| Author |
Message |
    
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 284
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 8:49 am: |     |
"When a district provides transportation for non-eligible public school students, it must also furnish transportation to resident students attending non-public schools ..." From Exhibit D SOMSD 2003-04 Preliminary Budget presentation
In 2002-03 567 students attending non-SOMSD schools received a fee in lieu of transportation totalling $397,467.
Thus far in 2003-04 597 students have applied for the payment at a total expense of $448,347.
These figures do not include students attending Seton Hall Prep, Oak Knoll, or one other school to which the district provides transportation.
JTL |
Morrisa da Silva
Citizen
Username: Mod
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 8:55 am: | |
I have yet to here an adequate explanation of why we must provide transportation to those who choose private school (excluding special education). Can someone elucidate? |
NCJanow(akaLibraryLady)
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1182
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
State law??
NCJ aka LibraryLady
On a coffee break..or something like it. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 864
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Speaking as one who is very much looking forward to receiving a transportation reimbursement, I nevertheless think state law ought to be changed. The fact that I choose to send my kid to private school ought not entitle me to transportation reimbursement from the school district (or the state, for that matter).
But that's beside the point, I think, of Mr. Lamkin's post. The increase in reimbursements between last year and this year may suggest a significant increase in private school attendance in our district.
FWIW, the reimbursement per student per year is, I think, somewhere around $600, but I'm not sure. It could be more, and it probably varies depending on the distance to the private school. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 456
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
on the other hand...relative to what it would cost the district to educate that child -- isn't paying $600 towards transportation a miniscule amount in comparison?
also -- J Crohn -- is the $600 a payment to parents or the school?
I can't imagine that transportation for a full year out of the district placement could be that cheap. I "heard" (and this is nothing more than what another person told me) that its about $15k a year to transport an out of district student. Again PLEASE I have no verification of that. ($15k, appx 180 school days = $83/day per student -- seems a bit high to me)
Pete |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 865
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
Pete, I'm told now that the reimbursement is around $750 per child. Payment is made to the parents, not the private school.
"I can't imagine that transportation for a full year out of the district placement could be that cheap."
It isn't, but it's not $15K! More like $1.5K.
The cost of transportation by bus would have been too high for most of us in SO-Maplewood who are attending Schechter--something like $2000 a year (which apparently represented a big increase over the previous year's cost). We (and everyone else I know from here) opted for carpooling.
Apparently, the Maplewood CBAC in previous years has asked the BOE to consider doing away with courtesy busing within the district. That would free the district from the state-imposed obligation to pay parents like me a transportation reimbursement (which only applies in districts that provide courtesy busing), and it would also save the district a ton of money in general.
However, it's feared a lack of courtesy busing might diminish the attractiveness of Seth Boyden and strain the Marshall-Jefferson alliance (parts of the district's efforts to ensure integration), so some sort of alternative arrangements would be needed.
|
mommydee
Citizen
Username: Mommydee
Post Number: 77
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
My nephew lives in Westfield and goes to Oratory Prep in Summit. The cost for his bus transportation is more than the average Catholic school tuition!! Somewhere around $2500 I believe. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 866
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
Wow...avg Catholic school tuition is that low? |
guessagain
Citizen
Username: Guessagain
Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 2:38 pm: | |
If the district must pay for private school busing because it offers courtesy busing, I say do away with the courtesy busing. Unpair Marshall-Jefferson, have those who want to go out of area to Seth Boyden provide their own transportation and we'll save some money.
Anyone have any idea how much inhouse courtesybusing and private school reinbursement for transportation comes to? betcha it would pay for a whole bunch of extra teachers. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 458
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
NR article from 9/03 says transport costs "up to" $15k for a special ed student. I suppose there may be some highly special needs kids that require special vans, aides, etc. but that seems very high to me.
Found the following news article about busing... iF this is correct, courtesy busing is not linked to providing busing for private school kids...
Pete
"According to a spokesman for the state Department of Education, a public school district is required to transport all elementary school and middle school pupils — public and private — who live 2 miles or more from their school and all high school students — public and private — who live 2.5 miles or more from their school.
Students of all grade levels who live closer to their school than the distances indicated above (1, 1.5 and 2 miles) are required to walk to school unless they would have to cross what the board deems to be a hazardous road. In that case the student receives what is called courtesy busing.
