In the battle over Question 2–whether to expand the number of charter schools by a dozen a year indefinitely into the future–sentiment is running against the proposal, despite the millions of dollars spent on television ads by the pro-charter groups. In western and central Massachusetts, according to this article, a majority of voters are against Question 2 once they hear from a volunteer about the fiscal impact on their public schools.
In Worcester, meanwhile, school officials want to see Question 2 defeated….
“To have the possibility of losing additional funding from our budget – it would be devastating,” said Molly O. McCullough, a member of the Worcester School Committee, which was among the first school boards in the state to officially oppose the ballot question in January.
Brian E. Allen, the Worcester schools’ chief financial and operations officer, said the public schools are already losing critical funding – $24.5 million this year – to the two existing charter schools in the city. If the district were to absorb all 2,000 of Abby Kelley Foster Charter Public School and Seven Hills Charter Public School’s students back into its population, for example, the money it would get back would be enough not only to hire the necessary teachers to instruct those students but also an additional 150 teachers to use elsewhere in the system, he said.
On the flip side, if Worcester were to add 2,000 more charter school seats – the equivalent of two new schools – “now we’re talking about significant financial impacts,” he said, to a district that cut staff last year because of a budget deficit.
In essentially the same boat as Worcester, as far as the financial impact a charter school would have on them, the majority of other school districts in Central Massachusetts have also taken official stances against Question 2. Two other school systems besides Worcester – Fitchburg and Marlboro – already share their city with charter schools. Fitchburg and other districts have also seen recent proposals from local groups to start new ones.
As school boards consider the fiscal impact of the existing public schools, they take a stand against the resolution.
What all this demonstrates is the utter callousness of the pro-charter advocates. Massachusetts has the most successful public school system in the state, yet “reformer-billionaires” think it should be disrupted. Worcester, as the article points out, had a third charter school that lasted only three years. What is the logic of disrupting and defunding the nation’s most successful state public school system by adding a dozen new transient schools every year and causing budget cuts to the public schools that remain?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The very parasitic nature of charters is to continuously weaken the public schools. Charters will continue to seek a bigger portion of the pie, and public schools will be able to do less and less for the remaining students. Taxpayers will continue to pay more as it is expensive to establish a separate parallel school system that on the whole performs no better and, often worse, than public schools. It is better to have a well funded effective public school than a weakened underfunded public school along with splinter schools that get meager results. Public schools are far more efficient, effective and provide more options for students than most charters. This is a no brainer. Vote “No” on Question 2.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Diane: What is the logic of disrupting and defunding the nation’s most successful state public school system by adding a dozen new ”
There continues to be, in Massachusetts, among the largest achievement gaps anywhere in the nation between those attending some schools and those attending others… The ballot question might add 2-5 new charter schools per year in a state with 1750 traditional public schools. It would permit 12 schools to start OR expand, and demand is primarily for expansion of schools that are proven highly successful.
LikeLike
Stephen,
There is no evidence that charter schools close the achievement gap. None. If you look around the nation, you will find evidence that charters underperform even big-city public schools. Look at the latest news from Nevada, which I posted this morning. Most of the state’s lowest performing schools are charters. Look at Tennessee’s so-called Achievement School District, which utterly failed to move the state’s lowest performing schools to higher performance.
Has it ever occurred to you that Boston charters do well because there is a cap?
Did you read Jersey Jazzman’s careful analysis, which demonstrates that Boston charters do not enroll the same demographic as Boston’s public schools?
LikeLike
Charter advocates have a fairly atypical definition of ‘success’.
LikeLike
To Stephen B Ronan:
Please STOP beating around the bush, wouldn’t you?
TRUE EDUCATION is all about CULTIVATION of being HUMANITARIAN SPIRIT in all learners = SPIRIT of TO SERVE, NOT to be served.
In order to serve others, people need to do their own best in learning as many subjects as possible within their own ability, capacity and the support from society.
You will never be able to swim like Michael Phelps, don’t you agree?
Why should you enforce ALL INVALID TESTS on ELEMENTARY LEARNERS?
Why should school lengthen the hours to teach young learners to study within the INVALID TESTING SCOPE?
Why DO WE, as tax payers, ALLOW private owners without educational background and credential to LOOT public education fund and to DISRUPT children learning?
