|
|
Post by herb72 on Oct 14, 2009 0:44:54 GMT -5
The Answer to this question, is in 1975 the NY State Commissioner of education ruled:
IT IS ORDERED that respondent board of education determine whether or not an instrumental music program will hereafter be offered in the district, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that if such a program is offered, no tuition or fees may be charged.
So why does Plainedge continue to Charge you may ask well up until last school year no one complained. that is until I learned the music program is protected under the NYS pay to play laws much like the sports teams. If you remember last year we did not have to pay for instruments. The district did not come up with this out of the goodness of their hearts, but in fact they were forced to do this after many letters and phone calls from myself. That occurred from June until they Finally decided in August not to charge the rental fee. How short Mrs. P'simers memory must be to once again ask us to pay for something the district should have been doing since 1975. And don't think for even a minute we can look to the board of education for some support, you know the people we elect to represent our views to the administration. Mrs Zinke the BOE President has been copied on all of these mails and she has in-turn ignored them. Except for last years board meeting when the superintendent brought it up her comment was and I quote "I hope the parents do the right thing and purchase the instruments for their children" Thanks for sticking by the community that elected you to this position.
So once again I have sent many e-mails and made several phone calls, but this year the district would not remove this fee they state that that they are allowed to charge us Fees for instruments even though the Commissioner of Education Says "no tuition or fees may be charged" So I would like every one who reads this also look at the attachment this is the entire decision from 1975, and for my last note if you are still buying you children calculators like the middle schools supply list says you need to. Well the Commissioner sent out a memo to all district in 2006 saying that this too was to be supplied by the district not the parents. Pleas help make our district the best it can be buy making sure our kids are supplied with every thing they need to be successful. And please e-mail and forward this to everyone you know in the District.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4thekids5 on Oct 15, 2009 8:53:24 GMT -5
This is ridiculous. When does it end. After the three R's are covered, parents should by paying for the extras for their child. I understand the calculators you need them for math. But sports and instruments are extras.
I agree with the superintendent and parents should do the right thing. The cost of providing these instruments would put an impact on our school taxes, and no one needs or wants that.
So as far as everything they need yes I am all for paying for it. As far as what they want Parents step up and get it for them.
The repair costs for instruments is ridiculous, strings, cases etc.....
If the budget goes down, music and sports are cut so I suggest that the costs of these extra classes should be kept as low as they can go.
Taxpayers as a whole should cover 3 R's -- music and sports may get them into schools but that this their choice and parents should bear the burden - more money spent has to end!!
|
|
|
|
Post by techie on Oct 15, 2009 9:44:58 GMT -5
4thekids5,
That hits the nail on the head.
My kid wanted to learn an instrument in elementary school and we bought it. (also, since he wanted to learn we paid for extra lessons.)
If you want your kid to learn more than the 3 Rs, then be prepared to PAY FOR IT. My sons get whatever they want/need for education.
We don't ask anyone else to pay for it. School taxes are WAY out of hand. On top of them we pay for tuition at a private school.
I would rather pay more for that than pay local school taxes. My increases in tuition would be due to shared services we get from the district, ( basically, books and a bus).
My retired and childless neighbors would likely agree.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child, only a parent.
|
|
|
|
Post by herb72 on Oct 16, 2009 4:24:11 GMT -5
Lets put it in perspective, why should I pay for all of the school sports when my child does not participate. The cost to run the sports program far exceeds the music, and there are more scholarships given for music then sports.
But weather or not you think it's fair its the law, and the district needs to comply with state laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by 78ptownpower on Oct 17, 2009 7:38:29 GMT -5
Herb, what about the parents of children that do not participate in either sports or music?
The school district is not charging a fee or tuition for your child's music lessons.
You do however need to either rent or purchase the instrument.
The district has an agreement in place to get a group rate for instrument rentals/purchases from a vendor.
You need to pay for the rental/purchase of the instrument.
