I dont know about Jack Dale but the teachers and admin at Ravensworth Elementary School are lying about reading evaluations in the first grade. They are claiming 3 students in particular are only reading at DRA2 10 (translated that means beginning of first grade level) when 2 of the three were evaluated last Spring by another school as DRA2 28- 34 (translated that means end of second grade middle of third grade).

So we try to get extra instruction for them because they are bored as hell and all we get is stall nonsense. Anyone else have the joy of being lied to at this or another school?

I had similar experiences about a decade ago at Franklin Sherman ES.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont know about Jack Dale but the teachers and
> admin at Ravensworth Elementary School are lying
> about reading evaluations in the first grade. They
> are claiming 3 students in particular are only
> reading at DRA2 10 (translated that means
> beginning of first grade level) when 2 of the
> three were evaluated last Spring by another school
> as DRA2 28- 34 (translated that means end of
> second grade middle of third grade).
>
> So we try to get extra instruction for them
> because they are bored as hell and all we get is
> stall nonsense. Anyone else have the joy of being
> lied to at this or another school?

I have had a similar problem from 1st through 4th grade with my child, different elementary school, and two of her friends. The pace of class is too slow. They qualified for in-school GT, and even though we parents volunteered to give whatever time would be needed to help, there was nothing the teacher or principal would do. While I understand all the kids who need to be pulled out for ESOL and remedial reading and math, it would be nice if we could put together something for the kids at the other end of the spectrum.

They intended to glorify the problem to get more $$$$$ and sympathy from parents

You are sending your children to a PUBLIC school. Sure, the government is required to educate you child, and quite frankly, you get what you pay for.

If you want better, send them to better places on your dime.

Jesus, is this rocket science?

WHITEY2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They intended to glorify the problem to get more
> $$$$$ and sympathy from parents

Hmmm, that is the most plausible explanation I have considered thus far. But why lie to the parents we are not idiots. We can read and figure out test results?

This 'aint Harvard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are sending your children to a PUBLIC school.
> Sure, the government is required to educate you
> child, and quite frankly, you get what you pay
> for.
>
> If you want better, send them to better places
> on your dime.
>
> Jesus, is this rocket science?

Give up? Not me. You just pay 14,000 dollars a year to send your son to school okay. He will learn to be a sucker just like you.

I suppose some parents consider their kids worth it, and some do not.

Que sera sera.

This 'aint Harvard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose some parents consider their kids worth
> it, and some do not.
>
> Que sera sera.

I guess some parents have more money than conscience...

You are right this is not Harvard http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=526002

moron



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2009 08:04PM by dono.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I guess some parents have more money than
> conscience...

Nope, just sacrifice.



>
> You are right this is not Harvard
> http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=526002
>
> moron

What does Bernie Madoff have to do with the way your child is taught in Fairfax County?

You, my good (wo)man, are a whiner.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Give up? Not me. You just pay 14,000 dollars a
> year to send your son to school okay. He will
> learn to be a sucker just like you.

Public school is a government program, just like food stamps and welfare.

Spending your own money to provide your child with the education you want your child to have is not being a sucker, it is being intelligent and not expecting the government to provide for you.

This Ain't Harvard is basically telling you that beggars can't be choosers. If you elect to send your child to a government school, accept the quality of the government school. It's a government program, subject to the political whims and budget realities that any government program falls victim to.

You don't have to spend $14,000 to send your kid to a private school. Most private schools have scholarships and grants, as well as means-based tuition scales. Most catholic schools give discounts if you are a member of the diocese, which is an easy thing to become, and nobody is going to check up on whether or not you actually pay your tithe.

OLGC in Vienna is $4,950 a year for one student, and you can choose the 12 monthly payment option. I'm sure your SUV payments are more than $413 each month. Is the car you drive more important than your child's future?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2009 02:28AM by Bob.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont know about Jack Dale but the teachers and
> admin at Ravensworth Elementary School are lying
> about reading evaluations in the first grade. They
> are claiming 3 students in particular are only
> reading at DRA2 10 (translated that means
> beginning of first grade level) when 2 of the
> three were evaluated last Spring by another school
> as DRA2 28- 34 (translated that means end of
> second grade middle of third grade).
>
> So we try to get extra instruction for them
> because they are bored as hell and all we get is
> stall nonsense. Anyone else have the joy of being
> lied to at this or another school?