DON’T YOU acknowledge those deplorable politicians and business tycoons who only grab and loot PUBLIC TAX FUND for their own gain?
What is the point to have high score on this INVALID COMMON CORE STATE STANDARD testing scheme which makes Microsoft and Pearson to be in control over our children working condition like robots in the near future?
Please do not succumb to the submissive trend if you are intelligent and conscientious person. Back2basic
LikeLike
While there is plenty of evidence that kids in charter schools in this region learn to read, write and calculate much more ably than kids who lost in the charter admissions lottery, there is no evidence at all that I’ve ever seen that kids in the district schools are getting some inchoate, unmeasurable benign spiritual effect that compensates for that adequately in their view or their parents’. The charter schools tend to have arts, music, sports, chess and so on. And a very strong no-bullying culture.
The parents who decide to send their kids to charter schools typically have pretty good familiarity with both district and charter schools. And perhaps we should let them judge which are better for their kids?
“Why should you enforce ALL INVALID TESTS on ELEMENTARY LEARNERS?”
Who, me? Please see, for example:
LikeLike
Stephen,
You miss the point altogether.
Why should the vast majority of public schools in the state of Massachusetts suffer budget cuts and lose staff so you and the billionaires can set up a privatized system of charter schools?
Haven’t you ever heard the expression “the Common Good”? Do you know what it is?
LikeLike
Diane: “Why should the vast majority of public schools in the state of Massachusetts suffer budget cuts and lose staff…”
The vast majority of Massachusetts schools are in districts unaffected by lifting the cap, as creation of a new charter school in those locations is not limited by a cap, but instead by lack of a compelling need. There’s a limit on how many charter seats there could be in, say, Wellesley, but we’re nowhere near that limit.
There are about 8 communities that would very likely be affected by lifting the cap. After studying the matter closely, I believe that the students in those communities would as a whole, benefit. I am confident in your understanding of “as a whole.”
I would again draw your attention to the fact that Massachusetts traditional district schools have improved alongside a gradually growing charter school sector over the past 20+ years through several charter cap lifts. Prematurely halting that process seems unwarranted and unwise.
LikeLike
Stephen,
You are not being honest. More money for charter schools means budget cuts for public schools.
Can you name a high-performing nation in the world that runs a dual system? There is none.
You are determined to destroy the best performing public school system in the nation.
Shame on you.
LikeLike
As you know, I expect that the legislation would, if passed, generate:
1) greater overall funding for public schools, traditional and charter
2) greater per student funding for traditional public schools in the handful of communities affected by the charter cap lift
3) fewer total dollars for traditional public school districts in those same few communities, presuming declining enrollment.
Feel free to argue with any of those if you disagree.
The question would then become whether the additional per pupil funding could be used wisely by those affected school districts, whether they could competently adjust and improve in the context of declining enrollments. Whether they can devise and implement enrollment systems that ensure that charter schools have their fair share of the most demanding students. Whether they can use school personnel and property efficiently. I’m pretty optimistic that that could be the case in Boston, with your support and that of your legion of admirers.
If you don’t think that they are competently able to accomplish that, kindly explain your reasoning.
p.s. I’m still thinking of asking you at some point to divide the below into a “dual system” while explaining the logic. But for now, perhaps just mull it over a bit?
Boston children may perhaps attend:
— BPS school:
* admission by lottery,
* admission by exam
* admission by audition
* admission by interview, etc.,
* Horace Mann Charter school
— Vocational education schools (we have both local and regional ones in MA)
— METCO: suburban schools accepting Boston and Springfield students, governed by folks not responsible to METCO parents (i.e., a remote community’s school board)
* admission by some blend of luck and cherry-picking? Can’t quite figure that out..
— Chapter 766 special education schools, typically operated by 501(c)3 nonprofits, with some state oversight with public funds for tuition.
— Commonwealth charter schools (public schools operated by boards appointed by education commissioner, who is himself appointed by the Governor elected by the students’ parents and other voters) and closely supervised by DESE.
