Taxpayers Billed for Millionaires’ Kids at Charter School

[Godhumor]

Source: Bloomberg

In Silicon Valley, Bullis elementary school accepts one in six kindergarten applicants, offers Chinese and asks families to donate $5,000 per child each year. Parents include Ken Moore, son of Intel Corp.’s co-founder, and Steven Kirsch, inventor of the optical mouse.

Bullis isn’t a high-end private school. It’s a taxpayer- funded, privately run public school, part of the charter-school movement that educates 1.8 million U.S. children. While charters are heralded for offering underprivileged kids an alternative to failing U.S. districts, Bullis gives an admissions edge to residents of parts of Los Altos Hills, where the median home is worth $1 million and household income is $219,000, four times the state average.

...

“It takes all of us, the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ (I cringe to use such blunt distinctions), to help improve the world.” {Former EBay Inc. Executive and Merrill Lynch & Co. Banker Buffy} Poon wrote in an e-mail to the Santa Clara County Board of Education, which oversees the school.

...

Bullis “performed abysmally in serving socioeconomically disadvantaged students,” {Anna Song, a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Education} wrote. After a more than four-hour session, attended by 200 people, many of them Bullis parents wearing school T-shirts, the Santa Clara County school board voted to renew the charter, 5 to 2.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-15/taxpayers-billed-for-millionaires-kids-at-charter-school.html

---

Actually, the whole article is pretty fascinating. There were a lot of good paragraphs that could have been used in the excerpt.

[PETRUS]

1. K&R

[plumbob]

2. This is what charters really are - a rebate of some of the tuition of a

private school by the rest of us taxpayers.

Nothing more. The bleed from public schools is okay, since all those who go to regular school are stupid, anyway.

Right?

[RebelOne]

5. My daughter is an educator at a charter school in South Florida.

Most of her students are Hispanics and do not have wealthy parents.

[Sancho]

11. charters make money off of the rich and the poor...

but they often segregate! As long as those hispanics DON'T go to school in the gated community, and the state will pay for it - that's really cool. Choice and charters are code for segregation.

[plumbob]

16. The charter school here is limited to 110 students, and literally,

everyone attending is the child of a doctor, attorney, or other local "better." My neighbor, an accountant, was told there is a 7 year waiting list for his 5 year old daughter.

[RebelOne]

31. I do not know about a waiting list or student limitation,

but I will check with my daugher to see if there is a waiting list at her school. It would be interesting to know.

[tomg]

3. And that article expresses

Exactly why I despise the concept of charter schools. I am not opposed to private schools. In fact, one of my four sons went to a Quaker School. But not one penny of public funding should go to private systems ( that should be obvious) or to charter schools ( and most particularly, places like Bullis which is nothing more than a private school masquerading as a charter to siphon off money from public education.

[SoapBox]

4. Absolutely agree!

And here is Los Angeles area, good old Mayor Villaraigosa, has his "financial" fingers in a charter school operation.

Another conflict of interest.

[Bennyboy]

6. Exactly, look at Sacramento and Kevin Johnson.

he is married to Rhee who is all about Charter schools and profit. His one thing he did was St hope Academy a charter school that actually does serve underprivileged children.

[Blue_Tires]

7. +1

[bvar22]

8. I have nothing against Private (Charter) Schools...

...as long as they don't receive a single nickle of Public Taxpayer Money.

The US already funds a Public School System,
and every single taxpayer dollar should go to this system.
If someone wants to start a Private (Charter) School,
it must be financed by Private funding.
Period.


Other things that should NEVER receive a single nickle of taxpayer money:

*Armed Private "Contractors" (Mercenaries)

*Private "Intelligence" Gathering Agencies

*Private Cops

*Private Prisons

*Private For Profit Health Insurance Corporations

*Private Voting Machines & Vote Tabulators (BBV)

*Faith Based ANYTHING

*Private (Charter) Schools




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[aggiesal]

10. Amen! n/t

[aggiesal]

9. This is complete BULL $HIT ...

I have argued in the past, that charter schools are NOT a part of the public school system,
and thus should not receive any taxpayer dollars.

Here is my reasoning.

1) We pay for a public schools system from our Property Tax bill.
(Look at your PT Bill, it will tell what percentage of your bill goes to schools).

2) Charter Schools are not public, and just because a school board system decides to hire
them to teach does not mean they should be public assistance.

3) They can only use what they paid into the system.

Let's say that the local public school district ear-marks $10,000 per student.

If a parent wants to send their child to a charter school, they're welcome to do so.
But they can only take with them the money they put into their school system from their
Property Tax bill.

