The Questions:
1. _6.7
average___ On a scale of (0) strong disagreement, to (5)
neutral, to (10) strong
agreement, should the Legislature significantly increase state aid to
school
districts in 2009?
2. _5.6 average___ On a scale
of (0) strong disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong
agreement, should some school districts receive more funding be cause
of higher
costs of living in urban areas?
3. _6.1 average__ On a scale
of (0) strong disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong
agreement, should school districts be required to demonstrate how
additional
funding will produce better student learning?
Cam
Gordon (10)
(8) (5)
It should
demonstrate how is has been used to do so, not WILL do so. How can
they demonstrate something that has not happened yet? Measure the
results and then base decisions on doing them again or not on those
results.
Paul
Hauge (9)
(9) (9)
Jennifer Armstrong
(10) (10) (0)
I think the crux
of arguments about changing the way we fund schools boils down to two
central pieces:
1. Even though we
talk about the state having a constitutional obligation to provide a
high quality education for every Minnesota child, I don't think people
really mean it. We have six counties in MN with fewer than 1,000 K-12
students. Do we really want to provide the same quality education to
these geographically remote students? I'm thinking advanced
chemistry, calculus, and AP History. What are we saying to these
children and families when we say to them, you can take these classes
if you move to the Cities? We need to get over fair is equal and
start exploring multiple delivery models. We need to start
collectively asking and answering visioning questions around: What is
a world class education? What is a 21st century education? Do the
standards define that, or do we want something more, e.g., technology,
health, world languages, critical thinking, creative arts (art, music,
theater, dance, performance, band, orchestra, choir)? How do we make
sure every child in the state has access to resources to accomplish
that education? Are you really going to deliver Chinese language
instruction to students in St. Louis County?
2. There's
fundamental disagreement about the role of government and who should
pay for it. We've lost our sense of public good. Today, people
relate to government as consumers: I pay taxes, you provide these
goods and services. It used to be people related to government as
community-builders: We need a city hall, hospital, library, school?
Let's build it. I think somebody needs to have the courage to engage
Minnesota in a conversation (public debate? perhaps ask MPR Public
Insights Radio to do a series of community forums, statewide), about
whether or not the MN tax structure should be based on a percent of
income. As a middle-class Minnesotan, I pay roughly 16, 17, 18, 20%
of my income to taxes. What of the 47 Minnesotan's that bring in over
a billion each year? Should they pay the same? I don't know the
answer to that question. All I know is I'm willing to pay my fair
share. I think the tax structure should be mildly progressive. I
don't think the tax structure should be built around the fortunes of
47 people. There's too much risk inherent in those revenues going
away. Instead, I think the tax structure should be weighted so that
all essentially pay the same percent of income, but for the
mega-wealthy it's paid through luxury taxes somehow. That gives them
the option of buying their airplanes and yachts here or elsewhere.
But then, if their taxes are optional, so too shouldn't be mine?
A wisdom-keeper
once told me the people at the cutting edge of knowledge -- the
Edisons, Einsteins and Newtons of the world, aren't the ones who have
all the answers. They're the ones asking new questions. We need to
be less invested in the answers (the solution du jour), and more
willing to participate in asking the hard questions.
Question 1: Duh.
We've only been disinvesting in our schools for the past twenty years.
Question 2: Note:
This question is VERY poorly worded. It will delight the "divide and
conquer" strategists, which is not something I'm certain you meant to
do. OF COURSE, my local superintendent and neighbors despise any hint
metro districts might get more money. (He's not at all dissuaded by
the idea that most state income tax revenues are generated in the
Cities.) Taken in isolation, I'm sure you'll get LOTS of comments
back, both sides. Each piece of HF 4178 will have positive/negative
local impacts, depending on the local characteristics of these three
layers: students, central support (district) services and
community-based variables. Local school districts operate in a
CONTEXT. One of the things HF 4178 begins to address is the CONTEXT
of delivering a high quality education. To take one of those
variables out of context is a disservice to the bill, and a disservice
to the state discussion. Imagine peeling an onion. You need all of
the layers to have a healthy dialogue about the aesthetic of the
whole.
Question 3:
Absolutely not. Let's fix the holes in the cafeteria ceilings, get
class sizes down, update our textbooks, fill and staff our libraries
and music rooms, AND put current technology in place before we start
asking more of our schools.
