Posted on 08/24/2011 11:48:18 AM PDT by MichCapCon
All around the state, parents of public school children are engaged in an end-of-summer ritual: scouring the stores for school supplies. Many parents may feel they are required to.
They are wrong.
Under Michigan law, public schools are legally responsible to provide students with all necessary school supplies. Parents are not legally obligated to buy any educational items at all, whether pencils, pens, notebooks, glue, crayons or a litany of other classroom articles.
Public schools’ legal obligation regarding school supplies comes from the state constitution’s Article 8, Section 2, which mandates, “The legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law.” This language was reviewed by the Michigan Supreme Court in the 1970 case Bond v. Ann Arbor School District, where the court held, “[I]t is clear that books and school supplies are an essential part of a system of free public elementary and secondary schools.” This ruling covers supplies for all students, regardless of family income.
Indeed, the Michigan Department of Education has two documents on its website underscoring the public schools’ responsibilities to provide supplies. The first document, a 14-page position statement last updated in 2006, clearly stipulates, “School districts may not make charges for any required or elective courses such as for: (a) General or registration fees[;] (b) Course fees or materials ticket charges[;] (c) Textbooks and school supplies,” although districts may charge for extracurricular activities. The second document, a 2003 state Department of Education memo sent to every public school district and charter school, provides examples of items that the districts “must provide … free of charge” for required or elective courses, including “[p]encils, paper, crayons, scissors, glue sticks” and “[t]extbooks (regular or supplemental).”
So the law is clear. Yet given some Michigan public school websites, parents could be forgiven for thinking that they’re on the hook for basic school supplies. Consider, for instance, the online shopping list of Waterford School District’s Beaumont Elementary School. The list includes the following language:
Below are generic grade level supply lists for this year. Please refer to the list of the grade level your child will be entering. At the Meet & Greet, your child’s teacher may add an item or two, but the majority of the needed supplies are listed. We hope this helps with the back to school rush!
Every student needs a pair of clean, light-soled gym shoes to be left at school for physical education class. Please make sure they fit! Every student needs a backpack or book bag that will fit into a locker. Backpacks with wheels do not fit! Every student needs an old shirt to use as a “paint shirt” for art class.
Immediately below this language are separate supply lists for grades K-5, presented without further instruction or comment.
Now the school could respond that this Web page satisfies the letter of the law (the principal of the school did not return a phone call). After all, the main page hyperlink bringing readers to the online list refers to a “suggested Back to School Shopping list”; moreover, gym shoes are an item that the state Department of Education has argued (dubiously) that parents can be legally asked to provide. In addition, the school might conceivably have had other, more accurate communications with parents about school supplies.
But the page itself leaves the distinct impression that the lengthy grade-by-grade lists that follow are mandatory. The words “needed supplies” are used to describe the grade-by-grade lists, and the word “needs” appears repeatedly before those lists follow. Further, the fifth-grade list contains several items described as “optional,” reinforcing the impression that the other items are mandatory. In fact, if a parent printed the online list to take to the store, language indicating that the list wasn’t mandatory would be nowhere in sight.
Parents might be similarly confused by the online student supply list for St. Clair High School in East China School District. “Parents and Guardians” of the school’s students are told: “The following pages contain items your student will need upon returning in the fall of 2011. We hope that by providing this list at this time, you and your student will be able to locate these necessary items.”
Parents are also informed, “When gathering or purchasing items for next school year, many items are for use in multiple classes and do not need to be purchased for each specific class" — implying that they do nevertheless need to be purchased for at least one. Four pages of items for 10 school subjects then follow. One of the items is marked “optional,” while another is marked “recommended,” suggesting, as with Beaumont Elementary, that the other listed items are required.
In fairness, the list at one point states, “[P]lease do your best to outfit your student with as many items as possible” — a hint that supply purchases might not be compulsory. And when questioned about the list by an editor for Michigan Capitol Confidential, St. Clair High School Principal Ronald Miller immediately volunteered that the school would freely provide all students with the school supplies they would need — something he believed that the parents of his school’s students were already well aware of.
It is also fair to note that the St. Clair High School main page text hyperlinking to the supply list twice describes the list as “recommended” — but it is equally fair to note that the main page did not do so before Mr. Miller spoke to Michigan Capitol Confidential. Until sometime during the day of Aug. 22, the main page simply titled the list as the “2011-12 Student Supply List.”
