Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
Posts: 22,632
|
 |
« on: September 20, 2007, 10:40:35 AM » |
|
Since everyone seems to be pushing new polls about random elections, I thought I'd give it a try.
I voted for the $501 option, which is what passed, of course, which resulted in new buses which had been put off for 3 years, a reduction in class sizes by 2-3 students/classroom, a continuation of the all day/every day Kindergarten program, and the restoration of previous levels of funding for technology, library, extracurricular, music, phys. ed, and art programs.
This came after 4 years of major budget slashing since the district had declining enrollment and state funding was held flat and finally decreased under Pawlenty and his "no new tax" pledge, which pushed class sizes for 5th graders from 21 to 31 in 4 years. The burden was shifted from the state general fund, funded mostly by income and sales taxes, and was shifted to property taxes.
The cuts made resulted in the creation of 3 charter schools which further exacerbated the enrollment declines and led to more budget cuts.
Declining enrollment affects school districts more negatively than increasing enrollment affects them positively...
for example, if a grade level at Elementary School A has 100 students one year, 4 teachers can teach, resulting in a class size of 25/classroom. But the next year, enrollment declines to 90, and 4 teachers is no longer feasible. Since the decline in number of students was only 10 and you can't hire teachers part time to teach in the class room, one teacher must be cut, meaning you have 3 teachers for 90 students, increasing class sizes to 90 students.
Not to mention that fuel prices have skyrocketed, and with declining enrollment, transportation costs soar in relative terms, because the transportation budget is funded on a per student basis. The number of students falls in a district, resulting in a decline in funding for transportation, but the declines are likely spread out over the entire district, and the district size remains the same, so the buses must still travel the same distance to pick up fewer children. You can't downsize the buses to increase fuel efficiency because you can't afford new buses, so the buses are under capacity, and yet you can't reduce the number of bus routes without severely increasing travel times for each route.
But it's okay, the MN Taxpayer's league got their wishes. Their property taxes didn't go up 80% over a few years in the suburbs while ours' did. And you wonder why rural Minnesota votes DFL??
|
Poll
