Posted 3 months, 28 days ago in 
Loading ...
The Daily Sentinel editorial suggesting that voters might nix the next School District 51 bond issue because of the decline in third-grade reading scores, is way off the mark and mean-spirited.
The adults involved with schools are the ones who should be held accountable for declining test scores not the children. That’s everybody from the school board on down to the classroom teachers and parents.
Packing more students in each classroom, ever-more crowded hallways, bathrooms, cafeterias, computer labs and libraries only punishes children.
Every day on my way to work in Fruita, I pass three brand-new subdivisions starting to build out. Where will these families send their children to school? Can employers attract sufficient workers to this community if their children have to attend overcrowded schools?
Ever-more crowded schools, simply force the district to adapt as best as possible. Previous “adaptations” included the overwhelmingly dreaded year-round school at Fruita Monument High. One result of that particular solution was that a family might have children with different vacation times.
So who is really the most affected by voting down the next bond issue as the Sentinel suggested might happen? Will that accomplish the Sentinel’s goal of punishing school district employees for third-grader’s poor scores?
BILL SCHAEFER
Grand Junction
13 Responses to “Bond issue shouldn’t be killed because of low scores”
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 11:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree with Mr. Schaefer, the bond issue shouldn’t be killed for the wrong reasons when there are so many right reasons to shoot it down.
#1. the school board found a million dollars of ‘unallocated’ money they didn’t know what to do with so they donated it to the local charity of their choice, ie; mesa state.
Then, just a very short time later they discovered the roof on the Fruita High School needed to be replaced, but they didn’t know where the money would come from.
That’s reason enough for me, but there’s a whole lot more perfectly good reasons.
And “but it’s for the children” is NOT a good reason to pass it.
Obviously, it’s not “for the children” because they aren’t gaining much of an education.
Ask any fast food HS grad for the correct change counted out, and you will get a blank stare.
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
When the District 51 Board of Education and Administration adopt and enforce an effective policy of accountability (including firing bad teachers and administrators), then I’ll vote to approve their bond issues. Until then, “a pox on them.”
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s a ‘big government’ thing.
Get the money away from the people, and give the bureaucrats an ‘out’ so they can say “but I don’t have any control of where the money goes”, and such archaic notions like ‘accountability’ disappear into the mist of bureaucracy.
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am not ready to pay higher taxes to the school district for any reason.
Let the people who have new homes, children in school etc pay. If the school taxes make up over 55% of the taxes you pay for property, which I have owned for over 60 years, (and they do) then the school district should find out what they are doing with all that money, or the public should.
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Grandmasix, it’s not really money.
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m sick and tired of Jeff Kirtland (official spokesperson/apologist for the Dist. 51 administration) making endless excuses for arrogance and incompetence. My favorite (sic) is, “I can’t really discuss this - it’s a personnel matter.” He should be the first one fired under an effective accountability policy.
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Grandmasix, I understand not wanting to pay more taxes to the school district. They really dont show that they use the money that they have properly. And I also feel that bad teachers should be fired just like anyone else that doesnt do the job that they were hired for. But as far as only people with kids or new homes paying the bill, this generation of kids will someday be running this country, it really falls on all of us. After all….they will be running our nursing homes.
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 3:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BTW Proteus, Yes, Jeff Kirtland needs to go away.
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As an “official spokesperson” Mr. Kirtland is only saying what his boss, the Supeintendent, wants him to say. Replacing him, without replacing his boss, will simply result in another face delivering the same message. Want to change the message? Then replace him AND his boss and have the Board demand “Clear, Accurate and Responsive Communication” that is HONEST. Until the district is willing to acknowledge “the good, the bad and the ugly”, nothing is going to change.
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 4:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oneperson-Amen to #9. Until the district adopts your suggestions, they won’t be getting my “yes” vote on ANYTHING!
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 10:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jen,
I guess sometimes we know what we think, but our words are a little short.
I didn’t mean that those people who have children in school should bare the brunt of taxes. My idea was that with all the new houses and parents in our area, the school district should not need to burden the taxpayers further.
However, the other half of this idea is that the school tax should not be the cause of my losing my home (which my husband built 60+ years ago), because the valley needs more schools. The school district receives more than half of the total tax bill I pay. There is something wrong with this equation.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Grandmasix wrote: “I didn’t mean that those people who have children in school should bare(sic) the brunt of taxes.”
What is a naked brunt?
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 5:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s right, Class of 52, show no class and pick on a mistake. If you ever make a typo or say anything wrong, you can bet I will be watching. If you want to post on subject, and add to the conversation, that would be great.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.