[Vision2020] How one ID school district dealt with declining enrollment
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:16:19 -0700
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Deacon,</P>
<P>Yes, enrollment is "a factor" in educational funding, it is not the "ONLY" factor in funding education. If the number of disabled children increased, the number of impoverished children increased, the number of programs increased, inflation increased, and medical care increased, and housing costs increased, this would not justify cutting funding. </P></DIV>
<P>Second, they did not cut funding to give a big tax to rich white fat balding republicans. They took the cuts because the income is less off of existing tax laws.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Third, should the money saved by decreasing student enrollment go to improve educational opportunities, or should the government spend 90% of the money to figure out a way to give the other 10% back to big fat rich white balding Republicans? I vote to give the money to the kids.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>You stated: "If only 17 poor souls attended Moscow High, would we still be responsible for coming up with the exhorbitant amount of cash we currently shell out? I suppose we would, because we would still need to pay all of the teachers seventy grand a year."</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>First, if we did follow you ideas we would only have 17 poor souls left in the Moscow School District.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>"would we still be responsible for coming up with the exhorbitant amount of cash we currently shell out?" </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>"Cash", I don't know Deacon, are you going to pay off the $8 Trillion deficit that you are leaving them behind? How about a trade, you pay the $8 Trillion debt and they will pay for the cost their education when they get older? I think that is fair don't you? Or how about you move to another country where you can give 67% of your income in taxes and get half as much in return? Or we can be thankful for what we have and educate the children the best we can so they will be smart enough to pay the debt off and pay your social security. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>"I suppose we would, because we would still need to pay all of the teachers seventy grand a year." </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>We don't pay all the teachers $70K a year. If we did, that would be significant improvement of our society. Instead we pay lawyers, administrators, and politicians $70K or more a year. These are the blood suckers of society, not Teachers. Teachers hold the second most important jobs in the world, followed only by Mothers. I would love to see lawyers, administrators, and politicians scrape out a living on a teacher's salary while the people that hold jobs that truly give something to society get paid decent salaries.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I know of no job more worthy of 70K a year then a teacher. I suppose you would rather pay teachers $5.15 an hour to save your poor soul from MORE TAXES. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I will tell you something Deacon, I live on what is considered 20% below the poverty line. I pay 15% of income still in taxes. I live on less then 9K a year after taxes. I have zero children in school. I am happy to pay that money to the educational system. And I would rather have it all be given to the future of children and educators then giving one more cent in tax cuts to fattening the portfolios of fat rich balding republicans that make their money off the hard labor of honest americans making $5.15 an hour. If you want a tax cut, then write your legislatures and ask them to raise to minimum wage of nothing an hour to $10 a hour. Then people will make more and be able to pay a portion of your tax burden. Otherwise, you are hypocritical and will continue to pay ever more increasing portions of your income to the government and get not one tear from the people living on 12K a year or less which is a huge chunk of the Idaho population. Thanks!</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Donovan J Arnold<!-- END STORY CODE --><!-- BEGIN TAGLINE --><!--BEGIN THE BYLINE FOR THE BOTTOM OF THE STORY --><!-- END TAGLINE --><BR><BR>>From: "Deacon James" <DDJAMES@MOSCOW.COM></P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>To: <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] How one ID school district dealt with declining enrollment
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:21:30 -0700
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Donovan: "This is how they dealt with budget cuts, not with declined enrollment as you suggest."
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>The article states that "an eight-year enrollment slide" was a contributing factor in the decision to make budget cuts. My understanding is that funding for government schools is primarily based on enrollment, so it should follow that if enrollment goes down, so should funding. If only 17 poor souls attended Moscow High, would we still be responsible for coming up with the exhorbitant amount of cash we currently shell out? I suppose we would, because we would still need to pay all of the teachers seventy grand a year.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Cheers,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Deacon
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>MSN 8 helps <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMNENUS/2752??PS=">ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES.</a> Get 2 months FREE*.</html>