* admission by lottery
— Schools for kids with involvement in the criminal justice system. Operated by 501(c)(3) nonprofits under supervision of the State Department of Youth Services
LikeLike
Stephen,
You are not serious. Look at what has happened in every state that has lifted the cap. Look at Pennsylvania and Ohio, for example. When charters increase, there is LESS FUNDING for public schools. The charters take the students they want, kick out the ones they don’t want. The public schools have budget cuts, loss of staff, loss of programs.
LikeLike
This is the latest dishonest argument being put forward by the charter industry, that only 8-9 cities will be affected by Question 2. DFER’s Marty Walz (not to be confused with Boston Mayor Marty Walsh) made the same false statement today on WBGH’s debate.
http://news.wgbh.org/2016/10/24/local-news/debate-over-raising-cap-charter-schools
The ballot question, written by Marc Kenen, executive director of the MA Charter School Association, has no language limiting charter expansion to nine cities. More than 200 school committees across the Commonwealth are wise to this argument. The YesOnQuestion2 folks know that the facts don’t support the proposal, so they’re trying out falsehoods instead.
LikeLike
Christine, let me try an imperfect analogy. Let’s say there is a cap on the number of home runs a player is allowed to hit in a major league season. Let’s set that at 62 (with hats off to Roger Maris). And imagine there’s a proposal to lift that cap to 65. Realistically, how many players on the Red Sox do you think would have their home run production directly affected by lifting the cap? All of them?
LikeLike
Stephen,
That “analogy” is beneath you, and far below the intelligence of our readers.
Let’s try another analogy. Suppose you have a public school system that enrolls all of the students in the community other than those that go to religious schools or private schools. Then suppose the state opens two “charters” that are free to accept those they want and exclude the ones they don’t want. Suppose these two charters drain away 8% of the students. The public schools lose funding, lose teachers, and cut programs. So the public schools are not so attractive any more. The charters thrive, the public schools die.
LikeLike
That “analogy” is beneath you, and far below the intelligence of our readers.
Ah, ok, I’ll watch out for that.
But you, yourself, are not illustrating the question Christine and I were addressing: i.e., what effect lifting the cap would have on most districts that are nowhere near the current cap.
Let me try again:
Capping home run production at 62 is to the home run productivity of most MLB players as lifting charter school enrollments caps via Q2 is to charter school startup in most MA towns.
The great majority are nowhere near producing as many as they are currently permitted to produce. Therefore, lifting the cap would not be expected to affect their productivity.
May I suggest you amend your analogy by adding, at the end, a long chain of nudged and tumbling dominoes north and south, east and west all over the state?
LikeLike
Stephen,
The domino analogy is a good one. More charters means less funding for public schools. The dominoes that fall are the neighborhood public schools that are the heart of the community, the schools where parents and siblings went, to be replaced by corporate charters with headquarters in Texas or California or New York.
Stephen, I am not going to allow you to use my blog as a forum to post propaganda for Question 2. The purpose of this blog is to protect and improve education for all, not a few privatized charters for a few.
If you have a comment for Jersey Jazzman, post it on his blog.
Diane
LikeLike
So you’ve admitted that we don’t need to lift the cap. Charters across the state have empty seats. Most do not backfill, so when kids (and parents) vote with their feet and return to the real public schools, there are empty charter seats. Roxbury Prep, whose founder John King is Arne Duncan’s successor at the DOE, has immediate opening for grades 5,6,7,8, and 9 according to a mailing sent to homes of Boston students.
LikeLike
In the same debate, DFER’s Marty Walz tries carrying water for Reed Hastings’ argument that local control should be taken from communities with regard to public schools. Want to defend that, too?
LikeLike
Ah, Stephen, you forgot to mention that a majority of the state legislators oppose Question 2. It seems the billionaires can’t buy everyone.
LikeLike
The best evidence that Stephen B Ronan’s view is misleading, at best, is that the pro-charter advocacy group Families for Excellent Schools is one of the leaders of the PR effort to convince Massachusetts voters to undermine public schools.
FES specializes in supporting PR efforts to convince Americans that minority children — even if they are only 5 or 6 years old — are frequently so violent in their Kindergarten classes that they deserve to be suspended from school over and over again. FES also specializes in running ads attacking people who want to limit suspensions.
The bottom line is that the Massachusetts charter expansion effort is being underwritten by people whose main goal is to have charters for the least expensive “strivers” and middle class students with the ability to push out any expensive kids into public schools with almost no oversight except by pro-charter elements who are concerned with charter school results and don’t care how many children are pushed out to achieve those results.
