Powered by WebAds

Thursday, November 23, 2006

School District 15 Board Meeting Report

I've been so busy defending myself from a few hostile but prolific commenters that I have been neglecting my real blogging bread-and-butter - the goings-on in School District 15.

This past Tuesday night, a school board meeting was held. On the agenda was a discussion over whether the district whould reinstate free Pre-K busing as well as free after-school building use for all district residents. Presently, there is Pre-K busing provided for public school students only, and there is a fee structure in place for use of district buildings after-hours.

So this is the recap of the meeting, as per reports from an unnamed operative:
It was quite a showdown
CNN filmed the whole thing (I think there must be a documentary in the works)
The board members fought over everything and the crowd couldn't have been much nastier or wilder.
They checked IDs at the door on the recommendation of the police dept, and kopilow and greenbaum argued that it was intended to chill free speech.
They voted to present 2 referenda to voters on jan 16th (after bickering over them for half the meeting)
- free facilities usage for youth groups and others
- free pre-k busing for everyone

Sounds like a mess. And the prospect of a CNN documentary exposing this whole inter-community squabble-fest is not an exciting one. As far as the referenda, the voters will speak on January 16th as to whether pre-K busing and free building use will be instituted.

354 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I always miss these things, and I would very much like to attend. Anyone know how do to get info on the "when" and "where" for future meetings?

6:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.lawrence.org/district/2006-2007meetingdates.htm

7:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

can this is ....

Four American Contractors Reportedly Kidnapped in Iraqi Convoy Attack

11:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Four American Contractors Reportedly Kidnapped in Iraqi Convoy Attack

wdcwcfe

efe
cf

12:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about reinstating some academic cuts made in public schools as a result of four years of austerity? Why not? B/c there would be no benefit to the Private School community.

You don't see a problem with this Orthomom? This is exactly what the public school parents were afraid of! An Orthodox dominant board toying with the district and its money to best meet their needs.

Yes it is true that the free building use would benefit everyone. However, this has been one of the major issues of the Orthodox community for years and is merely a minor concern of the public school community.

12:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a little food for thought,

1. Pre-k busing will be available to every child in the district.
2. Many public school parents send their kids to private pre-k.
3. Matrons will be needed due to the age 3/4 years olf of these children.
4. Every pre-k start and end time is different
5. Some pre-k students are the only ones attending the schools from the district.
6.The children could be on the bus for a very long time.
7.The traffic alone will be a disaster.
8.The transportation office unable to handle this year with out another 300-400 children, possibly more.
9. A lot of public school parents are switching their children to private schools adding to that volume

The cost will be over 500,000. Now, I know this stems from 19 children being added to the free pre-k for low income children, costing the district an extra 15,000., but there is one more consideration;
Starting next year new special education laws go into effect. For those of you who don't know the law the following will take place,
1.Students will be tested by the district where they live.
2.Services will be provided by the district in which the school is located.
3.Other school districts do not provide services at the non public site(friends who have children in prep schools relayed this to me).
4.The other school district will bill our district for those services.

What does this mean? New York City already has relayed to many school districts that they do not have the staff to service their own schools let alone any other. Children will be given a 50.00 voucher, and told to find services. Good luck. This goes for CPSE as well. I was not at the meeting this time, but I heard. I cannot say anyone behaves in a manner that I would call adult like. There is a lot of frustration. I would assume that overcrowded classrooms would take first president over busing.

12:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I alway thought orthomom was for fiscal reponsibility. Call me crazy, but adding more busing is a wee bit expensive. The board meeting was crazy, and CNN only filmed when people yelled about classroom overcrowding,violation of classroom cap,etc, low test scores, and then Mr. Kaufman presented pre-k busing. Having children in both public and private school, I am torture beyond belief. I can tell you, if they play what I saw them filming, this board is going to look really bad, talking about pre-k busing, when test scores are poor? Buildings are falling apart, this board did exactly what the public school parents wanted, added more to one side, while ignoring the education of the public schools. I thought they were for all the children?

12:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is building usage that important? Please, I thought we wanted to make money.

12:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cnn has been filming in the public schools for a few weeks, and have interviewed certain parents. Parents had to sign a release. Nothing like making things worse.

12:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Justice Brandeis said sunlight is the best disinfectant. CNN taping that packed meeting, one can hope, will provide a mirror for these Trustees to see the transparent nature and deleterious effect of their self-dealing. Requiring the District to pay for private groups' use of school buildings after hours is a proposal that is not in the District's financial interest. Requiring the District to pay for each parent to send each pre-k child to the school of his or her choice is not in the District's financial interest. And putting these proposals up as public referendums without asking for, or offering the public any cost analysis sends the clearest of messages: we do not care what it costs or who it hurts, we want it and we will get it, contingency budget or not!

1:47 AM  
Blogger Still Wonderin' said...

"Yes it is true that the free building use would benefit everyone. However, this has been one of the major issues of the Orthodox community for years and is merely a minor concern of the public school community."

I think your cavalier response to the needs of familes in the community are completely missing the point that the schools should provide for all community residents. Just because a child is enrolled in a private school from 9 - 4 is no reason to completely discount their needs. Why can't the so-called "public school community" recognize this. It seems so obvious.

7:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Requiring the District to pay for private groups' use of school buildings after hours is a proposal that is not in the District's financial interest.

Does it cost the Districe more? If so, the user should pay at least the marginal cost of using the facilities-especially a private group-the allocation of overhead is one that can be argued either way.

Requiring the District to pay for each parent to send each pre-k child to the school of his or her choice is not in the District's financial interest.
How many Districts pay for transportation to pre-K?

7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does this mean? New York City already has relayed to many school districts that they do not have the staff to service their own schools let alone any other.

Or they can do the declassification game-there is a lot of leeway of who gets classified for services-School districts will classify fewer students-probably a lot of Yeshiva kids are marginal classification in the first place.

8:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have children in Both public and Private (yeshivot) schools. This name calling, screaming, and near violent reaction is harmful to both sides and will accomplish nothing.

You know, I made a sacrafice to decide to send my child to public school, but it is working. My biggest concern is that you loud mouth punks on both side are runing it for me and more importantly ruining it for my kid.

This is about children, lets stop acting like children and start acting like adults. If you can not, step aside and let those who can have a say.

8:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, I know this stems from 19 children being added to the free pre-k for low income children, costing the district an extra 15,000.

That's exactly what it stems from. I the district chooses to provide a certain service to some community members, they should be prepared for the rest of the community to deman eqitable treatment. The district cannot pick and choose which residents get pre-k busing at district expense based on whether they attend public school. the law provides transportation to ALL district residents irrelevant to where they attend school.

The district opened a can of worms when they decided to provide free pre-k busing to those not covered by the grant.

every action has a reaction. now the consequences are being dealt with. A 15k decision can cause a 500k response. such is life when the ramifications are not considered.

9:04 AM  
Anonymous 5 towns res said...

"I can tell you, if they play what I saw them filming, this board is going to look really bad, talking about pre-k busing, when test scores are poor?"

Well, let's look sat it this way. If we bus the pre-k kids, they will actually get to school. If we throw more money at the poor test scores problem, we will probably get as far as we have been for the past ten years of rising per/student costs: NOWHERE. At least getting the students is a goal we can attain by throwing money at it - AS OPPOSED TO STUDENT PERFORMANCE, WHICH HAS JUST GOTTEN WORSE AND WORSE.

9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, you want pre k busing, take it . You want free usage of the schools you got it, even though every other organization has had to pay the $80.00 or so dollars. As far as pre k busing, let us take it away from those 19 students. Far better to save. Those 19 students were enrolled in the paying program, and would have been driven by there parents anyway. For a district that cries fiscal responsibility every time money is spent, spending $60,000 dollars on an election, when in contingency, is a waste. Now, if you want to talk equality, the public school parents requested a set of buses to pick our children up at 5:00. Let us see what they say. If pre-k busing passes a budget, go for it. I personally would not put a 3 year old on a bus for up to in some cases an hour ride. I do wonder, districts that have large populations of catholic school,prep schools population, why, they do not have these problems, Hewlett has a large non public population, no issued like we have. Never on Long Island has there been this type of problem. Whatever can get class size down from 24/26 is fine by me.

10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is unbelievable. As a yeshiva parent I am embarrassed. I can't understand how 2 costly items can go up for a vote before we get the district off austerity. Or are we saying we can't trust this school board to be fiscally responsible? Put up a fair budget, include the pre-K bussing and after hours building use and see what happens. Line item public votes are not the way to go.

10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, let's look sat it this way. If we bus the pre-k kids, they will actually get to school

Now, Now,

Those children got to school anyway. Those 19 kids were part of the paid pre-k. I am sure any parent who enrolled their child in a private pre-k planned to drive them. I have a non religous neighbor who is thrilled, next year her child will be in pre-k, and now, she will have door to door bus service, and she won't have to rush home from work, because her bus will p/u her little one at 4:30. This poor child won't be home till 5:30 !

At least getting the students is a goal we can attain by throwing money at it - AS OPPOSED TO STUDENT PERFORMANCE, WHICH HAS JUST GOTTEN WORSE AND WORSE.

This happens, when teachers are cut class size goes to 25/26 instead of 20/21, and one reading and math teacher for over 100 kids. We are finding out that the state standards are far more intense then a dual language program. Go online to NY state site, look at sample tests. Does your 9 year old know what the communicative property is, or a non renewable resource is????

10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just because a child is enrolled in a private school from 9 - 4 is no reason to completely discount their needs. Why can't the so-called "public school community" recognize this. It seems so obvious.

I have three kids who are enrolled in private prep school. Are you speaking for all private school or just certain ones. I personally do not care if my school has to pay $80.00 for the year to use a gym. If you want pre-k busing go ahead, I drove me kids, and at three, even if busing was provided I would still drive. I don't know why these issues are so important, I pay over $60,000 dollars for prep school. When one child needed help, I was told by the private school and the district he would not qualify for services. I called the state, lagging is not a disability. My prep school, offered a learning center for $3,000 a year and I paid, like every other parent from every district on Long Island. I do not understand this demanding nature from some. It makes no sense.

11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No matter how you slice this, it is not fiscal responsibility! PERIOD.

12:09 PM  
Blogger Still Wonderin' said...

"I do not understand this demanding nature from some. It makes no sense."

No....you can't understand that some people do not the financial fortitude to fork over more and more money. And saying, "Then don't live here," is neither constructive nor fair.

If the public schools were managed more efficiently without lowering taxes there would be sufficient money to pay for services that benefit all local residents.

Refusing to think beyond public school vs. private school conflict is shortsighted and unproductive.

If the level of animosity could be toned down, solutions that benefit everyone are achievable. Doesn't anyone learn from history that conflicts based on intractable viewpoints always destroy everyone?

Why can't those involved be right without making the other side wrong? Both sides are right. Now the challenge is to reconcile the two viewpoints.

12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why can't those involved be right without making the other side wrong? Both sides are right. Now the challenge is to reconcile the two viewpoints

How about everyone come to the board meetings to stand together and demand for more for all?