That's NOT to say
we shouldn't be using the MCA data to identify schools showing great
gains and figure out what they're doing right so we can generate and
spread best practices. (By the way, where is the University in all of
this? How is it we can get "More than 125 experts, including
University scientists and public and private natural resource planners
and professionals," to participate in an 18-month effort to produce
the MN Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan (environment.umn.edu/scpp/finalplan.html),
but we can't manage to figure out these three questions about the
Achievement Gap: What is it? Where is it? What the heck can we do
about it?
I guess there's a
third piece I'd add to the crux of the arguments: We cannot hold
schools accountable for all of society's ills. We owe a huge debt of
gratitude to Carlos Mariani, Myron Orfield, Jermaine Toney and others
for beginning to use the words structural racism. We need to address
the barriers to student achievement -- household employment, housing,
transportation, medical care, etc. It's not just a matter of making
sure children are Ready 4 K, it's making sure children arrive at
school ready to learn every day.
Does it matter
that I live in a MN county where 47% of jobs pay less than a living
wage. Should we be having conversations about the things that
perpetuate poverty? Absolutely. Example: I read a 2006 report that
estimated the annual MN public cost of alcohol use at ~27% of total
state revenues. Say what? I can send you the data. The current DWI
system is incredibly regressive. You and I can likely pay the court
fines, keep our jobs; impacts to low-income children and families are
horrendous.
And so we're back
to complex layers. Like I said, I don't have all of the answers, but
I really, really do think people need to start asking the hard
questions and STOP framing things in terms of this or that. We owe a
huge debt of gratitude to Mindy Greiling and those willing to stand
with her for bringing conversations about school funding to a new
level. It's very, very hard to appreciate the whole onion when people
position things in terms of discrete layers.
We can do better
than a toggle switch.
We're Minnesotans.
Jan
Hively (8)
(5) (3)
Wonderful goals
with attention to the details of implementation. Does it have a
chance of passage?
Question 1. This
funding is what the state promised and never gave. Why should we beg
for it?
Question 2. Too
much time is being spent now testing "basic skills" achievement.
Question 3. My
answer would be "10" on this if I thought that all of the people who
count on well-educated high school graduates had a chance to define
the goals for "better student learning." I'd state goals that would
match up with the skills, habits and attitudes related to productivity
-- which go far beyond 3rd grade reading and 8th grade algebra -- and
a process for learning that includes the factors identified by
research to be important to "better learning."
Jim
Keller (2)
(0) (10)
This appears to be
an increase of over 50 per cent (7 to 11 B per biennium) with no need
specifically demonstrated
The change to a
flat support of elementary and secondary students is questionable with
no demonstration that the costs are equal
What is the need
for additional pupil aid in low income areas - it is my understanding
that there is already relatively more spent on special ed in these
areas.
Cost of living
adjustments for the metro area seems questionable, since the rural
areas have more difficulty hiring teachers than the metro area
Charles Lutz
(10) (8) (8)
Vici
Oshiro (10)
(7) (5)
Best part about
Greiling's proposals is long range view and a plan on how to get from
here to there. We owe P S Minnesota a big thank you for their
research and leadership. Legislature has a history of micromanagement
and short term thinking.
On cost of living
issue, that's been around a long time with differing data some
supported idea that cost of living is higher in metro area, some did
not. Show me the comprehensive numbers.
On demonstrating
how additional funding will produce better student learning. This
looks like it could easily lead to make work and distract from basic
mission.
Dennis L. Johnson
(0) (0) (10)
Until States fund
the student (parents) and not the bureaucracies the schools have built
up, there will be no improvements in education. The states should get
out of the education business and parents should be free to choose
home schooling, on line education, or their choice of private or
religious schools. Costs above the taxpayer-funded level will be the
responsibility of the parents.
Shirley Heaton
The topic is of
national concern. My general comments are: Year-round schooling runs
against the grain of the American lifestyle. Family vacations are
generally planned around the kids' summer break. Family values are
already in jeopardy. The Year-Round proposal would play havoc with
family practices, here. As for financial assistance, I have always
maintained that the emphasis should be placed at the elementary school
level during the formative years of the student. By high school, too
many questionable study and learning habits tend to be already 'etched
in stone'.