The district is not reimbursed by the state for the courtesy busing it provides to public and private school children."
|
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 917
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
How about lobbying for a change in the state law? Why should the schoool district be compelled to pay for private school transportation no matter what our policy is about courtesy busing? I see no reason why the two issues should be linked and I particularly see no compelling reason why tax dollars (whether state or local taxes) should be expended to transport private school students.
I fully support everyone's right to choose private school for their children, but I believe that also includes their responsibility to pay the costs of making that choice.
It sounds like the state is simultaneously supporting the choice for private school while providing disincentives to public school districts in their efforts to meet their goals. (i.e. in this case, among other things, to meet integration objectives (some of which could well be subject to state mandates if we didn't meet them voluntarily.) |
breal
Citizen
Username: Breal
Post Number: 295
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
Maybe I'm not understanding something. I don't have private school kids, but I don't mind the $600 payment per private school kid bec. it represents a good deal for our district, doesn't it?
Private school families are paying in (a lot, I bet) to the public school system, but only drawing out $600 per private school kid. Our public schools are overcrowded and underfunded. Isn't it a good thing to get the tax money but not to have the expense of educating the private school kids?
Also, most of the families with private school kids that I know took on the awful expense of private school tuition bec. their child was in trouble in our public schools--sometimes despite the district's best efforts and expensive special services.
I wish them well and don't begrudge them the $600.
|
NCJanow(akaLibraryLady)
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Breal..it's a slippery slope leading to vouchers for private school. Sure we save money not having to educate this students, let's pay their transportation. Then, we are saving sooo much, we really should give each a book allowance, then partial tuition reinbursement, then vouchers and then the public schools are left with only the difficult and expensive to educate. Taxes should only go to support public school students.
NCJ aka LibraryLady
On a coffee break..or something like it. |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 652
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Imagine if they all the private school kids entered the public school. Think of all those extra kids and no extra money. I'll pay the $600 vs. $10,000 plus. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 869
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
"Private school families are paying in (a lot, I bet) to the public school system, but only drawing out $600 per private school kid. Our public schools are overcrowded and underfunded. Isn't it a good thing to get the tax money but not to have the expense of educating the private school kids?"
True enough, and I readily confess our family surely will be able to use that reimbursement to offset a fraction of our private school tuition.
But from the standpoint of the school district, those of us who pay taxes and send our kids to private school would be doing so even if we didn't get back a transportation reimbursement. If the district didn't provide busing, the money saved that would otherwise have been spent on transportation and reimbursements could be passed back to taxpayers, or else used to improve on educational services, thus enhancing the district's reputation and possibly, by extension, local property values.
Those of us currently getting a transpo reimbursement would, in effect, get back less. But we wouldn't get back nothing.
Library Lady: "Breal..it's a slippery slope leading to vouchers for private school. Sure we save money not having to educate this students, let's pay their transportation. Then, we are saving sooo much, we really should give each a book allowance, then partial tuition reinbursement, then vouchers..."
Eh, I don't think so. Those who advocate vouchers have never argued for book allowances and so forth.
But given your argument that under a voucher system public schools would be left with the difficult and expensive to educate (which may be happening already anyway), why not support vouchers for those who qualify for financial aid from any non-religious private school they apply to? That would take at least some of the difficult/expensive-to-educate kids out of the public schools, wouldn't it? And it would help more of the poor and lower middle classes obtain access to elite institutions. Moreover, you could stipulate that new sources of funding separate from public school allocations would have to be provided to cover the cost of these vouchers--say, a state or federal tax on multi-millionaires, or an extra levy on gambling, cigarettes, or hard liquor.
(One might even contemplate legalizing domestically grown marijuana, taxing its sale, and using the proceeds to pay for massively increased funding to public schools, vouchers for private schools, and, like, a new car for every American over the age of 21.) |
jmfromsouthorange
Citizen
Username: Jmfromsorange
Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 7:55 pm: | |
why do you take the refund if you think the law should be changed and you believe sending your child to private school shouldn't entitle you to a transportation reimbursement?
>>>>
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 864
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:57 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking as one who is very much looking forward to receiving a transportation reimbursement, I nevertheless think state law ought to be changed. The fact that I choose to send my kid to private school ought not entitle me to transportation reimbursement from the school district (or the state, for that matter).
But that's beside the point, I think, of Mr. Lamkin's post. The increase in reimbursements between last year and this year may suggest a significant increase in private school attendance in our district.
