The Times Weighs in on Education Cuts with a Compelling Question
This editorial appeared in today's Times. Their opening sentence is pretty blunt:
"The cuts in state money for public schools in the proposed Senate and House budgets are unnecessarily deep. They need to be shifted to programs less urgent."
Their discussion was over cutting a state program for adults who can't work but aren't covered by other programs. Their take:
"Some in the Legislature would save the unemployable program and cut public education on the belief that the people would vote to tax themselves to save education. But what if they don't?"
That's a big gamble on the part of the Legislature (if, indeed, that's the thinking; make cuts in education and ask voters to pay more elsewhere to restore them) and a big question. Would voters, some of whom aren't parents with school-aged kids and some of whom have very bad opinions of public education anyway, vote to add more taxes to their bill?
I think the answer might be a very scary no. And then what? Dip into the state reserves even more to restore cuts they thought voters would pay for?
"The cuts in state money for public schools in the proposed Senate and House budgets are unnecessarily deep. They need to be shifted to programs less urgent."
Their discussion was over cutting a state program for adults who can't work but aren't covered by other programs. Their take:
"Some in the Legislature would save the unemployable program and cut public education on the belief that the people would vote to tax themselves to save education. But what if they don't?"
That's a big gamble on the part of the Legislature (if, indeed, that's the thinking; make cuts in education and ask voters to pay more elsewhere to restore them) and a big question. Would voters, some of whom aren't parents with school-aged kids and some of whom have very bad opinions of public education anyway, vote to add more taxes to their bill?
I think the answer might be a very scary no. And then what? Dip into the state reserves even more to restore cuts they thought voters would pay for?
Comments
Melissa, I agreed with your stance on the levy vote. Your position wasn't universally popular, but I understood your reasoning and agreed with you. As more of us pay attention to how SPS can't bear up under scrutiny for any of their moves, then yes, they're taking a big risk betting on more tax dollars. SPS refuses to show transparency, never mind effectiveness, with the monies they've been handling for decades. Case in point: their mismanagement of buildings is astonishing.
Honest to G-d, that conspiracy about SPS being made ripe for charters is looking more plausible by the day.
Maybe there are things out there we can cut (the subsidy for the ice skating tournament seems like a possibility, though it's just nickels, and it might really be an economic investment, n the short term). But, mostly, we're now cutting things that are needs, and not wants, anyway.
WV says that while I want to wax poetic, due to the urgency of the situation I should be danterse.
$600K for temporary portables at Hale.
$1.4 millon for change orders at Garfield
and possibly approving the purchase for dismal high school math materials. What, another million bucks there?
One board meeting!
I am going to have a tough time handing them more levy money and I have very young children in SPS!
Rep. Hans Dunshee has proposed a $3 billion bond initiative for school capital projects. Presumably, if such a bond issue passed, then the state could shift money from the state lottery (which funded I-728 until 2005) back to I-728, which is where some of the biggest cuts are. The governor has expressed interest, and Frank Chopp is taking it seriously. However, other Democrats are, again, expressing skepticism.
Sen. Rodney Tom has stated outright that we're going to have to live with an all-cuts budget.
There is no unified leadership in Olympia. It's a disgrace.
The governor isn't exactly providing any direction either. She is dithering just like previous governors dithered.
It's like some sort of horrible Dilbert cartoon in which people avoid criticism by doing nothing.