Some Republicans negotiating the stimulus plan and the state are about to try and decimate our schools. Votes are very soon. Please use these letters as a template to send to your state and federal representatives and senators.
Fed letter:
Dear Senator xx:
Please, please ensure that in the negotiations for the stimulus package, that the funds for education are not eliminated during negotiations. Specifically, please do not vote for the elimination of stimulus education funds for the state California--as you know the 47th lowest funded state in the nation per pupil--nor for the elimination of IDEA or GATE funding.
Many children have disabilities, and many of them are of average to high intelligence and have the capabilities and desires to succeed intellectually and economically in this country if given the opportunity. Disabilities that affect learning but can be overcome can range from dyslexia to autism to blindness and deafness, as I’m sure you are aware. Many times, these students either simply need accommodations or additional strategies to learn to use their strengths to overcome their disabilities. Cutting funding for these children will exacerbate social inequities and create longer-term drags on state and federal budgets by creating a population of less enabled and frustrated citizenry, just the opposite of what we need to compete in our global economy. This is especially true in communities of poverty, which are still proportionately constituted of people of color. These communities cannot necessarily afford to make up for the public school system’s lack of support through private school, nor should they have to. Cutting funding for students with disabilities is tantamount to gutting the right of students for an equal education, which is untenable.
On a similar note, most education professionals recognize that students that are ready for additional challenges before their classmates (sometimes labeled as “gifted”) also constitute a special student population. They have a high dropout rate when not stimulated, yet these are the very students who can effectively lead us in developing our economy in the future. These students need the resources – in public schools – to meet their abilities, for we do not educate just to learn to meet the standards in grading criteria, but rather to learn to think creatively about the challenges our world faces and to create new ways of doing our jobs. I would think that a fiscally conservative CEO from Silicon Valley and a socially conscious Democrat could agree on the “common good” of such a cause.
If defunding of these programs occurs, huge portions of our society to are doomed to mediocrity and dependence. And by creating an unfunded mandate, this bill burdens states that are already under severe hardship. While the IDEA mandate is certainly needed for equal access to education, it needs to also be funded adequately, as do our schools in general. What we learn in school (along with what our parents teach us, of course) shapes our attitudes, and if student continually experience defeat and/or boredom, they become demoralized and hopeless. Please take the long-term view of this situation, rather than the short-term bottom line, which is part of the reason why our country is in the economic mess in which it finds itself. Vote “no” on the Nelson-Collins Stimulus Compromise because it would destroy the funds we DESPERATELY NEED to keep my district operating.
Erika & Jim Dyquisto
Parents of school-aged child
In a school district funded in the lowest 10th percentile,
In the 47th lowest funded state in the nation
Pacifica, California
State letter:
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger (or appropriate representative) and State Superintendent of Education:
Please do not implement the “permanent flexibility” of categorical funding for school districts in California. Such flexibility, though at times possibly desirable to meet budgets, places our students at risk, especially in those communities that do not have the resources of those in Basic Aid districts.
To those districts that are “on the edge” it might be desirable to be able to meet maintenance needs or debt service with funds designated for special education, GATE, or other categories. However, this puts the needs and equitable education of many students in jeopardy. Until the state implements an instruction framework that allows for better inclusion of GATE and special education students in the regular classroom – such as what is supposed to occur with the implementation of “Response to Intervention Guidelines,” which were required by the 2004 IDEA, which the state has not yet implemented, it is impossible to serve our special populations without specific, categorical funding. In the interim, many students, and the future of our state, could be disadvantaged further.
Most education professionals recognize that students that are ready for additional challenges before their classmates (sometimes labeled as “gifted”) constitute a special student population with special needs. They have a high dropout rate when not stimulated, and reducing dropouts is a current goal of the state. And these are the very students who can effectively lead us in developing our economy in the future. These students need the resources – in all public schools – to meet their potential, for we do not educate just to learn to meet the standards in grading criteria, but rather to learn to think creatively about the challenges our world faces and to create new ways of doing our jobs. I would think that a fiscally conservative CEO from Silicon Valley and a socially conscious Democrat could agree on the “common good” of such a cause.
In addition, many children have disabilities, and of these, many are of average to high intelligence and have the capabilities and desires to succeed intellectually and economically in this country if given the opportunity. The temptation to cut funding for these children will exacerbate social inequities and create longer-term drags on our state budget by creating a population of less enabled and frustrated citizenry, just the opposite of what we need to compete in our global economy. This is especially true in lower income communities or those which—because of relative changes in property values since the baseline date of the revenue limit formula combined with Basic Aid—are giving much more than they are receiving per pupil. While these communities—like mine—may have tremendous parental volunteer support, we cannot necessarily afford to make up for the public school system’s lack of support by having our children attend private school, nor should we have to. Cutting funding for students with disabilities or who are gifted and talented is tantamount to eliminating Free and Appropriate Education, which is a federal requirement. Please see the following article for recommendations on how local control of money must be combined with minimum funding per pupil in: http://www.csus.edu/CALST/government_affairs/reports/School_Funding_Formulas_Final.pdf.
If de-funding of these programs occurs through “flexibility”, large portions of our state’s students are doomed to mediocrity and dependence. It also, in effect, creates an unfunded mandate, because the federal requirements for those programs still exist, as they should, if our state does not guarantee equal access to education. What we learn in school (along with what our parents teach us, of course) is affected by our experiences there, and if student continually experience defeat and/or boredom, they become demoralized and hopeless and have a tendency to drop out, further exacerbating this state’s problems. Please take the long-term view of this situation, rather than the short-term bottom line, which is part of the reason why our country is in the economic mess in which it finds itself. Do not implement the “flexible categorical funding” component of the 2009-2010 California state budget proposal.
Erika & Jim Dyquisto
Parents of a school-aged child
In a school district funded in the lowest 10th percentile,
In the 47th lowest funded state in the nation