If your child damages the rental, you would be liable for repair.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4thekids5 on Oct 19, 2009 10:30:17 GMT -5
Herb:
I think there should be a rental fee on the sports equipment also! The nerve of having the burden on the taxpayer is toooooo much!!!!
The taxpayer is done on the amount of money being spent. It is a rental fee for covering damages and repairs.
I can not even imagine that this even passed anywhere and I for one am thrilled that our district in not following every little mandate that is sent down. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
I am now going to funnel this through my friends and contacts to write to the superintendent applauding the decision. I will also ask why we are not charging a rental fee on sports equiment.
Thank you Herb for enlightening us on the subject. I am no signing off to write to the Dept. of Ed and our Senator to see how we can get this ridiculous mandate overturned.
I purchased my childrens instruments when I knew they would continue and paid the rental before that. I would have not even imagined putting the financial burden on others for that.
My closing is just to say GET REAL and GET OFF THE TAXPAYERS BACK FOR EXTRAS]
|
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 20, 2009 7:12:32 GMT -5
I agree with a "pay to play" program. We (as parents) have enough to pay for with taxes being so high. I shouldn't have to pay if my child chooses not to play an instrument or not play any sports.
Good luck getting a reply from our superintendent. She doesn't reply to emails. She prefers to bury her head in the sand and pretend that problems don't exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by herb72 on Oct 20, 2009 10:16:14 GMT -5
One thing I will say is that I am happy with all of the responses I have received on this subject. And I would have to agree with you that it does make sense that if you want your children to play sports or take music lessons there should be a fee associated with it. But due to current laws this is not the case. My biggest issue is that the district feels that they can dip into our pockets as much as they want and still not give our kids the materials that they are legally obligated to provide. Our current Board of Ed is useless they do not realize that they are there to represent this community, instead they continue to push the districts agenda on us. The main question we should be asking is that if the taxes we are all paying should be covering the costs of these programs why are we still paying out of pocket to cover the associated costs. Where is all of this money going. Well according to the NYS web site www.emsc.nysed.gov/mgtserv/admincomp/ Our superintendent will be paid $305,731.00 for the 2009 to 2010 school year this includes her $10,228 pay raise (4.5%) Pretty good raise last year when the average in the state for was about 2.6%. Of the 18 administrators in Plainedge there is not one making less then $150,000.00 in total compensation. in my mind they are stealing from us by collecting the taxes and not providing the services they are obligated to. The tax money goes from our pocket to theirs not to our kids. The Saddest part of it is our District has one of the lowest spending per student, and one of the highest paid admin staff. |
|
|
|
Post by 78ptownpower on Oct 20, 2009 18:40:34 GMT -5
Herb, please put up the link to the 1975 law you mention.
Also, a link to the calculator one.
I know the district does have calculators for the kids that do not or cannot afford to get their own.
If you lose or damage the calculator, you bought it.
As for it being on the supplies list..well, so are pencils, pens and paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 20, 2009 18:45:06 GMT -5
The district does provide scientific calculators during school hours. This was an issue covered (about) two or three years ago. The students can not bring them home.
Herb, as for the pay, you are spot on. In my opinion, there are many that are way overpaid.
|
|
|
|
Post by herb72 on Oct 21, 2009 4:55:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 78ptownpower on Oct 21, 2009 9:06:28 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer but reading that decision on the music program the district can pass along the cost for the rental of the instrument.
It appears that the district is in compliance with said decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by herb72 on Oct 21, 2009 10:21:08 GMT -5
Below you will find the Entire Decision from the Commissioner. I am not sure how you define the term "no tuition or fees may be charged" but to me that mean that they can not charge anything to a student who want to play am instrument.
In the Matter of the appeal of BERNARD G. GORDON from action of the Board of Education of Brighton Central School District in relation to tuition charges for instrumental music instruction.