Was this a Jan. or a fall testing session? Did you ask when the teacher giving the DRA2 was trained? (one or the other did it incorrectly, one would assume). How does Ravensworth structure their reading groups, strictly on DRA scores? Were the 2 kids in a higher group at Ravensworth in the fall, based on the spring scores, and then moved to a lower group?
The DRA has more info than just the score, ask to see the information written down from both testing results (database is online as well, so the administrator of the DRA..not the teacher giving the test, but probably the reading specialist at Ravensworth) can access this test as well as the other test's info on-line via Pearson.

FCPS is all about lies in order to make themselves look good.

Lies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FCPS is all about lies in order to make themselves
> look good.


wahh wahh waah.

It's a part of local government. You're surprised there's political and budgetary problems?

Stop whining and, unless you are too poor to pay for your kids' schooling on your own, send them to private school.

If people who have the means to send their kids to private school did so, the public schools would have the resources to properly educate those that don't have the means to pay for their own schooling.

Just imagine if everyone took foodstamps "because my taxes are paying for it".

The same people who complain about people on welfare see no problem sending their kids to school on the government dole, while driving around in their brand new SUV and buying $4 lattes at Starbucks.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dono Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Public school is a government program, just like
> food stamps and welfare.
>
> Spending your own money to provide your child with
> the education you want your child to have is not
> being a sucker, it is being intelligent and not
> expecting the government to provide for you.
>
> This Ain't Harvard is basically telling you that
> beggars can't be choosers. If you elect to send
> your child to a government school, accept the
> quality of the government school. It's a
> government program, subject to the political whims
> and budget realities that any government program
> falls victim to.
>
> You don't have to spend $14,000 to send your kid
> to a private school. Most private schools have
> scholarships and grants, as well as means-based
> tuition scales. Most catholic schools give
> discounts if you are a member of the diocese,
> which is an easy thing to become, and nobody is
> going to check up on whether or not you actually
> pay your tithe.
>
> OLGC in Vienna is $4,950 a year for one student,
> and you can choose the 12 monthly payment option.
> I'm sure your SUV payments are more than $413 each
> month. Is the car you drive more important than
> your child's future?


County states are not in the slightest like food stamps and never have been

Food stamps are a social safety net aimed only at the truly needy

County schools are an investment of our tax money to provide education for all our children - and that's why we invest heavily from our tax dollars.

FCPS has some truly excellent schools at each level - it also has some schools at each level that perform very poorly.

Choose good schools, work with your school, avoid bad schools, fight being redistricted into bad schools, make performance the key issue in any decisions about schools rather than facilities, ask why your tax dollars are going into ESOL for illegals, not into educating your kids.

Its your system, they're your schools - you pay for them, help them drive success for all our kids, hold teachers, principals and school board members to account

fcps does some things well and some things badly - but its your fcps

Sending your kids to a religious institution - especially a misogynistic medieval cult that bans the use of birth control in the world's poorest countries and believes in creationism not science - doesn't seem to be a good option for developing rounded intellects. After the revelations of systemic child sex abuse in Catholic schools in Boston and other places, the church, in fact all churches, should have been banned from running schools.

I am dedicated to working with the school and making it better. I know the staff and teachers care about the kids - I see it every day. There is some force at work that has convinced administration it is better not to provide differentiated education to the gifted kids early on.

I am not convinced that I need to run to private schools (yet).

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am dedicated to working with the school and
> making it better. I know the staff and teachers
> care about the kids - I see it every day. There
> is some force at work that has convinced
> administration it is better not to provide
> differentiated education to the gifted kids early
> on.
>
> I am not convinced that I need to run to private
> schools (yet).


This is interesting - we've not seen this at all - our elementary has been excellent in supporting our gifted kids and in supporting developmental differences - responsive, adaptive and truly excellent

Maybe this is a localized issue with the principal or pressures they're under because of demographics of the school...?

schooling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> County states are not in the slightest like food
> stamps and never have been
>
> Food stamps are a social safety net aimed only at
> the truly needy

Sure they are. It's a government service. Rationalizing that since almost everyone sends their kids to public school makes it not a social service provided by the government is just that, rationalizing.


>
> County schools are an investment of our tax money
> to provide education for all our children - and
> that's why we invest heavily from our tax
> dollars.

Food stamps and welfare are also an investment of our tax money.

If it were possible to make food assistance more universal, someone in local government would be more than happy to create a bureaucracy much like the school system to provide everyone with food assistance. They'd get just as much satisfaction in controlling the lives of people who get all worked up about what foods they are allowed to buy, or what stores they could shop at as the school board gets from people who get frantic over redistricting and classroom sizes and whatever else.

There's no reason for the county or the state to provide everyone with an education when nowadays most people, especially in this area, have the means to provide for their own, and there is no lack of private schools. When the idea of public schools began, people didn't have the means and there was very little infrastructure to provide for all the educational choices that exist today.