They want a dual system where public schools are forced to teach a disproportionate share of the most expensive students while charters limit themselves to the students who will give them the brag worthy results that is the main reason these faux educators are in the education “business” (as they like to call it). The billionaire donations upon which the pro-charter movement depends is conditioned on them not just running charters, but undermining public education with those charters by intentionally dumping the most expensive children back into the public system but outright lying about it and promoting the lie that their charters teach the exact same children for LESS money but get better results. That way they can cut the funding for public schools even more.
No one believes them anymore — especially the NAACP. The charter movement is entirely underwritten by people for whom the children are props in a game to undermine public schools and their desire to teach them is only as deep as those children help them pursue their ultimate goal. It would be very easy for those same billionaires to support schools within the system that were honest and put the children first – not “results” and public relations and promoting charters. But they choose instead to demonize the children who don’t help them get those results because demonizing them is much more profitable to their goal than teaching them is.
LikeLike
First of all, “the achievement gap” is a weaponized phrase used by so-called reformers to reduce education to test scores, which are more easily monetized. We also know from bitter experience how test scores are manipulated in charter schools, described on the pages of this blog every day.
Second, because of the ways that charter schools game their student bodies (and thus the test scores), to compare them with actual public schools is basically meaningless.
Then again, even with their creaming and high attrition rates, they rarely do better than public schools, even on such a debased measure as test scores.
LikeLike
Michael,
You are so right. The financiers and rightwing think tanks have cynically used the phrase “achievement gap” to demean the public schools. The fact is that the achievement gap is a product of standardized testing, normed on a bell curve. The bell curve never closes.
LikeLike
And the charters who supposedly reduce the achievement gap the most just happen to be the ones who specialize in ridding themselves of the children who don’t achieve.
LikeLike
This thread proves once again – not that we needed to be reminded – that it is impossible for the apologists for so-called reform to argue honestly. It’s one fallacy, misdirection, deflection or outright lie after another…
LikeLike
Fiorillo: “This thread proves once again – not that we needed to be reminded – that it is impossible for the apologists for so-called reform to argue honestly. It’s one fallacy, misdirection, deflection or outright lie after another…”
Please feel welcome to point specifically to each and every “fallacy, misdirection, deflection or outright lie ” that you have witnessed in this thread.
Fiorillo: “Then again, even with their creaming and high attrition rates, they rarely do better than public schools, even on such a debased measure as test scores.”
Since this thread pertains to Massachusetts, kindly point to any evidence you may have that this contention of yours is applicable to Massachusetts… and Boston in particular if you can manage it… there’s plenty of data to work with.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Diane disposed of your fallacies and untruths.
As for charter school creaming and attrition being a matter of debate, you’re kidding right?
LikeLike
Fiorillo: “Diane disposed of your fallacies and untruths.”
Ah, OK, thanks. I hadn’t noticed.
Fiorillo: “As for charter school creaming and attrition being a matter of debate, you’re kidding right?”
The hypothesis that excellent charter school academic performance assessed by a wide variety of measures (including parental enthusiasm) here in Boston is largely predicated on loss of lower performing students has been carefully examined and available evidence does not well support the notion.
In case it’s of interest, a fair bit of that evidence was very recently discussed in a series of messages here:
http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2016/09/massachusetts-charter-schools-and-their.html
http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2016/10/charter-school-attrition-in-ma-reader.html
http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2016/10/more-about-attrition-rates-in-boston.html
if you read that series on all the way through the comments attached to the last piece, and haven’t altered your attachment to the hypothesis, or have additional arguments to add on either side I’d be interested to know.
LikeLike
Stephen,
No matter how many times you repeat your claims, the high attrition rates at charter schools are well-documented by reputable scholars. Claiming that you know more than they do, is like Trump saying he knows more about ISIS than the generals.
LikeLike
“No matter how many times you repeat your claims, the high attrition rates at charter schools are well-documented by reputable scholars. Claiming that you know more than they do, is like Trump saying he knows more about ISIS than the generals.”
Generals are promoted to positions of authority within the government sector… In such respect they resemble bureaucrats who head up our Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).
