Letters
Funding solutions require compromise
Thursday, September 15, 2005
I believe I've discovered a new synonym for the word impasse: PLSD bond issue.
The countdown is less than 60 days for another visit to the voting booth and the school people are still speaking in ambiguities.
Split-sessions ''might'' be necessary. Will they, or won't they? If we don't know for sure, stop speculating.
Or, the public needs to be ''educated'' on need. See all the portables. Now run a few more kids to another building where there's still a few vacant seats. Isn't that pretty ''elementary'' education?
Let's stop bashing our school board members. If they're doing such a rotten job, why isn't there a single challenger for the three incumbents in November? Let's face it: The school board isn't the culprit. We are!
We are a community polarized by petty complaints of exaggerated inequities and a stubborn death grip on the status quo.
There's no reasonable way you can -- or should -- make two schools built nearly a decade apart the same. Get over the Pickerington North-Central brouhaha. Given the impossible advantage of hindsight, I'd like to think that the board might have planned a bit differently. Nonetheless, it's all water over the dam now. Let's move on.
There is a large segment in this community -- fully indoctrinated by the Pickerington Education Association -- that considers any and all change (in school sizes, configuration, curriculum, ect.) unacceptable.
These people are as shortsighted and uncompromising as their mirror image: a growing number of people who believe our excellent schools are the primary cause of excessive residential growth. They see no harm in taking education down a notch or two. For these folks, split-sessions and lower state ratings are considered means to a desired end (less growth).
What neither of these extremist segments comprehends is that each can achieve its goal by simply giving more than lip service to some of the efforts taking shape here. The lack of groundswell for a merged Pickerington-Violet Township approach to growth still amazes me in a community where the educational standing and standards are so high.
It's time to get off our collective duffs! Whiffs of positive remedies such as impact fees to benefit both the infrastructure and our schools are in the air on both the city and the township levels. These concepts deserve to be fanned by public opinion into flames of resolution.
A comprehensive report submitted to the school board earlier this year details both a list of needed school facilities and a timetable for their implementation. As a contributor to that report, I've been asked when the sequel will be forthcoming: ''How Do We Pay For All This?''
Even a unified community likely would find it very difficult to come up with the needed dollars to maintain our current PLSD experience. The ''tried-and-true'' of the past probably no longer applies in our current post 9-11 economic environment.
More inventive thinking and creative approaches may be required to gain the support of both new and old residents. For 30-something parents who have greatly stretched their budgets to settle here, filling the SUV's gas tank may be a higher priority than less-crowded classrooms.
And for retirees with limited resources, an income tax (recently permitted by the Ohio legislature) which applies solely to ''earned'' income (exempting fixed pension and investment dollars) might solicit badly needed school issue support. Yes, there are solutions to the current impasse -- if we, as a community, are willing to let bygones be bygones, compromise and embrace the possible.
Jack Wittenmeier
Pickerington
By closet philosopher
Funding solutions require compromise
Thursday, September 15, 2005
I believe I've discovered a new synonym for the word impasse: PLSD bond issue.
The countdown is less than 60 days for another visit to the voting booth and the school people are still speaking in ambiguities.
Split-sessions ''might'' be necessary. Will they, or won't they? If we don't know for sure, stop speculating.
Or, the public needs to be ''educated'' on need. See all the portables. Now run a few more kids to another building where there's still a few vacant seats. Isn't that pretty ''elementary'' education?
Let's stop bashing our school board members. If they're doing such a rotten job, why isn't there a single challenger for the three incumbents in November? Let's face it: The school board isn't the culprit. We are!
We are a community polarized by petty complaints of exaggerated inequities and a stubborn death grip on the status quo.
There's no reasonable way you can -- or should -- make two schools built nearly a decade apart the same. Get over the Pickerington North-Central brouhaha. Given the impossible advantage of hindsight, I'd like to think that the board might have planned a bit differently. Nonetheless, it's all water over the dam now. Let's move on.
There is a large segment in this community -- fully indoctrinated by the Pickerington Education Association -- that considers any and all change (in school sizes, configuration, curriculum, ect.) unacceptable.
These people are as shortsighted and uncompromising as their mirror image: a growing number of people who believe our excellent schools are the primary cause of excessive residential growth. They see no harm in taking education down a notch or two. For these folks, split-sessions and lower state ratings are considered means to a desired end (less growth).
What neither of these extremist segments comprehends is that each can achieve its goal by simply giving more than lip service to some of the efforts taking shape here. The lack of groundswell for a merged Pickerington-Violet Township approach to growth still amazes me in a community where the educational standing and standards are so high.
It's time to get off our collective duffs! Whiffs of positive remedies such as impact fees to benefit both the infrastructure and our schools are in the air on both the city and the township levels. These concepts deserve to be fanned by public opinion into flames of resolution.
A comprehensive report submitted to the school board earlier this year details both a list of needed school facilities and a timetable for their implementation. As a contributor to that report, I've been asked when the sequel will be forthcoming: ''How Do We Pay For All This?''
Even a unified community likely would find it very difficult to come up with the needed dollars to maintain our current PLSD experience. The ''tried-and-true'' of the past probably no longer applies in our current post 9-11 economic environment.
More inventive thinking and creative approaches may be required to gain the support of both new and old residents. For 30-something parents who have greatly stretched their budgets to settle here, filling the SUV's gas tank may be a higher priority than less-crowded classrooms.
And for retirees with limited resources, an income tax (recently permitted by the Ohio legislature) which applies solely to ''earned'' income (exempting fixed pension and investment dollars) might solicit badly needed school issue support. Yes, there are solutions to the current impasse -- if we, as a community, are willing to let bygones be bygones, compromise and embrace the possible.
Jack Wittenmeier
Pickerington
By closet philosopher
