While your faithful blogger is digging up posts from the past, concerning public schools, here is another oldie but goodie. This one is about textbook rentals.
Textbook Rentals. That's what someone from the superintendent's office
at Vermillion, USD 380, in Kansas told yours truly about the unlawful
tuition that Dean Dalinghaus, the principal of Frankfort School, in
Frankfort, Kansas, charges the parents of the unlucky children who
attend his institution. According to federal law, there is no such thing
as a "textbook rental" in a public school for a required course. If a
student loses or destroys a textbook, it is, of course, another matter;
but Frankfort has no legal business charging any parent 50.00 for its
moth eaten, outdated, information-challenged tomes that are seldom even
read by students.
Prior to paying for a "textbook rental", each parent should inspect the
property for which the unlawful tuition is purported to pay. Is the
textbook torn up or missing pages? Was it published in 1953? Was it
written and compiled by authors whose contributions to the subject
matter have been superseded by better authorities? If so, the school
should not charge, in the name of state and federal government, for the
use of the published material.
The savvy parent should also call the publishing company used by the
school and inquire about the actual prices paid by the school for these
textbooks. Have the books already been paid off, many times over, by
parents who have paid "textbook rentals"? If so, it is very
inappropriate and legally questionable, even in cases wherein such a fee
is legal, to force a parent to pay for such a thing. How much would the
publishing company charge a parent for a new or used textbook?
Shouldn't the parent have this information, up front, before paying
rental fees? One would not rent a car, or a home, without knowing the
actual cost of purchase, so why not find out how much a used book would
cost?
USD 380 and Dean Dalinghaus should stop charging tuition for public
school. If Dalinghaus wishes to charge parents more money than the
actual value of his product, he should attempt to pimp his product in
the private market for childhood education, and find out, there, the
actual value of his services and textbooks.
Textbook Rentals. That's what someone from the superintendent's office at Vermillion, USD 380, in Kansas told yours truly about the unlawful tuition that Dean Dalinghaus, the principal of Frankfort School, in Frankfort, Kansas, charges the parents of the unlucky children who attend his institution. According to federal law, there is no such thing as a "textbook rental" in a public school for a required course. If a student loses or destroys a textbook, it is, of course, another matter; but Frankfort has no legal business charging any parent 50.00 for its moth eaten, outdated, information-challenged tomes that are seldom even read by students.
Prior to paying for a "textbook rental", each parent should inspect the property for which the unlawful tuition is purported to pay. Is the textbook torn up or missing pages? Was it published in 1953? Was it written and compiled by authors whose contributions to the subject matter have been superseded by better authorities? If so, the school should not charge, in the name of state and federal government, for the use of the published material.
The savvy parent should also call the publishing company used by the school and inquire about the actual prices paid by the school for these textbooks. Have the books already been paid off, many times over, by parents who have paid "textbook rentals"? If so, it is very inappropriate and legally questionable, even in cases wherein such a fee is legal, to force a parent to pay for such a thing. How much would the publishing company charge a parent for a new or used textbook? Shouldn't the parent have this information, up front, before paying rental fees? One would not rent a car, or a home, without knowing the actual cost of purchase, so why not find out how much a used book would cost?
USD 380 and Dean Dalinghaus should stop charging tuition for public school. If Dalinghaus wishes to charge parents more money than the actual value of his product, he should attempt to pimp his product in the private market for childhood education, and find out, there, the actual value of his services and textbooks.
Mischell Miller, what was your phone call really all about? You have never met me, or to my knowledge, any of my children. You are brand new at your post as superintendent at Vermilion Schools, USD 380, and it is quite clear to me that while you have met your employees, you do not know them very well. I spoke out about an incident that took place on March 3 of this year, in which a gun was taken to school by an eighteen year old senior, named Casey Farrant. Young Mr. Farrant was already on probation for a drunk driving incident that seriously injured four people, including himself. He was also out on bond for another crime. Yet he continued to be embraced by the school administration, no matter how much of a danger he posed to the other children, and to the staff. So why, when he took a weapon into the building, was he not expelled, according to the Gun Free School Zones Act?