And in this matter, I am deferring to governmental authority, relying on the information gathered and disseminated under their supervision and control. I am relying on DESE data which shows lower, substantially lower, attrition at Boston charter schools than at Boston traditional public schools.
See, for example, page 36 here:
Click to access 02CharterReport.pdf
Please.
While you are, by contrast, deferring to the authority of a chap or two in New Jersey who have prepared for your consumption a relatively idiosyncratic home-brew concoction that attempts to measure attrition by mingling students who enter school during multiple years into a single “cohort” and then adding to their ranks indeterminate numbers of incoming transfers. It is a methodology that I can’t find used by any state department of education anywhere in these United States. Nor by the federal government, or any of its generals and bureaucrats.
You and I both have substantial respect for Mark Weber. One key difference: I consider him well able to make and correct mistakes, and, by the latter, further improve his great lead over both of us in understanding statistical methods.
Note, for example that in our first interchange on your site, he wrote:
“If there was significant grade level retention at North Star, the drop-off numbers would only affect the first cohort studied. In other words, the first cohort would lose kids, but the next would pick them up, and those kids would stay with their new cohort until they graduate. The retained kids in that cohort would then move to the next one, and so on.”
If you read his most recent blog posting carefully concerning Boston schools, you will see he has now abandoned that faulty understanding. Good on him for that!
Stephen
LikeLike
Stephen,
I need not defer to two chaps in New Jersey.
I have seen high attrition rates in New York City charters that do not backfill.
LikeLike
May I offer an analogy?
Let’s suppose there is a highly praised “no excuses” charter school, Problem Prep, with 100 teachers. Each year, 100 teachers resign by Christmas, replaced by a hardier lot who last till June before tendering their resignations. Fortunately, TFA comes through when they’re needed, and there’s 100 new teachers ready to start the next year.
Along comes a P.R. expert, minion of the boy and girl billionaires. Actually let’s call him a researcher. And he issues press releases, I mean research studies, that celebrate that Problem Prep has zero percent teacher attrition. Hey, 100 at the beginning of one year, 100 at the beginning of the next. Actually, he says “cohort attrition” just to make things a bit more scientific.
What are the chances that Dr. Ravitch would accept that as a valid method of measuring and specifying teacher attrition? Zero? Or none?
LikeLike
Stephen,
That comment is incoherent. What parent wants their child to attend a school staffed by itinerant inexperienced teachers?
LikeLike
My point was that you would not accept the notion that that school had zero teacher attrition. Correct?
LikeLike
The turnover is 100%. There are charter schools with numbers close to that.
If a school starts with 100 in kindergarten and by 5th grade has only 30 left, that’s a lot of attrition. No backfilling.
Vote no on Question 2.
Save public education from dark money and privatization.
LikeLike
“If a school starts with 100 in kindergarten and by 5th grade has only 30 left, that’s a lot of attrition. No backfilling.”
Right, that’s quite a lot of attrition, about 21% per year. Assuming no backfilling.
LikeLike
The biggest oxymoron for charters: legalized theft.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diane, thank you for calling attention to this. It matters that this is a statewide issue, and Mr. Allen’s calculation calls attention to how screwed up the financing is.
LikeLike
It’s becoming apparent to many that the real objective of Question 2 is not merely to further the cause of privatization to benefit the hedge funders, but also to bankrupt our urban school systems. There is no mechanism in the ballot question to financially support more charters because Marc Kenen, executive director of the MA Charter School Association, author of the proposal did not include one.
The current law regarding charter funding is carefully worded. Up to 9% of a city or town’s education funding can be directed to charters. In the so-called “failing” districts, the percentage is up to 18%. This means that if a city like Boston decides to increase school funding, the parasitic charters get more dollars. The state is supposed to reimburse cities and towns for costs associated with charters, but has failed to do so in recent years. Last year, about 50% of the reimbursement due to Boston was not made.
