Showing posts with label st joseph school district. Show all posts
Showing posts with label st joseph school district. Show all posts

Friday, March 27, 2009

Levy, Bond Issues


Nearly every day we readers of the St Joe News Press are bombarded with articles, letters, "It's Your Call" comments, and polls about the school district's recent bond and levy proposals. It's becoming wearisome.

I truly understand that there are voters on all sides of the measures who are passionate about their beliefs. This is what makes America such a wonderful country - the ability to vote in a private booth any way our heart leads us, and live with the outcome of the majority's feelings. I think rarely do voters actually vote on facts, best interests, long-term planning, or truly for what is in the best interest of the people as a whole. All too often do voters vote with their hearts and their passions in the moment. Which is, again, what makes our country great.

But on the flip side, I am so sick of reading these article comments, blogs, letters to the editor trying to sway voters to one side or the other. It actually aggravates me beyond belief that someone is honestly trying to get me to vote their way. To be frank, I don't give a damn what someone else thinks. I don't care that Daniel Nowalk, executive director, human resources and public relations, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Inc. thinks that new schools are going to produce better students than old schools.

I've got my mind made up and the more propaganda I see, the more I hate that we can be bombarded with false truths and be expected to vote on issues that are clearly undefined. I am frustrated that ballot issues can be placed in front of voters without agencies being required to produce all factual information available. I wish those asking for money could be prosecuted for failing to disclose financial information, withholding information and straight up lying about anything.

Twisted, tainted propaganda won't win the District my vote this go-around. I'm sure if they don't get both the bond and the levy this year, they'll keep throwing it out there every year until they do get it. And they'll always say the losses are affecting our children. Always the poor children, who are already getting the short end of the stick. The administrators will never suffer.

------------------------

Reasons to vote 'no':
a) Infrastructure surrounding the proposed school sites are sorely lacking. Narrow roads+ increased car traffic+ increased pedestrian traffic+ no sidewalks = a bad combination. There has been no communication between the City and the District to confirm that one will build if the other does. Assuming is a bad thing.

b) District's failure to provide a long-term plan (10 yrs, please). Neely got a new library 7 years ago, and now is slated for closure. New windows and media centers/libraries that were recently installed in potential closing schools is a WASTE of taxpayer $$. Foresight would have prevented this.

c) Dr. Melody Smith's comment that the District is flying by the seat of their pants in concentrating in the northeast just because of a population shift/bump is s c a r y. What happens when Downtown is revitalized and more students are located down there? Time for a new school again?

d) District's failure to provide a backup plan should one or both measures fail, and unwillingness to provide said plan after repeated attempts from taxpayers (obviously not accountable to the voters).

e) District's failure to invest in student growth. Shiny new schools do not equal better achievers. Additional teacher training, school programs, and extra curricular activities do.

f) District has said repeatedly that the proposed closures are in buildings that are structurally sound. Administrators have said that with renovations, these schools would be fine. Last time I checked, renovations would be cheaper that building anew. Continued maintenance would prevent the "failing" of our schools. Invest some money in our existing buildings!

g) The City has some major overhauling to do of their sewer system. This will assuredly bring increased fees from taxpayers, whether in the form of bills, bonds, or taxes. These school measures are raising my annual property tax bill, and I worry that the sewer bill will raise my bill also, leaving me with little to no money at the end of the year. Long-term planning folks. How much more can these public entities suck from me?

h) I, as a taxpayer, am expected to live within a budget - - why isn't the District?

i) This is the personal one for me, which likely won't mean anything to other voters. The District's failed assumption that voters will give them anything they want. Several months ago, before the bond issue was even an issue, Dr. Smith was quoted in the paper as trying to purchase potential land sites to build a new school. Wait... there was no approval from voters? No feedback even from voters? She said that "WHEN THE BOND IS PASSED...". When the bond is passed?! What the heck! Who said I would give you anything? I hate giving to an open hand that continues to beg for money but fails to work for it. People announce they want accountability. I want my voice to be heard! I want this woman to know that she works for me. And I want my children to be all the better for it.

j) $32,000,000,000. $32MM dollars, folks, sitting in reserves. I don't have $32MM in the bank, but if I did, I wouldn't be asking for more.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

SJSD Levy, Bond Issues



The News-Press has posted a section online where readers can catch up on all archived material related to the school tax.

