, because taxpayers are service providers.
    Or if you’re just following the money, why not continue to where you got it from in the first place (your employer or your customers)? The government makes spending decisions, not the taxpayers. That delegation of authority is the reason why you vote in the first place.

  6. Real Estater Says:

    Check this out: $3000/sq. ft. for 1920′s 2 bedroom house in Palo Alto:
    http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Palo-Alto/145-Kellogg-Ave-100_80955648.htm

  7. CB Says:

    What services exactly can the government provide without taxpayers?

    That’s what I thought.

  8. DreamT Says:

    Lol, and without government the taxpayer wouldn’t even be posting on burbed in the first place:) or access the aforementioned services. So there’s interdependence. Your point?

  9. Pralay Says:

    I’ve corrected your statement to reflect reality. People should start replacing the word government with taxpayers.
    —–

    Taxpayers? Partially. Who pays rest?

    Hint:
    Cost of 1 gallon milk in 1960: 50 cents.
    Cost of 1 gallon milk in 2009: about $4.

    Because of a printing press.

  10. Real Estater Says:

    A house is your printing press. That’s how a 1920′s house can be worth $3M.

  11. nomadic Says:

    Is a gallon of milk really $4 these days? Wow, I need to crawl out from under my rock more often.

  12. Herve Estater Says:

    Let’s ask our self-proclaimed kid-free friends here if they mind paying taxes to pay for education and health care… bob? nomadic?

  13. Herve Estater Says:

    > Check this out: $3000/sq. ft. for 1920’s 2 bedroom house in Palo Alto

    I love picture #3… It makes you forget you are only steps from the Caltrain tracks.

  14. Pralay Says:

    A house is your printing press.
    —-

    Using your logic, anything could be printing press – including 1 gallon of milk.

    Anything more to add, using your convoluted argument?

  15. nomadic Says:

    #12, no I don’t mind. Much. ;-) I only get testy knowing my ancient neighbors pay 1/10 the taxes to support schools. And they even had kids who benefited from them many years ago.

    I guess if I had a major philosophical problem with it, I’d just rent like bob… well NOT like him because I wouldn’t sacrifice that much to save a few bucks.

    I’m not touching health care with a 10-foot pole.

  16. Pralay Says:

    That’s how a 1920’s house can be worth $3M.
    —-

    Correction: the seller thinks it worth $3M.

    145 Kellogg is on and off from market since Aug 27. It’s pretty obvious that nobody except the owner thinks that it worth $3M.

    You know what, I think my four year old monitor, which I was thinking of e-cycling, probably worth half million. So instead of e-cycling I am going to put an ad on craiglist with price tag half million dollar.

  17. Pralay Says:

    It makes you forget you are only steps from the Caltrain tracks.
    —-

    Think about the upside of living near train track. There will be so much light in neighborhood that you won’t need any outdoor light in your own home. Your home will be in 24 hour daylight zone.

  18. Real Estater Says:

    Pralay says,
    >>Using your logic, anything could be printing press – including 1 gallon of milk.

    Really? Would you like a glass of milk from 1920?

  19. Real Estater Says:

    >>Is a gallon of milk really $4 these days?

    $6 for organic. Milk cost much more than gasoline on per gallon basis.

  20. Pralay Says:

    Really? Would you like a glass of milk from 1920?
    —–

    Wouldn’t mind it it was frozen from 1920. Atleast someone won’t have to pay property tax for frozen milk.

  21. San Jose Craig Says:

    Everyone donate your spoiled milk, um…print press, to the schools. No property taxes and you get a tax write-off. What a brilliant idea.

  22. CB Says:

    #8 Your point?

    There’s a symbiotic relationship to be respected. One can’t exist without the other. The other can exist without government, but without “burbed”, apparently.

  23. Alex Says:

    Right, because taxpayers are service providers.
    Or if you’re just following the money, why not continue to where you got it from in the first place (your employer or your customers)? The government makes spending decisions, not the taxpayers. That delegation of authority is the reason why you vote in the first place.

    Taxpayers actually earn their money. Government? Bunch of crooks who promises the world in exchange for votes. Not even a fair comparison.

  24. DreamT Says:

    Alex, first the “bunch of crooks” are also taxpayers (you’re conflating people and abstract structures).
    Second, many politicians earn their keep as much or more than many corporate managers, lawyers or other professions where compensation is derived from result obtained as opposed to time and effort. Once you have responsibility over people with delegation of authority, the concept of “earning” your keep becomes more abstract and the job security is less and less tied to raw time and effort.