Now the survey:
Strong agreement with the pre-kindergarten concept. I have often
wondered why some grad student hasn't undertaken the task of proposing
standards for pre-school educators to get the ball rolling? Nos. 2 and
3 I give take a neutral stand only because I feel as for (2) student
performance should be a determining factor. With (3) schools should
enter competitive application for funds similar to the grant fund
request process.
Patty
Hague (10)
(8) (2)
Donald H. Anderson
(10) (8) (5)
Education is very
important in the overall economy of the State and cannot be treated as
it has in recent years with more responsibility being placed on the
local school system and its own ability to collect revenue regardless
of the economic and age structure of that community. Thus the State
much play a major role, as well as the Federal government in providing
adequate funds for the education of our younger generation.
Clarence Shallbetter
(4) (5) (9)
John
Nowicki
(10) (7) (3)
Robert Klungness
(10) (6) (7)
Lyall
Schwarzkopf
(4) (4) (0)
The teacher's
union negotiates contracts with the School Boards. If they want more
money for areas that have a higher cost, it will be negotiated. In
2009, it will be very difficult for the legislature and governor to
balance the state budget. With the downturn of the economy it will be
even more difficult. We don't need to raise state aid in this
situation.
Craig
Westover
(5) (5) (0)
The problem with
Greiling's approach is that while recognizing the individual
differences among students (by defining different funding requirements
for students with different backgrounds), Greiling continues to
provide funding to a monopoly state-run education system with
aggregate standards and curriculum. A better alternative is funding
individual families based on differences, enabling them to make
education decisions based on their individual needs. Using Greiling's
numbers, here is an alternative approach:
Given the cost of
basic education funding at $7,500 per student, a family can choose to
send its children to any accredited school -- public or private,
secular or religious. The state will pay directly to the school 80
percent of the cost of tuition up to $7,500. Families would pay 20
percent of the cost of tuition. (The 20 percent requirement would be
waived for low-income families). This approach brings new money into
education without raising taxes on everyone and enables individuals to
make decisions about the education it wants for its children.
Individuals
without children could receive a tax credit equal to 80 percent (up to
$7,500) of every dollar donated to a public or private school or a
scholarship foundation providing K-12 scholarships. This also puts new
money into education without raising taxes. A similar program should
be implemented for business and corporate contributions to K-12
education.
The additional
$2,500 per student based on free or reduced meals and the 20 percent
formula allowance for students with limited English proficiency should
be attached to individual students and provided to the schools they
choose to attend at an 80 percent rate to the school (with the 20
percent holdback waived if a school has a significantly high
proportion of low-income and/or limited English students). The
remaining 20 percent and any unused portion of the $7,500 allowance
after tuition is paid should go to the district school in the
geographic area in which the family lives on an annual basis for a set
period of years (e.g. three years) to compensate the district school
for lost revenue.
The level of
funding is not the problem with education. The problem is how the
money is spent. No group of educators, legislators or bureaucrats can
create an education system the meets the needs of all students. A
state-run education system fosters conflicts among people of different
values and different education expectations. Under the current system,
the only way a family can ensure its needs are met is by using the
political power of the state and forcing its views on others. A system
based on choice doesn’t eliminate conflict, but a system based on
choice provides a way to resolve conflict without coercion. People
will choose and take their dollars where they are best served.
As long as the
focus is on the education system, rather than on individual students,
education will continue to be a funding black hole.
David
Broden (8)
(4) (2)
Question 1: Yes
but with a strong sense of purpose of the increase--not funds for
funding sake only but with a purpose to upgrade the overall quality of
education across the state--this must include innovation in education
such as on-line capability to enable sharing of teacher skills across
districts--we do not need duplicate teachers in all districts --share
the skill and direct the funds to the students. Funds in some cases
should be for technology and tactility upgrade if that fits the
funding criteria --w need to use a portion of the added funding to
achieve individual instruction ---and further reduce the group
teaching-need to focus on innovation in techniques with the overall
fund increase.
Question 2: No, this should not be the primary criteria for funding
distribution--we can establish some sort of a formula for cost of
living adjustment, district size or travel/bus distances but we should
not or cannot discriminate between the students in rural Minnesota and
the urban/metro--the student across Minnesota need access to the
same basic capability--there may be some factors if additional courses
are added but we need to be careful--rural students should not be
penalized because they are from the farm or small town-simply does not
make sense in any way.