This afternoon, the Boston City Council, which has taken a stand in opposition to Question 2, held a hearing on the financial impact of Question 2, should it pass, and how the diversion of money to charters is already harming the city’s ability to fully fund our schools. Dave Sweeney, Boston’s Chief Financial Officer was among those who testified. (See his explanation of the impact of charter funding on the city’s finances here: https://medium.com/@DaveSweeney3/analyzing-the-fiscal-impact-of-question-2-9f1a36d8d823) Councilor Tim McCarthy pursues this line of questioning about the state’s failure to honor this requirement beginning at about 1:22:00
Tito Jackson expressed his dismay that the state board of education – a cabal of appointees by the pro-charter Gov. Baker – has taken the position that DESE is not obligated to take into acount the financial impact the opening of more charters will have on the host cities and towns where the Board decides to site these charters. He also notes that the state of Massachusetts currently underfunds public education to the tune of more than $1 billion. Start at about 1:37:00 for his testimony.
https://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/cc_video_library.asp?
LikeLike
IT’S UP TO EACH OF US NOW AS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO SPREAD THE WORD to our state and local lawmakers and social media friends everywhere because they need to know right now that the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education has issued a warning that charter schools posed a risk to the Department of Education’s own goals. The report says: “Charter schools and their management organizations pose a potential risk to federal funds even as they threaten to fall short of meeting the goals.”
The report documents multiple cases of financial risk, waste, fraud, abuse, lack of accountability of federal funds, and lack of proof that the schools were implementing federal programs in accordance with federal requirements.
Throughout our nation, private charter schools backed by billionaire hedge funds are being allowed to divert hundreds of millions of public school tax dollars away from educating America’s children and into private corporate pockets. Any thoughtful person should pause a moment and ask: “Why are hedge funds the biggest promoters of charter schools?” Hedge funds aren’t altruistic — there’s got to be big profit in “non-profit” charter schools in order for hedge fund managers to be involved in backing them.
And even the staunchly pro-charter school Los Angeles Times (which acknowledges that its “reporting” on charter schools is paid for by a billionaire charter school advocate) complained in an editorial that “the only serious scrutiny that charter operators typically get is when they are issued their right to operate, and then five years later when they apply for renewal.” Without needed oversight of what charter schools are actually doing with the public’s tax dollars, hundreds of millions of tax money that is supposed to be spent on educating the public’s children is being siphoned away into private pockets.
One typical practice of charter schools is to pay exorbitant rates to rent buildings that are owned by the charter school board members or by their proxy companies which then pocket the public’s tax money as profit. Another profitable practice is that although charter schools use public tax money to purchase millions of dollars of such things as computers, the things they buy with public tax money become their private property and can be sold by them for profit…and then use public tax money to buy more, and sell again, and again, and again, pocketing profit after profit.
The Washington State and New York State supreme courts and the National Labor Relations Board have ruled that charter schools are not public schools because they aren’t accountable to the public since they aren’t governed by publicly-elected boards and aren’t subdivisions of public government entities, in spite of the fact that some state laws enabling charter schools say they are government subdivisions.
Charter schools are clearly private schools, owned and operated by private entities. Nevertheless, they get public tax money. Moreover, as the NAACP and ACLU have reported, charter schools are often engaged in racial and economic-class discrimination.
Charter schools should (1) be required by law to be governed by school boards elected by the voters so that they are accountable to the public; (2) a charter school entity must legally be a subdivision of a publicly-elected governmental body; (3) charter schools should be required to file the same detailed public-domain audited annual financial reports under penalty of perjury that genuine public schools file; and, (4) anything a charter school buys with the public’s money should be the public’s property.
NO FEDERAL MONEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO TO CHARTER SCHOOLS THAT FAIL TO MEET THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC. Hillary Clinton could, if elected President, on day one in office issue an Executive Order to the Department of Education to do just that. Tell her today to do that! Send her the above information to make certain she knows about the Inspector General’s findings and about the abuses being committed by charter schools.
LikeLike
I am perplex by people who say this will not effect communities outside those that are directly seeing charter school growth. Just think about that for a minute. There is one pot of education money and it is going to be distributed between more buildings, more administrators etc. Our community has an elementary school that has been on the list to receive renovation funding for years. It was built in the sixties, added temporary trailers 20 years ago and we still don’t have state money. The state can’t even fully fund promised special education (circuit breaker) costs. Our communities are being asked to consolidate and regionalize our health departments, 911 dispatch centers and parents are paying parent taxes (bus, sports and activities fee) and basic school supplies. The lack of funding is a joke. Of course more schools will cost more, this isn’t rocket science.
LikeLike