My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

I woke up at 3:00 and stood outside in line for three hours this morning
to get my son admitted into school. There were only ten openings for his
class (at this school), and he made it at number ten! I drove by last
night to see if anyone was camping out, and, at 8pm, nobody was. Even so,
several people were there ahead of me this morning. People had sleeping
bags, parkas, thermoses of coffee – the whole nine yards.

He only starts pre-K this fall. It’s seems strange that a parent must
have this level of determination to get his child into a good school at
such a young age.

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9317708CB5369nwolfenbargerlasyesc@64.23.60.23
> I woke up at 3:00 and stood outside in line for three hours this morning
> to get my son admitted into school. There were only ten openings for his
> class (at this school), and he made it at number ten! I drove by last
> night to see if anyone was camping out, and, at 8pm, nobody was. Even so,
> several people were there ahead of me this morning. People had sleeping
> bags, parkas, thermoses of coffee – the whole nine yards.
>
> He only starts pre-K this fall. It’s seems strange that a parent must
> have this level of determination to get his child into a good school at
> such a young age.

Just curious (since I’ll probably be in a similar situation in about 5 years
:slight_smile: What makes it a “good” school compared to the others? Why do you think
the demand was so high?

I wonder if this is a regional thing, or something that happens nationwide


Rodney Blackwell - http://www.5r5.net

“I’m the latest craze” - Macy Gray

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

I don’t think that there’s anything that defines a good school that
isn’t obvious by common sense: class sizes, resources, teacher
qualifications, test scores, etc. Las Vegas in general has high dropout
rates and not-so-great test scores, so any private school is pretty much
by default better than the public ones.

For such young ages, it’s debatable how much better one private school
is than another. However, this school is in demand for a couple reasons.
The prices are more reasonable than most. (A few here have tuitions of
over $15,000 - ouch) Also, existing students are given first shot to the
higher grades, including high school where the competition for admission
to the academy is extremely fierce. Also, this school has a brand new
campus in a convenient location, which certainly doesn’t hurt.

There are certainly many communities in the country that have perfectly
good and even excellent public schools. Unfortunately, I don’t live in
one of those places. Most of the high schools have metal detectors at
the doors, gangs, apathetic teachers and so on, and because my son is
black, he will have to face even additional pressures.

“Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in
news:b1mfhg$f8$1@www.darklock.com:
>
> Just curious (since I’ll probably be in a similar situation in about 5
> years
>:-) What makes it a “good” school compared to the others? Why do you
>:think
> the demand was so high?
>
> I wonder if this is a regional thing, or something that happens
> nationwide
>
> –
> Rodney Blackwell - http://www.5r5.net
> ---------------------------------------------------
> “I’m the latest craze” - Macy Gray
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message

Thanks for the breakdown. I don’t think I put 2 and 2 together and figured
out you were talking about private school.

Do you think your son would face less “additional challenges” if he were in
private school? That was an interesting comment :slight_smile:


Rodney Blackwell - http://www.5r5.net

“I’m the latest craze” - Macy Gray

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

Not sure how to answer this.

Peer influences from other African-American kids in public school may
be less positive that peer influences from African-American kids in
private school. Grades and test scores for blacks in public schools are
significantly lower, on average, than white kids. In general, incomes
are lower, parents have less education, etc. My hope is that the more
wealthy, educated black families my son is in contact with, the more
likely he will be to follow suit.

There is also the issue of teachers’ assumptions and preconceptions. It
is very common for teachers to pigeonhole children and, consciously or
not, to lump them in categories. In a private school, classes are
smaller, less racially-motivated grouping occurs, and parents generally
are able to have more direct communication with teachers, principals,
administrators and so on.

I want my child’s teachers to assume he is going to college.

“Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in
news:b1mjlm$5t7$1@www.darklock.com:

> Do you think your son would face less “additional challenges” if he
> were in private school? That was an interesting comment :slight_smile:
>
> –
> Rodney Blackwell - http://www.5r5.net
> ---------------------------------------------------
> “I’m the latest craze” - Macy Gray
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93178637789F1nwolfenbargerlasyesc@64.23.60.23
> Not sure how to answer this.