Question 3: Measuring results before the funds are spent makes no
sense. Defining a way to have strong purpose for the funds--asking the
districts to show how the added funds will be applied--not just we
have more money lets spent it thinking--so a monitoring system with
out a check list and excessive mandates tied to it should be able to
work. A way to reduce the funds to a district if value is not shown
each year does make sense--this measurement needs both local
district--and state oversight--but not by a bureaucratic mess to
manage the measurement.
Mary
Tambornino
(10) (10) (10)
Bob
White
This
must have been an energizing session. I don't know Rep. Greiling, but
your excellent summary suggests that she has a remarkable combination
of experience, vision, practicality and, not least, willingness to
work hard at translating inventive ideas into appealing legislation.
My ratings below are short of 10 because I'm sure there are
reasonable arguments against some of her proposals -- arguments about
which I'm insufficiently informed. Certainly education funding
increases will be difficult to support when the state faces daunting
fiscal problems, compounded (perhaps exponentially) by the national
and international financial crisis. But neither can the state afford
to fail doing everything possible to improve K-12 education.
Chris
Brazelton
(9) (5) (10)
Question 1: Only
if we can come to agreement on raising the revenue to pay for it.
Question 2: Some
of those costs are offset by access to public transportation,
something almost non existent in rural areas.
Bill
Hamm (0)
(0) (0)
All of these
questions lead into the "New Minnesota Miracle" model not out of it. A
little history lesson here, 1967 the Federal Dept. of Education was
created and staffed strongly by the Teachers Union Representation
organized in 1964 as a result of the Civil Rights act. Now you have
the groundwork for the Federal takeover of Education which is what the
first "Minnesota Miracle" was all about, selling us out to the
socialist takeover of education by connecting up to the Regional
Education Laboratory System ours was MCREL. MCREL became the
intermediary between Federal and State Departments of Education as
well as the source of all curricular material.
Let us take a
moment to describe what our education system had looked like when we
were truly an education leader. Our education system was first and
foremost a "Liberal Arts" knowledge based program that was locally
controlled right down to the choice of curriculum and dress code.
Within that system every segment competed with every other
segments providing proof positive of what worked and what did not as
well as who was able to teach and who was not while our districts
still had authority to deal with less than productive teachers. Our
school system existed for the purpose of teaching our children what
they needed to know to move onward and upward after High School, it
was student based. The root word of teacher is teach and the
definition of teach is to impart the knowledge of, (whatever subject
was being taught) and that is what a "Liberal Arts" based system does
and has done since Greek times.
Let us look at
the UN based "World Class" education model now, ( first signed on to
in 1959 by Eisenhower, signed out of by Jimmy Carter, and signed back
onto by Ronald Reagan). The "World Class" education model has some
extreme problems right from the start due to the mixture of phonetic
and cuneiform (often called "see and say") learning styles in its
language education component. It gets worse when you also come to
realize that it is based upon the needs of global business (the
collective needs not individual) and is based on minimal needs of
business not what is best for the child (grade 8 standards rather than
the grade 10.5 we had before). Looking deeper you find a psychology
and philosophy based education system not a knowledge based one, in
short it is no longer teaching but training that is happening in our
schools. Finally we come down to the kingpin here, how do you get rid
of a tenured bad teacher this is what the teachers union was about
doing in this whole deal, making it almost impossible to get rid of
people who many time should not have chosen this profession. It
actually goes deeper than that as we use to draw our best and
brightest to the teaching profession, now it is less important how
intelligent they are than it is that they are good team players. We
stifle the system out of any change oriented activities instead of
encouraging them as we did in the old system that could make or break
them, we undermine any education competition as divisive and avoid by
all means any objective analysis of teacher performance under this new
"World Class" model. In short this system is bad from every angle yet
the push is on to deepen this bad connection again. While this is the
extremely short version, we do need to work hard and together to get
back to the true "Liberal Arts Knowledge Based" system controlled by
local citizens and competing against each other academically again. I
trust what works not any central control model that undermines local
input, ideas, and growth.
David
Pundt
I didn't get much
beyond response number 1 in your discussion of HF 4178. The bill
includes something called the Location Equity Index that guarantees
Minneapolis will continue to get the biggest percentage of ed money,
just like it does now. With that whopper from the pols, didn't seem
like going on made much sense. The bill is an election year ploy to
charge taxpayers more for education even though schools are graduating
fewer students (a deal any industry would love to get, charge more
money for fewer products). More money but no improvements in an
outdated system. The miracle is that so many can say so much with a
straight face.