  25. Alex Says:

    Yah, they’re taxpayers as long as they’re caught (eg Daschle and Sebelius to name a few).

    I beg to differ on politicians’ worth. Get rid of half of them and I won’t even miss them.

  26. DreamT Says:

    Frankly I don’t see much difference between the generic “politicians are a bunch of crooks” and anti-ethnic statements. They both indicate roughly the same level of worldliness.

  27. Pralay Says:

    Get rid of half of them and I won’t even miss them.
    —-

    Why only half? What about all of them? I hope you won’t still miss them.

  28. bob Says:

    I don’t mind paying taxes for schools. Its basically insurance for me because without educated students, you wind up with a 3rd world country. I do however have a problem with the system that seems prevalent in the Bay Area where typical public schools barely have enough money to keep the lights on while the schools in wealthy areas get money from rich parents. Thus rich kids get better educations by virtue of having wealthy parents. That’s wrong. If public schools can’t function well enough on the current tax system then either more money should be allotted to them or everyone should have to pay more in taxes for ALL of the schools.

  29. Alex Says:

    Pralay,

    You’re right. If you get rid of all politicians, I won’t miss them. This country needs a new start.

    DreamT, your comparison is ridiculous. Anti-ethnic comments have little to no basis. Politicians are corrupt. Been proven over and over again.

  30. Real Estater Says:

    Bob,

    Are you saying contributing to school is bad? Go tell that to all the top universities. Harvard, Standford, they all get donations from rich people. There’s nothing wrong with people paying to enhance their kids’ education. They’re not using the tax payers’ money to accomplish this objective.

    Your position is basically that since poor people don’t have good schools, rich people shouldn’t either for equality sake. That’s b.s. communist thinking.

  31. bob Says:

    RE,
    Don’t even try to pull that commie-scare crap with me. That’s not what I was saying. Do you or do you not agree that it is fair that poor kids- even though they might be as smart as rich kids do not get to have the same quality of education as their wealthier neighbors even though they both go to public schools? I think that’s wrong no matter how you cut it. If we didn’t have a public school system it would be different but the fact is that we do and its obvious that it cannot support itself with state funding. Public school means that all children have an equal opportunity to succeed. At least that’s the way it was engineered to work. Clearly that’s not the case and those with money have a very clear advantage,

    Bottom line- if the public schools cannot function with the money they currently get, then its time to get them the money so they can.

    Sure- if those rich parents want to throw money at their own schools to make them better, give all the kids laptops and French lessons- go for it. But it isn’t fair and in the long run it will only do more to hurt this country economically as the class divide grows deeper.

  32. steve Says:

    bob, you do know how schools are financed in most states, right?

    CA, TX, NJ and a handful of others with state supreme court mandated district equalization are the minority.

  33. nomadic Says:

    bob, wealthier people will always have advantages over those with less. We can strive to raise the standards for those at the bottom, but they will never (and I’d even argue they shouldn’t) be equal.

  34. PA-S Says:

    Less money is not the reason why we have bad education system.
    No respect of skill, knowledge, work and achievement is the reason why our education is so bad.

  35. Pralay Says:

    No respect of skill, knowledge, work and achievement is the reason why our education is so bad.
    —–

    Why do you need skill and knowledge, when you can just buy an overpriced home and make money by “just living” there? Who wants to get up in the morning and go to work?

  36. nomadic Says:

    … or when you can work at Goldman Sachs?

  37. bob Says:

    Say what you will. But my home state of TN by and large is not even close to having the amount of wealth and industry as California and yet it has a public schools system that pretty much ensures most any student gets a good education. My Mom has worked in 4-5 schools in several counties there. Some are rural, others are near major metros. All of them offered a full compliment of classes, gym, band, art, vocational training, computer labs, and now early college preparation courses, some that actually give students credit. In fact, the schools are better then they were when I went.

    I’m not saying our state’s schools were perfect. But they were decent, they worked, and even if you were poor you could still have access to the same things that even wealthy students who went to private schools had. I personally find the situation in California disgusting. There is no excuse for the way it is here. But its not just California. I lived in Massachusetts for a few years and guess what? It too had a situation where the public schools sucked, but all the nice little wealthy enclaves had the nicest public schools. I’ll be durned. In fact, its the same from what I’ve heard in New York, where some of my friends there also have to fight to get their tots into anything halfway decent.