Decision No. 9013
(May 13, 1975)
Liebschutz, Sutton, DeLeeuw Clark & Darcy, Esqs., attorneys for respondent, John Darcy, Esq., of counsel
NYQUIST, Commissioner.—Petitioner is seeking an order direct¬ing respondent board to discontinue its requirement that students pay tuition for courses in instrumental music.
Respondent board has a policy under which pupils receiving instruction in instrumental music are required to pay tuition. No tuition fee is charged at the beginning level but for nonbeginners a charge of $1.50 per half-hour for semiprivate instruction and $4.00 per hour for private instruction is made. These lessons are optional and do not carry academic credit. They are given both during and after regular school hours by instructors, only some of whom are members of the regular teaching staff. No money is appropriated by respondent in the annual budget, since the lessons are self-sustaining through the tuition charges. These charges are collected by the district and placed in the general fund from which the instructors’ salaries are paid. Petitioner’s children are enrolled in an instrumental music instruction program, and respondent board has billed him for approximately $200. An order has previ¬ously been issued by the Acting Commissioner staying respondent board from collecting fees from students pending a final determi¬nation of this appeal.
It is respondent’s position that instrumental music instruction is not required to be offered by the public schools and therefore a board is not required to offer this instruction on a tuition-free basis. Respondent claims that the instruction is nonacademic in nature and that it is therefore lawful for the board to impose a charge. Respondent further ‘contends that the program is a worth¬while one and will have to be discontinued if the board is not allowed to collect the necessary fees to finance it.
If the instruction in question is not part of the curriculum, then it appears that respondent is permitting the use of its facilities for the personal and private gain of the instructors in question. Boards of education may not permit the use of school personnel or facili¬ties for the conduct of a private business, such as private music lessons (Matter of Countryman, 1 Ed Dept Rep 538(1960); Mat¬ter of Shapnek, 3 id. 99 (1963); Matter of Kalsm.i.th, 6 id. 20 (1966); Matter of Hupert, 6 id. 91 (1967); Matter of Albert, 7 id. 7 (1967).
On the other hand, if the instruction in question is part of the curriculum, tuition or fees may not be charged to the students who participate. State Constitution Article XI § 1 provides for “a system of free common schools.” Residents of the school districts are entitled to attend the schools of their district on a tuition-free basis pursuant to Education Law § 3201. However commendable respondent board’s objectives may be, its policy of offering in¬struction on a tuition basis is contrary to these constitutional and statutory provisions. If respondent determines that it is desirable to offer instruction in instrumental music to the pupils of the district, then the cost of such instruction should be included in the budget that is presented to the voters each year for approval.
THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED.
IT IS ORDERED that respondent board of education determine whether or not an instrumental music program will hereafter be offered in the district, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that if such a program is offered, no tuition or fees may be charged.
|
|
|
|
Post by 78ptownpower on Oct 21, 2009 22:28:01 GMT -5
Reading this decision, the commisioner ruled that no fee or tuition can be charged.
This was rendered because the school district was charging for the class itself. The monies were used to pay non district musical instructors.
In other words they were basically renting out the school to a music school to provide the musical instruction, hence the fee or tuition for the instruction which the commisioner rightly deemed illegal.
This does not pertain to the situation which you have brought up here.
Again, I'm not a lawyer but that's how it reads to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by herb72 on Oct 22, 2009 4:21:10 GMT -5
It most certainly does. Just the fact that there was a separation of the words tuition and fees in the order passed down, and also rather then just sustaining the appeal the commissioner sustained it to the extent indicated. This means not only did he rule that you could not charge for the lessons, but you also could not charge any other fees.
If the ruling was just sustained as the appeal was written then you would be correct, and this ruling would only pertain to the tuition, and not any other fees associated with the program. For example rental fees.
It would be like telling the football team we are not going to charge you for the coaching or use of the field, but you are required to buy or rent from us all of your equipment.
|
|