Bill
Kuisle (2)
(0) (10)
Ray
Schmitz (8)
(8) (2)
First, I have this
general feeling that the school board system is no longer an effective
method of administering schools. If there is statewide funding, and
professional administrative staff at the local level, what real
function does the board perform/
Second, Does the
current administrative system in local districts duplicate and/or
replicate function. That is, does each district need the cadre of
administrators in curriculum, programming, etc. or could those
functions be provided by the state since the requirements are put in
place by the state department.
Question 3: This
again simply leads to the grant writing model taking precedence in the
systems, that is, to get the money we have to write a proposal so we
hire folks to do so, this does not necessarily lead to real change. I
heard a military recruiter commenting that high performing high school
grads are not able to pass the military placement tests.
Rob
Duchscher
(10) (5) (5)
All public schools
can use more funding. But we need funding without chains. Shifting
money around or allocating funds with specific targets, doesn’t help
the General Fund in many situations. Special Education costs are
killing all of us.
Our mission for
our 28,000 students is “to educate all students to reach their full
potential”. We are wondering if we can accomplish this mission in
today’s market. ISD 196 is somewhat of a poster child for finances. We
are sitting really well and enjoy great support from our Community.
However this comes from hard work and a solid 5 year plan. It would be
great if the State could provide us with a 2 – 4 year plan so we can
take “small course corrections” versus massive corrections.
Qcomp is a great
program. Our District has embraced it. This won’t be very popular with
the Union that supported me for 3 elections but revamp the tenure
system. Any industry has good employees and bad employees. We need to
be able to get rid of the employees who no longer think they need to
do the job.
Keep the focus on
“cores”. We need to get these students ready to compete world wide.
Lastly, a longer
school year. Something that needs to be looked at in my opinion.
Currently not enough contact days.
Rod Tietz
This is a
terrible plan. Throwing an additional $2 billion at education
simply because they need the money will not create a better
system. To say this plan some how represents the work of the
Minnesota Miracle is a insult to those who truly worked on that
project. |
Bob
and Jackie Olson (1) (2) (7)
I believe that
the multitude of tax formulas should be simplified whether they
are fair and equitable or not. Reading the proposal makes me
think that the additional "improvements" are neither. I wonder
about the additional $2 billlion cost especially at these hard
times.and also wonder about making kindergarten an all day affair
or special ed at age 3 at the school.
|
Anne
Finch (10) (8) (2)
Incentives to
economize need to come for the WHOLE of MN not school district by
school district. I will use the example of creating Smart Board
classes.....having each school district fund the creation is not
as cost effective as creating ONCE then giving to ALL school
districts to customize from a base. Same with training teachers
on this technology. Vs only affording to send a few.....do what
businesses do. Have a "Virtual Classroom/ELearning" set up, one
instructor can teach literally hunderds of teachers without anyone
traveling anywhere. I think on the whole we can be more effective
with our $$ vs. having the districts nickel and dime their
savings. Similarly schools that have re-engineered their classes
into a more problem solving/engineering focus. How to we incent
them to publish these for use by all schools. The technology is
now there to make all this readily available to all schools vs.
again having them all do it on their own over and over.
4. So we are letting the entertainment/leasure industry drive our
kids education?! Maybe is why global specialists see America's
future as the entertainment capital of the world while India and
China take over the innovation space! Shameful if that is the
reason we can't go to longer school years. Challenge those
industries to propose programs that mix entertainment and
education as a class maybe summer becomes picking education camps
we would fund instead?! See TechID Camp (www.internaldrive.com)
and www.bestprep.org as two places that have made "fun" summer
learning camps. Year long school doesn't have to mean more time
sitting behind a desk in a school building....lets get creative.
5. YES!
9. Huge cost savings and for today's learners we must adjust our
teaching methods to the new reality of expectations based on the
multi media world our kids are growing up in. The standard
methods are no longer a match for how their brains are wired.
Read books on how Gen Y learns best, also the "New Brain".
13. I agree. I would suggest that they are able to stop focusing
on fund raising and focus instead of engaging not just the
students but the parents. Engagement at home is a critical
success factor that all the in-school work in the world can't
totally address. Yes this may mean some funding has to go to
parent engagement.