>
> FCPS has some truly excellent schools at each
> level - it also has some schools at each level
> that perform very poorly.
>
> Choose good schools, work with your school, avoid
> bad schools, fight being redistricted into bad
> schools, make performance the key issue in any
> decisions about schools rather than facilities,
> ask why your tax dollars are going into ESOL for
> illegals, not into educating your kids.
>

My tax dollars are not going into ESOL for illegals. That is pure ignorance to make that assertion. To make such a blanket statement that anyone who is in ESOL must be illegal is really idiotic. Do you believe that anyone who has darker skin than you is illegal? Are all foreigners taking resources away from your little redneck kids? I mean, come on. That sort of mentality doesn't belong in this day and age, and especially not in this area.

Come to think of it, since I don't have kids, I feel the same way about your kids using up MY tax dollars as you feel about brown-skinned kids using up YOUR tax dollars.


> Its your system, they're your schools - you pay
> for them, help them drive success for all our
> kids, hold teachers, principals and school board
> members to account
>

The food stamp system is also my system. I pay for it. What I've discovered is that if I leave it for the people who need it, there's less struggle for resources and the system can function best by not being burdened by people who can afford to feed themselves.

If you can afford to educate your kids, and you send them to public school, you are putting a burden on a social service, and have the nerve to complain about the strains you put on it.


> fcps does some things well and some things badly -
> but its your fcps
>
> Sending your kids to a religious institution -
> especially a misogynistic medieval cult that bans
> the use of birth control in the world's poorest
> countries and believes in creationism not science
> - doesn't seem to be a good option for developing
> rounded intellects. After the revelations of
> systemic child sex abuse in Catholic schools in
> Boston and other places, the church, in fact all
> churches, should have been banned from running
> schools.


You don't have to send your kids to a catholic school. The baptists have schools too, as do the lutherans and other crazy groups. There's also more secular private schools to choose from.

The catholic schools are not "misogynist" nor are they "medieval cults" that ban the use of birth control in the poorest countries. They are locally run schools that have very little to do with the vatican or the church hierarchy.

Catholic schools are not the ones teaching creationism. At least not the ones I went to. That crap is coming from the loonies in the baptist and other fundamentalist churches. They are not affiliated with the catholic church in any way.

As far as Boston schools sexually abusing kids 40 years ago, or whatever, perhaps you should avoid sending your kids to a catholic school in Boston. Need I remind you that sexual abuse also occurs in public schools? Didn't one teacher have a baby with one of her students a few years back? Plus, do you know what systemic means? Catholic schools were not sexually abusing the entire student body -- even though there were numerous incidences, there was hardly systemic sexual abuse. Besides, I believe most of that wasn't going on in schools, but was abuse by priests with children in thier congregations. And to then postulate that because one church had problems that all churches should be punished is not very intelligent thinking. Should Hindus and Baptists be punished because of islamic terrorism? Should Mormons be punished if scientologists do something crazy or illegal?

But, your emotional problems with the catholic church or all religions aside, you can send your kid to any number of private secular schools. It just so happens that many of the traditional religion oriented schools offer exceptional educational opportunities and liberal-biases notwithstanding, do not indoctrinate people. Well, some of those "christian" schools, and all the fundamentalist protestant sects might, but the american catholic school, in general, is not what you think. I went to catholic schools for half of my schooling, and had very few religion courses and nothing about creationism -- we were taught what the bible says about it, and were led to believe, rightfully, that like many things in the bible, like the story of Noah's ark, these were stories intended to teach a moral or convey an idea, not to be taken literally. We were taught evolution. We dissected frogs in Biology class in High School. Look at Sidwell Friends. It's a mennonite school. Do you think the children are being indoctrinated into weaving whicker chairs and wearing funny hats?

Bob said:

> My tax dollars are not going into ESOL for illegals. That is pure ignorance to
> make that assertion. To make such a blanket statement that anyone who is in
>ESOL must be illegal is really idiotic.
>Do you believe that anyone who has darker
> skin than you is illegal?
>Are all foreigners taking resources away from your little redneck kids?
>I mean, come on. That sort of mentality doesn't belong in this day and age, and especially not in this area.

No-one has said that all ESOL kids are illegal or the kids of illegals - but about 50% of the Hispanics in the US are illegal (see Pew etc) and we know that the recent rise in Hispanic ESOL attendance at FCPS schools has been driven to a substantial degree by enforcement in neighboring counties.

This is not about skin color - if the illegality was a wave of Norwegians, Russians or martian's, the same argument would hold.

In a budget crisis, using scarce tax dollars to educate illegals should be an explicit, rather than implicit decision.

