Why does the CIF have school boundries?
- Thread starter WWHS44
- Start date
I think what the OP is trying to imply is part troll, and part legit question.
A few points:
1. You cannot restrict people from moving within school boundaries. Young families move. They do so for economic reasons and educational reasons. There are many other reasons.
2. If a family moves into a school district, you cannot say "well your kid cant go here because you moved from xxx"
3. If we want to fully restrict boundaries, youd have to say "you are restricted to ONLY attend the school you were born near!" Well, that won't ever happen.
4. If you are forcing publics to compete with private schools, it would only make sense for open enrollment, although I am against this for various reasons.
5. I think the best compromise is how it is done now. Enforce school boundaries. If a family wants to send their kid to a certain public school, they must reside within those boundaries.
6. If you are jealous because kids from out of the area are choosing one school and not your school, get over it, make your program better. People are drawn to success.
The best part of America- options.
End of story.
A few points:
1. You cannot restrict people from moving within school boundaries. Young families move. They do so for economic reasons and educational reasons. There are many other reasons.
2. If a family moves into a school district, you cannot say "well your kid cant go here because you moved from xxx"
3. If we want to fully restrict boundaries, youd have to say "you are restricted to ONLY attend the school you were born near!" Well, that won't ever happen.
4. If you are forcing publics to compete with private schools, it would only make sense for open enrollment, although I am against this for various reasons.
5. I think the best compromise is how it is done now. Enforce school boundaries. If a family wants to send their kid to a certain public school, they must reside within those boundaries.
6. If you are jealous because kids from out of the area are choosing one school and not your school, get over it, make your program better. People are drawn to success.
The best part of America- options.
End of story.
I believe that one of the reason for having district lines and restrictions is property taxes. That used to be a major funding source for the schools, so the schools that had a high property tax value would have more money. Therefore you restrict transfers to the school so that those who pay for the school can attend the school, and those that don't pay for the school don't get to attend. Now, according to this article/stream, property taxes are about 25% of total funding.
https://ed100.org/lessons/whopays
https://ed100.org/lessons/whopays
My post has absolutly nothing to do with trolling as has been as suggested by a prior poster.
The issue of transfer, moving and athletics has been argued to the extreme on NCP. I am looking for legit reasons why boundaries were installed. I believe 49nr is hitting the nail on the head....MONEY.....
I have never believed this system was brought forth to stop athletic transfers...It is all about fund allocation to support each public school.....
Now if someone doesn't like the FREE education their child is receiving they can always attend a private school. Pay and do as they please.
The system is not set up for parents to use the tax payers dollars to do as they please.....I am not saying it is the best system but it is what we have....
The issue of transfer, moving and athletics has been argued to the extreme on NCP. I am looking for legit reasons why boundaries were installed. I believe 49nr is hitting the nail on the head....MONEY.....
I have never believed this system was brought forth to stop athletic transfers...It is all about fund allocation to support each public school.....
Now if someone doesn't like the FREE education their child is receiving they can always attend a private school. Pay and do as they please.
The system is not set up for parents to use the tax payers dollars to do as they please.....I am not saying it is the best system but it is what we have....
A few points:
You cannot tell parents they cant move. Parents move for various reasons and not all include HSFB.
Parents do what is best for their kids. Parents and kids aren't worried about a city or county collecting taxes.
Its America. You can do what you please and live where you want.
End of story.
You cannot tell parents they cant move. Parents move for various reasons and not all include HSFB.
Parents do what is best for their kids. Parents and kids aren't worried about a city or county collecting taxes.
Its America. You can do what you please and live where you want.
End of story.
Last edited:
I think you've hit the nail on one factor. Yet another is proper dispersal. You can't have everyone going to a handful of schools. A facility can only handle so many students.
And it doesn't always have to do with proximity. In the years after Whitney HS opened, I had a younger cousin that lived on the other side of I-80 (close to Sierra College). Proximity wise, she was closer to Rocklin High. But her neighborhood was designated as Whitney's territory. I'm sure the idea was to build their enrollment rather than over populate a longer existing school.
But with established schools, I think the boundaries are there just to make it so that the masses don't end up all in one or two places.
I happened to attend school within a district that had open enrollment. I had numerous options.
I have raised this before. Never thought you should allow attendance without the payment of taxes. Interesting issue if the player is from out of the area or state.
CIF no longer has boundaries.