FWIW, the reimbursement per student per year is, I think, somewhere around $600, but I'm not sure. It could be more, and it probably varies depending on the distance to the private |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 870
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 8:14 pm: | |
Are you looking for a philosophical discussion?
|
jmfromsouthorange
Citizen
Username: Jmfromsorange
Post Number: 39
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 8:31 pm: | |
this is such bologna! i know numerous famlies who send their kids to private schools because they don't want to expose their children to what goes on here. i also know a number of families who home school their children because they aren't happy with the school system. NONE of these children were in 'trouble' in the south orange / maplewood schools.
>>>
breal
Citizen
Username: Breal
Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 1:42 pm:
Also, most of the families with private school kids that I know took on the awful expense of private school tuition bec. their child was in trouble in our public schools--sometimes despite the district's best efforts and expensive special services.
|
breal
Citizen
Username: Breal
Post Number: 297
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
JM--Oops. I did not mean to imply that private school kids are all "in trouble," and I certainly don't believe that.
My circle of acquaintance is basically a public school one. My sample is skewed. But among the families I know, if one of their kids is now in private school, it's usually because that child needed a different setting (i.e., smaller, or with a particular curriculum), not because the parents are elitists unworthy of bus money. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1944
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
Does anyone know when or how this law got passed? I'm rather surprised. It might be hard to repeal, because those who send their kids to private school might be more inclined to vote than everyone else.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
jmfromsouthorange
Citizen
Username: Jmfromsorange
Post Number: 43
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
i'm just curious. what are some of the schools your friend's kids go to? the high school age kids of my friends go to delbarton, oratory, newark academy, pringry, seton hall prep, baily ellard, oak knoll, solomon, blair, saint e's. most of which require an admissions test.
my own nephew's don't even go to the public schools here. my sister and brother in law choose to send them to private school in morris county. (they are in third grade). i don't think they should be entitled to 'bus money,' even though at times i drive them to and from school.
>>>
breal
Citizen
Username: Breal
Post Number: 297
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 10:15 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JM--Oops. I did not mean to imply that private school kids are all "in trouble," and I certainly don't believe that.
My circle of acquaintance is basically a public school one. My sample is skewed. But among the families I know, if one of their kids is now in private school, it's usually because that child needed a different setting (i.e., smaller, or with a particular curriculum), not because the parents are elitists unworthy of bus money. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 920
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
So long as the law says that private school families are entitled to reimbursement, I see no reason why they shouldn't take advantage of it. I just disagree with the law.
It's a bit like taxes. You may or may not (probably don't) agree with every tenet of the tax laws ... even some of those that may benefit you personally. However, it is silly not to take advantage of every legal deduction in order to pay the least amount of tax possible.
What is not silly is trying to find ways to work toward repealing such laws, where appropriate. (And I think that, in this case, it is appropriate. However, it may not be politically likely. I suspect that the "lobby" for this law is probably not insignificant.) |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 89
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
For those of you who believe that it is inappropriate to provide transportation support to families who choose to send their chidren to private schools (and thereby reduce the tax burden to the Two Towns); why is it appropriate to require residents who have decided to not have children, pay school taxes???
TomR. |
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 610
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
The greater good of educating the nation's children.
No one forces you to buy in high tax towns.
DWM |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 90
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 6:09 pm: | |
DWM,
So why is it inappropriate to subsidize the transportation costs for private school students???
TomR. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 921
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
I believe that it is inappropriate to pay for their transportation for the same reason that it is inappropriate to pay for their textbooks, tuition, etc. It is not about how much those things cost vs the cost of educating those children in public schools. I just believe that funds raised through taxes should fund the costs of public schools, which should be available to every child. The only exception that I am comfortable with is for serious special education situations where the school district cannot provide the required program and should then pay for the child to be educated either in a different public school district or in a private institution. All families have the right for their children to attend the public schools. They also have the right to choose to send their children to private schools instead. If they make that choice, I believe that they should pay all of the costs, including transportation. I don't believe that the funding for transportation that is provided in New Jersey is at all universal. I certainly never heard of anything like that when I lived in Texas. |
NCJanow(akaLibraryLady)
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
A public education is available and provided to any student residing in our district. If a parent/guardian chooses to educate that child outside the district, either privately or in a religious school , that is their option. But our tax dollars should only be available to our 'public" school students. No one is forcing them to attend a non-public school.
I no longer have school age children (unless you count University with is costing me a small fortune, unlike in Europe, but that's another thread).However, it is in my best interest as a homeowner in South Orange to make sure we offer an excellent source of public education. That's why I and others who don't use the district still and should pay school taxes.
NCJ aka LibraryLady
On a coffee break..or something like it. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page