This is also false
IMG/ Findlay prep are nothing like Privates unless all privates board their students
Let The Transfer Games Begin
- Thread starter Paloma
- Start date
IMG/ Findlay prep are nothing like Privates unless all privates board their students
You mean like drawing up boundaries
You mean like open enrollment
Nothings more selective than that
Yes it’s a proven fact that boundaries are drawn up on social economic and racial considerations which makes it a selective process.If there is one school that’s open enrollment it makes it selective.
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/46215
This kid is the real deal y’all can keep sleeping if you want but I can’t wait to see what he does at Pitt
But a single public that allows an intra-district transfer is not a mandate for your point. In fact, it’s as weak a correlation as can be. Transfers are typically are governed by state and District statute, with overwhelmingly evidenced along academic policy. See my citation at the end.
When a study is cited, one must be prepared to accept its results.
At 265 pages, it’s a long read. And it proves MY point (which probably rara was not paying attention to
That open boundaries, specifically enjoyed by ALL privates, many charters, some magnets and a hugely disproportionate SMALLER number (less than 10%) of publics INCREASE the likelihood of segregation across socioeconomic bands. One could then easily infer athletes or families who promote school choice athletics, would enjoy such, whereas families committed to public education have essentially no choice. “Studies of public school choice, including intra- and inter-district open enrollment also generally support the conclusion that policies allowing students to transfer out of the neighborhood schools have a stratifying effect.” p. 55
If you’re not sure what stratifying means it’s placing things in bands of hierarchy, which, with this study shows that it leads to greater segregation, along both economic and racial lines.
What else is interesting is the 9700+ schools studied were elementary. The same number of districts were included in the gerrymandering effects.
Lastly, the maps around p. 230 give a better idea of racial implications of gerrymandering. California shows less impact across racial barriers in school attendance zones than many, many states.
Note that the study makes a clear distinction between gerrymandered attendance zones (only elementary schools studied) versus District zones. The author admits that District zones are more controlled by policy, and Federal guidelines of desegregation, whereas attendance zones- in this case elementary schools studied- are more apt to be discriminatory.
So what arara has cited CONFIRMS that open boundaries are more discriminatory. What he didn’t realize is that the study was for elementary schools ATTTENDANCE zones. He also cited a study which concludes that open boundaries/ enrollment-however you want to term it- leads to INCREASED segregation, which by definition, could include any specialized endeavor, I.e. football transfers. But what he conveniently leaves out is there are strict policies on what states can do regarding open enrollment for publics. Here are California’s:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/eo/op/title5regs.asp
http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/MBQuestNB2n?rep=OE1801
My mantra: Looking good in the neighborhood. Good work ararar. Ha!
I know nothing. Okay. I’m referring to the fact property taxes are pooled in the state, THEN distributed no matter whence they came. If you’re saying your “36%” local property tax DIRECTLY goes to the school District in which you reside...prove it.
And then show us how the County Assessors hangs on to those dollars, bypassing the state. Over.
But a single public that allows an intra-district transfer is not a mandate for your point. In fact, it’s as weak a correlation as can be. Transfers are typically are governed by state and District statute, with overwhelmingly evidenced along academic policy. See my citation at the end.
When a study is cited, one must be prepared to accept its results.
At 265 pages, it’s a long read. And it proves MY point (which probably rara was not paying attention to
“Studies of public school choice, including intra- and inter-district open enrollment also generally support the conclusion that policies allowing students to transfer out of the neighborhood schools have a stratifying effect.” p. 55
If you’re not sure what stratifying means it’s placing things in bands of hierarchy, which, with this study shows that it leads to greater segregation, along both economic and racial lines.
What else is interesting is the 9700+ schools studied were elementary. The same number of districts were included in the gerrymandering effects.
Lastly, the maps around p. 230 give a better idea of racial implications of gerrymandering. California shows less impact across racial barriers in school attendance zones than many, many states.
Note that the study makes a clear distinction between gerrymandered attendance zones (only elementary schools studied) versus District zones. The author admits that District zones are more controlled by policy, and Federal guidelines of desegregation, whereas attendance zones- in this case elementary schools studied- are more apt to be discriminatory.
So what arara has cited CONFIRMS that open boundaries are more discriminatory. What he didn’t realize is that the study was for elementary schools ATTTENDANCE zones. He also cited a study which concludes that open boundaries/ enrollment-however you want to term it- leads to INCREASED segregation, which by definition, could include any specialized endeavor, I.e. football transfers. But what he conveniently leaves out is there are strict policies on what states can do regarding open enrollment for publics. Here
How does this negate the fact that public schools use a selective process in obtaining their students?
Exactly if our taxes are pooled for every school then I should be able to pick which one my kid goes to.
There are roughly 150 public school districts in California that are self-funded because their local property values are so high. They receive very little recycled tax money from the state. Most of these so-called "basic aid" districts are located in affluent suburban areas, like Marin, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. A good example is the Palo Alto Unified School District. There, the property values are so high (thank you, high-tech/Stanford influences), the district is able to pay its staff some of the highest wages in the state. The district is also helped by a hefty parcel tax approved by the voters. Generally, you are correct, though. Most public school districts receive their tax revenue via the state's redistribution formula. So not all are the same. It's complicated.
According to ColHenry above, 5% of CA students attend Basic Revenue Districts. It’s your choice to move to one instead of griping here.... Freedom of choice our great nation affords us!
But I can tell from your desire to want to your send your kid to any public YOU want (since you now accept tax dollars are pooled, and a small percentage are basic funded) you’re trolling.
It’s simple in this country. Rules are rules. Laws are laws. We are a nation of laws. America: love it or leave it.