Individual school districts have boundaries to decide who gets to go there (their discretion to accept/deny transfers in)
Individual school districts have boundaries to decide who gets to go there (their discretion to accept/deny transfers in)
Living with gr/ma is the ticket...bypasses the legitimate family move and spirit of the rulings....People will always find a way to bend the rules to serve their purposes
A few points:
You could live with Larry, Moe, or Curly, as far as I am concerned. As long as you live within the boundaries, you qualify for school there. Paying taxes means nothing. There are a lot of renters that live in a city that pay zero property taxes. Should their kids not be allowed to go to public school? Maybe one school for homeowners, one for renters, and one for Larry, More, and Curly?
Some of you guys are unbelievable. I bet it would be all good if Johnny 5 Star suddenly moved in to your school district and showed up at camp! Why of course!
"Wait! did someone check his parents property tax bill to ensure he can be a Bulldog! If not, send him to Roseville!" LOL C'mon!
You could live with Larry, Moe, or Curly, as far as I am concerned. As long as you live within the boundaries, you qualify for school there. Paying taxes means nothing. There are a lot of renters that live in a city that pay zero property taxes. Should their kids not be allowed to go to public school? Maybe one school for homeowners, one for renters, and one for Larry, More, and Curly?
Some of you guys are unbelievable. I bet it would be all good if Johnny 5 Star suddenly moved in to your school district and showed up at camp! Why of course!
"Wait! did someone check his parents property tax bill to ensure he can be a Bulldog! If not, send him to Roseville!" LOL C'mon!
Last edited:
Not so. Property taxes mean a lot to the district as to the source of their funding. It is not paying the taxes that is the determinant but where one resides and within what boundaries established by the district. Renters do pay taxes indirectly thru the cost of their rent.
I can understand why some districts are so protective of their boundaries. You can find 2 districts side by side that have huge differences in their rates of property taxation e.g. Palo Alto & East Pali Alto or Oakland & Piedmont. Paying the often much higher rates taxpayers are protective of who benefits from their financial contributions.
If your "Johnny 5 Star" wants to attend a particular school because he/his parents see a future benefit in a particular school/program ....then go and rent, establishing that rental location as their primary residency.
I know of several families who moved & rented within the Lamorinda area from Berkeley & Oakland so the kid(s) could attend those HS's
Not exactly rocket surgery.
I can understand why some districts are so protective of their boundaries. You can find 2 districts side by side that have huge differences in their rates of property taxation e.g. Palo Alto & East Pali Alto or Oakland & Piedmont. Paying the often much higher rates taxpayers are protective of who benefits from their financial contributions.
If your "Johnny 5 Star" wants to attend a particular school because he/his parents see a future benefit in a particular school/program ....then go and rent, establishing that rental location as their primary residency.
I know of several families who moved & rented within the Lamorinda area from Berkeley & Oakland so the kid(s) could attend those HS's
Not exactly rocket surgery.
This is exactly what happens.
Parents either buy a home within that school boundary, or rent. All within the rules. I even think this is rather stringent when these schools are being asked to compete with privates, who don't have any boundaries. But still......all kids in this category at public schools, are playing by the rules, and are doing what is asked of them.
America = freedom
Last edited:
How is buying or renting against the rules as long as the home is the primary residency of the student and his/ her guardians ?
What am I missing in this argument?
What am I missing in this argument?
So do you think that a child should have to attend the school their parents address is zoned to regardless if they live there or not?
CIF has zero to do with public boundaries. The 60% income from the state does. Not so much the 25% from local taxes/bonds. The idea someone is fully supporting their local public paying local taxes is hogwash. Teachers need job security year to year. Guessing for a pink slip does not make a school desirable. School Boards are charged with spending those funds...wisely. That’s why we vote them in/out. BTW, great public Districts are a major factor in home equity growth. ANYBODY paying a mortgage in the Bay Area gets giddy over this fact.
Because School Boards must balance their budgets, they must manage school populations. “Kids in their seats at 11am” is how they get funded. It’s also why SBs have to (via union contracts) give out “pink slips” every Spring as enrollments fluctuate.
Because School Boards must balance their budgets, they must manage school populations. “Kids in their seats at 11am” is how they get funded. It’s also why SBs have to (via union contracts) give out “pink slips” every Spring as enrollments fluctuate.
ThunderRam, you have a tendency to make sense of an issue. Be Careful
Population is one of the major factors. I pay attention to school districts, and Population is the deciding factor to build new high schools and well as dividing boundaries to populate current ones. And of course money is ALWAYS a factor.
Here's wishing you great football.
Similar threads