I figured it might be a tough one. It’s the first time I’ve heard you broach
an even semi-controversial type topic :slight_smile:

Interesting answer though…I didn’t know some of that stuff (although I
probably should have).


Rodney Blackwell - http://www.5r5.net

“I’m the latest craze” - Macy Gray

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

You don’t remember that one of the reasons I first started posting here
was in righteous indignation over what I felt were extreme inaccuracies
in a discussion about Bush’s tax proposals.

“Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in
news:b1mm6r$8kj$1@www.darklock.com:
>
> I figured it might be a tough one. It’s the first time I’ve heard you
> broach an even semi-controversial type topic :slight_smile:

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

I assumed public schools in LV would be really nice, given the 8 billion
in gambling taxes alone. Are they really that bad (as bad as other
state’s public schools), or just bad compared to private schools in the
area?


Jay Tierney - http://www.moovees.com

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93178637789F1nwolfenbargerlasyesc@64.23.60.23
> Not sure how to answer this.
>
> Peer influences from other African-American kids in public school
may
> be less positive that peer influences from African-American kids in
> private school. Grades and test scores for blacks in public schools
are
> significantly lower, on average, than white kids. In general, incomes
> are lower, parents have less education, etc. My hope is that the more
> wealthy, educated black families my son is in contact with, the more
> likely he will be to follow suit.
>
> There is also the issue of teachers’ assumptions and preconceptions.
It
> is very common for teachers to pigeonhole children and, consciously or
> not, to lump them in categories. In a private school, classes are
> smaller, less racially-motivated grouping occurs, and parents
generally
> are able to have more direct communication with teachers, principals,
> administrators and so on.
>
> I want my child’s teachers to assume he is going to college.
>
> “Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in
> news:b1mjlm$5t7$1@www.darklock.com:
>
> > Do you think your son would face less “additional challenges” if he
> > were in private school? That was an interesting comment :slight_smile:
> >
> > –
> > Rodney Blackwell - http://www.5r5.net
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > “I’m the latest craze” - Macy Gray
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

Ned Wolfenbarger wrote:
>
> He only starts pre-K this fall. It’s seems strange that a parent must
> have this level of determination to get his child into a good school at
> such a young age.

I congratulate you for being so involved in your son’s milestones. My
eldest son (who is 15) will be in college in the middle of this year. I
believe I share a common feeling of “excitedness” with you.


Peter N. Go - mailto:peter@icthus.net

http://CGI-City.net
http://Page-Templates.com http://ArticleCity.com
http://ZenSearch.com http://BannerBuild.com
http://RegisterGuy.com http://BudgetWebHost.com
http://NewsCuts.com http://FreeMailWeb.com

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

None of that money is earmarked for education. Real-estate taxes pay for
the schools. Don’t quote me on this because the info may be a little out
of date, but Nevada for years has had the second lowest per pupil
spending in the nation.

I don’t think the public schools here are terrible, but neither do I
think they are particularly good. I can’t really speak directly on their
quality compared to other cities or states in general.

A small handful of public magnet high schools have been built here in
the past few years: a performing arts school, a technology school, etc.
You have to apply and be accepted to attend these. It will take a few
more years before I’m ready to make a judgment on their quality.

“Jay Tierney” <jay@jaytierney.com> wrote in
news:b1n91b$sfv$1@www.darklock.com:

> I assumed public schools in LV would be really nice, given the 8
> billion in gambling taxes alone. Are they really that bad (as bad as
> other state’s public schools), or just bad compared to private schools
> in the area?

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

Thank you, and congratulations right back at ya’.

“Peter N. Go” <peter@icthus.net> wrote in
news:3E3F63DC.27D5D3C5@icthus.net:

> Ned Wolfenbarger wrote:
>>
>> He only starts pre-K this fall. It’s seems strange that a parent must
>> have this level of determination to get his child into a good school
>> at such a young age.
>
> I congratulate you for being so involved in your son’s milestones. My
> eldest son (who is 15) will be in college in the middle of this year.
> I believe I share a common feeling of “excitedness” with you.
>

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

College at 15?
Talk about Doogie Howser. :slight_smile:


Tom B.