    Notice the pattern here? The irony that in the richest parts of the country with the richest people the poor kids get shafted on while the wealthy get a severe advantage. I’m sorry, but rationalize it if you want, but that’s just wrong. Understand that I’m not blaming the rich. I’m blaming the state government for squandering money where it shouldn’t and not spending it where it should. California used to have the best education system in the country. Now its one of the worst. Of course like everything else it will never get fixed and you can add this to the pile of stuff that’s making people like me get the hell out of here. Lord have mercy if we ever repeal Prop 13.

    Fix the public schools for all children so that all kids have a decent chance to succeed. That’s about as simple as it gets.

  38. steve Says:

    bob, when you went to school in TN, rich counties (high property values, large property tax receipts) spent much more money on their public schools then poor counties. this was equalized somewhat in 1992, long after CA decided to do the same.

  39. bob Says:

    Steve,
    we can talk about the technicalities all day long.But the fact remains that I did not live in a rich county and yet somehow our public schools were still good schools and in many ways much better then those here. All I am saying here is that it makes zero sense that schools in wealthy areas don’t actually have enough money to support themselves and instead rely on handouts from the wealthy parents who live there while on the same token, schools across the tracks in the same area suffer because since the state cannot fully support it properly and without rich parents, the students don’t get the same advantages- even minor things like gym and bad in some cases.

    Let me repeat it so it sinks into some of your heads and then you can go back to pointing out some other non-relevant detail: Its not fair that students in the same area going to public schools should be greatly disadvantaged because their parents aren’t rich enough to pay for a broken public system. Sure- there will always be a difference between the rich and poor. But the poor kids deserve to have at least a good school experience.

  40. nomadic Says:

    Yes, I liked the subtleties of where I went to high school better. They didn’t rely on parents’ handouts, but the richer areas had the best schools anyway because their property taxes were higher and the underlying taxable values were higher, yielding them more money. The schools were financed by a combination of funds from the state and local municipalities.

    /tongue-in-cheek

  41. steve Says:

    bob, you continue to have no idea what you are talking about. in all states, at all times, there have been good public schools and bad public schools. parents have known this, and the ones that cared, bid up property values in good public school districts. this then made the good school districts richer socio-economically and in tax receipts.

    when you grew up, this was the case in TN, but maybe you didn’t notice the disparity because schools in your state uniformly sucked. to its credit, TN is changing.

    CA, by contrast, was home to some of the best and the worst schools in the country. it still is, but via CA supreme court decision, there has been an effort to level spending by restricting what rich areas can spend. initially, the impact of this was small, as rich districts had reserves, property to sell, etc. now, it is getting more significant.

    still:
    1) studies show only weak impact of per capita spending and educational achievement
    2) I’m not sure that CA schools are doing a worse job than before with a typical student. and, at the top end, paly and lowell, for example, continue to be a top ivy feeders, although not as successful as the schools on this list (all private):
    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-COLLEGE0711-sort.html

  42. bob Says:

    I’ll conclude that when I moved to my first major metro ( Boston) and later SF, it was the first time I ever heard of parents shelling out money for their public schools ( Of course we had things like bake sales and the PTA and so on) but what I’ve seen there and here to me is still to this day baffling and almost on par with what I’d expect to see in a 3rd world country.

    I think my surprise also came from the general fact that most people where I grew up were for the most part middle class: House, a couple of cars, kids in public schools or state colleges, and so on. In the 2 cities I’ve been in there is a distinct class warfare that sort of infiltrates most aspects of daily living. I’ve never liked this. I guess its partially my inexperience with it beforehand. But I still don’t care for it and especially when I see its effects on children and their schooling. My whole family were teachers. Its near and dear to me.

  43. steve Says:

    the golden age of CA public schools, pre-donations, for which Bob longs:

    Property wealth varied greatly among districts. Mockler and Hayward (1978) cite the example of two Alameda County neighbors: Emery Unified and Newark Unified. In 1970-71, Emery had a property tax rate of $2.66 and raised $2,448 per pupil, while Newark levied a rate of $5.69 but raised only $719 per pupil. Differences such as this led to the lawsuit filed by John Serrano in 1968, which worked its way through the California court system in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

    the rest of the article seems quite interesting — reading it now. http://www.spa.ucla.edu/ps/pdf/s99/PS294assign/Coping.pdf

  44. bob Says:

    Steve…no offense but you’re kind of full of it. TN schools are by and large ranked higher than those in California. Meaning that the average TN school is ranked higher than the average in California. TN was ranked No.16 last time I checked. Cali was ranked 47th. That’s a big delta.