It may well be a good decision, but it should be a decision rather than occurring by default after the BOS squashes their own study because they were scared by what the study shows.

Bob,

I assume, without children, you probably have the resources to afford private security and private emergency services (fire, rescue etc...). Your argument is that you burden the government system by using police or fire services right. What about your water and sewer? You can afford to provide these resources for yourself too.

Schools are infrastructure to benefit society - not welfare for the poor. You dont have children but it is the next generations that will provide for you in the future. Tax revenue, labor, services, national defense etc... Its easy to say hey everyone just cough up more money but it is not so simple here is the estimated cost of raising kids www.childcostcalculator.cnpp.usda.gov

I own late model cars and have no car payments (note - they are not suv's). My wife and I both work. We have to pay 800 dollars a month to cover child care so we can keep our jobs. I dont dismiss your arguments out of hand but I do believe schools are a necessary resource for the majority of the population (including those without children).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2009 09:54AM by dono.

schooling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No-one has said that all ESOL kids are illegal or
> the kids of illegals - but about 50% of the
> Hispanics in the US are illegal (see Pew etc) and
> we know that the recent rise in Hispanic ESOL
> attendance at FCPS schools has been driven to a
> substantial degree by enforcement in neighboring
> counties.

50%??? Really??

43.2 million hispanics live in the U.S. 8.2 million illegally.

That's hardly 50%. Even using the PEW estimates of 11 to 15 million "unauthorized migrants" (which is not exclusively hispanics) still barely gets close to your claim that 50% of hispanics in the US are illegals.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob,
>
> I assume, without children, you probably have the
> resources to afford private security and private
> emergency services (fire, rescue etc...). Your
> argument is that you burden the government system
> by using police or fire services right.

See, those arguments don't hold up. I agree that government services are need-based. If I needed food stamps, that is why our tax dollars provide them.

If I need police or emergency services, that is why they are there. But I wouldn't just call them up once in a while to make sure I was getting my fair share of what "my tax dollars paid for". You know, I could get the fire department to come over and use their ladders to help me clean my gutters, perhaps.


What
> about your water and sewer? You can afford to
> provide these resources for yourself too.
>

Actually, yes, I do pay for water and sewer services. Not in the ethereal "my tax dollars pay for them" sense. I get a bill for the water I use, and that also includes charges for the sewage based on the amount of water I use.

> Schools are infrastructure to benefit society -
> not welfare for the poor. You dont have children
> but it is the next generations that will provide
> for you in the future. Tax revenue, labor,
> services, national defense etc... Its easy to say
> hey everyone just cough up more money but it is
> not so simple here is the estimated cost of
> raising kids www.childcostcalculator.cnpp.usda.gov

When I have children, if I can't afford to send them to private school, I will be glad for the infrastructure. Just like I would be glad for the infrastructure of welfare and food stamps if I ever fall on hard economic times.

>
> I own late model cars and have no car payments
> (note - they are not suv's). My wife and I both
> work. We have to pay 800 dollars a month to cover
> child care so we can keep our jobs. I dont
> dismiss your arguments out of hand but I do
> believe schools are a necessary resource for the
> majority of the population (including those
> without children).

I realize that a lot of people believe public schools are a necessary entitlement. But the problem with entitlements is that they are still government assistance. Government assistance should be need-based.

It is a commonly held belief that school entitlements are different from welfare entitlements, or food program entitlements. People will not think twice about sending their kids off to public school for a free education, but look down on people that need food stamps or welfare. They are all entitlements. Most people just choose to rationalize the school entitlement differently because they feel they are entitled to it.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> > counties.
>
> 50%??? Really??
>
> 43.2 million hispanics live in the U.S. 8.2
> million illegally.
>
> That's hardly 50%. Even using the PEW estimates
> of 11 to 15 million "unauthorized migrants" (which
> is not exclusively hispanics) still barely gets
> close to your claim that 50% of hispanics in the
> US are illegals.


Widely accepted estimates are about 20M

Which is very close to 50% - even your estimate is 25% which is a problem, Pew has it at upto about a 1/3 (on the basis that "unauthorized migrants" are dominated by illegal hispanics - its just PC-speak)

Similarly >1,000 new hispanic students moved into FCPS from neighboring counties during the recent crack-down triggering staff attempts at countywide redistricting - one would suspect that these were predominantly illegal or the kids of illegals

Bob you are trolling. Schools are infrastructure not a subsidy program.

