Once again, it's election time - this time, Radioguy gets to vote on a local school levy. I'll say, upfront, that I'll be voting against it, and I've got a lot of reasons why...
In Washington State, more state taxpayer money is spent on education than anything else (I think about 52 cents for every state tax dollar). Historically - that is, over the past 20 years or so - the mindset in Olympia has been "if you throw more and more money to education, education problems will get fixed"... Those problems have included teacher pay, smaller class sizes, higher test scores, and greater education system accountability.
The state's blanket, fix-all solution has not worked the way it was intended - test scores are at an all time low, classes have not become smaller (thanks to an influx of folks moving to the state from other states, coupled by new laws providing education benefits to children of illegal immigrants), and accountability has not improved. The teacher pay situation, which has been a hot-button issue in Washington State for many years,has not improved in a manner that keeps up with increased state education regulations/requirements and the afore-mentioned programs to provide state-run education to the masses. The Washington State legislature has, time and again, passed laws to increase accountability for school districts and teachers, but the increased responsibility for districts and teachers has come with a financial burden that affects districts and teachers at a local level. Nice intentions by the legislature, but poor results. The bottom line is that, no matter how much the legislature throws money at education, as long as they keep putting new programs in place, the money doesn't get used in the way they say it should be used.
To use an example a little more close to home... Assume, for the moment, that you run a clothing store. The clothes you sell are very popular among folks across the state. However, your employees are strapped to provide the level of service and amout of product that would make your store profitable. The state steps in, mandating that you provide a higher level of service and provide a greater variety of products than you have available, saying that the people of the state have a right to said increased levels. Meanwhile, you have no financial means to comply with the state's edicts. The state taxes the people to enact new programs to make sure you give the increased services/products, but you don't see those tax dollars going directly to help your store. Meanwhile, your employees are getting restless. You have two choices: raise the price of your goods or complain to the state to ease their edicts to continue doing business.
That's what's going on in Washington State...
Back to my vote on the local school levy - I'm choosing to vote "no" on the levy because of a couple of reasons... First, I'm not a homeowner -I want to own a home in the city I call home, but the tax base is already so high, the best I can do is rent. Second, I'm not a parent - I'm sure that if I were, I'd be tickled at the prospect of someone else shouldering the tax burden for educating my kid right along with me. Third, the school districts in this state are weak... weak!!! It's already been proven that greater financial investment in education comes with eaqually increased administration - money changes hands, but nothing gets done to improve the education system. The state's school districts seem to merely cowtow to state goverment and the Washington Education Association (the state's teachers union), instead of standing up and saying "let's address our current probles without adding new ones". When my school district gets itself a backbone, I'll vote yes for their levy, but not before.
9 comments:
Other issues asside, by allowing the immigrant's children access to our school system, we give them a better chance to be productive members of the community that contribute to society at large and the tax base. We want that, right?
Anyway, what is the levy for?
It's an M&O levy, which I would normally support, but for the reasons I stated in my original posting. I like my local schools, but they and others in the state aren't asking the state for meaningful education reform, they're merely asking for more and more money each year while the state throws more and more money at education, and that tactic does nothing to improve conditions for the students.
As far as the children of illegal immigrants are concerned - the majority of those kids in my neck of the woods are not legal citizens (by birth, immigration, etc.). When they become legal citizens, they can benefit from the services provided to the children of taxpaying parents, but not before. You want free education in public schools, you pay the taxes, levies, bonds, etc. that legal citizens do...
One would think that someone in the education system would wake up and exclaim, "Hey! This strategy doesn't work! Maybe something other than throwing money at education is the answer?"
I don't know what that would work without putting the state in the poor house ('cause the poor house is where the state is heading). But if the current strategy isn't working, why continue it? It's not doing the students, teachers, districts, or the kids' parents) any good. The state, however, will insist that progress is being made. Earlier this decade, the state legislature lowered the requirements for passage of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) test, which will soon become a graduation requirement for high school students. Now, legislative leaders are saying test scores have improved - what they fail to say is that scores are higher because the bar has been lowered. This session, the legislature is proposing to spend even more money to manage a new program allowing students to take the WASL up to five times(!) to pass the test. Again, the bar is lowered under the guise of "education progress". Sad...
"As far as the children of illegal immigrants are concerned - the majority of those kids in my neck of the woods are not legal citizens (by birth, immigration, etc.). When they become legal citizens, they can benefit from the services provided to the children of taxpaying parents, but not before. You want free education in public schools, you pay the taxes, levies, bonds, etc. that legal citizens do..."
So, we punish the children for the sins of their parents?
No, dear brother, no.
We encourage the illegal parents to establish their citizenship status so their children can benefit from the privledges taxpaying parents (and their children) benefit from by being legal citizens.
Public education, as a taxable commodity, is akin to a product offered by a business. To get public education, like a service from a business, is the result of a user fee. You pay for what you get. Despite what some lawmakers may tout, public education is a priveledge, not a right (there's nothing in the books that mandates federally or state approved education for everyone). So, to use a business analogy:
Let's suppose that you have a broadband internet connection at home that your ISP makes you pay for every month. A family moves to your neighborhood that does not have broadband access. Your neighbors make no effort to become paying customers of your ISP. Once your broadband provider learns who your new neighbors are, you get a statment from you provider with your next, now higher, bill, that says, "your new neighbors aren't paying for broadband access, but we feel that, since you benefit from broadband accesss,they should, too." So, your new neighbors get broadband access for free, and you pay for your access, plus theirs. The children of your neighbor family are now able to use the Internet for studying in the same way your child may, but they can now do it for free.
Now tell me you don't feel short-changed. I sure do.
This is a fun and spirited discussion bro! We have a philosophical difference here. Let me try a numbers approach. We'll call our illegal immigrant "Bob" so I don't have to keep typing "illegal immigrant". :)
I am rounding percentages 'cause I am lazy. There are a few sources, like investment earnings (from school holdings) that both you and Bob don't pay.
7% of school funding comes from the Feds, so you pay that and Bob doesn't.
14% of school funding comes from additional local property taxes. Both you and Bob pay the same.
75% of school funding comes from the state general fund. 86% of this is from sales tax, business tax and property tax - so you pay about the same as Bob.
My point? Bob *is* paying to send his kids to school. About the same that everyone else is.
As he is paying to send his kids to school, I think that they should be allowed to attend. Do you disagree?
You give interesting figures. Suffice to say, both our points of view on this subject require a good deal of detail to convince eachother. Good exchange, bro!
Glad you liked it, that was fun. :)
you betcha, bro! :)
Post a Comment