1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

However the community votes remains to be seen. What is wrong with paying an 80.00 builiding usage fee? This money will pay for the custodians. Little League, and other organizations have paid this in the past. An annual fee is charged at every school district on Long Island. To run a special election and spend 60,000 to have this election is a true waste of money. I would rather the money to go for programs for our children, ALL our children.

5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm seeking for description about XRumer software.
Can you help me? Or give me a link to the official site with this autosubmitter.

Thanks

12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To run a special election and spend 60,000 to have this election is a true waste of money.

Your arguments would hold far more water if you didn't throw in fabricated figures.

Elections don't cost 60k. As stated at the meeting, it would cost 15k-20k.

And the obvious reason for this election is that the board members are trying to provide some equality in services to the voters who elected them. Aside from this, they really haven't done anything that the voters elected them to do. And they also haven't done anything to warrant the fierce criticism that they've been getting at meetings and in the press.

Ultimately, this is democracy, and there's no good argument to make against giving the voters the right to decide (other than that you might disagree with voters' decision).

11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are talking about people elected to a public school system that are suppose to be acting fiscally responsible.

9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They were elected for two reasons:

1. to tighten the belt
2. to provide more equality of services

Whether you like it or not, this is their agenda. They have taken a far more fiscally responsible attitude than any other prior boards, but that doesn't mean they are not going to accomplish #2.

9:31 AM  
Anonymous goyguy said...

Anonymous said...11:34 PM

"And the obvious reason for this election is that the board members are trying to provide some equality in services to the voters who elected them."

The obvious reason for the election is that the new board members have gone from tough reformers to spineless politicians in half a year, and instead of doing their job they are letting the voters do it for them so if things go bad they don't take the blame.

What's next, a referendum on whether to have tuna melts or hot dogs in the cafeteria on
Thursdays? So if the tuna is spoiled and kids are rushed to the hospital it's not the boards fault? ;-)

9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

C'mon, you knew they had this agenda when you voted against them, and you know they still have it now. So, what changed.

If you didn't disagree with these initiatives, then you would concede that there is no better route than to let the voters decide.

How about a little objectivity.

9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is that as our elected representatives the board should make tough choices on their own. They have the community mandate, either they should have the b*lls to do what they think is right no matter how unpopular, or step aside and let those with the b*lls to do something take over. I voted for them because they said they has the testiculiar fortitude to do something. This referendum is a cop out. 9:36 is right no matter the result they can say it was not the BOe it was the people.

9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to ..."I think your cavalier response to the needs of familes in the community are completely missing the point that the schools should provide for all community residents. Just because a child is enrolled in a private school from 9 - 4 is no reason to completely discount their needs. Why can't the so-called "public school community" recognize this. It seems so obvious.

7:36 AM
Is it the purpose of the local public school budget to act as a "community center" for the community? I think not. The purpose of the public school budget should be to adequately fund education.

11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The purpose of the public school budget should be to adequately fund education.


FOR ALL RESIDENTS

12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The purpose of the public school budget should be to adequately fund education.


FOR ALL RESIDENTS
What part of public school budget are you not comprehending...????

Cause if this were truly the case that the budget should fund education for all residents ....then the LPS budget should also support all private schools in the area ... including Lawrence Woodmere Academy and the two closed Catholic parochial schools in the district.

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cause if this were truly the case that the budget should fund education for all residents ....then the LPS budget should also support all private schools in the area ... including Lawrence Woodmere Academy and the two closed Catholic parochial schools in the district.

Get with the program - they do support all private schools, including LWA and the CAtholic schools, until they closed

1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get with the program - they do support all private schools, including LWA and the CAtholic schools, until they closed

Well if that's the case then why is anyone looking for more?

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No need to play stupid here - it's not conducive to the objective dialogue.

The reason why the board has turned over is because there have been less than equal services provided to (all) private schools. And this is about services that are clearly allowed to be provided under the law.

2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No need to play stupid here

Speak for yourself!!!

2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Equal treatment for all? I agree, this stems from the extra pre-k children. When the 19 students were approved the grant was supposed to cover the whole school. Transportation had to be provided or we would not get the grant. All of my friends send their kids to different private pre-k's and then they go to public school. So, this pre-k busing could be for over 500 children. Equality should be for things that pertain to our children, special education, which to budgetary reason declassification services are being cut. These services should be given equally, which from what I see, the public and private children are pushed aside in favor of classification to children of minorities. Perhaps if everyone worked together, instead of wasting our time and money on busing, we could get somewhere.

3:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just because a child is enrolled in a private school from 9 - 4 is no reason to completely discount their needs. Why can't the so-called "public school community" recognize this. It seems so obvious.


I do recognize this. But what needs are we talking about? The needs of a three year old to have busing? I personally think we should rid this district of busing for good, lynbrook did it . With this money the following could happen. Programs for ALL could be increased,
1.Gifted and Talented for ALl
2.Super weekend programs for children on Saturday and Sunday, like they used to.
3. Class sizes of 25 don't help us get our scores up.
Things like this. Why can't the so-called "private school community" recognize this. It seems so obvious.

3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I personally think we should rid this district of busing for good, lynbrook did it .

You're on the right track. That way, most families with children in private school will benefit 90% less than they currently do, from the the system that they support

3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Class sizes of 25 don't help us get our scores up.
Things like this. Why can't the so-called "private school community" recognize this. It seems so obvious.


Because the system and the administration is controlled by the union, and until recently, so was the school board.

Rather than focusing on what's best for the children, the priorities are making sure that every teacher and administrator gets the best salary, benefits and pension without having to take on any additional burden.

Until the school board succeeds at breaking this status quo, we unfortunately will not see the necessary academic improvement.

4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That way, most families with children in private school will benefit 90% less than they currently do, from the the system that they support

3:50 PM

NO, If you read the rest of the post, using the 7million on programs for all the children. Better technoloy for all. Programs for afterschool and weekends. Tutoring services. These programs would be for all children. The teachers have long been blamed for the problems in this district. Most of our teachers have over ten years experience, masters degrees, and extra credits after this. They pay the most towards their benefits on Long Island. What does there salaries have to do with classroom overcrowding? Read the new york state audit. If the community votes for pre-k busing, than so be it. Keeping schools from being closed, and smaller class sizes should follow. If there is enough money to cover the busing, then there should be no reason to save money. It is obvious there is plenty of it. If more is wanted, then I encourage private school parents to sue the state in a class action suit. Nothing is going to change otherwise. Law are laws, you can't complain about paying an extra teacher, and the cost of keeping a school open when we add busing. Builing usage, sorry , I think every group who uses the schools should pay an annual fee. Everyone currently is charged the same. Why should it be free for anyone? Do the custodians work for free on the weekends??

4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NO, If you read the rest of the post, using the 7million on programs for all the children. Better technoloy for all. Programs for afterschool and weekends. Tutoring services. These programs would be for all children.

Sure thing. It's been made abundantly clear by the crowds who attend these board meetings that any sharing of funding or services is would not be supported.

5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure thing. It's been made abundantly clear by the crowds who attend these board meetings that any sharing of funding or services is would not be supported

Not true, obviously the croud is upset. Our class sizes went from 20 to 25. Programs for Gate, language have been cut. One math sepcialist has 100 children. It is the cuts they are mad at. Perhaps if the district hired a mediator sat down with members of the community to try to resolve these issues, we could get somewhere. It is not the non public we don't want to get, we just want our programs, and lack of overcrowding. Is there a mid point.

6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our class sizes went from 20 to 25.

Exactly how many classes are we talking about?

How many classes appear to be in breach of the contract?

What would the cost be of bringing those classes in line (by hiring additional teachers)?

How small would the classes be if additional teachers were hired?

What would the effect be of consolidating classes from two schools into one school (where one school has a crowded class and the other school has a relatively empty one)?

The way things have been operating around here, any suggetion that benefits the union should be considered suspect and should be scrutinized beyond belief.

6:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because the system and the administration is controlled by the union, and until recently, so was the school board.


It's great that the unions are so powerful ... that's probably the reasons ...
why contracts are not settled in a timely fashion.
why positions have been slashed
why programs have been cut
why contracts are violated before the ink has dried
why a school was closed

are you delirious????? if the unions were so in control ... would any of the above have occured????

7:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you forgetting that the district serves a paucity of students? That a school was closed that was completely unneeded? Just checking. Because even the strongest union cant keep empty schools in business, with teachers teaching to empty classrooms.

7:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you forgetting that the district serves a paucity of students? That a school was closed that was completely unneeded? Just checking. Because even the strongest union cant keep empty schools in business, with teachers teaching to empty classrooms.

Is that why there are overcrowded classrooms today? Just who do you think is sitting in those desks? Or is the bottom line that you really don't care because it doesn't impact you?

8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but the overcrowded classroom line is just that, a line. Its all a PR that was devised in the wake of the last election amidst fears of more building closures. My oldest son went to school in Lynbrook. Calling Lawrence crowded is a joke.

9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but the overcrowded classroom line is just that, a line. Its all a PR that was devised in the wake of the last election amidst fears of more building closure

Yes it is a conspiracy, there is no overcrowding in the classes. There is no mediation going on because class room class size is over the contract. You got us, you know us those public school people always out to lie to save our schools. No one called Lawrence crowded, I think the claim was class size overcrowding. We are not worried about building closures. Since it is obvious money is not an issue, ie Pre-K busing, closing a building is a non issue, no reason to have to save. Thank You school board. We waited and waited. How can you say we need to save money and spend half a million on busing.

10:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly how many classes are we talking about

I can only comment at the elementry level, at least 6 maybe 7
The middle school I have no idea.

where one school has a crowded class and the other school has a relatively empty one)?

Transfers to other elementry schools were offered. The problem being each school only had room for 1 student. Proving the theory that the schools are not yet ready to be consolidated. Adding another teacher in one school would lover class size to 20, and 17 in an ABA inclusion class. 4 autistic children are in with currently 20 other children. This should be the smallest class, in turn it is one of the largest.

Also, for those who read the title of our school It claims to be union free. I think that every district should stand by it's contracts, wether the community approves or not.

10:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate to interupt all of the union haters, and theorists, what does this have to with busing? what is the general opinion, do you think it will pass? I agree with anon, how does it look that we add busing, and say we want to save money by closing a school.

10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I presume the unionists other anti-mansdorfs will spin this vote as an affront on public education, and will try to rally public school parents to vote against it. At the same time, public and private pre-k parents, pre-k parents-to-be and sympathetic private school parents will try to rally people to vote for it.

The likely result will be that those who have a clearer, more compelling reason to vote (i.e., the pre-k parents and pre-k to be parents) will turn out in greater numbers than those who don't stand to directly benefit or lose out, and are merely being prodded to vote (because of the possibility that funding will be diverted).

1:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's get to root of the problems and stop "spinning tales" to split the community. What has Fitzsimmons done to corect the problems of test scores? Didn't HE submit the budget for BOE approval. Why didn't he include enough math and reading specialists? What has Karant done to implement programs to help our kids? What is Greenbaums solution to the problems she complains about? Have Fitzsimmons, Karant & Greenbaum state publically at the BOE meetings what their SOLUTIONS are for improving the education of my children, instead of complaining about PK busing and school use. I'm tired of the public vs. non-public bickering at the BOE meetings. Let the administration "experts?" elaborate to the community on what they've done, (if anything) and what they plan to do. Put the responibility where it belongs. Fitzsimmons is very happy to sit on the sidelines and let the community argue amoungst themselves. This way he doesn't have to do anything except collect his check on the 15th and 30th of each month. C'mon folks, hold the Fitsimmons and the administration accountable.

Conrats to the LPS Varisty football team for winning the LI Championship. At least they worked together to beat the odds to achive success. Maybe Mr. Andre should be Superintendent. At least he can get everyone working together toward a common goal.

7:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets be clear. All union contracts have an escape clause and I bet that LPS Admiin is using an escape clause. If not this mediation would have long been over.

7:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay,

We have heard about everything but the issue of the hour pre-k busing. Orthomom, what do you think? Also, why can't everyone who uses the buildings pay an annual fee?

9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting,

I have read all the responses and find it very interesting.
1.Not one person has said they supported Pre-K busing
2.Not one person has said they support free usage of the buildings.
3. I have read a lot about the teachers unions,administration, etc.

Why are we blaming the teachers againg? Are they the ones who put this idea in Mr. Kaufmans head? Did they put a spell on the four board members who voted yes? Greenbaum blamed as well?

Folks, we have got to stop blaming another group of people for our own leaders ideas. Yes, I had to drive to a private pre k, as they cut the busing before my daughter was of pre-k age. I lived. Most districts do not have pre-k busing. No public private issues, money issues. As a parent, doesn't anyone want more programs for ALL our children, and please, don't do the we get nothing routine, it is obvious by this boards actions, equal treatment is for all. I wonder, by voting yes, what kind of argument will the board have to close another school? Money is obviously not an issue.

9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm voting for both initiatives, for the same reasons that I voted for the newly elected board members - they stand for fairer distribution of services. There's no denying that there will inevitably need to be money moved around between programs, but in the long run, this board has showed its determination to tweak the system so that it works for everyone, and so that everyone will wholeheartedly support the budget in coming years.

Of course, if the unions, etc. are determined to fight these initiatives and to fight the new board tooth an nail on everything else, then they can rest assured that the majority of voters will reject the budget again, and everyone will continue to lose out.

10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

for the same reasons that I voted for the newly elected board members - they stand for fairer distribution of services

Then they should have the b*lls to do it without a referendum. This is a hid and seek game. I voted for them too for the same reasons u did, Intestional Fortitude, and a promise that they (not a treferendum) were going to do the right thing. They said one thing and doing another, where are their b*lls now?? they seem to be lacking them now.

10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then they should have the b*lls to do it without a referendum. This is a hid and seek game. I voted for them too for the same reasons u did, Intestional Fortitude, and a promise that they (not a treferendum) were going to do the right thing. They said one thing and doing another, where are their b*lls now?? they seem to be lacking them now.

I'm just as frustrated as you are about the pace, but there are legal obstacles to make these changes without voter approval - especially since the previous board left them in contingency. So there may be other changes they could implement without a referendum, but not these.

10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The public schools will always get most of the tax dollars, no matter how many austerity budgets we face. It is in this communities best interest to keep the public school children from moving. There are some who realize the potential problems when most of the public schools are deserted by parents in Atlantic Beach. Non Public children who attend the public schools will be faced with an enviornment where a lot of latchkey children exsist and education is not important. English is not spoken, and scores plummet. Be very careful what you wish for, some of your neighbors will have to send their kids to public school, not being allowed to pay for Haftr special ed school. Think about it, what do you want roaming your neighborhood. This board voted to have the free pre k adding 19 students. They had to bus them or the grant would not be allowed. So the $15,000 is the issue, cut pre-k busing all together. The 19 kids were originally prepared to drive and pay. Ask this new board why they approved this program in August with out complaining about equal treatment. No one brought it up till now, even though it was a 4-2 vote, they spent 2 hour fighting over it. Cnn will potray the board as one sided, and the poor poor non public school community will once again cry foul.

11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they stand for fairer distribution of services.

All groups pay for the building usage. Custodians have to get paid. Why should it be free for any one group? Vote for pre-k busing, I am, I encourage all to do so. I want this to pass, this way the board can explain why it has one math specialist for 100 children. No matter what Pre-k Busing,free building usage, the state and federal government will never allow more. Try not to answer with it is the teachers fault, the unions fault, we really get tired of hearing it. Face it life is not fair, you are getting no more services than you are now, rejecting budgets cannot change that. Even Spitzer won't help. Not one person better complain in September, when traffic is gridlock, three year olds are on the bus for an hour, and our busing budget with matrons for every individual pre-k bus goes through the roof. Do not even think of blaming anyone else but yourselves

11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, if the unions, etc. are determined to fight these initiatives and to fight the new board tooth an nail on everything else, then they can rest assured that the majority of voters will reject the budget again, and everyone will continue to lose out.

10:09 AM
Of course it is the unions, and those nasty public school parents! Fighting for classes to be smaller 21 kids, it is all there fault.
Have you ever attended a board meeting? First off we are a union free school district, hence titel. The teachers had a contract the district violated that contract. Hence, fighting. Don't pass the budget if you are not happy. Do not let any individual to tell you not to vote because a religous leader feels it is not in the interest of it privately funded schools. When you let other people tell you how to vote there is a term for it.....

11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm just as frustrated as you are about the pace, but there are legal obstacles to make these changes without voter approval - especially since the previous board left them in contingency. So there may be other changes they could implement without a referendum, but not these.


SO NOW WE VOTE A REFERENDUM ON EACH LINE ITEM BECAUSE OF CONTONGENCY???

11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So has anyone asked Fitzsimmons what his plans are to fix the problems? Or his opinion and recommendation on the pre-k busing and school use issues? No one is blaming Mrs. Greenbaum-just let her tell us what HER solutions are to the problems the district has faced during her terms of office. Seems to me she and Kapilow do a lot of the "blaming". Give us solutions to the educational problems of the district. Our kids deserve nothing less.

1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems to me she and Kapilow do a lot of the "blaming".

This district on a whole does this. It is the unions fault,teachers, etc. Not good policy. If busing makes everyone feel equal, fine, I'll vote. I cannont agree with free usage. EVERYONE should pay a fee, and continue to do so. Custodians are not free. This type of entitlement is kind of obnoxious. So vote for pre k busing, let everyone go to pre-k. If you do not mind the length of time a 3 year old will be on the bus more power to you. No one should be allowed to complain,no special meetings about transportation times, etc. No one can complain about traffic either with the extra buses at all times of the day. Then move on.

2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neither proposal is helpful at this time. The voters voted for austerity (the efficacy if that vote can take up a whole blog so please do not make this an austerity complaint thread). The referendum is just a ploy to add spending during austerity. Will this will increase taxes ??? yes will it be billed now, probably not, it will pobably be billed in 06-07, and then add this on to the increase budget for 06-07, watch your tax bill then.

2:58 PM  
Blogger proud_mom said...

I have two kids in #6 who seem to be doing quite well despite all of this. And while I obviously don't want to see the school (or any others) closed, I recognize that I don't have the necessary information to come to an informed conclusion as to whether closing additional schools is justified.

Can someone explain to me how everyone (but me) has so much information about the capacity and current use of each of the buildings to be able to arrive at these conclusions? While I don't see myself as a "union basher" I think a lot of the positions that the union and pta have taken are hypocritical. It seems like even on the rare occasions that the new board proposes positive changes to the system (which would benefit our kids), they get criticized by everyone (and especially by the pta and teachers union), for reasons that seem to benefit only the status quo (instead of benefiting our kids).

As for the building usage and pre-k busing referenda, I'm not convinced it's the right for the board to take this approach, or if it makes sense to impose new financial burdens on the district (even if voters approve them), but I know that another year of contingency would only cripple the district more, and it seems like these "gestures" toward the private school community (whether or not they are appropriate) could help win their support of the budget for next year, so why not vote for pre-k busing and building usage to help lock in those extra votes for next year's budget?

3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a pity that no one cares what our high priced Superintendent does each day to earn his keep. Can SOMEONE please tell me-my kids are floundering under his care.

3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not vote for those referendums? Because we have not been told what it would cost the district and what the tax impact would be. And what initiatives have this Board proposed to help children that the PTA has opposed???

3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.The superintendent salary is 34th in Nassau County, far less than most districts. The children flounder, due to large class size, and lack of specialists. Blame the union,teachers, etc, the bottem line, the board is responsible to remedy a bad situation, on contingency teachers,specialists, and other much needed help for all our children can be added,but the pre-k busing issue seems to be taking presedent. Do away with prek busing all together, nobody gets it. Everyone should pay a fee to use the schools, I don't care what group, keeping the school open costs money, everyone MUST pay a fee. Pass the budget, don't pass the budget, at this point who cares, it will always be blamed on the horrible public school parents, who don't pay the same 10,000 in taxes, (not) and whose children are not as important. Catholic school parents pay, why no complaints from them?

3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think the board has done a lousy job once again (with this vote) but it's time everyone tried to work together, and "proud mom" is right on target about getting a budget passed.

3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

pta have taken are hypocritical.

Not worth answering, No wonder are kids have so many issues....It must be the unions fault, or those horrible public school people, those satan worshipers!!! Screwing everyone for 19 grant approved children, they did it again, taking taking and taking from us poor private school people, poor poor us. To this I have to say, a mitzvah is thinking and voting for yourself.

3:18 PM  
Blogger proud_mom said...

I'll admit that I haven't been following the politics and the board for very long, but I cannot help but wonder why everyone is up in arms when the board makes recommendations to hire a specialist to focus on failures in the system. Why is that such a terrible thing? Is it intended to benefit the private school crowd in some way that I'm not grasping?

Why are the people at meetings so adamant about hiring additional teachers instead of finding a one specialist to focus on coming up with solutions?

3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are the people at meetings so adamant about hiring additional teachers instead of finding a one specialist to focus on coming up with solutions?

The unfortunate reality is that this sentiment is mostly driven by the current administration and teachers who fear accountability for their performance (or lack thereof). Nobody in the system wants their work second-guessed, especially if they're underperforming. Of course in the corporate world, this status quo attitude would never fly, but around here, the union says we need more teachers and the pta falls in line, and before you know it everyone is screaming about how evil it is for the board to suggest an outside consultant and reforming the system.

3:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the union says we need more teachers and the pta falls in line,

1. What does this have to do with busing?

2.Yes, a few more teachers are needed. Class size is too large. 25 children in a class is too much.

3.I do not need the union telling me to fall in line, as a free thinker, I can see too many children in a class is not good.

4. Don't blame the teachers, when they refer children for extra math help under the no child left behind act, and low and behold there is not enough space, because, one math teacher shares 100 children.

