[email protected]

In a message dated 8/8/02 11:23:29 PM, leschke@... writes:

<< But my point was that superintendents are *not* the NEA. At least they
don't belong to the union here in BC.
>>

I don't know the current situation but when I was teaching I was a member of
both the NEA and also, part of the time, of the AFT (American Federation of
Teachers). The former pressed the idea that they were a professional
association, not a union. And administrators belonged. The latter was a
teamster union, and not even principals could be members, only teachers
without administrative power.

I was nominated for AFT offices two years before I quit. I said "Oh, no,
thanks, no, couldn't really." I was nominated for three offices. I was
really young. They liked my energy. (I think that means there was a lot of
work to do that the older teachers didn't want to do. I'm glad I didn't get
more involved.)

All the NEA has to do to SUPPORT homeschooling is to lobby for a change in
the way schools get their funding. I wish the fact that my kids are not in
school would be a benefit to the local schools--that they would still have
that share of the money without my kids being any part of it. If that were
to be accomplished--funding by population regardless of enrollment, or
something, then schools would be encouraging kids to get out so there would
be more room for other kids and the money would go farther.

Sandra

dabejorysmom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> All the NEA has to do to SUPPORT homeschooling is to lobby for a
change in
> the way schools get their funding. I wish the fact that my kids
are not in
> school would be a benefit to the local schools--that they would
still have
> that share of the money without my kids being any part of it. If
that were
> to be accomplished--funding by population regardless of enrollment,
or
> something, then schools would be encouraging kids to get out so
there would
> be more room for other kids and the money would go farther.
>
> Sandra

I disagree. I think that if they are going to force people to pay
taxes to have kids "educated" then I think the moneys gathered from
those taxes should be given to the parents of each school-age child
to use in "educating" their child the way they see fit. Money is
very mismanaged by most schools. When we lived in Anchorage they
tried to institute a registration fee of around $50 or $60 per student
(it has been almost 5 years since we left there. I don't remember the
exact amount). The administrators promised that the money from this
fee would go directly to the classroom teacher of the student it was
paid for so that teacher would have more money for classroom
supplies. Well, in jr high and sr high kids have several teachers, so
that money wouldn't have gone far. I had kids in both elementary and
jr high at the time. I asked the teachers of all of my kids if the
extra money was helping. Each and every one of them said that they
never saw a penny of that extra money. One parent went to court to
fight the fee and won since public education is supposed to
be "free". The schools still charged it, but they were supposed to
tell you that it was optional...they didn't. When I registered my
daughter for jr high, they were telling everyone that they couldn't
get their child's schedule until the fee was paid, (unless you were
on the reduced lunch program.go figure!). Only if you refused to pay,
did they say it was optional. But you had to go to the principal and
get a waiver before they would let you get the schedule, even if you
were on the reduced lunch program. And the principal would give you a
hard time about it, even if you were on the reduced lunch program. So
the parents who didn't have the guts or the knowledge to speak up,
wound up paying the fee; which wasn't even going where the
administrators promised. I was one of the few parents who had the
guts to speak up when I registered my daughter. Even though we were
on the reduced lunch program, I told the principal that I wanted a
waiver but not the one that said I wasn't paying due to the fact of
being on that program. I wanted a waiver that simply said that I
didn't have to pay because the "fee" was optional. The principals of
both schools my kids were attending gave me the waiver, but only
after giving me a hard time about it. When schools get more money, it
is usually wasted. That has been my experience.

-Suzanna

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/9/02 8:30:04 AM, suzanna.n@... writes:

<< I disagree. I think that if they are going to force people to pay
taxes to have kids "educated" then I think the moneys gathered from
those taxes should be given to the parents of each school-age child
to use in "educating" their child the way they see fit. >>

My point was predicated on what the NEA could do to support homeschooling
(i.e. to encourage more homeschoolers) and have more money too. If the
argument is they want us back so they have money, let them have the money and
let us out!! Then they not only will be glad some people took their kids
home, they'll want more to do so.

(<<> All the NEA has to do to SUPPORT homeschooling is to lobby for a
change in
> the way schools get their funding. >>)

Sandra