Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is the oldest scam known - shield the administrative positions and large salaries, shield useless literacy and outside contractor programs, threaten teacher cuts, threaten cuts to electives and advanced courses, threaten increased class sizes at the elementary level (thereby drumming up faux PTA opposition), threaten cuts to sports (middle school JV, Varsity), threaten cuts to clubs and other extracurriculars.
Great article and rght on the button, some superintendents might consider this approach reasonable.
"When budgets get tough and opposition to tax increases stiffens, districts know what to do: Identify the programs important to the most vocal parents and students and tell them these will be the first to go if the proposed budget, and the tax hike that goes with it, are rejected."
Great article and rght on the button, some superintendents might consider this approach reasonable.
"When budgets get tough and opposition to tax increases stiffens, districts know what to do: Identify the programs important to the most vocal parents and students and tell them these will be the first to go if the proposed budget, and the tax hike that goes with it, are rejected."
How come the KIDS always have to sacrifice?
Why is it that the schools are never run with the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN IN MIND?
Instead they are run with the best interests in mind and least sacrifices required of the unionized teachers and the administrators and superintendants.
Let's think logically. What should the school districts do? Parents want their kids to have the greatest education in the world, all after school activities, and yet, they don't want to pay for it. If you think how much it costs to educate the "average" student, it is about $12,000 a year in most districts. Most parents have 1-2 kids and pay about $10,000 in taxes, getting much more than they are valued at.
If the school wants to keep providing these services, people must pay for them. The reality is that the main purpose of school is to educate students. It is not to have sports and other after school programs. Parents can pay for private services in these cases. I think that the most important aspect of "school" is the teacher and the classes/curriculum. After that, then comes the art/music. Lastly, after school curriculum/activities. Again, this is just my opinion.
Let's think logically. What should the school districts do? Parents want their kids to have the greatest education in the world, all after school activities, and yet, they don't want to pay for it. If you think how much it costs to educate the "average" student, it is about $12,000 a year in most districts. Most parents have 1-2 kids and pay about $10,000 in taxes, getting much more than they are valued at.
And then there are people like me, with no kids in school at all and still paying ridiculous taxes.
And then there are people like me, with no kids in school at all and still paying ridiculous taxes.
Don't forget...your high taxes keep "undesirables," out of your area. At the same time, your high taxes keep kids off of the streets and in activities after school which then lowers crime in your area. There are many "unseen," benefits that you do get from the school system even if you do not have any kids that may not seem obvious at first.
Why is it that the schools are never run with the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN IN MIND?
Instead they are run with the best interests in mind and least sacrifices required of the unionized teachers and the administrators and superintendants.
Districts are run in the self-interests of superintendents (their pay and their administrative staff) - these folks are not concerned with the best interests of students or taxpayers.
Stirring up the parents to pass the budget - while retaining full superintendent compensation and full administrative overstaffing - is too cynical for words.
Don't forget...your high taxes keep "undesirables," out of your area. At the same time, your high taxes keep kids off of the streets and in activities after school which then lowers crime in your area. There are many "unseen," benefits that you do get from the school system even if you do not have any kids that may not seem obvious at first.
So what you're saying, is if she 'votes with her feet' against paying high school taxes, that she should move to a crumby neighborhood? It's a shame when neighborhoods are more desirable based on your means/want to pay extremely high school taxes.
So what you're saying, is if she 'votes with her feet' against paying high school taxes, that she should move to a crumby neighborhood? It's a shame when neighborhoods are more desirable based on your means/want to pay extremely high school taxes.
No...I meant what I wrote. There are benefits to paying high taxes even when you don't have kids in school. One of these benefits is that you get to keep undesirable people out of your neighborhood because they can't afford those taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