You did not address the point of whom will provide for you when you are older. Whom will fill the tax base? Whom will provide you with services? The kids you wish not to educate? Or will you be SO rich you will have your own infrastructure and services? Your own fire department, your own police force, your own transportation department, your own business leaders, your own...world.

nope. YOU need an educated population. You are not self sufficient - we all need each other. The kids fighting in Iraq are the best fighting force in the world because we educated them not because they were given 'entitlements.' The US economy is driven by technology and innovation. That does not come for free. Trust me, its not welfare to educate the next generation - it is self preservation.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob you are trolling. Schools are infrastructure
> not a subsidy program.
>
> You did not address the point of whom will provide
> for you when you are older. Whom will fill the
> tax base? Whom will provide you with services?
> The kids you wish not to educate? Or will you be
> SO rich you will have your own infrastructure and
> services? Your own fire department, your own
> police force, your own transportation department,
> your own business leaders, your own...world.
>
> nope. YOU need an educated population. You are
> not self sufficient - we all need each other. The
> kids fighting in Iraq are the best fighting force
> in the world because we educated them not because
> they were given 'entitlements.' The US economy is
> driven by technology and innovation. That does
> not come for free. Trust me, its not welfare to
> educate the next generation - it is self
> preservation.


See, you are rationalizing. I never said that children should not be educated. I said that those with the means should not be relying on the government to pay for that education. If those with the means to pay for their own children's education did, in fact, pay for their kid's education, the public school system would have the resources to properly educate those who do not have the means.

Anyone who can afford to pay for their children's education but instead chooses the entitlement of a free education is placing a burden on the public school system.

If you understood where demographics and entitlements were taking us in the next 30 to 50 years, you would understand exactly what I am talking about. Your concerns about a tax base for when we are older should compel you to agree that those with means should not be sending their kids to public schools. CBO, GAO and several other government projections are that by between 2025 and 2050, entitlements will grow to consume 100% of government revenue. That is before the government pays for things like fire and police, defense, debt servicing, roads, bridges, health and technology research, etc.

Did you see the cost of children? Who exactly do you think can afford $15,000 a year per kid plus $5000 min. per year for private education? That is 40000 dollars cash money per year.

So sure, I agree rich people should not send their kids to public schools. News bulliten - they dont. Now stop calling school and entitlement for the poor. We earn over 100k per year, drive a 1993 year car and a 1996 year car. We do not pay for cable, we do not have a flat screen TV we do not pay to go on vacation.

With retirement, health care, modest college savings we simply cannot afford private school. All that and we earn triple the national average income!

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you see the cost of children? Who exactly do
> you think can afford $15,000 a year per kid plus
> $5000 min. per year for private education? That
> is 40000 dollars cash money per year.


There are tons of private schools out there, and $15k per kid isn't a figure I am familiar with. I pay about $9k for two kids (total, not "per") in elementary school after all fees (supply, misc nickel and dime crap, etc) and such.

ffx parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dono Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Did you see the cost of children? Who exactly
> do
> > you think can afford $15,000 a year per kid
> plus
> > $5000 min. per year for private education?
> That
> > is 40000 dollars cash money per year.
>
>
> There are tons of private schools out there, and
> $15k per kid isn't a figure I am familiar with. I
> pay about $9k for two kids (total, not "per") in
> elementary school after all fees (supply, misc
> nickel and dime crap, etc) and such.

The 15k is for living, health, transportation I was calculating 5k per kid annually for private education

I guess I don't fit the mold of the calculator you posted... we have managed to work private school in and our households probably have similar income. Then again we live in a house we can comfortably afford and have no debt. Under those circumstances I don't understand why it couldn't be done at that income level, but each household is different. I don't mean to criticise or anything, I am just trying to make the point that private school doesn't have to be impossible if you are not satisfied with taxpayer-provided education.

I did some digging and found out that basically, if the school ignores the advanced students and pours their resources into the students failing PALs standards, they can use the supplemental funds provided for tutoring as discretionary spending.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I did some digging and found out that basically,
> if the school ignores the advanced students and
> pours their resources into the students failing
> PALs standards, they can use the supplemental
> funds provided for tutoring as discretionary
> spending.


could you expand on this...

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you see the cost of children? Who exactly do
> you think can afford $15,000 a year per kid plus
> $5000 min. per year for private education? That
> is 40000 dollars cash money per year.

Lots of people can afford it. Again, I'm not talking about eliminating public schools, what I'm talking about is that it should become a needs-based program, and not something that everyone just automatically assumes they are entitled to. Of course, I also think that not everyone should accept social security even though we all pay into it.