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93184D546FA1Anwolfenbargerlasyesc@64.23.60.23
> Thank you, and congratulations right back at ya’.
>
> “Peter N. Go” <peter@icthus.net> wrote in
> news:3E3F63DC.27D5D3C5@icthus.net:
>
> > Ned Wolfenbarger wrote:[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> He only starts pre-K this fall. It’s seems strange that a parent must
> >> have this level of determination to get his child into a good school
> >> at such a young age.
> >
> > I congratulate you for being so involved in your son’s milestones. My
> > eldest son (who is 15) will be in college in the middle of this year.
> > I believe I share a common feeling of “excitedness” with you.
> >
>[/color]

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

I must have missed that discussion are you supporting his new plan?

Gary Stein

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns931787E9A9775nwolfenbargerlasyesc@64.23.60.23
> You don’t remember that one of the reasons I first started posting here
> was in righteous indignation over what I felt were extreme inaccuracies
> in a discussion about Bush’s tax proposals.
>
> “Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in
> news:b1mm6r$8kj$1@www.darklock.com:
> >
> > I figured it might be a tough one. It’s the first time I’ve heard you
> > broach an even semi-controversial type topic :slight_smile:

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

I’m embarrassed to say that I’m not familiar enough with the specifics. I
can say I am absolutely in favor of not taxing dividends.

“Gary Stein” <gestein@cnw.com> wrote in news:b1p8cl$vg6$1
@www.darklock.com:

> I must have missed that discussion are you supporting his new plan?
>
> Gary Stein

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

“Tom B.” wrote:
>
> College at 15?
> Talk about Doogie Howser. :slight_smile:
>

He’ll actually be 16 when he starts. And yes, he is planning to take up
medicine. I am bracing myself for impact :slight_smile:


Peter N. Go - mailto:peter@icthus.net

http://CGI-City.net
http://Page-Templates.com http://ArticleCity.com
http://ZenSearch.com http://BannerBuild.com
http://RegisterGuy.com http://BudgetWebHost.com
http://NewsCuts.com http://FreeMailWeb.com

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

For what purpose? what will that accomplish other than having less tax
money to work with?


Jay Tierney - http://www.moovees.com

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns931896A67CC00nwolfenbargerlasyesc@64.23.60.23
> I’m embarrassed to say that I’m not familiar enough with the
specifics. I
> can say I am absolutely in favor of not taxing dividends.
>
> “Gary Stein” <gestein@cnw.com> wrote in news:b1p8cl$vg6$1
> @www.darklock.com:
>
> > I must have missed that discussion are you supporting his new plan?
> >
> > Gary Stein

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns931896A67CC00nwolfenbargerlasyesc@64.23.60.23
> I’m embarrassed to say that I’m not familiar enough with the specifics. I
> can say I am absolutely in favor of not taxing dividends.

That is the only part of his plan that makes any economic sense, well that
and also the part that will increase the deduction from $50,000 to $70,000
that small business can take for capital investments.

Basically the rest of the plan is just speeding up the implementation of his
previous plan. All of the tax breaks that were to have been phased in over
the next 5 years will now be activated immediately and made permanent. The
outcome of which is the top 1% of tax payers will receive a higher
percentage off the benefits then the % of total US tax base that they are
currently paying. For example say the top 1% pays 50% of the income taxes
paid each year, under this plan they will not get 50% of the benefits but
will rather get 65% of the benefits, this is not a balanced plan due to that
example. (I do not remember the exact % the top 1% pays but the example is
correct in it’s assumptions according to the OMB’s numbers).

We will have a $304 billion dollar deficit this year due at least in half to
last years tax breaks, and will have a much larger deficit next year if you
add in the cost of the war with Iraq which is not currently even in the
Presidents budget even though I am sure he knows we will go to war.

I may disagree with the Republicans choices on where to spend US tax money
and they may disagree with how the Democrats would spend that same money.
But at least during the Clinton years both parties seemed to agree that once
the choices had been made on where to spend and how much to spend that those
costs should be covered out of current income, just the way all of us have
to do in our own personal budgets. Borrowing money and depleting the Social
Security trust funds (even though the Republican mantra during the Clinton
years was that the trust funds would be in there so called “Lock Box” and
not be used for spending other then SS benefits) leads to higher interest
rates, less capital spending and a weakening economy.

I will say though that the Democrats alternative is almost as silly as the
Bush plan, a $300 check to all Americans would have little effect on the
economy and what effect it would have would be very short lived.

