Section 1.
A. All public school buildings with serious structural damage shall either be renovated or rebuilt within 5 years of the school being declared damaged, by an independent group.
Section 2.
B. All public schools must be provided with enough computers to maintain a 10:1 ratio of student to computer. The computers must have internet access, and all staff members will be trained in how to operate them.
C. All public schools will be provided with new textbooks every ten years.
Section 3.
D. The payment shall be done in this order.
1. Raise income taxes on those making over $200,000 per year, by 1 to 3 %.
2. Cut back on funding for new district offices, limiting the amount that can be built per year.
3. Cutting back (Shorten by up to 25% or lessen amount by about one per year) on federally standardized tests or making them computerized. Not having to print the tests on paper would save millions.
Let me take a few moments to point out just a few of the plethora of problems with this bill. First of all, what is "serious structural damage?" Is this "independent group" (Independent group? What is that? Who is that? Independent of what?) suppose to invent its own criteria for judging what qualifies as "serious structural damage?" Second, is this group appointed by the government? If so, is this independent group established by regional governments or the federal government? Who exactly appoints this independent group? How many are to serve on this independent group? What types of people are to serve on this independent group--parents and teachers, architects and professionals, government workers?? If by "independent group" you are referring to a group that is independent of the government, should the government contract with a pre-existing private firm to serve in the capacity of an "independent group?" What in God's name are you talking about when you say "independent group?"
My third point is in regards to Section 2 of this abominable bill. Who is to provide these schools with these computers? Who decides what types of computers will be bought? What happens when those computers get out of date about a year and a half from now? Will a whole new set of computers be purchased for every school in American? If the federal government is who you mean to pay for all these computers, then the federal government and the tax payers who fund the federal government have a right to know just how many computers we're going to be paying for? Are we signing ourselves up to buy millions of computers every two years or is this a one time purchase? And even if it is a one time purchase, will we be buying cheap computers or expensive computers? Desktops or laptops? PCs or Macs? If you are not willing to provide these details in your bill, Sen. Akno, will you at least establish a person who will be providing these details?
As far as textbooks are concerned, I have another batch of questions? What if textbooks are not needed every ten years? What if they are needed more often? Who decides what textbooks will be bought and from what publishers? Does this apply to textbooks of all subjects? What if, as is the case in many classes (particularly in many advanced classes) textbooks are not used? Would it be fair to provide extra funding to other classes and other schools while classes and schools without a need for textbooks are without that extra funding? Are individual schools and classes allowed to spend the money for textbooks on other educational alternatives if textbooks are not necessary?
About Section 3....Are we going to raise taxes by 1% or 3%? 1.5%? 2%? How about 2.857694869%? Which is it? And what if we raise taxes by the full 3% allowed for in this bill and it is still not enough to pay for all of this? How much revenue do you expect to be able to raise by increasing tax rates on this relatively small group of Americans? What do you mean when you suggest cutting back on "funding for new district offices?" What are district offices and how much will funding for them be cut back by? And what the hell are you talking about in D.3. about testing? I think I speak for everyone when I say Section 3 is about the most vague, poorly written, and confusing portion of a bill ever to come up for a vote on the senate floor. And what is this about not printing tests on paper? Is that a suggestion? Is that your personal opinion injected into this bill or will this bill make it illegal to print standardized tests on paper?
This is a bad bill. Period. End of Story.
