Too many bond mils
I was wondering what you think about the fact that the local property tax millage to support operations is well below the 23 mils the state uses to ''assume'' a proper local level of support in this complicated formula.
As I understand this, we pay LOTS taxes for bond millage versus our operating monies taxation level and this has clearly streched community resources. It appears that much of our money is going into bricks and mortar or fiberglass boxes to house the burgeoning population of students versus the operating portion.... instead, theoretically, if all these mils and $$ could be devoted to operations... the money could possibly lower class sizes, enable us to offer more challenging programs for those capable and in general dramatically raise the quality of our schools. Right now, it appears that the ''quality'' judgement is based on state MINIMUMS...ie the proficiency test. The debate on wheter this serves the needs of our student population will continue to rage. Minimums are necessary in my view but using them as a benchmark in an environment where clearly there is a more capable population is wrong. Currently, I am not aware of any other formula, goal or plan availabel in the public arena to identify what we really could be doing with our students in this district above and beyond these minimums.
I was dismayed that some of the successful board candidates appeared to state in newspaper interviews that growth was not a problem in our district....I hope they will attempt to see my logic here....If we could look through rose colored glasses and imagine that the local governments successfully controlled residential growth limiting it to a reasonable rate that did not over tax resources, wouldn't the ability of the local taxpayers to fund our schools be utilized in a better way if we did not have to constantly build new facilties and we could devote the amount of voted bond millage tax burden to creating ''true excellence?''
I'd like to thank the person(s) who submitted the proposed names for the new schools as... Tax US HIGH North... and Tax US HIGH South... as reported in Monday's Dispatch. This suggestion got a hearty round of laughs at our breakfast table. I admire your exellent wit!
I was wondering what you think about the fact that the local property tax millage to support operations is well below the 23 mils the state uses to ''assume'' a proper local level of support in this complicated formula.
As I understand this, we pay LOTS taxes for bond millage versus our operating monies taxation level and this has clearly streched community resources. It appears that much of our money is going into bricks and mortar or fiberglass boxes to house the burgeoning population of students versus the operating portion.... instead, theoretically, if all these mils and $$ could be devoted to operations... the money could possibly lower class sizes, enable us to offer more challenging programs for those capable and in general dramatically raise the quality of our schools. Right now, it appears that the ''quality'' judgement is based on state MINIMUMS...ie the proficiency test. The debate on wheter this serves the needs of our student population will continue to rage. Minimums are necessary in my view but using them as a benchmark in an environment where clearly there is a more capable population is wrong. Currently, I am not aware of any other formula, goal or plan availabel in the public arena to identify what we really could be doing with our students in this district above and beyond these minimums.
I was dismayed that some of the successful board candidates appeared to state in newspaper interviews that growth was not a problem in our district....I hope they will attempt to see my logic here....If we could look through rose colored glasses and imagine that the local governments successfully controlled residential growth limiting it to a reasonable rate that did not over tax resources, wouldn't the ability of the local taxpayers to fund our schools be utilized in a better way if we did not have to constantly build new facilties and we could devote the amount of voted bond millage tax burden to creating ''true excellence?''
I'd like to thank the person(s) who submitted the proposed names for the new schools as... Tax US HIGH North... and Tax US HIGH South... as reported in Monday's Dispatch. This suggestion got a hearty round of laughs at our breakfast table. I admire your exellent wit!