5.An outside consultant is a good idea, perhaps in September when the scores were still as poor. The parents are opposed to the consultant because it costs money, money that can be sent on our children, all our children. The district has been given other districts around the country and how they had poor scores, and how they suceeded, New york state publishes these schools. They all have the philosphy, smaller class size, more resources, and more extra help for children not suceeding, is the whole country involved in the same pta conspiracy?

3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

one specialist to focus on coming up with solutions?

I agree, but, if you research these solutions that will be proposed you will see the following,

1.Smaller class size
2.More specialists
3.More technology

These are all the things the board already knows. Why spend $30,000 on a consultant when they know the answers. Fiscal responsibility, remember,

3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many classes have too many kids? In which schools? On what grade level?

3:44 PM  
Blogger proud_mom said...

These are all the things the board already knows. Why spend $30,000 on a consultant when they know the answers. Fiscal responsibility, remember,

It seems like the board does not trust the administration to do whats right and necessary, with the leadership and controls that are in place now.

Have the teachers always been short-staffed? If not, was the situation any better when they weren't short-staffed?

Are we confident that the teachers and specialists are currently being managed appropriately and are qualified to do what's needed?

Is it possible that broader solutions may be necessary and that a fresh look would be beneficial?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think they are the logical questions to ask before pressing for either (a) a consultant/specialist or (b) more teachers.

In general, I think we need a lot less screaming and yelling and a lot more logical thinking around here. There is no reason why these issues cannot be picked apart and discussed without everyone's predispositions being mixed in.

3:54 PM  
Anonymous Lawrence Resident said...

As things stand now I plan to vote against the referenda even though my kids would benefit.
This is because I feel that these items should be included in next year's budget. If the board wants to pass a budget and get off austerity, they need to dangle a carrot in front of the private school parents (of which I am one, BTW). So by combining the pre-K bussing and building usage (BTW why should it be free?) with the regular budget gives the budget a much better chance to pass. That is the way I would like to see it done.

5:40 PM  
Blogger Spirit_of_Lawrence said...

So by combining the pre-K bussing and building usage (BTW why should it be free?) with the regular budget gives the budget a much better chance to pass.

It's a pity you don't write the rules, because thate really would simplify things. The problem, however is that they cannot provide pre-k busing without passing a referendum first. So they wouldn't be able to put it into a budget until a referendum is passed. As for the building usage, including it in the budget might work, except that it wouldn't accomplish anything for the time being, that the district is in contingency and is charging for all building usage.

Regardless, if the board is now dominated by so called private school advocates, the same voters that elected them should have no qualms about supporting the budget this round

5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Let's get to root of the problems and stop "spinning tales" to split the community. What has Fitzsimmons done to corect the problems of test scores? Didn't HE submit the budget for BOE approval. Why didn't he include enough math and reading specialists? What has Karant done to implement programs to help our kids? What is Greenbaums solution to the problems she complains about? Have Fitzsimmons, Karant & Greenbaum state publically at the BOE meetings what their SOLUTIONS are for improving the education of my children, instead of complaining about PK busing and school use. I'm tired of the public vs. non-public bickering at the BOE meetings. Let the administration "experts?" elaborate to the community on what they've done, (if anything) and what they plan to do. Put the responibility where it belongs. Fitzsimmons is very happy to sit on the sidelines and let the community argue amoungst themselves. This way he doesn't have to do anything except collect his check on the 15th and 30th of each month. C'mon folks, hold the Fitsimmons and the administration accountable.

He can't very well add specialists to help with the problem when he's instructed to come in with budget increases that do not support hiring new personnel.

6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm just as frustrated as you are about the pace, but there are legal obstacles to make these changes without voter approval - especially since the previous board left them in contingency.

Correction ... the community left the board in contingency ... not the previous board, or the unions.

7:02 PM  
Blogger Spirit_of_Lawrence said...

Correction ... the community left the board in contingency ... not the previous board, or the unions.

That's ludicrous. This was the first time in the history of the district that a budget wasn't put up for a second vote. It was also the first time in several years that the the school board could propose another budget with the certainty that the budget would be supported en masse by private school parents, since they had just elected their candidates to the board and the lack of trust was no longer an issue.

Of course, the outgoing board had another agenda called - stick it to the new board and make sure their hands are tied too.

Is there any other logical explanation for not putting up the budget for a second vote this year?

7:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there any other logical explanation for not putting up the budget for a second vote this year?

7:15 PM

Well....yeah... probably the fact that the last 7 or 8 budgets were defeated. That would probably make very good sense as to why they decided to not put the budget back up! Especially after defeating a budget the previous year that was lower than austerity.

7:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Evidently, you didn't read the rest of Spirit's comments

7:33 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

Especially after defeating a budget the previous year that was lower than austerity.

I'm sick of that old canard. Whether the proposed budget came in a few dollars below austerity wasn't the point. The point was that voting the budget in would have given the board the ability to spend other monies above and beyond the budget. Austerity takes that ability away from the board, essentially freezing the funds. That would have the benefit of protecting district capital in the case of a community having lost trust in a board to be fiscally responsible as seems to have been the case here. The outgoing board bore that out when they voted in an eleventh-hour teachers' contract immediately after the board had lost the voters' mandate.

7:34 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...


These are all the things the board already knows. Why spend $30,000 on a consultant when they know the answers. Fiscal responsibility, remember,


Oh, the district knows very well how much money hiring specialists can save them. They have been spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on hiring lawyers to deny district residents' special ed petitions for a few years now.

7:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there any other logical explanation for not putting up the budget for a second vote this year?

I attended the meeting where the decision was made to not put the budget up again. The whole board voted and it passes unanimously. The board did not want to cut anymore programs. Also, since the budget had not passed on the second go around in past years, in the spirit of fiscal responsibility, the WHOLE board agreed spending another $25,000 was not in the tax payers interest. In saying the vote was unanimous I would like to clarify, all board members voted not to put it up. If there is a complaint about the budget not being put up again, speak with Dr. Mansdorff he voted in favor of not representing.

In

7:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction ... the community left the board in contingency ... not the previous board, or the unions.


Not completly true. The old BOE did not ask for a revote. When they lost the majority they choose not to resubmit and instead accepted austerity, so they partially responsible (even if the revote would have failed)

7:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

budget would be supported en masse by private school parents, since they had just elected their candidates to the board and the lack of trust was no longer an issue.

In response to above. There are no more trust issues. Nonpublic school parents have no complaints?

Since this new board came in,nothing has changed. Transportation was worse this year than any year. ALL private schools for the first time are now using the same textbooks as the public schools. More control by the district on ciricculum. The vote coming up is costing $25,000, there is fiscal responsibility. For what pre-k busing? Most public school parents will not vote against this. I agree, equal treatment. This of course will not go into effect till september, and I can't wait to see how the district handles the volume. Most public school parents send their kids to private prek. This is in our interest as well. The other vote is for free use of the building. Why should it be free? All groups pay. Is the electic free, and gas? Do the custodians work for free? Where is that an equal treatment issue, everyone pays period. Other than that, I can see why you trust the board, all the programs your kids have, more services right?

7:50 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

Blame the union,teachers, etc, the bottem line, the board is responsible to remedy a bad situation, on contingency teachers,specialists, and other much needed help for all our children can be added,but the pre-k busing issue seems to be taking presedent. Do away with prek busing all together, nobody gets it.

That was what happened a few years ago. Except that it was reinstituted for a small group of public school students. Now, let me be clear - I don't think that putting pre-schoolers on a bus for long rides should be a priority. However, I do think it's necessary to give all district residents equitable treatment. If busing is one of the only services the private school residents receive, I can understand the desire for it to be distributed evenly. And once pre-k public school students started being bused, the can of worms was opened.

7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

deny district residents' special ed petitions for a few years now.

Orthomom, If anyone want to see those fights they can go on the state website and review them. There are only five decisions. I hear about these lawsuits but am never able to find them. A few suggestions if anyone is having special education issues instead of going right to the lawyer get in contact with Septa or Central Council in our district, these women are there for all children, and I have seen them in action, they have helped resolve issues for children in both public and non public communities. Another thing to worry about is next years new special ed laws. Children will be given testing by the district they live in and services from the school district they attend. I think people are going to see how accomodating Lawrence has been. Many school districts will not go as far as Lawrence in providing services at the school, as it is not law. New york city schools have already said they will give vouchers becuase they do not have the staff. These are issues that should be on everyones mind, not free use of schols.

8:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And once pre-k public school students started being bused, the can of worms was opened.

I agree, but do not be surprised when at the next meeting public school parents ask for buses to pick up their kids at 4:30. Equitable treatment is necessary. The district by law has to transport non public school students by public school times. It is up to the district to decide if they want to transport more than one to a certain school. Since our districts has multiple pick up times for certain schools, in the interest of equal treatment, it should be across the board. As far as pre-k busing. Up until last year, there was a 400,000 grant for pre-k. Financial guidlines were in place, and busing was a requirement, legally at that time we did not have to bus. The board felt that 19 children should have a grant to have free pre-k and busing once again had to be included. The grant was supposed to cover this. It did not. Mr. Kaufman proposed this to the board, under the premise Mr. Skelos obtained a 500,000 grant. Which does not exsist.

8:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I attended the meeting where the decision was made to not put the budget up again. The whole board voted and it passes unanimously.

That's funny. Did this happen at a meeting that only you were invited to?

The board never voted not to put the budget up again, because the majority of the board at the time decided it wasn't in their best interests to do so. What the board did vote for unanimously (once the majority had already decided they would not put the budget up again) was to accept the contingency budget.

So it's pretty twisted to suggest that the board unanimously supported not putting the budget up again.

8:47 PM  
Blogger Spirit_of_Lawrence said...

I was at that meeting too, and Anon 7:42's account is far from the truth. Of course, you can argue that the minority board members should have wasted everyone's time by preparing a revised budget (not that they even have the authority to do so), presenting it at the meeting, making a motion to have it presented to voters, and debating the virtues of it, all on the premise that the majority board members were acting in good faith.

8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's funny. Did this happen at a meeting that only you were invited to?

Perhaps I was, with fifty other people. Give it a rest. Now your mad the budget wasn't put up so you can pass it. How does that sound? Next year when special ed services are given by other districts and the services will no longer given at the school, and people have to drive all over the place, perhaps you will see what you get from this district is far more than you are legally entitled to. Perhaps you should look at what this district does is over the top no matter how much you pay in taxes. I urge everyone to go to the new york state website and read the total non public school manual. It is very insightful.

9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think 9:02 is correct, non public parents should look into the new laws. New york city will be giving vouchers to children and they will have to find speech therapists on their own. I would be concerned more about that. Now the burden of services will fall somewhere else. Parents should speak with the school district there child is in to ensure services continue, although I do not know if they will happen at the school. But, at least you will have pre-k busing.

9:09 PM  
Blogger Spirit_of_Lawrence said...

I think you guys would have much more credibility and this dialogue would be much more productive, if you wouldn't fabricate and misstate the facts.

9:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fabricate and misstate the facts

Please then explain the new special educatin laws. I welcome to hear your take on the new laws. Is it considered fabricated because other districts will now be responsible for services? Or the possibility of not being able to complain the district is not fair. Either way go to the NYS website before you accuse anyone of fabricating anything.

9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/policy/nonpublic.htm

9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spirit of Lawerence below find the a small portion of the law. NY state provides more than is required by federal law, hmm sounds like cuts in the future.


Because NYS currently provides greater services to parentally placed nonpublic school students with disabilities than is required by federal law and regulation, the State is carefully considering how best to implement the federal requirements for parentally placed nonpublic school students with disabilities in 2007-08 and thereafter. By the 2007-08 school year, State law will clarify how section 612(a)(10) of IDEA and the federal regulations must be implemented in the future in NYS. Therefore, on an interim basis, school districts are advised to take the following steps for the 2006-07 school year.



Provision of Special Education Services for the 2006-07 school year:



School districts must continue to comply with the requirements in section 3602-c of NYS Education Law for the provision of special education services to students with disabilities enrolled in nonpublic elementary and secondary schools by their parents that were in effect prior to the 2006-07 school year. This is because Education Law section 3602-c remains in effect and imposes requirements under New York law that exceed the requirements of federal law. School districts should be implementing 2006-07 IEPs consistent with the following provision.



Section 3602-c of Education Law states: “The school district where the student resides must contract with the school district in which the nonpublic school attended by the pupil is located, for the provision of services pursuant to this section, except that in the case of services to students with disabilities in the two thousand six--two thousand seven school year, the school district of residence may contract with the school district in which the nonpublic school attended by the student is located or may provide such services directly.”



Accordingly, the school district of residence of a nonpublic school student with a disability must continue to provide services in 2006-07 in accordance with the student’s IEP, as required by section 3602-c of Education Law. However, as a result of the new federal regulations, the following new federal requirements are also in effect for the 2006-07 school year:



· If a student with a disability is enrolled, or is going to enroll in a private school that is not located in the school district where the student’s parents reside, parental consent must be obtained before any personally identifiable information about the student is released between officials in the public school district where the private school is located and officials in the public school district where the student’s parents reside.



· If a parent who has placed a student with a disability in a private school at their own expense does not provide consent for the initial evaluation or the reevaluation, or the parent fails to respond to a request to provide consent, the public agency may not use the consent override procedures described in 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections 300.300(a)(3) and (c)(1) and the public agency is not required to consider the student as eligible for services under 34 CFR sections 300.132 through 300.144.



Provision of Special Education Services for the 2007-08 school year:



The public school district where the nonpublic school is located must begin to develop procedures for the evaluation and provision of special education services to students with disabilities enrolled in nonpublic schools located in their district for the 2007-08 school year in accordance with the new federal regulations. In this process, the school district must consult with nonpublic school representatives and representatives of parents of parentally placed private school students with disabilities for nonpublic schools located within the boundaries of the school district. Additional guidance will be issued upon further changes to State law.



A topic brief developed by the U.S. Department of Education that provides the federal requirements relating to the provision of special education services to parentally placed nonpublic elementary and secondary school students with disabilities can be found at:

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C5%2C.



Questions regarding this memorandum may be directed to the Special Education Policy Unit at (518) 473-2878.

9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Key Issues: Private Schools
Maintains:

No individual right to services
Equitable participation based on timely and meaningful consultation affirmed in writing
Proportionate share of funds spent or carried over
A services plan, not an IEP

This is on the government web site. Please reivew.

9:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7. Clarifies that no parentally-placed child with a disability has an individual right to services.

No parentally-placed private school child with a disability has an individual right to receive some or all of the special education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school.
[34 CFR 300.137] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(A)]

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C5%2C
Orthomom, how does the board plan to handle the above, something we should be discussing not busing.

9:33 PM  
Blogger Spirit_of_Lawrence said...

Perhaps I was, with fifty other people. Give it a rest.

That was the misstatement and fabrication.

I have no idea about the veracity of your special education pronouncements, nor do I see the connection to the discussion here.

9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no idea about the veracity of your special education pronouncements, nor do I see the connection to the discussion here

The discussion being, next year private school children special education, and related services, resource room will be handled by the district the school is in. I also think the new laws, especially the statement below is far more worth the discussion then busing. This is on the federal web-site, and it bothers me, and I have kids in private schools, does it no bother you, being the government is now saying you do not have equal rights?


No parentally-placed private school child with a disability has an individual right to receive some or all of the special education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school.
[34 CFR 300.137] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(A)]

10:07 PM  
Blogger Spirit_of_Lawrence said...

then maybe momof4 will consider its importance and do some investigative work on the subject (including how this might be interpreted by schools and courts) so we can have a comment thread devoted to the issue

10:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spirit of lawrence, thank you, the new laws are not favorable to private school students. No more Iep for p.s students, there a lot of changes that need to be reviewed. Far more important than pre-k busing. As you read on the above post the idea is saying non equitable treatment to any private school child.....

10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new law for special ed services:

1. Public schools take the pool of Federal Special Ed $, and the prived services in a ratio. [lets say there is $300000 to spend, and there are eligible 300 kids (200 public school and 100 private school), the public school will now use the % and spend 200K for the public school enrolled and 100K for the private school enrolled (not per child basis, but rather as a pool of $]

2. The public shool where the private school is located will be responsible to identify eligible children (and must work with the private school, and the private school must notify the state DOE as to their satisfaction or lack thereof), the cost to identify is not part of the bundle of $ listed in 1 above. The process to identify in Private School is a little different then with public schools children, in that parental responsibility is greater in Private with regards to cooperation. A lack of timely cooperation will cause a cancellation of the referral.


In some ways this is a better ysytem, and in some ways worse. Lets see it in practice.

8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 3:16 Fitzsimmons is only 34th highest paid Supt in Nassau? Is that counting his perks such as district paid annunity, fully paid health insurance, disability insurance, $10,000 per year car allowance etc etc. Seems he was pretty high up when ALL the perks were included in the Newsday article a while back.

BTW The BOE doesn't run the day to day operations of the district and make the recommendations for teaching specialists and building needs, our Supt is responsible for those daily tasks. Does he have documentation where he's asked the BOE for straffing and they've turned him down? Why doesn't anyone want to hold him accountable for the debacle in this district since he arrived? His only claim to fame is he worked tirelessly to close #1 School and is the only Supt in the state to never pass a budget.

What programs has the current BOE cut? Did Fitzsimmons include in his budgut proposal all the necessary teachers and specilisits each building needed? Did the prior BOE cut his recommendations or were they NEVER included?
Start having him earn his 34th (plus perks) in the county salary. (probablty in the $250,000 range)

BTW, prek busing does not need a referendum for approval. The BOE can approve the expendiature. It would be best to analyze what it would truly cost and include the money in next years budget. It may not be as high as some folks think.

We need accountability and it's not just from a BOE that meets 2x per month. We need it from the Supt and his administrators.

11:40 AM  
Blogger Spirit_of_Lawrence said...

BTW, prek busing does not need a referendum for approval. The BOE can approve the expendiature. It would be best to analyze what it would truly cost and include the money in next years budget. It may not be as high as some folks think.

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Pre-k busing is not required under state law and is an expansion of the level transportation currently provided, so it must be approved by a voter referendum. It's questionable whether the current public school pre-k busing must be approved as well in order to be legal, because its not clear whether it's fully paid for under the grant. But now that the busing coordinator has stated that the current public school pre-k busing is not covered under the grant, that busing must also be approved by voter referendum in order to be legal.

As for your suggestion that the BOE can approve the expenditure, this is certainly incorrect in contingency, unless they can justify pre-k busing as an emergency need.

12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nassau? Is that counting his perks such as district paid annunity, fully paid health insurance, disability insurance, $10,000 per year car allowance etc etc. Seems he was pretty high up when ALL the perks were included in the Newsday article a while back.

This includes all, he is 34th.

Now I am all for equality, bus pre-k kids, I will vote yes. But what I will not vote for or tolerate and no one else should is the free usage of buildings. I think anyone should be able to use them. But, when the high school is converted on Saturdays into a shul, and it is used all day, and the custodians have to clean up, no way no how, I could care less if it was Tom Cruise and The church of scientology, it is not going to HAPPEN. Use of our schools for a Religous service, ANY religous service is NOT acceptable. Anyone who allows this to happen is a hypocrite. You want equitable treatment for children fine I have no problem with that, than this board better start acting for the children. Religous groups getting free usage of the schools is not in the interest of the children do not confuse the issues. Go to the high school on Saturdays and see.

12:30 PM  
Blogger Spirit_of_Lawrence said...

But, when the high school is converted on Saturdays into a shul, and it is used all day, and the custodians have to clean up, no way no how

While I don't necessarily share your distaste for religious services, I agree that there's no reason that facilities usage should be free for them - AND NEITHER DOES THE BOARD. Did you bother to read the specific uses listed in the resolution:


§ those conducted by school personnel that are specifically authorized to be exempt by the Board of Education;

§ meetings and special events of the Parent-Teacher Association and other formally established and Board of Education recognized parent groups such as organizations of the parents of school-based athletes, musicians or science students;

§ meetings of local volunteer fire departments, and veterans organizations (as herein above defined) and volunteer ambulance groups.

§ Activities of youth groups conducting youth activities with a majority of district residents as participants.

1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

distaste for religious services,

I apologize, I was in no way trying to put down religous services, of any religion. I am a realist, and the above can be looked at differently. Bottem line, when this board was elected, I was not happy, but I was opptomistic that perhaps ALL our children would benefit. The roof got fixed, etc. When you sit down and look in the past three months at what has been done, it is discouraging. I don't want to hear excuses and refrences to Dr. Fitzsimmons salary, or the teachers contract. This district wanted equal treatment for ALL our children. Everything that has been added so far is for the parents. I want to know when are the CHILDREN ALL THE CHILDREN going to benefit from this boar. Classroom overcrowding, special education, those types of issues, Pre-K busing is not going to help a child in public or private school who needs a special service that is denied. When do we make this about our children?

2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For any one who care, this district did have pre-k bussing at one point. It was cut when the budget was defeated and the district went on austeristy. It was not voted on by referendum and does need to be voted on by referendum. Neither does building useage. The change in mileage from the state limits to any other limits has to be voted on. This is just a way for the pre-k bussing as well as building use to get taken out of the board of education's pervue so that they can not be held accountable for the extra money it will cost the taxpayers. If the voters vote in favor of the referendums, the board can say they did not add money to the budget and your tax bill, you, the taxpayers did it yourself.

4:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And one more thing, if the taxpayers do vote yes, they are voting yes to a blank check. The board has not given even an estimate for what these referendum cost.

4:32 PM  
Blogger Spirit_of_Lawrence said...

It was not voted on by referendum and does need to be voted on by referendum.

You are correct that it was not voted on by referendum, but the previous and current counsel to the school board have opined that the current busing policy needs to be approved by referendum, since it never was. The pre-k busing that used to exist likewise was never approved, and that's why it is still necessary for it to be approved by referendum in order to legitamize both pre-k busing and the current busing limits.