But I can tell from your desire to want to your send your kid to any public YOU want (since you now accept tax dollars are pooled, and a small percentage are basic funded) you’re trolling.
It’s simple in this country. Rules are rules. Laws are laws. We are a nation of laws. America: love it or leave it.
One other note regarding basic aid districts: Not all of them allow open enrollment; some, if not most, mandate school attendance via enrollment boundaries set up to try to equalize student numbers at each district campus. Not sure if that's a key part of this discussion. But it could be relevant.
Do you ever get tired of making things up? Please quote me where I said that I didn’t accept that.
You are all over the place which is indicative of a failed argument.
This particular discussion started with you saying privates could be selective in individuals who could attend their school.
I showed that Publics can be selective in zoning in or zoning out whole neighborhoods by gerrymandering.
That’s what this particular discussion is nothing else
I hear you CHL. I read some background on tax funding and saw the map of basic revenue Districts which support your post. And you’re spot on saying boundary rules are in play.
You can keep railing about how gerrymandering can make school boundaries selective but the study you cited was empirical for elementary schools. Aren’t we talking about high schools?!
Then I find, through the same study YOU cite, that the gerrymandering of District boundaries is even less impactful than the elementary school data due to FEDERAL policies of desegregation. But go ahead and ignore that.
I stand by my original points: Private HS are FULLY selective. Charter/Magnet HS are less so, but still very; and public HS that have any selectivity are hugely constrained by school AND District boundary rules. If we can’t agree on those points, don’t waste your time.
So only elementary schools gerrymander?
Yeah you run with that.
Can Publics use selectively yes or no?
This is my point
haha I wonder if the Kid is moving down alone or if the whole family is moving from Seattle to Folsom... His note literally reads like a commitment to college note.... I just find it funny that of all schools in Washington and Oregon and California he chose Folsom? I wonder who told him to go there, because they are in need of a QB...Browning maybe? just seems weird
So if 2% of public HS have open enrollment and 100% of privates do, they’re both “selective.” That makes as much sense as it makes.
I read his brother is a CAL Football Commit. That would make some sense to me. Family can watch son/brother and kid gets to play at a program that produces D1 players.
In theory, I tend to agree. So long as it doesn't come at the expense of other kids living within the school boundaries. To me, that's the one factor where I don't agree that all public schools should be open to anyone no matter where they live.
If my son or daughter couldn't get into the school right down the street that my property taxes have helped pay for because enrollment is too high, I'd be upset. Additionally, what about those who live in higher priced areas -- say Danville for example -- and they can't attend the school their parents helped pay for because a truck load of parents outside the area wanted to send their kids to that 'nicer' school?
I mean, take the city of Folsom for example. I believe I've read that Vista del Lago is at capacity. And Folsom has to be pretty close to it as well. What if you lived right down the street from Vista and that nice new campus but your kid had to attend elsewhere?
As long as a situation like that doesn't occur then I'm completely on board with parents sending and driving their kids to whatever school they want. But some of these schools do hit capacity. And if there are out-of-the-area students already enrolled that are squeezing in-area kids out, that's not good.
Thunder, in a way you made a good argument for kids only going to schools in their school district. No transfers unless moving. No more they got this kid. Every school has what they have. Problem solved.
Here's wishing you great football
Agree. Boundaries define the school a kid will attend within their district. Boundaries are defined by the census bureau based on many variables, but guarantee you athletics is not one! However, when a school site allows exceptions to admit kids outside their boundaries, this is what creates the athletic transfer issue. Consider why they allow this to go on.....
This applies to academic transfers as well?
Open enrollment? And other available resources to transfer? Or just athletics
Read that post I replied to. You go to the school in the district you live in, period. Some of the reasons was explained in that post.
I want to add the caveat that schools should "ALL" be certified academically qualified. And offer what the student needs. In all endeavors. NOT A PIPE DREAM!!!!! Should be a reality for every school.
Here's wishing you great football
Last edited:
That’s a beautiful sentiment
Unrealistic
But beautiful just the same
Unless every school district can do this
http://www.dailybreeze.com/mira-cos...8-million-athletic-complex-in-manhattan-beach
There will always be have and have nots thus the need/desire to transfer for academic or athletic reasons
Oh lord. Rara cited a school bond measure approved by voters. This is NOT an example of haves versus have nots, as much as he wants it to be. Voters...bond measures....that’s public monies approved by Joe Plumber. Best thing we’ll hear is that 161M bond rebuilding of a whole East Bay public that’s was falling apart was to lure those Hollywood USC bound athletes! Ha
It was reported the kid was torn between Folsom and Healdsburg, coin flip decided it. No undue influence whatsoever!
As usual you completely missed the point.
How many school districts are going to have voters approve this type of money.
https://calmatters.org/articles/california-school-bonds-favor-richer-communities/
Last edited:
It’s pretty evident to anyone without bias there are very clear lines between the haves and have nots in this state
https://calmatters.org/articles/sch...t-new-dollars-might-not-reach-poor-districts/
https://calmatters.org/articles/sch...t-new-dollars-might-not-reach-poor-districts/
DLS will take Folsom to the shed in any event. Not sure he will start ahead of Folsom's backup. Seems the Dogs have a pretty talented kid coming up an maybe the soph will compete when the following year. Is it even guaranteed the transfer will start. Seems mobile in the film I have seen but not special as a passer from what I saw. The team he was on last year definitely needed a better snapper. He looks like he needs more work and polish. Will mature more as a junior but probably more impact as a senior. The film of the Folsom kid that is already on the team looks like he could be pretty good. Very quick release and nice spin. I suspect the QB job may have more competition than many on this board believe.
Last edited:
Lol, I left it 2 months ago. Too much government for me! I will miss watching hs and college football games though.