If you pay $5000 of Property Taxes, and 5% ($250) goes towards the schools system, then
the parent is only allowed to take $250 to the charter school to help pay the bill.
The remaining $9500 ear marked stay with the public schools. If there is more the 1 child
too bad, you paid $250, you only get $250.

If parents are allowed to take the full $10,000 to the charter school, then they should
pay taxes on the $5000 extra money that they took from you, me, and everyone else that
paid Property Taxes.

If you're apartment living and you don't pay Property Taxes, you can still send your
children to a charter school, you're just not allowed to take any public money with you
because, you never paid into the system. If you want to use the public money, send them
to public school.

I'm a product of the public school system. Started in K-12, with free lunches or reduced
lunches along the way. Then I receive Pell Grant money from the Federal Gov't while I
earned my Bachelors of Science.

My parents sent 8 or through public schools, You think they could have afforded to pay
$80,000 for all of us to attend school. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
We relied on the generosity of the tax paying public, and I for one am grateful.

If you don't think you should have to pay because you're not using the public schools now,
ask yourself if you could have gone to school without tax payer dollars.

It's time for you to pony up, you deadbeats!

[Gormy Cuss]

15. Why should parents get one nickel of tax funds for educating children outside of public schools?

What we pay in for public schools is not a quid pro quo. If it were, those of us who will never have children in the public school system would be exempted from that tax.

The choice is send your child to the public school for free, or pay for a private school. Period.
Charters are either wholly within the public school system and subject to the same rules on funding, admittance, and educational standards, or they're private schools.

BTW, apartment dwellers are paying for a portion of the property tax on their buildings, unless the owners are fools or somehow exempt from taxes. The tax is recovered as part of rent.

[aggiesal]

18. A couple of things

I agree that in the real world they shouldn't be allowed to get any public money.
But if they're going to implement the voucher system, then parents should only be
allowed to take what they put in. Nothing more.

As for the apartment, you are not paying taxes. None of the rent money is deductible.
It's just too bad.

If you never have children in the public system, so what? You still benefited
from for other peoples tax dollars when you went to public school.
So you should pony up your fair share regardless if you're using the school system currently.

[joeglow3]

22. So, fuck the poor people?

Reality is that you ARE paying property taxes in your monthly rent. Just because the Internal Revenue Code is corrupt and jacked up that does not mean we need to apply that poor logic everywhere.

[aggiesal]

26. Not at all ...

They still have the ability to go to public school.

If they want to send their children to a Charter School
they'll have to either get some sort of scholarship, like
some private schools did in the area I grew up, or they'll
have to find the funds to pay for the education themselves.

[Gormy Cuss]

23. Nope. Parents aren't entitled to take out what they put in anymore than those without kids are.

That was my point. Parents are not a special class of taxpayer. And the premise that those without children in the system now need to pay because they benefited in the past from others' tax dollars is absurd -- what if they or their children attended private schools? Should they get rebates now for all those contributions made but not used? What about those whose children are done with their public schooling -- why should they be expected to pay for a system that provides no more direct benefit?
The point is that every taxpayer is paying for the infrastructure known as a public school system, whether we derive a direct benefit or not, and paying parents to educate outside of that infrastructure is not the way the system was designed to worked. Once we think of educational funding as tied directly to individual students rather than a communal pot of money available to educate all of the children in the community, there is less incentive to support good public schools.

Also, again: renters pay for school taxes indirectly because the owners of the buildings pay those taxes and rent value is set based on owner costs + profit.

[aggiesal]

28. I agree with your arguments ...

If it were up to me, no public/tax money should ever go to charter schools.
I still believe that most people in this country went through the public
schools system, and their parents didn't come close to paying in taxes what
it cost to educate their children. Those that went to private schools are a
very small percentage, so that number will be very low. But, I do believe
that those that did go to private schools benefited indirectly.

You make a great point about paying for the infrastructure. I completely
agree with that paragraph. Unfortunately, in San Diego, their dividing the
total number of dollars by the number of students, and coming up with
money spent per student. Which is around $9000.

Those people who are in favor of the voucher system want to take the
full $9000/per student to a charter or private school. So if a family
only paid $500 into the property taxes, and they have 2 children going
through the public school system, they want an $18,000 voucher to take
both their children out of the public school, and into a private/charter
school. I find this completely absurd.
If they get a voucher (and I'm against vouchers), then they should only
be allowed what they put in, which is the $500. That would increase the
amount spent per student in the public schools.

More money, less students, and maybe a better education.

[Thor_MN]

17. I completely disagree with you

Not a cent should be transfered to any privately run school. When we pay property taxes (BTW, renters pay property taxes too, through their rent and can get refunds, at least in Minnesota) we are paying taxes for ALL students to be educated, not our own children. If you don't agree, certainly you will have no objection that people who do not have children be exempt from paying that portion of their property taxes, correct?

