Here's a guest opinion that was posted as a comment to the Budget Approval Due Tonight posting.
Well done, Peter. Well done.
Peter has left a new comment on your post "Budget Approval Due Tonight":
Before I respond, Anonymous, let's start with the definition of mandate:
Main Entry: man·date
Pronunciation: \ˈman-ˌdāt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French mandat, from Latin mandatum, from neuter of mandatus, past participle of mandare to entrust, enjoin, probably irregular from manus hand + -dere to put — more at manual, do
Date: 1501
1: an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
2: an authorization to act given to a representative (accepted the mandate of the people)
3 a: an order or commission granted by the League of Nations to a member nation for the establishment of a responsible government over a former German colony or other conquered territory b: a mandated territory
OK, with that out of the way, lets look at this two ways, financial and moral.
FINANCIAL
Financially, this town is at odds on how to improve things. There are the progressives (how I would classify most the of contributors to this blog, myself included) and the depressives (how I would classify the Board and Council majorities. A.K.A. NSN's on this blog). The progressives believe that by improving the town now, which, yes, does cost some money up front, we will save, even collect dividends, in the future. It is an investment for the future. That is the core of why most of us believed in a new school. A motto for this group might be, a stitch in time saves nine.
The depressives on the other hand believe that we need to keep taxes down at all costs. A motto on for this group might be, a penny saved is a penny earned.
I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye. These are deep, philosophical differences that are hard to overcome.
Now, financially, to answer your question, "how many more years do you believe we can afford to PROPERLY fund mandates with double digit annual increases?" I can't answer this for anyone other than for my family, however, I challenge the notion of double-digit increases. The state mandates (there's that word again) a max increase. Oh, but what about the exceptions, you ask. Yes, there are exceptions for things outside of our control, such as increased costs of special needs kids. Which leads to...
MORAL
We have a moral obligation to our community to educate our kids. It is our civic duty. At what costs? Well, at whatever the cost is to give our kids an appropriate education, to give them a chance at a future. This is a tenet of the progressives. Notice I am not asking for gold covered text books and marble-floored buildings. Yes, I think a new school was going to help build our community AND save money, but we never asked for a Taj Majal, no matter how you may have tried to spin it, Anonymous. Now, at this point, we are hoping to just keep our failing buildings and simply educate the kids, and so far it's not looking too promising that even that will happen.
I will say it again. We have a moral obligation to educate our kids. The current budget underfunds this mission, even at the pleas of the community and the real professionals, the administration.
So, you say, "Sooner or later, something has to give." Given the current budget, and Dr. Yonson's statement the other night that they will somehow figure out a way to appropriately deal with special education, etc, that means that, yes, something has to give. Sadly it will be education. Education will have to give and our kids will lose. We will give our kids a second rate education because YOU want lower goddamn taxes!
We have a moral obligation to our community to educate our kids.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Peter, that was excellent.
I couldn't find my earlier post on this, but the amateur psychologist in me still chalks this up to the "Right-Wing Authoritian" (RWA) personalities involved. Hellmann, Mihok, and Radosti are the most afflicted.
"Right-Wing" doesn't signify one's political leanings, but their personality type. Unfortunately, there's no "cure" per se - one must only hope and pray that they are tripped-up by their own misdeeds...
From Wikipedia (yeah, I know, but when the shoe fits...):
Research has discovered a wide range of RWA scale relationships over the years, which can be organized into four general categories. (The Authoritarian Specter)
1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:
Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
Hold contradictory ideas that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking.
Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.
2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:
Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as a Bill of Rights.
Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
Be prejudiced and hostile against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, sexual, and linguistic minorities.
Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.
3: Profound Character Attributes — RWAs are more likely to:
Be dogmatic.
Be zealots.
Be hypocrites.
Be absolutists
Be bullies when they have power over others.
Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.
4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures Whom They Respect— RWAs are more likely to:
Believe they have no personal failings.
Avoid learning about their personal failings.
Be highly self-righteous.
Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.
Instead of a school district and a community fighting among ourselves, let join together for a common cause: federal funds!
According to the National Education Association (http://www.nea.org/index.html):
“Special Education and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Access to a free, quality education is the key to the uniquely American promise of equal opportunity for all. This promise was formally extended to children with disabilities with the passage in 1975 of landmark federal legislation now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Public schools across the country today serve more than 6 million youngsters with a wide array of disabling conditions.
The promise made in 1975 remains unfulfilled.
