Gee, you have to love them bragging about all the “free stuff” they get or that we pay for! How about calling kids the N-word? Isn’t that nice? And remember all these people care about is the children!
What’s wrong with peoples’ attitudes as they relate to the spending of public money?
One answer came in a short item in the Dec. 2 edition of the Sun Post.
A federal program called the Teacher Recovery Act has funneled $1.3 million into Hopkins Public Schools. The entire amount was promptly spent in celebratory fashion. Good for the Sun Post for being intellectually honest enough to mention that this infusion of money was a one-time occurrence.
But what to tell the Hopkins School Board? Out of lack of long-term forethought, they spent that $1.3 million on increased personnel. Since this money was a one-time allocation, what will happen to these new hires when the money runs out? Will Hopkins Schools be able to afford to keep them employed? Will they scramble to scare up new money to avert mass layoffs that, as I expect, will be blamed on the avarice of people of certain political persuasions and their unwillingness to make the necessary investments in a high-quality education?
Will the public, with their short memory and gullibility, believe this lie and forget that all of these school positions were artificially created and unsustainable in the first place? Hopkins Schools is not the only government body guilty of this irresponsibility. Everywhere, unsustainable expenses are being funded by one-time cash infusions. Worse yet, these infusions create perceptions of permanence, a dynamic that the oppressionist ruling class is only too happy to cultivate and exploit. Sadly, such tactics succeed with frightening frequency.
Attitudes must change.
Matt Rothchild
Robbinsdale
Very true Mr. Rothchild, this is a problem at all levels of government including at RAS. And what do you want to bet that when the temporary federal money (still our money) goes away, they’ll claim federal money is being “cut” when they knew it would not be there.
We are using several posts over the next week or two to respond to Give2Attain’s post where he supports “competition” but opposes a voucher system.
First, we want to compliment Give2Attain for his thoughtful post and we enjoy our general discussions with him. His blog and links are very good and helpful. Unlike most people who oppose vouchers, Give doesn’t demagogue the issue and points out the good that would come from a voucher system and the reasons for his skepticism . We want to take issue with the reasons for his opposition in a series of several posts (this is too long for one post). Here we are going to speak about competition and so-called “white flight.”
Here is a passage from Give’s post;
Now Open Enrollment, Intradistrict Transfer, Charter Schools, Private Schools, Families Moving, etc already promote white/affluent flight and people deserting their communities instead of fighting for them… Do we really want to make it easier and promote it? Do we want to promote separation. instead of community building through our schools?
Now why do we assume that if a family that is white CHOOSES to go to a charter school or another district (Hopkins, Osseo, Wayzata etc.) that race is the reason? Why are they always accused of “abandoning their “community?” If a family leaves Minneapolis and comes to Robbinsdale how come they aren’t accused of “abandoning their community?” Does the Choice Is Your Program promote “flight?” We would suggest that there are plenty of reasons why families have left the district over the years such as school closings, poor management of Stan Mack, poor communication, poor performance, program cuts, more school options, etc. Also we think schools should concentrate on reading, writing, math, and science not promoting the left wing agenda of so-called tolerance, diversity, and community building (whatever that is).
In addition, what about families who choose to go Sacred Heart, or St. Raphael’s or the FAIR school (All in Crystal and Robbinsdale)? I don’t think anyone can accuse them of “abandoning their community.” And the tuition at St. Raphael’s is $3120 compared to almost $11,000 we spend per kid in the public school so which is the better deal? How about kids who are home schooled? Isn’t a parent one on one with their kid (talk about class size reductions) an ideal setting (at least most of the time)? The funny thing is that a home schooled kid costs us taxpayers nothing while in the public schools we can’t spend enough! It must be poverty!
Of course, going to a religious school, home schooling, and charters, aren’t always an option for everyone but that by itself is unfair. Some kids get opportunity but others don’t’? We think vouchers can help level the playing field. If everyone has a voucher to use as they wish, we think that will encourage people to look at their options. Maybe if people have a voucher, private schools will pop up in our area. Who knows?
Give2Attain seems to approve of charter schools, open enrollment, and intra-district transfers yet he opposes a voucher system. So in other words, competition is OK as long as the “public” provides it. If competition is a good thing, why then should we “limit who can compete?” Give seems to think that the public school system can be “tweaked” or “fine-tuned” but we think we’ve spent the past 50 years trying to do just that. Where is the evidence we’re getting anywhere? Public school apologists just offer the same old lame brain solutions; more money, lower class size, more programs….blah, blah, blah.
Here’s the bottom line; what is more important…..where kids goes to school or whether or not kids get the opportunity to get a great education? The fact that WHERE a kid goes to school is SO important tells us that getting a great education is secondary. It makes no sense at all.
From the District’s website http://www.rdale.org
The Robbinsdale Area School Board adopted the final 2011 property tax levy at its December 6 meeting following a public Truth-in-Taxation hearing. The $54.3 million levy, payable in 2011, will be used to finance a portion of the operations of the district for the 2011-2012 school year. Property taxes in 2011 will make up approximately a third of the district’s total revenue.
Now for the stuff that really matters to us….
The levy represents a $1.25 million (2.4 percent) increase over the previous year’s levy, and is $1.2 million less than the proposed levy adopted by the board in October.
So just like our cities and our counties, our home values go down and our taxes go up. But, since they could have levied $1.2 million more they probably think we should thank them.
“For the second year in a row, the board chose to levy less than the maximum allowed by the state,” said Lonnie Smith, executive director of business services, “We recognize the challenges taxpayers face in our current economic situation. This decision helps minimize the impact to property owners this year.”
All right! Like we said it’s only a small increase! We have to pay those unions!
Now listen to what the District claims the impact of this tax hike is;
While the total levy amount will increase slightly, individual homeowner property taxes could increase by a greater percentage. In most cases, property owners will see a decrease in the tax levy from the voter approved referendum due to estimated lower enrollment. Other local school levies are likely to increase since the overall levy is increasing and because a decline in property values means the rates on all properties must increase in order to collect the same amount of revenue.
What? Why can’t anyone in government simply admit that they are take more and more and more in taxes every year and it really has nothing to do with the “value” of our homes?
281 Exposed 