No public money should ever fund a private school. If parents want their child to attend a private school, fine, but only on their own dime.

[aggiesal]

25. Cool, Some intelligent conversation. ...

First let me set the record straight.
I agree with you. No Tax money should ever go to Charter Schools.
Just so you understand, I write it again. No Tax money should ever go to Charter Schools.
I hope you got that.

Second, Although I don't want any Tax money to go to Charter schools, the reality
is that through the voucher system (which I'm against), tax money is filtering its
way into Charter Schools.
This is where I believe that only the Property Tax money that parents pay into the
system for schools, should be the limit of what the parents get as a voucher towards
their child(ren) education for Charter Schools.

Third, if in Minn. they separate the tax amount from the rent, then those parents should only
be allowed that tax amount to get in a voucher. In California, I don't ever remember seeing
any ability to claim or deduct property taxes from my rent. That's just tough luck.

Fourth, I will never agree that if you have no children in the school system that they should
be exempt from paying their property taxes for schools. Most people in this country, went
through the public school system. Their parents didn't come close to paying what was spent
on their education, so now it's time they pay their share as adults. Period.

I believe we probably agree on 90% of this issue.

[wickerwoman]

29. It's not just that we went through the system so we should pony up...

it's also that we benefit in any number of ways from a strong public school system. It educates the doctors and nurses who will take care of us when we get older. It educates the engineers who design the bridges we drive over and the disaster control measures that protect us from earthquakes, floods and hurricanes. It educates the white collar workers who buy the products and services we make or sell. It educated the writers of the TV shows and movies we enjoy. It educated (barely) enough people to keep society from degenerating into a mob and to preserve the rule of law. It educated the people who brought us the Internet and who will design the next generation of fuel efficient cars and solar and wind generated electricity which will prevent peak oil and climate change from creating a second Dark Ages.

The fact that I went to public school or that I may one day have kids that go there is actually one of the weaker arguments for why we should support them. We all benefit *massively* in largely unacknowledged ways from a high quality and accessible public education system.

[aggiesal]

30. Very good points, I agree with them all ...

The last fact about public schools, I use almost all the time,
because this is the argument that most people throw at me that
are against funding public schools.

I hear constantly:
"Why should I approve that public school measure,
when I don't have any kids using the public school system?"

My standard response:
"Because you went through the public schools system, and your
parents didn't come close to paying what it cost to educate you.
So pay up, you loser."

Shuts them down fast. Only had 1 person reply that they went to
private schools, so then I have to use the infrastructure argument.

[wickerwoman]

27. I don't think they should be able to pull their money out of public school.

I'm a single person with no kids and I pay (happily) to support my local public schools.

But why should I pick up the tab for a service I don't use, when people who do have kids can pull that money out and spend it somewhere else?

[sulphurdunn]

12. I'm beginning to think

the Civil War never really ended. That the Union's failure to utterly destroy the Confederacy root and branch may prove to have been the second greatest failure of American governance after the legalization of slavery.

[HopeHoops]

13. Speaking of which - Frothy Santorum still owes Penn Hills over $100K for "cyberschool"

His little shack that he never spent a night in both enabled him to claim he was living in PA and to get money to "cyberschool" his kids. Penn Hills, PA got stuck with the bill. He lived in Leesburg, VA the whole time. Talk about carpetbagging! He has yet to reimburse Penn Hills for the scam.

[KamaAina]

14. In California, charters are specifically meant to serve *low-income, underprivileged* students

Slight problem: There are no low-income, underprivileged students in Los Altos Hills, one of the state's wealthiest communities, or at least not enough to fill up a whole school.

[Scuba]

19. Before charter school advocates begin their arguments, please...

...detail how many...

...learning disabled kids, how many

...cognitively disable kids, how many

...kids with spina bifida, how many

...kids with cerebral palsy...



If your charter school is not accepting special needs kids at the same rate as public schools, then all your other arguments are moot.

[Godhumor]

20. And in Bullis' case, they have half the percentage of special needs children compared with

the district as a whole.

2% are ESL compared wth 11% for the district.

Half the percentage of Hispanic children compared with the district.

This is a charter for the "Haves" who don't want their kids to go to a normal neighborhood school.

[Scuba]

21. Taxpayer money propping up the life choices of the wealthy. Sadly, all too common. n/t

[NashVegas]

24. Frankly - Yes. And Also the Choices of SOME of the Not-Wealthy

Those choices include:

less TV-watching and computer gaming;
less drugs;
more responsibility and discipline;
more parental attention/supervision;
less violence or other abuse;
more respect for others
more time devoted to community-building

[fascisthunter]

32. I Said this Would Happen.... now we pay even more

...and yet our public schools are being defunded for this shit!