My parents were able to send me and my sister to private schools except when we were overseas and the only english speaking schools were DOD schools, which are basically "public schools". My father was an Army officer during the 70's and 80's, and in the 70's the military pay fell way behind the private sector, even more than it has traditionally been. They drove used cars, we rarely ever ate out, and I rarely had any of the latest and greatest toys that most of my peers had. When I wanted a new bike, I got a paper route and saved up for 6 months and my parents pitched in about 30% of the cost of the bike. They scrimped and they saved. My mother would have to call the credit card company before taking us shopping for new clothes to make sure she knew exactly how much available credit they had available. But they sent us to private school because they believed that the public school's resources should be available to those who truly could not afford to pay for their children's education. I was raised with a sense of self-sufficiency and to not rely on the government for anything I didn't have to. When I lost a job many years ago, I didn't even apply for unemployment because I had the savings to support myself and pay rent and so forth. I felt that any money I took out of the unemployment insurance system was less money available to people who couldn't get by without it, while I could get by without it.

Perhaps I am a little extreme in that way, but if more people did the same, our government services would not be strained to the breaking point.

There are private schools that are less than $5,000 per year, and just about all of them offer payment plans and discounts and need-based scholarships and other things to lessen the costs. If you truly cannot afford to send your kids to a private school, thank god for public schools. But that should actually compel you to hold a similar view as mine. Every kid in your child's school whose parents CAN actually afford private school but chooses not to is making that much less money available towards your child's education.


> So sure, I agree rich people should not send their
> kids to public schools. News bulliten - they
> dont. Now stop calling school and entitlement for
> the poor. We earn over 100k per year, drive a
> 1993 year car and a 1996 year car. We do not pay
> for cable, we do not have a flat screen TV we do
> not pay to go on vacation.
>

If your combined income is over 100k a year, even though this is an expensive area to live in, you could figure out a way to afford private school. There are people making $50k a year who do so. There is obviously something about your chosen lifestyle that is consuming a large portion of your money, there are obviously some expenses in your family budget that could possibly be a little on the excessive side. Perhaps they are necessary, maybe your job requires you to spend enormous amounts of money on expensive suits or, I don't know, there are sometimes extenuating circumstances beyond the average person's expenses. Hard to say.

> With retirement, health care, modest college
> savings we simply cannot afford private school.
> All that and we earn triple the national average
> income!

My father was making an Army officer's salary. In 1978, as a Major, he was making $1,791.90 a month according to this pay chart http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/2006militarypaytables/militarypaypriorrates/1978.pdf which comes out to $21,502 a year. That amounts to about $67,642.85 in 2007 dollars. My mother didn't work, as it was frowned upon at the time in the military (wives were supposed to be in the Officer's Wives Club and do charitable work and other things.) They were able to send us to private school. (granted, we did have base housing, but we also lived in hawaii which has a very high cost of living, more so than around here due to the fact that it was an island and everything came over on a ship or an airplane). It wasn't until the mid 80's that military pay started getting reasonable COLAs and base rates increased to kee up with inflation. When my father finally retired as a full colonel in 1987, after 22 years service his pay was finally "decent" at $50,821, or $91,613 in 2007 dollars, but I graduated from High School the next year.

Again, everyone's situation is different, but it is unusual that someone making a combined family income of over $100k in this area cannot afford a private school. You've made some sort of budgetary choice that prohibits you from doing so (and I can't say whether they are necessary or excessive, just that something in your budget is restricting your available funds.)

ffx parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess I don't fit the mold of the calculator you
> posted... we have managed to work private school
> in and our households probably have similar
> income. Then again we live in a house we can
> comfortably afford and have no debt. Under those
> circumstances I don't understand why it couldn't
> be done at that income level, but each household
> is different. I don't mean to criticise or
> anything, I am just trying to make the point that
> private school doesn't have to be impossible if
> you are not satisfied with taxpayer-provided
> education.

You can take two "identical" families. Say, two working parents and 2 children. Both can make $100,000 a year. One family can afford to go on vacations twice a year and drive relatively newish cars, and even send their kids to private school. The other family can barely afford to save $100 at the end of each month for "a rainy day". You could even have a third "identical" family that does the vacations, private school, and even owns a beach house or a lake house.

I have aunts and uncles that run the full spectrum. It depends on how spendthrift they are, whether they budget or whether they just wing it financially. Even among my friends, I know people who make half what I make and live extravagantly, and people who make twice as much as I do and have very little assets to show for it and end up borrowing money from me or my friends every once in a while.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You can take two "identical" families. Say, two
> working parents and 2 children. Both can make
> $100,000 a year. One family can afford to go on
> vacations twice a year and drive relatively newish
> cars, and even send their kids to private school.
> The other family can barely afford to save $100 at
> the end of each month for "a rainy day". You
> could even have a third "identical" family that
> does the vacations, private school, and even owns
> a beach house or a lake house.
>
> I have aunts and uncles that run the full
> spectrum. It depends on how spendthrift they are,
> whether they budget or whether they just wing it
> financially. Even among my friends, I know people
> who make half what I make and live extravagantly,
> and people who make twice as much as I do and have
> very little assets to show for it and end up
> borrowing money from me or my friends every once
> in a while.