Question 1. YES!!!!! Highest priority above all else we must
invest in our future. We must change the social reward structure
for teachers vs. other professions. We need a campaign to help
those "that don't have kids", "already raised my kids", "I pay
private already"...to understand the long and short term
ramifications of NOT funding better and benefit OF funding better.
What happens to whole economy and support structure when done
well vs. done poorly.
Question 2. I do agree teachers in metro areas have a higher cost
of living thus need higher salaries. That said I think we also
need to pay a premium to attract good teachers to very rural areas
in MN...while their cost of living may be low...there are other
disadvantages we need to counter to give similar quality teachers
to the more remote areas. (Also need to be open to other teaching
models to address that problem - distance learning, virtual
classrooms, e-learning). But I do not think that metro schools
should get better equipment, connections or access to resources.
That needs to be evened out so students across the state get
consistent opportunities.
Question 3. I don't believe all school districts have equal
"talent/experience" with how to turn additional funds into equally
better learning. I think some schools do much better with their
$$ than others and we would be better off with best practices
across the schools driving methods to leverage funding to produce
better student learning vs. promoting re-inventing the wheel
school district by school district. That shouldn't take away from
the flexibility that is needed for special needs of a school
district. I do feel that school districts should be able to make
a case for special funding uses due to their special district
needs (ie low at home reading skills might justify more after
school tutor/reading resources). In business under performing
departments get "help/expertise" from solidly performing
departments vs. being asked to solve it themselves. We need to
find ways to get more bang for our buck by leveraging best
practices cross MN vs asking the schools to come up with ideas for
change. At some point it doesn't even become an option to ask for
help, they are "assigned help" just like in business.
|
Dan
Loritz (3) (2) (9)
If we start
with the assumption that there will never be enough money for the
schools (echoes of Rudy Perpich) the question we are left with is
what is the appropriate amount of investment to get the results
that we need. We need to shift the discussion from "we need this"
to "we need to use our funding in the following way". One
Perpichism - Rudy would ask school superintends, when they came
looking for new money, to tell them what the new money would be
used for. Once they laid out their priorities he would say "How
important is it? They would say "Very important." Rudy would then
say "No really how important is it? and they would say "It is
very, very important". He would ask again and they would say very,
very, very important. This would go on. He would then say if it so
important what can you stop doing that is less important to pay
for these things. The conversation would end there. I agree with
what Rudy was driving at (I suspect you already know that). |
Robert A. Freeman
(6) (10) (10)
According to
this recap, schools will only be required to file a plan with the
Education Dept of how this 50% increase if they are not making
progress. This appears to be the only transparency measure in the
proposal. There is apparently no plan for accountability to
parents or taxpayers, no consequences if the funding infusion does
not work, no attempts to reform the way we train or pay teachers.
It is difficult to see how this can be described as anything other
than throwing money at the problem. New increases in education
funding must be tied to results or at least tied to a plan of how
results will be achieved. It is not even clear what will be
considered an improvement in results. |
David
Alden (8)
(5) (2)
Donna
Anderson
(6) (5) (10)
Ruth
Usem (8)
(8) (8)
I am casting
my vote(s) with the understanding that there will be good
oversight of any additional state aid increase in 2009. |
Don
Mink
(10) (7) (9)
Glenn
S. Dorfman
(0) (5) (10)
Robert J. Brown
(3) (2) (10)
Question 1: Any increases in aid should be related to
performance. It does no good to give more money to schools to do the
same things if they haven’t been successful. Increases should relate
to increases in student progress, attendance, and graduation rates.
Question 2: One of
the problems with the school aid formulae over the years is that they
are a mess of special interest packages to buy support of various
constituencies. Once you start with this type of thing then other
groups come in with their “unique needs” such as geographic isolation
and you end up with the kind of formula we have today. If you are to
have special treatment of certain factors, population density, percent
of students in poverty, etc, those things should be based objective
research, not just on political clout.
Malcolm McLean
(8) (9) (8)
This was an
impressive look at school funding. She touched most bases and seeks
to eliminate some problems, such as too much reliance on property
taxes and differential between high school and elementary school
funding. It will be hard, of course, to do all this soon with the
economy reeling, but some steps forward should be taken, and no
priority should be higher than education.
|