True, the main page, before it was altered, did include some ambiguous language — such as describing the list as “recommended/required” — that might indicate that purchasing the supplies was not mandatory. But unfortunately, the phrase “recommended/required” actually suggested the opposite when coupled with the “optional” and “recommended” items on the list itself. If two items were “optional” and “recommended,” then everything else, by implication, was required.
A random scan of other public school websites finds that while some are more explicit about acknowledging that the schools will provide all necessary supplies, others use potentially misleading language like “needs” and “necessary” in supply lists for parents.
Given that the law on this issue is so clear, an important question remains: Why should there be any ambiguity in districts’ website notices to parents about school supplies? In other words, why don’t districts simply state: “Our public school district is legally responsible for all your children’s necessary school supplies. Parents are not required to buy these supplies, though they may do so if they wish”?
Sadly, it may be that some schools are reluctant to publicly commit themselves to such spending when they feel finances are tight. Tellingly, the 2003 State Department of Education memo about free school supplies hinted at a similar concern, observing, “Given recent budget challenges, many local school districts are under pressure.”
Yet districts have entirely legal means to liberate money for classroom supplies, including the privatization of noninstructional services. Districts could also provide less generous salaries and benefits to school employees during collective bargaining negotiations.
Parents are, of course, perfectly free to buy their children’s school supplies as a contribution to their school districts and to their children’s education. But public schools cannot — and should not — require parents to buy school supplies. Given the unequivocal state of the law on this issue, districts should ensure that school personnel are explicit in all their communications with parents that it is the schools, not the parents, who are responsible for outfitting students with the educational supplies that the children need to complete their schoolwork.
I don't want to live under a government that 'allows' citizens to have children or not.
(I agree with your sentiment, however)
Sounds pretty typical.
When I listened to Boortz regularly (years ago; I found after becoming a regular on FR that I didn’t get much new information there), he would always get callers backing him up on this story, as you have here. It’s everywhere. I bet they teach doing this in Elementary Education classes in the Colleges of Education across the country.
Here is something that will just make you shake your head. In our County, there is a “school exhibit”... nice term for one day prior to the start of school where every low income kid in the county receives a brand new backpack filled with what they would need. Crayons, colored pencils, pencils, folders etc... Our County has a HUGE population of illegals. First day of school... the supplies are taken from the children. Guess which kids didn’t bring their supplies in to be “re-distributed?” You guess it. I assume they just keep them at home. They showed up with their free backpack and not so much as ONE pencil in it. So, we are duped twice in a way. Our taxes go to providing the freebies. Then OUR supplies (that we pay for out of our budget and salary) are again handed out to them.
I’m not anywhere done with this issue. I have simply decided when an appropriate setting/time would be to address it. That being said, it will be a cold day in Hades before I send in another bunch of pencils, crayons, colored pencils, or glue sticks. Makes me mad enough that I want to just spit.
Good; you should be; recruit your friends to be mad with you and organize.
I wonder how much of the "redistribution" crap is really so the teacher can pocket the allowance they get for classroom supplies?
Not to sound like I am weak but we are in a bit of a tricky position right now. Our five year old is having somewhat a difficult time adjusting to all day kindergarten. (I will say by Friday she was A-okay but it was a heck of a week). I know the teacher somewhat personally... that is, she was a fantastic teacher for our older two kids when they had her. I think it has become a County wide policy and the teacher/principal can’t disobey a county rule. My plan on questioning this practice can be done with cooler heads (uh, mine) and in a setting where it is just the teacher and us (husband and me). Now, if this is a count wide policy, my “school supply days” are over. I will hide an extra pencil for my child in her backpack. If it is a school policy (one that can be enforced or not) then my letter to the principal will follow. Since I know the teacher for many years, I know she isn’t the type of woman to just come up with this on her own.
I have the strong feeling that since so many other states have a similar policy, it must be the liberal education view/policy instead of a school to school one.
First, thank you for posting the entire article. I’ve consciously avoided your articles in the past because they were excerpted.
After reading the whole article, I come away with one thought: yep, the government schools are entirely broken. Michigan residents pay high property taxes (the sales tax deal was a joke). For those high taxes, they get theft, indoctrination, and a so-so babysitting service that provides a perfect example to Michigan children why the government favors people who are entirely dependent on it.
(BTW, back in the 70’s when I attended Michigan schools, there were supply lists. Some supplies we kept; others went into a common bin.)
Now there's the million dollar point. Here in NE Ohio all the local school districts have deals with Walmart etc - there are posted supply lists for each school right in the back-to-school section for one-stop shopping. In contrast, we know someone who teaches at one of the inner city Cleveland schools who has to buy toilet paper for her own classroom, and often spends her own money to make sure her students have what they need.