The differential in apparent wealth typically comes from two main causes

1. the massive uptick in consumer debt - especially credit cards - and individual family choices/necessities

2. when you bought your house and whether you benefited/suffered from the rise in prices or not. Many of the families who have the holidays and beach houses were lucky enough to buy their houses when they cost $150k and hence have very low mortgage payments, the one's who struggle bought them when they were $650k and hence have very high payments

This is going to return and haunt us all

- excess consumer debt
- insufficient retirement savings
- inability for normal consumers to cover the costs of medical and elder care

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Lots of people can afford it. Again, I'm not
> talking about eliminating public schools, what I'm
> talking about is that it should become a
> needs-based program, and not something that
> everyone just automatically assumes they are
> entitled to. Of course, I also think that not
> everyone should accept social security even though
> we all pay into it.
>

This is the discussion: should we have a better public school system or a smaller one

It seems clear to me that the investment in high quality, more or less universally available, public schooling has been the best investment that western countries have made over the last century

The ability to foster talent from across the economic spectrum has been the foundation of our national wealth and marked the transition from aristocracy to meritocracy and democracy.

It remains the single most important imperative for any country hoping to succeed in the 21st Century

We need our children to rise to their full economic and social potential based on merit, not on the wealth of their parents. This is our job as a society and should not be outsourced to religious institutions, or, at scale, into the private sector,

schooling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Lots of people can afford it. Again, I'm not
> > talking about eliminating public schools, what
> I'm
> > talking about is that it should become a
> > needs-based program, and not something that
> > everyone just automatically assumes they are
> > entitled to. Of course, I also think that not
> > everyone should accept social security even
> though
> > we all pay into it.
> >
>
> This is the discussion: should we have a better
> public school system or a smaller one
>
> It seems clear to me that the investment in high
> quality, more or less universally available,
> public schooling has been the best investment that
> western countries have made over the last century
>
> The ability to foster talent from across the
> economic spectrum has been the foundation of our
> national wealth and marked the transition from
> aristocracy to meritocracy and democracy.
>
> It remains the single most important imperative
> for any country hoping to succeed in the 21st
> Century
>
> We need our children to rise to their full
> economic and social potential based on merit, not
> on the wealth of their parents. This is our job as
> a society and should not be outsourced to
> religious institutions, or, at scale, into the
> private sector,


Well originally, I was interested in parents experience with gifted children being underevaluated by their elementary school (In the future I will learn not to feed BOB so as to stay on topic).

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Well originally, I was interested in parents
> experience with gifted children being
> underevaluated by their elementary school (In the
> future I will learn not to feed BOB so as to stay
> on topic).

If you get a chance please respond to my questions about the DRA testing and information you received/didn't receive.

Many principals tell their teachers not to put on the report card, "usually achieves above grade level" in whatever subject they are "gifted" in, as they then "have to provide enrichment"
Many states have monies for gifted and talented within their special ed designation. i.e gifted and talented kids have IEPs too. FCPS obviously doesn't do that, so it is easier to ignore...especially pre 3rd grade when students might end up in a center or pull out programs.

info Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dono Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I dont know about Jack Dale but the teachers
> and
> > admin at Ravensworth Elementary School are
> lying
> > about reading evaluations in the first grade.
> They
> > are claiming 3 students in particular are only
> > reading at DRA2 10 (translated that means
> > beginning of first grade level) when 2 of the
> > three were evaluated last Spring by another
> school
> > as DRA2 28- 34 (translated that means end of
> > second grade middle of third grade).
> >
> > So we try to get extra instruction for them
> > because they are bored as hell and all we get
> is
> > stall nonsense. Anyone else have the joy of
> being
> > lied to at this or another school?
>
> Was this a Jan. or a fall testing session?

fall

Did you
> ask when the teacher giving the DRA2 was trained?

no, since my son received a Woodcock eval in the spring of the previous year placing him at a DRA2 28 - 34 equivalent I figured the tester simply stopped at the fall benchmark for 1st grade

> (one or the other did it incorrectly, one would
> assume). How does Ravensworth structure their
> reading groups, strictly on DRA scores

as far as I can tell everyone is together reading books in a slightly varied range. Struggling kids are given individual tutoring by the reading specialist?

