Why voters don’t always say yes to school districts
We well-seasoned senior citizens sometimes get a bum rap. Specifically, we are usually blamed for the defeat of any election for a school bond issue or mill-levy override.
It is explained that we “don’t have kids in school anymore.” Thus, we “no longer care.”
Balderdash! It’s just that geezers are more discerning. As they say in those TV ads, “we’ve seen a thing or two.” We’ve figured out that additional bucks don’t guarantee better results.
The old year wasn’t especially a good one for Colorado school districts getting additional stipends from Colorado taxpayers. Forty districts had proposals on local ballots. A third of the bond proposals were defeated, as were 40 percent of the override requests.
If narrow-minded, pennypinching codgers truly are the reason for losses, then the problem for educators will only get worse. According to a recent state study, the over-65 population in Colorado will increase by almost 70 percent by 2030.
But school boards and administrators shouldn’t blame us. They should take a look at their requests.
Permit me to offer them some suggestions since my kids — and also all my grandkids — now view public schools through their back-up cameras.
When it comes to mill-levy overrides:
• Be very specific. We already know the money is always supposed to be “for the children.” But is it? We want to see plans for getting more pupils performing at accepted state levels — or, better yet, above them. Give us specifics on how that will be done.
• Actually do something about the low salaries for beginning teachers instead of just fretting over the problem at election time. Employee contracts usually are negotiated every two or three years. But when details are hammered out, most of the money usually winds up going to the veteran teachers.
• And consider this: Do bright young people who might want to teach get turned off by a profession that doesn’t recognize performance? Base the annual pay raises on achievement rather than seniority. Maybe that would help retain good older teachers, too. When it comes to bond issues: • Don’t include something called “deferred maintenance.” We know you shouldn’t borrow money for 30 years to pay for it. Maintenance of school buildings should be adequately provided for in each year’s operating budget. Quit camouflaging the failure to do that.
• When our kids were in school, we supported new bonding because there was a real shortage of classrooms. Now, many buildings operate at less than capacity. Every child does not require a “neighborhood school.”
Unpopular as it may be, realign school attendance boundaries to take advantage of the unused space. Don’t ask for more money just to keep the local PTAs happy. It is tough to come by, right?
And, in every case, watch the zeroes on the amounts you ask for. Yes, common axiom in government is: “If we are going to the voters for more money, we might as well go big.”
Not a good idea, especially when our real estate taxes go up every couple of years regardless.
Anyway, to those districts that missed out in 2016, may you sell better — and fare better — next time. Dick Hilker (dhilker529@ aol.com) is a retired Denver suburban newspaper editor and columnist.