    I, my Mother, Father,Grandfather, Aunts and Uncles on both sides, Cousins, and Brother are all products of the TN public school system. We all went to college, half of us have higher degrees, and more than half of us make 6 figure incomes. Call it what you want but I’d say it did its job.

    At least we didn’t have to buy some overpriced house just to get near a functioning school nor have our parents throw money at them to have band or art lessons. Nope- our “sucky” schools had lame things, like computer labs, a full track with 12 acres of grounds, art, band, annual cross-country trips, and small classes with 15 students per class. We felt so underprivileged that we typically lived in 2 story decent homes in pretty decent neighborhoods and had parents with regular jobs. All we thought about was how lucky all those kids in California were. We sooo wanted to be just like them.

    I’m so glad you nailed it. Of course! We didn’t realize how crappy our schools were! How novel! Now that you speak of it, it was sort of a terrible thing that one of the coke machines ate our quarters on occasion. We should’ve known. All the ones in Cali always worked.

  45. steve Says:

    bob, there is 0 chance that TNs best public schools are on par with the best in CA, despite CA budget problems. US News latest rankings supports this:

    http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2008/12/04/best-high-schools-state-by-state-statistics.html

    but, more importantly, I’ve completely lost track of what you are trying to argue. you started with a fairness argument, and when I pointed out that funding in CA was more equitable than it had been historically, and more equitable than what you grew up with, you called it a technicality.

    now, you are spouting drivel like, “At least we didn’t have to buy some overpriced house just to get near a functioning school…” rent, man, and be happy. it is the cheap way to a private school quality education.

  46. Alex Says:

    Steve, read bob’s statement again.

    bob argued that the AVERAGE school in TN is ranked higher than the AVERAGE CA school.

    I have to concur. As a whole, the CA public school system is pretty pathetic.

  47. steve Says:

    ok, this was a little hasty:

    there is 0 chance that TNs best public schools are on par with the best in CA

    as Nashville has a pair of excellent magnet schools, among the best in the country, but I’ll stand by a similar point formulated with less hyperbole.

  48. DreamT Says:

    Steve, it’s as if bob showed you a graph of average price to prove a point and you showed a graph of median prices (or top 10%) to counter it. You two are talking about different things entirely. You emphasize elite schooling, he emphasizes broader distribution of opportunities. Neither one of you is incorrect. So why argue? There’s no need for the elitist chip. I agree with bob that the purpose of public school is to offer same education to all, same curriculum. Private schools for under- or over- achievers are available, so why defend a system that emphasizes, let alone allows, private contributions to local public schools? In my opinion it’s totally unfair.
    That said, your link on #41 was interesting.

  49. Herve Estater Says:

    > I, my Mother, Father,Grandfather, Aunts and Uncles on both sides, Cousins, and Brother are all products of the TN public school system.

    And do they all suck at apostrophes and capital letters?

    For the record, you used its instead of it’s 6 times already in this thread. You’re not even trying, are you?

  50. DreamT Says:

    Come on Herve. Bob is just being cute.

  51. anon Says:

    bob’s got a million thought’s going through his head. he ain’t got time fer’ punct-e-ation.

  52. nomadic Says:

    If you’re going to pick on bob, how about the horrendous use of “I” (and associated crimes against grammar) in the quote you pulled, Herve?

  53. nomadic Says:

    anon, he’s rough on the “gozinta’s” too. (See Jethro reference.)

  54. steve Says:

    DreamT, my point was that by standard measures, funding is more fair than it used to be. now, is it fair enough? that’s a question I am not prepared to answer.

  55. Real Estater Says:

    Bob,

    The equality argument is complete balony. This society is not founded on such value. In a well to do family, each kid may have his/her own bedroom, where as in a poor family, 3 kids might be crammed into 1 apartment bedroom. The kid in the poor family will have difficulty concentrating. The parent might be out working 3 jobs to put food on the table. The rich family will have stay-at-home mom, perhaps with additional helpers, tutors, and so on. Based on your logic, the rich family should not be allowed to own such a nice house, because there are poor people who don’t get the same accommodations.

    Under capitalism, inequality drives motivation. Everyone strives to be that rich person.