Why can't anyone make their point here without reinventing the facts?

The building usage referendum is necessary in order for facilities to be free for student groups even in contingency. While this is already the current policy of the board when the district is not in contingency, when the district is in contingency (such as now) non-public school youths are forced to pay for facilities usage, which public school youths are not. This referendum does not open the buildings up for free use by everyone in the community or for regligious services (as has been misstated above), but allows free usage for activities by private school kids, which are similar to those activities by public school kids who currently get free usage.

4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the board meeting on Tuesday, Nov 21, the attorney stated that the referendum is worded exactly as the policy is now. Both public and non-public school age children use the building for free. So check your facts or maybe the attorney should check his facts. Which is true?

5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're missing the point. The policy is the same now (and it's posted on the District's website if you want to confirm), but the policy does not provide for free usage while in contingency. Hence, the public school kids now get free usage and the private school kids have to pay.

The attorney was correct about the policy, but the policy does not provide for free usage during contingency. And that's the reason for the referendum.

5:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did go to the policy and youth groups, all youth groups, only pay after 11 PM and on Sat and Sun and Holidays when custodians get overtime. The public school kids have to pay the same thing as long as it is not a school event. So skewing the truth doesnt do anyone any good.

5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, that is the policy, but that only applies when the district is not in contingency.

Now that the district is in contingency, all youth groups (other than those that are part of public school programming during or after school hours) must pay fees. If you don't believe this, you can call the office and ask about free building usage before 11 - there's no such.

So public school kids currently are allowed free building usage after school (for school programming) while private school kids must pay at the same time.

I'm pretty sure this is the reason for the referendum.

Someone please correct me if I'm getting this wrong.

6:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

public school youths are not required to pay.

I do not know where you get your facts, but, they do have to pay for activities not school sponsored. Little league, had to stop doing inside practices, because they could not afford it. They do not have equal rights to a building for a private school basketball practice. You choose to send your kids to private school. The federal government agrees, if you have a problem with this call then, stop with the entitlement garbage, I pay taxes too, and you know what my kids are getting shafted, do not give fiscal responsibility as your poor excuse, if you want equa;treatment for your children, then ask for things related to what they need and not what you think will save parents time. Put them in public school if you have the guts, it is obvious no one does. No other district has free building usage, And don't respond to this with distain and quotes of anti-semetic garbage, if you have a problem fight the government they made these laws, if a catholic school pulled this crap you would have a heart attck keep pushing, and pushing, and taking and you will get what you wish for all of us will be gone. Yet the laws will still be around to give you what you get now, so use the buildings, busing whatever. In the end if we all move your $10,000 will be paying for kids with lower test scores, will you get more doubtful, Special Education testing will be done by districts your kids go to, and be rest assured you things are unfair now, wait, all these extra one to one you get now, gone, you won't get to blame Pam Greenbaum or the superintendent, or the Newsday or the Herald. Did I miss anyone? Maybe it is not a conspiracy against you, maybe history taught you nothing.

8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will correct you.

Read the policy. Under contingency the fee schedule takes effect and the fees are only after 11 PM and for Sat, Sun and holidays.
go to http://www.lawrence.org/district/policy®buildinguse1500.htm

8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a little news flash, in conversation with the federal government department of education division of civil rights, I found out some new and exciting information. No child left behind has some interesting points, now, I know everyone is saying its the teacers fault we don't have specialists, but if tis district passes the pre-k busing, and the free usage, we are headed for a federal investigation. Now before everyone starts the liar liar pants on fire theory allow me to explain. Every child who received a 2 or below on the state tests automatically are suposed to be getting support services, children in k-3 that are in danger of getting a 2, also are supposed to be receiving these services, now we have far too many children not getting services that should. Why?? Too many kids, not enough specialists. So, the election costs alone, put us in violation, add the passing of the bills, INVESTIGATION> Oh and by the way, they do not consider teacer,superintendent, and any other factors in a boards fiscal irresponsibility. For those doubters, please go to the federal website, get the number and call, it seems they are real prickly about the No child left behind. I know no one is worried, but this is the federal government, and the penalties for non compliance. The interesting thing is they have received two other complaints they have already started to compile information but are waiting the outcome of the vote.

9:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the end if we all move your $10,000 will be paying for kids with lower test scores

What makes you think they won't move too?

12:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

but if tis district passes the pre-k busing, and the free usage, we are headed for a federal investigation

Haven't we gotten past this whole "the feds are coming to get you" routine? It's a little stale.

And if you're convinced this will prompt an investigation that will set things right, then you ought to be out there dragging every last person down to the polls to support these referenda.

12:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will correct you.

Read the policy. Under contingency the fee schedule takes effect and the fees are only after 11 PM and for Sat, Sun and holidays.


Gimme a break - My son participates in a program that uses the gym during the week, and we're paying through our noses.

From what we've been told, the current policy is not applicable in contingency and that's why we're paying.

12:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe the organization is charging you, not the school district. You should check into that. That is actually not only unethical, but probably illegal.

12:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

speaking to annon12:27, this actually happened when years ago adults werent being charged when the district wasnt under contingency and Young Israel of Woodmere was charging its adult basketball league outrageous fees with the explanation that it was for building fees when in fact in was not. The fees was pocketed for the temple.

12:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that you mention it, my husband, a member of the Young Israel adult basketball league was reimbursed the fees he paid at the time because of this "confusion."

12:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe it is not a conspiracy against you, maybe history taught you nothing.

U planning another holocaust?

12:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you read the policy, you'll notice this has nothing to do with use of the facilities by adults.

They are charged now and will be charged even if the referendum passes.

The issue is only about the children who often do not have recreational facilities in their yeshivas. Currently, these kids pay for after-yeshiva use of the public school facilities. There is an argument to be made that it's unfair for them to be charged when public school kids are using them for free at the same times. I believe this is the reason for the referendum.

12:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, untrue, both public and private are treated equally. Read the policy. There must be some other reason for the referendum becuase if you read the policy as was suggested and I did and the policy is on the lawrence web site, it is equal as it stands now. And as the attorney said at the board meeting, the referendum just reiterates exactly what the policy states anyway. So where is the change? According to him there is none. Why the smoke screen? What is the reason for the smoke screen and the lies?

1:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again, you're missing the point. Yes, the referendum mirrors the policy, but THE POLICY DOES NOT APPLY IN CONTINGENCY, and it won't apply in contingency unless the voters approve this referendum.

Even in contingency, no one is charged for after-school facilities usage related to public school programming (e.g., public school basketball team practicing in gym after hours). So there is somewhat of an inequity while the district is in contingency.

1:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again - read your policy - even in contingency ALL YOUTH GROUPS DO NOT PAY until 11 PM, Sat, Sun and Holidays, whether public or private on a contingency budget. Look at the district's website - call the district - people - look at the above posting and read it for what it is - propaganda and think to yourselves WHY do they need to spread propaganda if they everything is supposed to be so above board? What is being hidden?

8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imagine if everybody who posted ... donated a nickel per word to the LPS ... I bet programs could be reinstated, teachers could be hired/rehired, help would be bountiful, taxes might even go down ... and ... it might even make those posters who only want to stir the pot .... think twice before posting. What a novel idea ... !

10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again - read your policy - even in contingency ALL YOUTH GROUPS DO NOT PAY until 11 PM, Sat, Sun and Holidays, whether public or private on a contingency budget. Look at the district's website - call the district - people - look at the above posting and read it for what it is - propaganda and think to yourselves WHY do they need to spread propaganda if they everything is supposed to be so above board? What is being hidden?

Where does the policy say that it applies in contingency?

If it applies in contingency, why am I paying now for my kids?

11:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is for youth groups - You might be paying fees for the weekend like everyone else. If you are paying fees for after school use before 11 PM, I would ask why because you should not be.

12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a public school program takes place on a weekend there is no fee. For example, if Grease is shown on a Sunday evening there is no fee. If the basketball team plays a game on Saturday, there is no fee. If HAFTR rents the gym in the number 6 school for a game on a Sunday they pay. Both school and team based activities. One group pays and one does not. Unequal. The referendum insures that children involved in school based activities enjoy equal protection under the law.

8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What makes you think they won't move too?

These are people who can't afford to go,

Haven't we gotten past this whole "the feds are coming to get you" routine? It's a little stale.

First, people have asked the state for help, They destroyed Roosevelt Federal is a whole different rant. The public school community is being encouraged to pass it for the following reasons,

1.Watching the school district try to schedule pre k busing and execute it is worth the money.

2.Having parents hyterical their three year old is on a bus for forty minutes, also worth going to the meeting,

3.Watching the community as they realize keeping building open for services on the weekend costs money in overtime for custodians,electricity, etc, The busing which will be busing children to all the different private pre-k's which my own children went to costs money, plus a matron on each bus, costs money.

The beauty of the federal government, they do not care if you have busing, remember the federal goverment wrote the idea to include what anon wrote above

Parents who place their children in a non public school do not have the right to assume they will receive the same services as if the child was enrolled in public school.
The federal government is not Long Island, and No child left behind is a big thing, there are aready warnings on their website stating violations of nclb will not be tolerated. But, in light of the poor treatment of the non public school children, we are going to pass busing, and free building usage, by they way where do your children come in? Busing, building usage, where is the "equal treatment for my children" Maybe, you realize you will get no more than you get, and once all those pre-k children get put on a bus, next fall other districts will be testing and deciding those childrens special ed needs, by testing and deciding services, and when they get far less, than they get now, because, our district gives far more,(one of the highest rates of classification in the state) all your budget threats, and strong arm tactics will me nothing, because other districts will not give in, because they just don't care. Who will you blame then?

8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HAFTR rents the gym in the number 6 school for a game on a Sunday they pay.

Yes, because HAFTR is a school that is PRIVATE SCHOOL. You have got to be kidding me, They should pay, they are a PRIVATE school. LIWA Private school, pays pays pays to use our schools. Is everyone dilusional, equal treatment for our children, not let us save HAFTR money. This is not equal treatment this is a group of people who thinks they are entitled to whatever they feel like. If this was any other private group you would be at the boards face screaming. I am disgusted to be associated with this town.

Inwood Bucaneers, has soccer and basketball indoors in the winter, guess what, they pay too, even though they are a public organization,

When the Newsday and Herald, and probably CNN portrays the Orthodox community in a negative light, this reflects on every Jewish person.Reform,Conserative,etc. The demands that are being made are just not right. When it was the Herald, it was onesided, the Newsday, they got the story wrong, but when CNN shows the board meeting footage, and all the tapes of the overcrowding, all your complaints about old boards, old contracts, superintendants, You know what the country is going to think, come on, the world is not Long Island. You just are promoting more hate. It is so sad. Three news organizations say your wrong, when one prints it , but three. Lay down.

8:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If HAFTR rents the gym in the number 6 school for a game on a Sunday they pay. Both school and team based activities. One group pays and one does not. Unequal. The referendum insures that children involved in school based activities enjoy equal protection under the law.


