Tuesday Open Thread
What's on your mind?
Tuesday Open Thread
The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested. It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio. (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Comments
Wondering
In related news, when Rodney Tom decided to show his true colors, he didn't go half-way with it. What a jackass.
--Ryan--
Rodney Tom's day of political reckoning will be quite interesting to watch.
magnolia mama
Instead, they're looking at increasing tuition and eliminating a program that helps kids go to college. Good choice, there!
I agree that many (and probably most) kids who benefit from GET are likely from families that can afford college anyway. But there's additional hardships, loans, etc. on those families if they don't have something like GET.
Ugh. Guess. Need to start emailing legislators.
-SPS mom
I'm sure it costs WAY MORE to reduce tuition than to pay off existing GET obligations. The fact is, GET is a deal that probably should never have been made. I favor honoring existing GET obligations but we should probably increase substantially the GET-tuition surcharge to much higher than it is.
-parent
Frankly, it was probably priced too low. But now that tuition is through the roof, if they price it too high, it will be a "tuition insurance" plan ONLY for the wealthy, and we should probably just get rid of it altogether.
I disagree. We are paying our students college education with combination of savings bonds, Coverdale and a 529.
Signed No GET
jw
"I'm sure it costs WAY MORE to reduce tuition than to pay off existing GET obligations."
I'm not at all sure this is true, or rather, that the cost to the state of eliminating GET is less than the cost of maintaining it for a while. David Goldstein over at SLOG has written about this - like here, for instance - and he suggests that the state takes a 1.7 billion dollar hit over 11 years to close GET, while it faces a potential 631 million dollar shortfall (not clear over what period). If we expect the economy to bounce back and the need for giant tuition increases every year to diminish, GET returns to being solvent. We just have to weather the intervening years.
Unless, of course, the plan is to price a college education out of the reach of the hoi polloi, in which case, by all means, do away with GET, and jack up that tuition! The fellows in Rodney Tom's neighborhood can certainly afford it regardless.