Our Blogs

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Become a Fan

    « School Scare -- UPDATED | Main | School Scare, The Day After »

    September 08, 2008

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e553809d93883300e554f286898833

    Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ken For Your Kids:

    Comments

    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

    DISADVANTAGE! to the question posed. What on earth do they know about our schools? I know of one person running for a trustee spot who actually asked--in public--at a Friday coffee klatch meeting, and I'm paraphrasing, ...what's up with our district being a low-wealth district...what, did Fleming take all the money?....

    Wake up guy, low wealth district has to do with how our district is funded and was set way back in the late 1970s, if I recall correctly. Guess how many of us lived here in Capistrano District back then? Guess how many had children attending public schools? Citizens at that time had a choice about how much to tax themselves for education and guess what, they taxed themselves low in keeping with the low numbers of residents and by extension kids.

    Fast forward 30 years and we're still being taxed at that low rate. The legislature wants nothing to do with realigning school funding at the risk of irritating people in districts with disproportionately higher education coffers...hello Laguna Beach, Yorba Linda which are referred to (counter-intuitively) as "Basic Aid" districts. Basically, think of the basic aid districts getting all the money they need for education from their property taxes filling a bucket. Because of some other law passed (I believe after this) that says every child will be funded at the exact same rate for education purposes, these "basic aid" districts get even more money and their bucket overflows with education dollars. Fair? Hardly. Reality? Unfortunately so.

    So our low wealth status as a district hurts us BIG TIME. Our bucket doesn't even come close to being filled.

    If the guy running for the trustee spot had half a clue he would have already known this. He could've (should've) been paying attention to all the legislative work his Council PTA has been doing for the last 10 years, at least. Had he attended a PTA meeting at his school he could've asked the question there and not looked so dumb.

    Hopefully, he figures out too that the former superintendent didn't run away with education funding cash too.

    I think it's better when trustees are connected to CUSD in ways other than ideology only. We've seen that they seem more concerned with settling scores than improving our district.

    Is that you, Erin? Or is it OC Sapper?

    If you want to talk about the Serrano decision, why not name it?

    If you want to criticize a candidate for public office, why not name the candidate?

    Is this post about Ken Maddox, or what?

    As for "capofirst", we're all connected to CUSD. We're all paying their bills! If Ken Maddox has joined the league of private school parents around here (about 20% of district students), then just maybe he'll appreciate how unfair this can be.

    Talk about "school choice". It sounds like Ken has experienced another form of the "boundary" problem!

    It's too bad public schools are disadvantaged, but do we want anyone on the Board who isn't smart enough to put their own kids in private school. Ok, so it seems elitist because private schools cost more, but good board members should be intelligent and successful enough to understand private schools, in general, are superior. I realize part of the disadvantage is cultural, which the public schools can't fully control. But don't blame board members or other private school parents when public administrators, teachers and educational institutions are the ones fighting against school choice, merit pay and greater accountability.

    My brother, sisters and I all attended K-12th grade at CUSD schools and all of us received a wonderful education. (My youngest sisters is currently a junior at CVHS and she loves it.) When I was at UC Berkeley, I found that I was much better prepared than many of my peers who had received a parochial/private education. Private schools have less stringent requirements for their caliber of teachers than public school districts do.
    I think it is great that we have a choice in this country of where to educate our children; it is too bad that some have an ignorant illusion about the benefits of private schools v. public schools.

    Of course that is what happens when I don't preview my post- I don't catch my error on "sisters".

    :)

    Well said Gia. I can't for the life of me see why it would be BETTER for our board members to have their own kids at private schools. If the kids are receiving a private school education, how can a parent understand or judge the public schools? It would be like saying you understand how it is to teach 12 pre teens all day when you have never stepped inside a classroom. Now, I realize that Ken didn't put his son in the private school and when he started his son was in CUSD so I really can't fault him for this situation. In fact while I don't always agree with Ken at least I think he understands the intricacies of public education (education for ALL) and he does bring that to the table. BUT Mission Viejo Observer, you are just that - an observer that really doesn't have a clue about public education.

    And continued good luck to Gia and her sister. I have also experienced success for my kids in CUSD and appreciate her willingness to pass on her success too.

    The comments to this entry are closed.