A newer version of that law, first enacted in 1990, gives a state school board, which we don't really have here in Kansas, (unified school districts make that impossible) the authority to override the severity and not expel a student. But was Casey Farrant the student who would deserve such mercy and favor? Not only was he an adult at the time; he had a criminal record, to boot! Drugs were also found in his car. Was this the time for Principal Dean Dalinghaus to establish that guns are okay in Frankfort High School, and that there are no actual consequences when a student who isn't supposed to possess a gun in the first place decides to bring one to school and make threats? Keep in mind, Dean Dalingahus once tried to expel a disabled student because he was a VICTIM of several Frankfort bullies. Go ahead, Mischell, read it. You can shake it up and sprinkle it out any way you please; your principal will still be wrong. Very wrong. And don't even start with pretending you know how he would react, and that his actions must certainly have been correct, because he is a building administrator: I already spoke with witnesses and with the victim, as did my daughter. We know what happened, and we informed Deanie-Boy of the law. Why did we have to? Why didn't he obey the law in the first place and discipline the students who were actually in the wrong? Only Jesus knows! But feel free to call me. I can give you more information about the incident, and let you know what the victim's healthcare provider and what his ad litem had to say about it. That's the day I truly started to hate Dean Dalinghaus and his trashy little school. No kidding.
I mentioned the practice of speaking with witnesses and victims. Yes, that is helpful, when "conducting an investigation" (did you really do that, about the Casey Farrant thing?) or just finding out what happened in a school where all the employees prevaricate and sweep unlawful behaviors under the rug. You mentioned to me that you "investigated" the problems encountered by Frankfort High School, prior to taking your new position as superintendent. Then you expressed surprise that three students were arrested there during the school year of 2014-2015, not just one. I agree, in a school that only has about one hundred and fifty students from kindergarten to twelfth grade, Deanie-boy really should have been in better control of all of them. But then, the student with the loaded gun was actually in charge, wasn't he? If that isn't disturbing enough, you should be unhappily surprised about not having been told the whole story by those you supervise. I am not surprised at all, but as I stated earlier, you apparently don't know them very well. I do have a question for you at this juncture, though; how does one conduct an "investigation", especially a thorough one, without talking to any of the witnesses? The answer is simple: you don't. You didn't really investigate anything. And that should bother you a lot more than it bothers me. After all, you are the one in daily contact with people who allow guns taken into their places of employment by people who have been convicted of crimes and are out on bond, awaiting trial for even more crime. The fact that the guns are most likely obtained from parents who also do not care about the safety of anyone for whom you are responsible should bother you, too.
My guess, after your call, was that your contact was somehow all about damage control. I do not believe you have any concerns about my preferences, my past experience with life, or my children. I am not altogether sure that you care about federal law, either. I also don't think you have the guts to stand up to the adult bullies in this berg and let them know you make your own decisions about what you do with your time, and with whom you spend it. I do not see that you are individuated that much, as a person. In my experience, those who are usually listen, rather than defend what they do not understand. And you are defending a tragedy waiting to happen. Isn't it ironic that a tragedy involving a shooting happened at a school in Roseburg, Oregon the very day after you called? "Oh....that won't happen here," you might say. Well guess what; Casey Farrant actually did take the gun to school here in Frankfort! Rather than allowing Dean Dalinghaus and Company to put the safety of all of our children and our Second Amendment rights at risk, why not simply insist upon compliance with federal law about all things that go on in both of your schools?
A Jackson County, Ohio middle school used to have a stupid looking, White-Jesus picture hanging from a railing on a staircase, until the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the school on behalf of the more intelligent parents and students to take the offensive thing down. The superintendent of Jackson County Schools pointed out that the school insurance company refused to insure the school against lawsuits inspired by the subtle expression of a preference for one religion over another, so he removed it. That was very smart. It's too bad Northeast Kansas schools will not learn a lesson about lawsuits, insurance to cover damages won by parties with reasons to sue the occasional erring school, and the dumb shit fundamentalist Christian teachers and administrators often do to encourage lawsuits.