Were the> 2 kids in a higher group at Ravensworth in the
> fall, based on the spring scores, and then moved
> to a lower group

one came from another school and one did not. The one from the other school was evaluated at a high level (just like my son) the spring before. All three advanced students have received no real differentiated instruction?


> The DRA has more info than just the score, ask to
> see the information written down from both testing
> results (database is online as well, so the
> administrator of the DRA..

there are no formal results listed in their records - just the scores

not the teacher giving
> the test, but probably the reading specialist at
> Ravensworth) can access this test as well as the
> other test's info on-line via Pearson

I have formally requested my son be evaluated to his ability. One of the other students with a high spring evaluation got a DRA2 10 score in the fall. When the parent inquired about the low assessment they said 'oh yea he is a DRA2 12.' She asked that he be evaluated by the reading specialist and he tested at a DRA2 24. The reading specialist stopped the test at level 24 because 'Fairfax does not allow her to test beyond that for 1st grade.' I have already learned that is a bogus assertion. Perhaps, the principal has administers such a constraint but not Fairfax.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2009 12:13PM by dono.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I have aunts and uncles that run the full
> spectrum. It depends on how spendthrift they are,
> whether they budget or whether they just wing it
> financially. Even among my friends, I know people
> who make half what I make and live extravagantly,
> and people who make twice as much as I do and have
> very little assets to show for it and end up
> borrowing money from me or my friends every once
> in a while.

I think you made the poster's point... it is possible, though many can't find the way to do it or the steps necessary to do it. It actually isn't their fault... there is absolutely no financial planning education in this country, and the ones who can live better on less are those that either get the education themselves or figure it out early enough in their lives so that later such things are possible.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> there are no formal results listed in their
> records - just the scores

There should be copies, somewhere, of the full results. The person doing the testing should have made comments on various aspects of the test, not just the final score. Fluency, comprehension, etc., would be commented on if the DRA was done correctly
>
> I have formally requested my son be evaluated to
> his ability.

This is what should have been done in the first place. Sorry you had to request it specifically. Hopefully you will get a better picture of your son's reading skills. When you get the results here, ask to see the test..this is where you will not only see the final score, but comments the evaluator should make on various aspects/i.e. reading strategies and skills your son uses (or perhaps where there might be weaknesses).

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I have aunts and uncles that run the full
> > spectrum. It depends on how spendthrift they
> are,
> > whether they budget or whether they just wing
> it
> > financially. Even among my friends, I know
> people
> > who make half what I make and live
> extravagantly,
> > and people who make twice as much as I do and
> have
> > very little assets to show for it and end up
> > borrowing money from me or my friends every
> once
> > in a while.



>
It actually
> isn't their fault...


BULLSHIT!

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> I think you made the poster's point... it is
> possible, though many can't find the way to do it
> or the steps necessary to do it. It actually
> isn't their fault... there is absolutely no
> financial planning education in this country, and
> the ones who can live better on less are those
> that either get the education themselves or figure
> it out early enough in their lives so that later
> such things are possible.


Isn't there some circular logic in there? Everyone should just rely on the government to educate their children because the government education doesn't provide financial planning education so not many people of means can figure out how to afford private school?

It's not their fault, and it won't be their children's fault either. And so on, and so on. Thus, we have the perpetual cycle of dependence upon government.

Bob Wrote:

> It's not their fault, and it won't be their
> children's fault either. And so on, and so on.
> Thus, we have the perpetual cycle of dependence
> upon government.


Its not 'dependence on government' its 'investment through government' - I can guarantee that most of the US and European middle classes would not exist without our long-standing investment in universal education

If you really want minimalist government and wholly distributed religious education - try Somalia or the cults of Utah

Dont feed Bob he is young and very stupid

schooling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Wrote:
>
> > It's not their fault, and it won't be their
> > children's fault either. And so on, and so on.
>
> > Thus, we have the perpetual cycle of dependence
> > upon government.
>
>
> Its not 'dependence on government' its 'investment
> through government' - I can guarantee that most of
> the US and European middle classes would not exist
> without our long-standing investment in universal
> education
>
> If you really want minimalist government and
> wholly distributed religious education - try
> Somalia or the cults of Utah


Wow, your liberal disgust for religion got in the way of comprehension. I only mentioned catholic schools because they tend to be the cheaper of the private schools.

Investing in education by relying on the one sector of our society that repeatedly overspends and underperforms is a great strategy.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dont feed Bob he is young and very stupid


I usually get accused of being old but hey, if you think I'm young, that's great.

I'm probably older than you are, and I know by law of averages, I'm most likely smarter.