Meanwhile here in our district, which receives benefit of my tax dollars while I homeschool, they are claiming financial crisis despite 3.5 million in cuts over the last 3 years and passage of a "much-needed" levy last year. This levy was on the ballot in 2009 and the school district claimed they would have to eliminate high school busing if it didn't pass. It failed, they took away high school busing in 2010, and the levy passed that November, but of course busing didn't return in 2011. Now they're talking of needing another 3 levies totaling 8.5 million over the next five years to get out of the red, which means about 500 bucks more a year in property taxes for me.
For pete's sake, where does all the money go? Oh wait, there's still a teacher's union.
My question would be, "Should public school districts require taxpayers to buy necessary school supplies for other people's children?"
Fact is, if you can't afford kids, don't have them.
Back in the day, every room had a pencil sharpener mounted on the wall. It did not move, and it was always there, every year. Why would they need to replace it with another? Are they made that poorly now that they need frequent replacement?
Last I checked, our government does require a license of those who desire to procreate. We call it a “marriage license.” To procreate children outside holy matrimony constitutes grave sin (not to mention a serious offense against the state). Married couples can (and should) procreate children (plural).
I know of few parents who possess the financial resources necessary to rear a child before conceiving that child (with an adequate reserve for all possible contingencies), and parents can undergo much unforeseen hardship during their child-rearing decades. For example, the parents may develop physical (or psychological) maladies, lose employment, suffer natural disasters, die, or endure any of various other hardships that leave them temporarily (or permanently) without the means to generate the income necessary to provide for their children.
The socioeconomic problems of this country, however, stem primarily from these horrible statistics from 2008:
22.2% of all babies intentionally killed before birth
33.2% of all babies born to “unmarried women” (40.6% of all live births)
In fairness to the “unmarried women” who give birth, many of them were married when they conceived the child, but the husband (or very rarely, the wife) died after conception but before childbirth, ending the marriage. The proportion of all babies born under such circumstances, based on personal observation, however, is probably less than 3%. If it’s 10% or more, then that statistic alone demonstrates how sick American males are.
For the babies intentionally killed before birth, no one can make any valid excuse, although the severe confusion rampant in modern society along with duress and other factors can reduce the guilt of the mothers. May God forgive them and have mercy on them.
So I conclude that a significant proportion of American males lack the respect for women that heretofore characterized Western civilization (or for that matter, any successful society). Even cave-dwelling hunter-gatherers married man with woman to provide for the rearing of their posterity. A society so sick that most babies never meet the father (married to the mother) cannot survive long in its present degraded state.
>>Our five year old is having somewhat a difficult time adjusting to all day kindergarten.<<
Pull her out and homeschool her.
There is no need to send her there.
Maryland’s homeschool laws are easy. It’s a state with moderate regulation: State requires parents to send notification, test scores, and/or professional evaluation of student progress. (from HSLDA)
My daughter had the same thing happen. I spend the big bucks for erasable colored pencils that ended up in the “share bin”. I walked in the next day to get them but they weren’t there. I told the teacher that I expected them back in my hand by that evening. Either she got them back from the kid that she “shared” to or on her lunch she could drive to Walmart and get another set. If neither could be done, I expected the 5.00 in my hand (they were a brand new product and pricey).
I had them in my hand at 3:30 and in a year and a half my daughter was homeschooled.
I’m not going to put up with theft.
It’s the economy stupid! :0)
There are electronic ones....and everytime someone sharpens a pencil the noise stops the whole class.
That’s theft. I wouldn’t tolerate an adult stealing my kids stuff.
So basically, it's the male's fault, eh? Last I heard, it takes 2 to tango, and given that it's the woman that "risks" (for lack of a better word) pregnancy due to unmarried sex, shouldn't the woman share at least half the blame in these situations? I mean, she is the gatekeeper after all.
I am definitely going to look into this and research it. All day kindergarten is just too long. My two older kids went to 1/2 a day. It was long enough to get adjusted to a school environment and learn some things. By the time they started getting tired, it was time to go home. All day... little ones are expected to be great even when extremely tired. I think it is nuts.
>>I think it is nuts.<<
If it doesn’t feel right, it’s not right.
You’re the mom and you know your child better than anyone. They will tell you they know your child, but no one knows her like you do.
You have lots of support here. Just tons of FReepers are here to help you. She deserves her pencils and the security of home.
It was the best decision I ever made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.