The Strib endorses the St. Paul school levy.
This would be the third levy since 2000.
The endorsement is the same old claptrap for the same old tax hike. But some of the "justifications" for the endorsement grabbed my attention:
If the levy is approved, the owner of a $200,000 house would pay an additional $97 per year.Huh?
About $17 of that total renews a previous levy that would maintain class sizes and continue essential, proven programs. The expanded funding would support all-day kindergarten, classes for 4-year-olds and Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE). That's smart spending.
Classes for four-year-olds and all-day kindergarten are make-work jobs for the teacher's union; outside of their convenience for working families, I'm beggared to think of a single benefit, sort of giving school districts more time to browbeat children into compliant little units of production on the assembly line.
So how is it "smart spending?" The Strib needs to start defining what "smart spending" is, and why a particular cost is "smart".
(Or, if they want to keep their readers dumb and compliant, of course, maybe they shouldn't...).
When I started reading the article, I thought to myself "there's going to be a threat in here".
If this 2006 request fails, 200 teachers and other staff could be laid off and class sizes would rise. Voters should approve the levy on Nov. 7 to keep the positive momentum going.Always with the threats.
Every school district threatens to lay off platoons of teachers come election time. By mid-budget-time, the funds are magically found to keep the vast majority working.
Anyone want to lay odds on this time?Posted by Mitch at October 27, 2006 06:20 AM | TrackBack