Spokane7
54°
February 4, 2012 in Washington Voices
Schools at least as important as streets
The Washington State Department of Transportation was allocated $7 billion tax dollars for the 2011-’13 biennium to improve and maintain roads in the state of Washington. Taxpayers currently pay 37.5 cents for each gallon of gas that they purchase. Those taxes make up a portion of the WSDOT’s $7 billion allocation. Based on Washington state’s 2011 population census of 6,724,540, that equates to $1,040.96 for every person to improve our road system. The “Citizens For Responsible Taxation” opposes all of the school levies in the Spokane area.
Here is my question. If these citizens are so concerned about responsible spending of our taxes, why haven’t they opposed any of the taxes used to support WSDOT’s road projects costing $7 billion? Why don’t the “Citizens For Responsible Taxation” support legislation to either eliminate or charge a $5-per-tire fee for studded snow tires since they cause an estimated $24.7 million in damage to our roadways in Washington each year? Aren’t our kids as important, or even more important, than our roadways? I think so.
Please vote yes for all school district levies in the Spokane area.
John Parker
Spokane Valley
Photo: Team players 
flyerd1 on February 08 at 1:17 p.m.
J. Parker-
1) The entire 6,724,540 don’t pay into DOT because that includes a lot of children and other people who shouldn’t be included in the formula. However, if all the people who actually do pay into the DOT example you introduced actually paid for these school funding requests (as opposed to only property owners) we’d have a much improved system that I’d have no problem with. I’d still disagree with the word manipulation employed by pro-levy supporters as well as the exploitative “heart string” tactics of “it’s for the children”…
2) Levies are meant to be one time fill-gap revenue streams that may be necessary once every 10-20 yrs. They’re “NOT” meant to be a “constant” revenue stream… It shows incredibly bad district leadership when districts have gotten to the point of expecting levies as a never ending portion of their budgets.
3) The total amount spent for education is approximately 12,500/yr. Let’s break it down to the individual classroom level: That’s $312,500/yr for a classroom of 25 students. Take out $72,500 for a teacher (pay/pension/healthcare costs) and you’re left with $240,000/yr to spend… You could pay for a spectacular building, let alone a single classroom, including all utilities, classroom materials, a teacher’s aid, etc., etc. for that kind of money.
For example: Lease or buy a building for $5K/month (expensive for just the 25 children classroom in this example), spend 1K/month for all utilities (again, expensive for the example), $2.5K/month for school supplies ($100/student/month is a lot of paper, pens, printer ink, etc), $36K for a teacher’s aid, and another $2K/month for other costs. That adds up to $72,500 (Teacher) + 60K (building) + 12K (utilities), 30K (school supplies) + 36K (teacher aid) + 24K (other costs) = $234,500/yr (that’s actually inflated because I figured “everything” on a yearly basis when in fact many of those costs would go down or be eliminated during parts of the yr).
$312,500 (current supper inflated budget) - $234,500 (this example’s budget) = $78,000/yr left over even after inflating (as mentioned above) some of the costs. In actuality, the costs could easily be “under” $200K as opposed to the $234.5K calculated in this example)… Still using the inflated example numbers: $234.5K divided by 25 students = $9,380/student/yr. That equates to a 25% cut to the current budget.
If we used less inflated costs the figures could look more like this: $187,500(instead of the 234.5K above) divided by 25 = $7,500/student/yr and this equates to a 40% cut to the current budget. Therefore, cutting a meager 25% of the budget still leaves ample room for a very nicely inflated budget and further reinforces the fact that our current system is “extremely” over inflated and broken…
The_Seer on February 08 at 1:45 p.m.
Is this the same Mr. Parker who is the principal at Evergreen Middle School?
The number of non-faculty positions in Washington public schools have increased over 200% since 1994. Faculty positions have increased only 16% during the same time span. This phenomena has occurred all over the U.S. at all levels of public education.
http://ctmirror.com/story/11660/hiring-decisions-public-colleges-may-soon-be-vetted-malloy-administration
That article describes this condition in the Connecticut public university system and I will find other links that document the same trend at the elementary and secondary levels.
I think the only way my profession will change is if they are forced to. What will happen though, with the loss of levy funds, is that the least experienced and least costly (but probably more productive per dollar spent) will lose out in favor of those who have seniority in the union. There is no evidence to confirm that one becomes better at something simply by doing it longer.
flyerd1 on February 13 at 1:37 a.m.
Contrary to the apparent beliefs of most levy supporters that people in opposition are sinister child haters, there are many anti-levy citizens with no ulterior motives. I, for one, simply appreciate having actual truths presented (rather than fear invoking commentary and distortions I’ve read/heard). Making it appear that 3yrs of levy costs will be paid in a single yr is an example of distortion on the anti-levy side. Similarly, there are many examples distortions & less than true statements from the pro-levy side. Here’s one irt what levy $ will actually be used for:
It’s extremely disingenuous to say “specific funds” are for “specific items” of an overall budget. Basic accounting shows that the net impact of a levy is simply to increase the “overall budget” (even if presented as paying for specific items). Here’s an explanation of why (please try to understand that this simply explains the shell game of saying “where” certain $ goes (regardless of your opinion as to the need for the $) and is applicable in many other situations you may encounter besides this one:
Imagine an $8M budget spread into 10 buckets. If someone decided $8M wasn’t enough and wanted to request more $ they could simply put the entire $8M into buckets 1-8 and say “we need $2M (levy $) but it’s only for buckets 9 & 10” (maintenance & operations, or whatever your specific levy indicates). The net result of the additional $2M would simply be that the new budget is $10M instead of $8M. The shell game here is that they could just as easily have said the $2M is for buckets 1 & 2 or 3 & 5 or 4 & 7 etc. In other words, the “exact” place they “choose” to say the $ goes to is absolutely irrelevant because it’s all part of “one overall budget” that is being spent.
Regardless of your stance irt the actual need for the $ it’s a complete shell game when they say “don’t worry, the money is only for this bucket or that one”. It raises the Q of why do they need to use shell games to sell a levy; shouldn’t the actual need be strong enough so as not to require moving shells around?Could it be because they need to distract you from looking in some of the other buckets?..
Being “civic-minded” includes being “fiscally aware” of where/how the community spends ii’s money. Too many people fall into the word manipulation traps employed by pro-levy supporters as well as the exploitative “heart string” tactics of “it’s for the children”…