If that picture were to stay, there should be other pictures alongside it. Perhaps one like this:
For the sake of documentation, I always publish my letters to the superintendant of my childrens' school. That makes documentation easy to obtain at a moment's notice, and it's also an interesting snapshot of how schools are run in Northeast Kansas. I have attempted to protect such information as whole names or proper nouns.
Dear Mr. FXXX,
Yesterday, at school, my daughter, RXXX, had an interaction with another student, SXXX, that required an incident report. SXXX had an injury to his leg that was healing, and RXXX noticed a scab and asked him about it. He asked her what she was talking about, and she touched the scab. He winced, and then claimed that he had reinjured himself. Mrs. XXXX did not think that the incident was worthy of an indicent report at first, and knew that RXXX was not attempting to harm SXXX, so she let it go. Later, that evening, while I was driving home from elsewhere in this town, I noticed that a vehicle was following me. When I parked in front of my house, SXXX's mother, Janet HXXX, stopped in the middle of the road for a minute, and then pulled in front of my van and parked her car. She and SXXX got out, and proceeded to hollar, blame, cry fake tears, and told me that RXXX should "have to go to court" because it was her fault he winced and got hurt. I asked for documentation, and they had none. I told them that the conversation was over, and they stayed and continued to yell. I went inside, and called Mrs. XXXX and got her version of events, which is what I think Janet HXXX should have done. If she was upset enough to seek me out after school was over for the day, why did not Dean DXXX or Tom SXXX handle it, and if truly necessary, call me to the school and discuss it there with RXXX, Janet, SXXX, and myself? Leaving Janet to the wind was wrong; she should have had recourse to the school. If she did have recourse to the school officials yet chose to harass me anyway, then she committed a crime, and I will follow up on it.
I spoke with Sheriff Dan HXXXX this afternoon about my encounter with her. He told me he would visit her and tell her to leave me alone. Yet, when I went to see my daughters in the school play tonight, she was there! Why? I asked Dianna YXXX and Tom SXXX what the procedures are when the sheriff tells someone to stay away from someone else, and I am the injured party here......she's the one who came to me wanting to harass me, not the other way around. Tom SXXX yelled at me and denied any responsibility and Dianna YXXX told me that she called the sheriff herself and was told that Dan and I never talked. I called the police on my cell phone (she would not let me use the school phone) and they told me that they did not tell her that. The police have no reason to tell me something that isn't true, so as far as I'm concerned, I was lied to by Dianna YXXX. Tom SXXX does have a measure of responsibility for incidents such as the one that happened between RXXX and SXXX, and his behavior was unprofessional. Dianna YXXX also told me that Janet told her that she never even confronted me about the incident, and that I was lying. I guess it's easy to get away with things like that when documentation does not take place. Once again, I do not fault Mrs SXXX for not writing an incident report because she didn't think it was necessary, but if a parent was as upset as Janet was last night, wanting to blame me, even though I was nowhere near the school when it happened, why didn't Dean call me to talk to me and RXXX at the same time about it? Someone did a crappy job of handling the whole thing, and it wasn't me.
Because Janet harassed and stalked me, I intend to follow it up with the police. I would really appreciate it if your school personnel would keep their opinions that I am "a bad person", or that "what I said wasn't true" to themselves. Also, if I get a restraining order against her, or if the sheriff tells her to leave me alone, I think I should be the one to be able to enjoy sharing my childrens' education with them, while she leaves me alone. I think the school should be more concerned with protecting me, since she was willing to harass me after school hours without any documentation of what happened. I don't think anyone should blame me for being upset, and if they do, I think they should keep it to themselves. I do not drive to peoples' houses and scare them, she does. Please remind everyone to keep their obvious and unwarrented disrespect for me under wraps. My children are starting to notice, and I am tired of it.
I deserve an apology from Tom SXXX for the way he spoke to me, and since he did it in public, perhaps he should apologize in public.