Gary Stein

>
> “Gary Stein” <gestein@cnw.com> wrote in news:b1p8cl$vg6$1
> @www.darklock.com:
>
> > I must have missed that discussion are you supporting his new plan?
> >
> > Gary Stein

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

Jay Tierney wrote:
> For what purpose? what will that accomplish other than having less tax
> money to work with?

It eliminates the double taxation. Let’s say I buy a stock and want to
hold on to that stock for a long time. I do not have to pay tax on the
gains until I sell that stock. However, if I receive dividends from that
stock, I need to pay tax on that whenever I receive the dividend, even
if I want to reinvest it.

  • Gilby

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

I see this point, and personally it helps me (I receive a lot of stock
dividends) but overall it’s just another way of providing more tax
relief for the wealthy people who don’t really need it as much, not to
mention an artificial attempt by our government to inflate stock prices.

I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong and I don’t claim to be an expert on the
topic, but that’s my take.


Jay Tierney - http://www.moovees.com

“Gilby” <mail@gilby.com> wrote in message
news:b1q0bk$9ja$1@www.t-shirtcountdown.com
> Jay Tierney wrote:
> > For what purpose? what will that accomplish other than having less
tax
> > money to work with?
>
> It eliminates the double taxation. Let’s say I buy a stock and want to
> hold on to that stock for a long time. I do not have to pay tax on the
> gains until I sell that stock. However, if I receive dividends from
that
> stock, I need to pay tax on that whenever I receive the dividend, even
> if I want to reinvest it.
>
> - Gilby
>

Re: My boy was accepted to our school of choice!

“Gary Stein” <gestein@cnw.com> wrote in
news:b1psaa$ku1$1@www.darklock.com:
> Basically the rest of the plan is just speeding up the implementation
> of his previous plan. All of the tax breaks that were to have been
> phased in over the next 5 years will now be activated immediately and
> made permanent. The outcome of which is the top 1% of tax payers will
> receive a higher percentage off the benefits then the % of total US
> tax base that they are currently paying. For example say the top 1%
> pays 50% of the income taxes paid each year, under this plan they will
> not get 50% of the benefits but will rather get 65% of the benefits,
> this is not a balanced plan due to that example. (I do not remember
> the exact % the top 1% pays but the example is correct in it’s
> assumptions according to the OMB’s numbers).

I’m a little unclear on what you mean by the top 1% of tax payers
receiving 50% or 65% of the benefits. I suspect you mean that this
group’s tax burden will be relieved a disproportionate amount compared
to the other 99%? If this is what you are saying, I disagree that it is
unfair. The wealthy and higher taxed are currently paying an excessively
disproportionate amount of taxes.

> We will have a $304 billion dollar deficit this year due at least in
> half to last years tax breaks, and will have a much larger deficit
> next year if you add in the cost of the war with Iraq which is not
> currently even in the Presidents budget even though I am sure he knows
> we will go to war.

I’m not convinced of this. The primary reason we have a deficit this
year is because of the economic slowdown after the bubble burst.
Economic slowdown / recession == less tax revenue.

> I may disagree with the Republicans choices on where to spend US tax
> money and they may disagree with how the Democrats would spend that
> same money. But at least during the Clinton years both parties seemed
> to agree that once the choices had been made on where to spend and how
> much to spend that those costs should be covered out of current
> income, just the way all of us have to do in our own personal budgets.
> Borrowing money and depleting the Social Security trust funds (even
> though the Republican mantra during the Clinton years was that the
> trust funds would be in there so called “Lock Box” and not be used for
> spending other then SS benefits) leads to higher interest rates, less
> capital spending and a weakening economy.

You had me here until the end. Borrowing money does not ipso facto lead
to a weakening economy (nor, necessarily, higher interest rates or less
capital spending). Borrowing money may, if used properly, be used to
strengthen an economy. Just as an individual gets a loan to start a
business, so too do governments borrow money to increase economic
stimulus. Local governments issue bonds for public works projects, which
in turn help their local economy.

> I will say though that the Democrats alternative is almost as silly as
> the Bush plan, a $300 check to all Americans would have little effect
> on the economy and what effect it would have would be very short
> lived.

amen