  56. anon Says:

    Ain’t that the truth? So keep striving, RE – the cards are stacked against you…

  57. Pralay Says:

    Under capitalism, inequality drives motivation. Everyone strives to be that rich person.
    ——

    RealEstater,

    The inequality argument is complete balony. This society is not founded on such value. Everyone does not strive to be rich person. Most of the people wants to have a decent living standard with decent social infrastructure available – and that includes education for children. If being rich is the only goal, you will be better off moving to any third world country where your dollar will give more mileage and you will be able to keep a your own fulltime maid, masseuse, chauffeur and security guard.

  58. nomadic Says:

    Everyone does not strive to be rich person.

    That’s a bit of an over-simplification. If it wasn’t, how would you explain the success of the various lotteries? ;-)

  59. anon Says:

    The simple minded and uneducated people (like real estater) see shiny things (like porsches) and are impressed. They want to obtain those things and see money as the means for doing so. While it is true that not everyone strives to be a rich person, many people do – and it is their trying that often has devastating effects on their pocketbook.

  60. Pralay Says:

    That’s a bit of an over-simplification. If it wasn’t, how would you explain the success of the various lotteries?
    —–

    First of all, everyone does not buy lotto.
    Secondly, lotto has something more than just desire to get rich. It’s the very reason people go to Vegas and lose money. It’s thrill that counts.
    Thirdly, cause and effect. Is the desire to be unequal (ie. desire to be richer than other people) that makes lotto successful? Or existing inequality in society that makes lotto successful? Who are the majority people buy lotto? CEO (they definitely have desire to be richer than rest of the population)? Average hitech guys? Or hopeless poors? Social security moms and dads?

  61. Real Estater Says:

    Don’t be too harsh on Pralay. Over-simplification is the coping mechanism of an empty-headed person.

  62. anon Says:

    So real estater, even though you know why you oversimplify, you still do it? amazing.

  63. anon Says:

    lol – Durr, financial planners say mortgage debt is “good debt.”

    or, so says real estater the parrot.

  64. Pralay Says:

    So real estater, even though you know why you oversimplify, you still do it? amazing.
    —-

    That’s because his “coping mechanism” does not work in emptiness. Afterall, empty-head is empty-head.

  65. Pralay Says:

    Durr, financial planners say mortgage debt is “good debt.”
    —-

    And “all clear for take-off”. :)

  66. bob Says:

    Herve Estater,
    it’s is a contraction used for things like it is or it has On the other hand its is a possessive pronoun, meaning a sentence like:

    Call it what you want but I’d say it did its job.” the word it is referring to job. All told, I think my grammatical skills held up decently considering I was on beer No. 2 or 3 at that point of the evening.

    But I digress. I think we jumped the tracks a bit. Boiled down to its basic essence, my argument is that public schools are meant to provide the means to a descent education for all classes and all children from any background. The fact that a lot of California schools can’t even do this with the money they are given is a sham. Additionally, while not technically wrong, I find it unfair that one public school in a wealthy area is financially healthier due to the parents who have the funds to give to it while the exact same public school in a not so well off area does not.

    I get what Real Estater is saying, which is the old adage that capitalism is about the survival of the fittest. I’m fine with that. There’s no such thing as a Utopian society and experiments to do otherwise have failed. But if a system is set in place that’s meant to be uniformly the same for all who enter ( public schools) thus giving all an equal chance, then its our duty to ensure it serves that purpose. If the system fails, then that’s a reflection on all of us and we are all to blame. I do not nor plan on having kids. But I strongly believe all children need at least a level playing ground in school.

    Sorry of the debate got a little overheated. Indeed I have a LOT going on right now with much to think about and do.

  67. nomadic Says:

    how many beers to confuse “descent” with “decent?” :-P

  68. nomadic Says:

    bob, have you begun “the great purge” in anticipation for the move to Texas?

  69. Herve Estater Says:

    > bob, have you begun “the great purge” in anticipation for the move to Texas?

    He sold almost all his apostrophes.

  70. bob Says:

    No. I don’t know if I’ve got the job yet. Its very close. If I do, I think the bulk will likely get donated. I have been on pins and needles all week.

  71. steve Says:

    good luck! (seriously)


Leave a Reply

Please be nice. No name calling, no personal attacks, no racist stuff, no baiting, etc. Let's be nice to each other in the true Bay Area spirit! (Comments may be edited/removed without notice.)