Several months ago, I wrote a letter to the superintendent of my childrens' school concerning the presence of adults, unaccounted for, in the building. Since then, I have been given the cold shoulder, and my children have been encouraged by the school to treat my husband and myself with scorn and disrespect for such things as insisting that they be home by a certain time every evening, that they never consume alcohol, and that we know where they are at all times. After the incident that occured yesterday, in Connectucut, at Sandy Hook Elementary, I decided to repost this letter, because of the relevance.
Here's a letter I wrote to the
superintendent of schools in the school district that includes my childrens'
school. I have substituted the letter X for proper nouns, as identities of
individuals and places are not necessary to the point of my letter.
Dear Mr. XXXX,
I was in the office at XXXX
School yesterday, returning two of my children to school after an appointment at
the eye doctor. One of the first people I noticed, because he was out of place,
was a Mr. HXXXX, (I have forgotton his first name) who lives in town, but no
longer has any children who attend this school. Not only did his name NOT appear
on the sign-in sheet that you told me would remain in the office for any adult
who visits the building but is not on the payroll; I am curious about the need
for his volunteer services and his qualifications. My children cannot
participate in certain sports, because you have spurned my offers to volunteer
based on my popularity scores here in XXXX that have little to do with my
character or other qualifications, which probably, by far, exceed the
qualifications of other parents who volunteer at your school. Have you checked
the criminal record of Mr. HXXXX? His two sons, who are both young adults, still
live in his house, and I have personally heard them both discuss the use of
illegal drugs. Mr. HXXXX was physically present when his sons were speaking.
Apparently, Mr.HXXXX does not take prohibition laws seriously. After hearing
those comments, I do not allow my daughter to even visit that home to buy Avon
from his wife. I don't want my children in that type of environment. Also, I
have seen him allow minors, his sons, when they were still in high school, to
drink beer in his home. This is not the person I find appropriate to volunteer
in the school, and share his "influence" with my children, thankyou very much.
Also, since this is such a small town, and since at least one of Mr. HXXXX's
children has experienced "run-ins" with the law in the past, in connection to
violations of prohibition laws and alcohol, I will contend that your principal,
Mr. DXXXX, was aware of this, yet welcomed him into the building anyway.
Since the rules apply
stringently to yours truly, to the extent of her own children not being able to
participate in sports because the adult/child ratio is unsafe in your school
during these activities, and that does not bother you; I am curious to know why
Mr. HXXXX, who violates the law in connection to children and alcohol in ways I
would never even consider, is welcomed with open arms into your building. Would
you please explain the bias to me? Also, why is he not required to sign in, as I
do, whenever I enter your building? Why does his wife use your school as a venue
for her Avon business? I sold Avon on the East Coast, and would never have
considered a school building an appropriate place to dispense product and
collect revenue for same. This takes the attention of teachers and other staff
away from children and creates an atmosphere of business other than education.
It is not safe for the students. Please make it stop.
I have one more question
for you. Is this IP number, XXXX, in
any way associated with computers in your school buildings? If so, you have at
least one teacher who harrasses others for political reasons. My children and I
should NOT KNOW where anyone on your staff stands on issues such as abortion,
yet we do, and we should certainly not know for whom any of your teachers
intends to vote! Please ask them to all be less obvious about their political
stances.
Sincerely,
XXXX
............In all fairness, I should
convey that the superintendent did respond to my letter, the same day he got it.
He told me that the sign-in sheet in the office would be in use from now on,
whether the local Kansas folk wished for that or not. He also told me that the
Avon Lady would no longer be making stops at the school, as this is against
policy for several reasons. I should add that the Avon Lady also never bothers
to sign in at my childrens' school, and moves freely through the building as if
she worked there or had children there. Neither apply to her.
The
superintendent was not able to explain the inherent nastiness and unjust
prejudism expressed by these people toward myself and other members of my
family. He was not able to explain the constant pressure to vote for a
presidential candidate who is not of my choosing. He was also not able to tell
me why my children and I even know for whom most of these teachers intend to
vote. He and I both agreed that if a child ever disappears from this particular
school or is otherwise harmed there, the FBI will be VERY interested in the
number of unofficially present adults in the school from day to day, and in
their identities, activities, and criminal records. That said, it seems to me
that persons who have unlawful recreational drugs in their homes from time to
time, and persons who allow minors to drink alcoholic beverages in their homes,
should take heed.