NEW FLASH NEWS FLASH\\

HAFTR WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE TO PAY, IT IS NO A YOUTH GROUP,IT IS A SCHOOL, PRIVATE SCHOOL, FROM WHAT I HEAR, YOU PAY ENOUGH TUITON THEY CAN AFORD IT.

8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just some facts. Children added to preK this year met no economic hardship criteria. PreK program is not paid for by state grant and costs 100 of thousands more than district gets.

9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HAFTR WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE TO PAY, IT IS NO A YOUTH GROUP,IT IS A SCHOOL, PRIVATE SCHOOL, FROM WHAT I HEAR, YOU PAY ENOUGH TUITON THEY CAN AFORD IT.


IS THIS NOW AN ANTI HAFTR BLOG? I HEAR DARCAHI, AND BRANDIES CHARGE PRETTY HEFTY TUITION TOO. BE FAIR.

9:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 9:15 PM
Where can I get a proof of your comment.

9:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PreK program is not paid for by state grant and costs 100 of thousands more than district

In response to the above uninformed person. Up until last year free pre-k was for children of families with NO money, we received 465,000 from the state grant. It more than covered the teachers and the busing. This year we applied for another grant 46,000 . This money was in addition to the above monies. 19 students were added to this free program. The monies did not cover the total cost, and a blance of $15,000 was taken from other monies. Now, I do not know where you hundreds of thousands came from, but legally, we are allowed to add programs to the public schools, because,,,, it is a public school.

IS THIS NOW AN ANTI HAFTR BLOG? I HEAR DARCAHI, AND BRANDIES CHARGE PRETTY HEFTY TUITION TOO. BE FAIR.

Okay, Every private school will still have to pay for usage of the school gym, because any basketball tema from one of those private schools are not considered youth groups and do not figure into equal treatment. Any private school group,team has to pay,Inwood bucaneers, pays, school play, does not pay. Difference is it is a school PUBLIC function. We get to use our building on a Sunday without paying, because it is a school funcition. A Basketball game with two private schools is not a pubic school function.

10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Below please find statistics from the state website.
0400071520 TARGETED PRE - K 416,614 06/30/07
0415074026 UNIVERSAL PRE-K SU 48,600

10:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what do these numbers mean?

10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I can understand the arguments on both sides regarding free facilities usage for private school kids, I can't understand why everyone is so hot under the collar about this issue.

Relative to the cost of pre-k busing, free gym and field use is a drop in the bucket. Of course, one can reason that money is tight enough without giving out any new freebies. But money is only tight because the voting majority feels that they haven't been getting their money's worth.

So right or wrong, whether or not you think there is inequity in the current building use policy, isn't it in everyone's best interest to give more voters a sense that they are getting more of their money's worth - especially if the cost of this is so inconsequential?

11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The referendum insures that children involved in school based activities enjoy equal protection under the law.

I think you missed a portion of the referendum, pubic school activities are covered, not private entities. There is no law that protects children of non public school to get to use a public school gymnasium for free. It is not a district policy, it is a federal policy. Equal treatment is not even guaranteed read the post about special education. The person quoted the IDEA, which states


No parentally-placed private school child with a disability has an individual right to receive some or all of the special education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school.

Stop blaming the public school community for inequality, when the federal government does not allow it. Perhaps lobbying the government would be more beneficial to your cause, rather than ranting things you have not researched and have no bearing on education. I would love to read or hear something requested that has to actually do with your childrens education, as opposed to public schools usage policy which the vast majority of outside entities are required to pay for use. Which includes the buildings usage on Saturdays as a shul. Should this be free too? Is this why the High School Roof was fixed so quickly? I hope not, I always thought Mr. Hatten did it so children would have use of the auditorium again. With the news that The High School is the latest of this communites new shul's I wonder. Shouldn't you wonder as well...

11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what do these numbers mean

State funds that pay for the pre-k program.

11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the sum of those two numbers is the total amount currently received from the state for the pre-k program?

11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how many kids are in the program?

11:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

especially if the cost of this is so inconsequential?

If this was the case then I am all for it. But, the custodians who work are paid overtime. Utilities are not free, and the all day shul at the High School and the #6 school is quite costly. If this was actually for our childrens programs, then it is no issue, but when complaint from both sides about lack of services are given to their children, I am hard pressed to vote yes.

11:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how many kids are in the program

All together (very rough estimate) about 80-90 children.

11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the all day shul at the High School and the #6 school is quite costly

Does anyone know what this "shul" thing is about?

When are there services held at these schools?

11:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how many kids are in the program

All together (very rough estimate) about 80-90 children.


I think they had 90 or 92 before they added the new ones this year. So now they should have around 110

11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

$465k divided by 110 = $4,227.

Is that all it costs for each pre-k child?

11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If they're only getting $4,227/per child from the state grant, then this pre-k program is costing taxpayers a helluva lot of money.

11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

taxpayers a helluva lot of money.

I do not think the free pre k is costing this district a hella of a lot of money, the audit through the state did not even mention it, but if it did, perhaps the whole community should take advantage of it, it is a great program. It is important to give these children a strong foundation, as when they get to the elementry school level any porblems they have will be pushed under the rug, not enough specialists, but at least they will be able to stay late and play for free.

12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When are there services held at these schools?

Services are held at the #6 school and the High School, custodians are there to help clean up, I hope they are paying, or is that inlcuded in the equal treatment for our kids let us make parents lifes easier proposal.

12:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When are there services held at these schools?

Services are held at the #6 school and the High School, custodians are there to help clean up, I hope they are paying, or is that inlcuded in the equal treatment for our kids let us make parents lifes easier proposal.


Are we still making believe we know that services are held in these schools, or does someone actually have specific information to base this statement on?

12:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

taxpayers a helluva lot of money.

I do not think the free pre k is costing this district a hella of a lot of money, the audit through the state did not even mention it, but if it did, perhaps the whole community should take advantage of it, it is a great program. It is important to give these children a strong foundation, as when they get to the elementry school level any porblems they have will be pushed under the rug, not enough specialists, but at least they will be able to stay late and play for free.


And that's a helluva way to brush this issue under the carpet.

Maybe everyone should take support the free-to-be building usage and everyone should take advantage of it because it's a great program, and it keeps kids off the streets

12:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For anyone who chose not to do any homework on the issue, feel free to review the building use policy of the district, which clearly states a fee schedule (at the bottom of the policy)for ALL groups. For obvious reasons though, sporting events which are sponsored by the school are exempt. It would be like charging yourself to have your children inhabit your own house. Why would any policy stipulate that they charge themselves for their own activities. Happy reading if you would like to actually read the policy prior to posting.

http://www.lawrence.org/district/policy®buildinguse1500.htm

12:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

kind of like when taxpayers pay tens of thousands of dollars for other people's children to use the gym for free, and then the taxpayers are asked to pay even more money when their kids want to use the gym

12:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For anyone who cares, the website changes the "and" sign above the number 7 on your keyboard to "®" which is why the link may fail.

12:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yea, kind of like when people chose to send their children to private school, then attack people who chose to use the public education available for all of their woes....you have nailed it right on the head.

12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are we still making believe we know that services are held in these schools, or does someone actually have specific information to base this statement on?

1. Specific information was confirmed by the district, in a phone call. You of course can check yourself tommorow.

12:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uhu - So specific that you have no idea who, what why, where or when

12:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and then the taxpayers are asked to pay even more money when their kids want to use the gym

Your kids have every right to use the gym, Cedahurst little League stopped winter training, too expensive, no free treatment there, Inwood Bucaneers,we pay a registration fee, which pays the school. Now, I never had a problem paying these fee's, and all of those two organizations are made up of all district childfren. If this bothers you, then put your children in public school, this is one argument that will show the true nature of your wants. We pay for our organizations to use the schools, perhaps all that tuition you are spending should be better managed, every other group pays, maybe your school, should better mnanage your money

12:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uhu - So specific that you have no idea who, what why, where or when

12:24 AM

Look be insulting all you want, go to the High School or the # school on a Saturday, you can see for yourself. Speak with the school employees, or even better email the school board they will verify. This is who the origanl information came from, why protect them, there big boys.

12:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's ridiculous. I live right next to the high school and there is no such thing there. And I would venture to guess you're making this up about the #6 school too

12:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait I have a question, the referendum does not mention private school basketball games, that is not included, I read youth groups, sorry, I guess you will still have to pay,,, It really is horrible, pay taxes for my children to have a sub par education, while yours all need special ed to keep up with there's, there is irony in that ya think>>>>

12:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's ridiculous. I live right next to the high school and there is no such thing there. And I would venture to guess you're making this up about the #6 school too

Then the board is not telling the truth. Call the Board of ed office tommorow and ask Then you can call us liars 295-7030. Until then, Why does it upset you they have the high school and the #6 school being used as shuls? The school board allows it, although they don't have that hefty building fee we all pay each year, or any other fees, good for them....

12:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It really is horrible, pay taxes for my children to have a sub par education, while yours all need special ed to keep up with there's, there is irony in that ya think>>>>"

well three times the number of public school studenst as private school students in the district get special ed, so the private schools arent doing top bad. especially for paying less than 10k a student. who are you kidding?

12:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Time out, ladies and gents, come now there is a remedy. Election time three seats are open, a few choices

1. Budhist monks, very neutral
2 Scientologist, to crazy to worry about pre-k busing
3 Our kids, who will get along better than our current board.
4 Three women, come on ladies, public or non public, why are we letting these men year after year drag our children down with their agendas, which have nothing to do with our kids. At the least we will bring snacks to a four hour meeting. Seriously ladies, let us stop letting board after board destroy our childrens education, let us take charge and work to a better education and not a better lined pocket for our male board

12:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

number of public school studenst as private school students in the district get special ed

I hate to break this to you, and I do not want to sound rude, because special ed should not be used the increase in public school special education numbers is most definitely attributed to the influx of yeshivot children being enrolled in the public school. Last year 25 were enrolled in one elementry school within a period of three months. This influx of yeshivot children have helped in their fight to keep buildings open.

12:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I hate to break this to you, and I do not want to sound rude, because special ed should not be used the increase in public school special education numbers is most definitely attributed to the influx of yeshivot children being enrolled in the public school."

I hate to break THIS to you but I am not talking about an increase in public school special ed cases. There were actually numbers from last year. 25 students isnt enought to make the numbers so different. there are far more special ed students in public school than private school. the inequity is actually striking.

12:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the inequity is actually striking.

Let us try this again, The difference in numbers as per The New York state audit, is 297 private 602 public. Factor in all the YESHIVOT children who have switched over, more than 25, our children are in the school, please do not forget this, this also includes chldren enrolled in CPSE in pre-k at HASC etc, brings the number up. Please, if you are not versed in Special Education please do not quote things. If you are that concerned about the CSE not letting giving private children a chance call the state, let them investigate. Private school children are tested far more than public children. For example fifty inital evaluations for private Four public, 2 qualify under private. The others don't. Scores were way to high. All five of the public children qualified, they scored in the 1-2% across the board. Freedom of information act, you should try it.

7:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PreK costs are in excess of $1million per Sam Donato, former Asst Supt for Business, Lawrence Public Schools as he stated publically.

If you have 108 students at 18 per it's 6 teachers. If they're at $100,000 salary and benefits, add administration costs,custodial costs, secretatial costs, busing costs, matron costs, building proportinate costs such as light , heat etc, F/R lunch, snacks, etc.

Appears Mr Donato's numbers were quite correct, The $465,000 grant covers less than half the PreK costs.

8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is all petty, When there is no rational answer, the same garbage used to respond.So here it is about special education, below find the IDEA from anon above on non private special eduation.

No parentally-placed private school child with a disability has an individual right to receive some or all of the special education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school.
[34 CFR 300.137] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(A)]

The federal government wrote that. So, if there are more kids in public school that get services, it is legal. So pass the pre k busing free building usage, and give it a rest, their is nothing left you are entitled to, or shall I say your children, which this is all about. If these laws are not to your liking, hire a lawyer and fight.

8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks,

With the elections coming up we all have the power to come together and change this district for our children. Forget busing, and school usage. These are parent issues. Let us replace the three board members with people who are interested in our children. The community as whole trusts this new board. Two members of this new trust were on the board, when are reserve accounts were depleted, now the audit said transportation had a major impact, and teachers going into private schools and giving special education services. Not a law, something the board voted on. So, perhaps we should start from scratch. Let us get individual who vote what they believe not as a block. The refferendum really did not have the support of the board, but Hatten,Foreman, Kaufman, voted yes, Sussman in the interest of saving his seat next year voted yes. (board member on board for years) Mansdorf not there(on board when funds delpeted) I want board members who vote for all the children, like somone who would have said, let us spend our money on a homework center on Sunday in the public schools so ALL our children can benefit, we can have all specialists to help. Now , that will never happen. This idea was brought up by a public school parent at the board meeting, but busing was more important.

8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Three women, come on ladies, public or non public, why are we letting these men year after year drag our children down with their agendas, which have nothing to do with our kids. At the least we will bring snacks to a four hour meeting. Seriously ladies, let us stop letting board after board destroy our childrens education, let us take charge and work to a better education and not a better lined pocket for our male board

What could possibly be better than 4 Pam Greenbaums on the board?

10:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you have 108 students at 18 per it's 6 teachers. If they're at $100,000 salary and benefits, add administration costs,custodial costs, secretatial costs, busing costs, matron costs, building proportinate costs such as light , heat etc, F/R lunch, snacks, etc.

Based on the salary info that was (FOILed and) circulated last year, the pre-k teachers were making upwards of $125k with benefits

10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Relative to the cost of pre-k busing, free gym and field use is a drop in the bucket. Of course, one can reason that money is tight enough without giving out any new freebies. But money is only tight because the voting majority feels that they haven't been getting their money's worth.

So right or wrong, whether or not you think there is inequity in the current building use policy, isn't it in everyone's best interest to give more voters a sense that they are getting more of their money's worth - especially if the cost of this is so inconsequential"


If the private sector "gets and gets and gets" while the district is on a contingency budget ... what is the incentive to ever pass a budget? Why would anyone vote for an increase if they are eventually going to get things even though the budget has failed.

10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is that if the district, the board, the administration and the voters indicate an interest in giving them their moneys worth, there will be an incentive for them to reciprocate. Unless you maintain they're all just evil and selfish people

10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The funds were depleted when the MAJORITY of the BOE were PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENTS! The funds were used to reduce EVERYONES taxes. Look at the history of the budget increases and you will see that less than 3% budget increases for a number of years(and one less than 1%!!!) don't cut it when your salary expenses, LILCO, Fuel, etc go up more than 5-6%% per year. Sooooo, the PUBLIC SCHOOL BOE MAJORITY used reserve funds to keep the budget increases down. Argento, Sussman, Parisi, Ferrara, Ettinger, Mandelbaum, Srulevich, etc, etc, etc.

What could be better than 4 pam Greenbaums? O Pam Greenbaums on the board. I agree let's get people on the BOE who care about children, have some fiscal sense from being in the business world and have some background in education. We don't need any more obstrctionists.

1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We don't need any more obstrctionists

Did anyone read the state audit? Just curious, Pam greenbaum get blamed for everything, Sussman, Mansdorf, they were there too. Also, If you read the audit, which I can tell not one person has, If you read the audit, by the state. You will see, that the largest amount of money from the reserves was spent on 2 things. 1 Transportation, and Special Education services being provided at the school that the child attends unlike most districts whose children must go to the actual public schools. Being that Pam got you your services at your schools while really great testing districts make their non public come to the district to get their services I would think you would worship the women, insteda we pick on her, fitzsimmons, and the teachers, this gets old, other board members were there during this spend down, I am sorry I pay $7000 a year to attend my shul. I don't think it is a big deal to have a group pay a fee to rent the school for services, Haftr should have to pay to use the school. It is no a youth group but a private school. If this is the case then I know, THe christian science school will be asking to use our gym, The local baptist church wants to use our gym, and they will all get it for free, Wow! Why not call Tom Cruise and open the scientology in our schools. You wonder why people lump this community as one, Non public the papers are not potraying you in a negative light, you are. You take and Take, while other non publics on Long Island in districts where taxes are far higher, do not understand, nor condone, the entitlement behavior you betray gives our community a bad name. I can't wait till CNN shows the expose, Every political nut, will be hear for the non public ethnic population. There will be no sympathy from the country, guess why? You want equality, put your kids in public school. You never will get it it is a law, the harder you fight the more one sided it becomes, and you fall into the trap that those hecklers want you, passing items that are not educationally related. Congrads, and you have your trusted board to thank.

1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Congradulations to the Lawrence High School Football Team !

This team beat a team which was favored to win. They worked together to beat a team that had not lost a game all year. A lesson we all should learn. When you work together to achieve a common goal. Even though this district is so divided you made us proud.

1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No parentally-placed private school child with a disability has an individual right to receive some or all of the special education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school.


A slight mistatement. The district has to use "parity". If they have a 400K special ed budget (federal funds only) and they have 400 kids with iep's, 300 public and 100 private, they have to spend 300k on public (as a whole) and 100K on private (as a whole)

4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The State Audit went back 2 years in detail. The "reserves" were spent down long before that. The transportation and Special Ed budgets were budgeted each and every year and were within budget at the end of the fiscal year. Please see annual audits and budgets. Those budgets increased dramatically over the past 10 years as the non-public community grew. However, those areas were not where the reserves went. Read the audit again. The taxpayers in the community benefited from the reserves being spent down to keep year to year budgets low. Ask Dr. Fitzsimmons or Mrs Greenbaum to give you the budgets for the past 12 years and you'll see where the dollars went.

Kado's to the Football team. perhaps Mr. Andre should be Superintendent-He can get folks to work together as a team.

4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The State Audit went back 2 years in detail. The "reserves" were spent down long before that. The transportation and Special Ed budgets were budgeted each and every year and were within budget at the end of the fiscal year. Please see annual audits and budgets. Those budgets increased dramatically over the past 10 years as the non-public community grew. However, those areas were not where the reserves went. Read the audit again. The taxpayers in the community benefited from the reserves being spent down to keep year to year budgets low. Ask Dr. Fitzsimmons or Mrs Greenbaum to give you the budgets for the past 12 years and you'll see where the dollars went.

Kado's to the Football team. perhaps Mr. Andre should be Superintendent-He can get folks to work together as a team.

4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The State Audit went back 2 years in detail. The "reserves" were spent down long before that. The transportation and Special Ed budgets were budgeted each and every year and were within budget at the end of the fiscal year. Please see annual audits and budgets. Those budgets increased dramatically over the past 10 years as the non-public community grew. However, those areas were not where the reserves went. Read the audit again. The taxpayers in the community benefited from the reserves being spent down to keep year to year budgets low. Ask Dr. Fitzsimmons or Mrs Greenbaum to give you the budgets for the past 12 years and you'll see where the dollars went.

Kado's to the Football team. perhaps Mr. Andre should be Superintendent-He can get folks to work together as a team.

4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am new to this forum and just have to say that these are some of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. Now keep in mind that I am coming from a private school background that currently has their children in public school. Out of curiosity, I spoke with my parents for the details involved when I was growing up. While attending private school, my parents needed to pay for extracurricular activities (even ones within the purview of the school) because I had an interest and they wanted me to attend. The bussing was extra because I was outside of the predetermined mileage range so that is a moot point and we needed to ‘rent’ the local public schools auditorium for our commencement (this was an added charge I might add). They never felt as if they were being ostracized because they needed to pay more, it was their choice not to utilize the public school education. Neighbors of mine in public school didn’t look upon me and scour the way this community looks at each other. If what we want is the state to come in and take over, we are ALL doing a wonderful job of paving the way. The federal government sets the rules and until we are off of austerity, nothing should be changed. Emergency repairs should be done, special education for ANY deserving child should be implemented and everybody should just be silent. We already look like a joke on Long Island and assuming that CNN wasn’t here for the bagels and lox, I cringe to think of what the rest of the country will think after their report. Try arguing points which will aid in the EDUCATIONAL value for ALL OF OUR CHILDREN and stop arguing points (such as free facilities use and bussing) which are for the posturing of the adults in this community.

8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd imagine they weren't milking your parents to the tune of $25k/student and then holding back your mandated services (such as special ed.) at every opportunity.

9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If they are holding back special ed serices then you should be appealing, and calling the state. The 25,000 is not accurate and to tell you to call state budget office they would explain it comes out to 18,000 per pupil, it seems when they take the whole amount spent, they include the transportation costs, and special education costs and divide it by 3700 students, even though the monies spent do not apply to the public school children. We have on of the highest if no the highest transportation budgets in new york, for the amount of students.

9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The State Audit went back 2 years in detail

The audit I read went back complaint by complaint. The amount of the reserves we are talking about were 16.9 million, the audit went over the depletion of these funds, as these were the funds people complained about. It was determined that the money was spent perdominately on transportation and special education. Public school teachers that went into the private schools. I am not making this up, why bash Fitzsimmons and Greenbaum, It is on the new york state website. So stop acting like you are married to one of the other board members and stop beating issues which have been proven to be not true.

9:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We have on of the highest if no the highest transportation budgets in new york, for the amount of students."

ever hear of Ramapo? Far more orthos. yet they manage to run a district where the orthis dont get shafted like they do here and its all legal! every bit of (equitable) special ed, every bit o free building use, every bit of free test prep courses, every bit of math and reading specialists provided to private school students, every but of homework clinic.

All provided to priovate school students. go figure.

9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The audit I read went back complaint by complaint. The amount of the reserves we are talking about were 16.9 million, the audit went over the depletion of these funds, as these were the funds people complained about. It was determined that the money was spent perdominately on transportation and special education.


Lololol. That's funny. The reserves were spent down by transportation and spec ed for the orthos. That's a rich claim. As well as a completely fallacious one.

9:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home