Ever since its initial enactment, the federal law has included a commitment to pay 40 percent of the average per student cost for every special education student. The current average per student cost is $7,552 and the average cost per special education student is an additional $9,369 per student, or $16,921. Yet, in 2004, the federal government is providing local school districts with just under 20 percent of its commitment rather than the 40 percent specified by the law, creating a $10.6 billion shortfall for states and local school districts.
This shortfall creates a burden on local communities and denies full opportunity to all students -- with and without disabilities.”
Dear Anonymous,
I agree that we have a problem that the federal and state governments have helped create. However, with the current budget coming from Harrisburg, we can't expect help from them any time soon. Although Rendell's budget included increases in education funding, that has been reduced (call it underfunding).
What most concerns me about the current budget passed by the board is the head in the sand approach to our problems. Saying they were created by state or federal or past boards is pointless. They're our problems now.
We need to face them, not run and hide from them.
This budget will come to haunt us when we reach the end of the money before we reach the end of the school year.
Here's Jon's original posting for RWA: http://savethemorrisvilleschool.blogspot.com/2008/02/another-feasibility-study.html
Dear John Ceneviva:
I don’t know about you but I never run and hide from my problems. President Hellman told me my resolution: I will sue the school district. When the special education manger attempts to deny my child any service, I will win in court. The board is on record that a tax refund is necessary to keep their campaign promises. There is overwhelming evidence from all taped board meetings that President Hellman and his crew’s only priority is cutting the cost for Morrisville’s most vulnerable populations. Also, the board was advised by Kim Meyers, Dr. Yonson, Reba Dunford and several community members that the budget is far short of what is necessary to fully provide for upcoming special education, charter school and alternative school costs required by the state.
While I patiently wait for my lawsuit, I figured since President Hellman and his friends minds are made up maybe we should look else where for our answer.
Dear Anonymous (if the two anonymous entries are from the same person),
Thank you for clarifying. There is a certain faction of the community who believe that our school board is not responsible for the budget troubles we're in. They blame the state or the federal governments.
Anyone but the Emperor.
Great analysis Peter.
Beyond having a moral obligation to educate our children (and many would argue against this point of view anyway) we have a LEGAL obligation to educate our children.
Moral implies that there is a level of choice about what we do, assuming we can choose to address our moral obligations (if we are ethical) or ignore them (if we choose a different, anti-social world view), without penalty other than scorn from others.
Legal, however, does not allow leeway. A legal obligation MUST be met, or legal penalties apply.
We, as a society, under Pennsylvania Commonwealth law, are legally obligated to provide a free and appropriate education to all children under the age of 21. One might argue what "appropriate" is, but one CANNOT walk away from this obligation without legal penalty.
Legal obligation is correct. My understanding is that board members CAN be held accountable when they are informed that their decisions might result in a violation of code, but choose to do so anyway.
The superintendent, business manager, others are certified by the Department of Education and are agents of the state. They are not simply there as consultants to help the board along. To flout advice in such matters as special education may result in a board member being personally liable.
The law provides a measure of insurance so that the rights of children cannot be completely overridden by zealous politicians. Board members should take heed of the advice of their staff, like it or not, if not for moral reasons at least for legal ones.
Good point, Borows, I should've included legal in there too. My point was that it is the RIGHT thing to do, in terms of humanity, versus the legal perspective, which is that it is something you HAVE to do. Either way, the board is off-base on this issue.
Mother Bear and Borows are correct about the Board's personal, legal obligations. For their own sake, I hope they take heed.
While I'm at it, let me add a couple more cliche's to the mix (you decide which group they belong to):
Penny-wise Pound-foolish.
You can't cut your way to greatness.
Too many people want to use their school district budget as the sacrificial lamb to their tax revolt because they have more control over it. Gas prices are up; food prices are up, cost of living is way up. Yet we expect school districts, who are impacted by these same cost increases, to not be affected? Too many won't even accept an inflationary increase - they want a decrease.
I know that increases in taxes cause a burden for everyone living in the area now, but you have to look past the end of your checkbook. As the educational programs start to suffer, so will property values. Soon the single biggest financial investment you have (your home) will be worth less than your mortgage.
Morrisville is struggling financially now. At this rate, it will become a ghost town because no family will want to move here.
Looking down the road said, "we should look beyond our checkbooks. Isn't that what our federal government has been doing while screwing up the country?
Post a Comment