Here's a letter I wrote to the superintendent of schools in the school district that includes my childrens' school. I have substituted the letter X for proper nouns, as identities of individuals and places are not necessary to the point of my letter.
Dear Mr. XXXX,
I was in the office at
XXXX School yesterday, returning two of my children to school after an
appointment at the eye doctor. One of the first people I noticed, because he was
out of place, was a Mr. HXXXX, (I have forgotton his first name) who lives in
town, but no longer has any children who attend this school. Not only did his
name NOT appear on the sign-in sheet that you told me would remain in the office
for any adult who visits the building but is not on the payroll; I am curious
about the need for his volunteer services and his qualifications. My children
cannot participate in certain sports, because you have spurned my offers to
volunteer based on my popularity scores here in XXXX that have little to do
with my character or other qualifications, which probably, by far, exceed the
qualifications of other parents who volunteer at your school. Have you checked
the criminal record of Mr. HXXXX? His two sons, who are both young adults,
still live in his house, and I have personally heard them both discuss the use
of illegal drugs. Mr. HXXXX was physically present when his sons were
speaking. Apparently, Mr.HXXXX does not take prohibition laws seriously.
After hearing those comments, I do not allow my daughter to even visit that home
to buy Avon from his wife. I don't want my children in that type of environment.
Also, I have seen him allow minors, his sons, when they were still in high
school, to drink beer in his home. This is not the person I find appropriate to
volunteer in the school, and share his "influence" with my children, thankyou
very much. Also, since this is such a small town, and since at least one of Mr. HXXXX's children has experienced "run-ins" with the law in the past, in
connection to violations of prohibition laws and alcohol, I will contend that
your principal, Mr. DXXXX, was aware of this, yet welcomed him into the
building anyway.
Since the rules apply
stringently to yours truly, to the extent of her own children not being able to
participate in sports because the adult/child ratio is unsafe in your school
during these activities, and that does not bother you; I am curious to know why
Mr. HXXXX, who violates the law in connection to children and alcohol in ways
I would never even consider, is welcomed with open arms into your building.
Would you please explain the bias to me? Also, why is he not required to sign
in, as I do, whenever I enter your building? Why does his wife use your school
as a venue for her Avon business? I sold Avon on the East Coast, and would
never have considered a school building an appropriate place to dispense product
and collect revenue for same. This takes the attention of teachers and other
staff away from children and creates an atmosphere of business other than
education. It is not safe for the students. Please make it stop.
I have one more question
for you. Is this IP number, XXXX, in any way associated with computers in
your school buildings? If so, you have at least one teacher who harrasses others
for political reasons. My children and I should NOT KNOW where anyone on your
staff stands on issues such as abortion, yet we do, and we should certainly not
know for whom any of your teachers intends to vote! Please ask them to all be
less obvious about their political stances.
Sincerely,
XXXX
............In all fairness, I should convey that the superintendent did respond to my letter, the same day he got it. He told me that the sign-in sheet in the office would be in use from now on, whether the local Kansas folk wished for that or not. He also told me that the Avon Lady would no longer be making stops at the school, as this is against policy for several reasons. I should add that the Avon Lady also never bothers to sign in at my childrens' school, and moves freely through the building as if she worked there or had children there. Neither apply to her.
The superintendent was not able to explain the inherent nastiness and unjust prejudism expressed by these people toward myself and other members of my family. He was not able to explain the constant pressure to vote for a presidential candidate who is not of my choosing. He was also not able to tell me why my children and I even know for whom most of these teachers intend to vote. He and I both agreed that if a child ever disappears from this particular school or is otherwise harmed there, the FBI will be VERY interested in the number of unofficially present adults in the school from day to day, and in their identities, activities, and criminal records. That said, it seems to me that persons who have unlawful recreational drugs in their homes from time to time, and persons who allow minors to drink alcoholic beverages in their homes, should take heed.