Click Here to catch up on the latest

Saturday, January 24, 2009

SJSD Levy, Bond Issues



Let's establish something up front, before the rhetoric. I am totally, unequivocally AGAINST giving our school district any more money. I am appalled at how much of my annual tax money the school gets from me, and how little I see being put back into the schools. St Joseph has not been the first town I have lived in, but I have never given so much money to a school district before.

I have followed with great interest the school superintendent, Dr. Melody Smith, in her requests for the residents to give and give. I have seen her presume, no wait, assume that the fine citizens of St Joe can be bamboozled into approving both a bond and levy tax to satisfy an urge that Dr. Smith has to demolish and rebuild anew. She has assumed that both measures on the upcoming ballot will easy pass, and has even coerced the Board into purchasing land for a new school site based upon the ASSUMPTION that she will get her funds. I want to deny her every last penny based on her attitude alone.

But I do realize that the children are our future. Great line... thank you Whitney Houston. In all reality, I believe that the operating levy may be a good investment. A little high, but an investment nonetheless. The Board should learn to live within the confines of an actual budget and provide "proof" that they can exercise fiscal responsibility and sound investments. They should not make rash decisions to purchase land without prior approval from the people. This levy may be vital to their success, but I will not know for certain until I can obtain a copy of the budget, which thus far has been nearly impossible to obtain (Once I do, I will post for public viewing).

The bond should be knocked down 100%. The citizens should stand and have their voices heard. Stand up. Our children WILL survive. The solid structures will continue to benefit them. The bond will not provide your student with books or computers. It is wasteful.

A recent quote from Dr Smith notes that now she is against the building initiative. After she pushed it and pushed it. Why the backpedaling now?

Perhaps the people really are strong enough to get their voices heard. Perhaps the politicians don't really have the upper hand. Let's show this woman that she can't get everything she wants. Demand fiscal responsibility. Vote NO in April. Vote.

Friday, January 2, 2009

Parents as Teachers


What is the "Parents as Teachers" (PAT) program offered by the SJSD? According to the PAT's national website: Parents as Teachers is the overarching program philosophy of providing parents with child development knowledge and parenting support. The organizational vehicle for delivering that knowledge and support is Parents as Teachers National Center.

Huh? Okay, so after dissecting all of the propaganda presented on their website, I have ascertained that PAT is a network comprised of parents who are certified in the PAT theories.

1. These individuals then con new parents into signing up for their program in which a PAT representative will visit new parents in their home on a regular basis to provide insight about the expected growth and development of their child.
2. PAT representatives are supposed to identify potential health and developmental problems with children in their visits.
3. These visits are targeted to prevent child abuse and neglect.
4. Somehow, these short visits are supposed to increase school readiness and success.

The PAT website has reports and evaluations that tout the success of the program. My question is how accurate or successful can this program truly be if it is voluntary? My first thought is that those parents who elect to participate are already looking out for the best interest of their child and are parents who are unlikely to beat or ignore their children. Following this argument, it is the parents who choose not to enroll that we should be the most wary of.

I have spoken with parents who are enrolled in the program, and they have said time and again that the PAT representative provides no real insight into the development of their child. Many times, PAT representatives are telling parents about what to expect, while the child has already achieved the milestones! What a waste of time. What a waste of resources.

The program also touts it's ability to provide new parents with community resources. Hmmm... wonder what those community resources are? Literature? The parents that I have talked to are unaware of any benefits of enrollment. They simply have the "PAT lady" coming to visit.

Most of the parents enrolled are working parents who spend very little time with their children anyway. Daycare providers should be the ones educated. So many parents drop their kids off in the morning, pick them up in time for dinner, bath, and bed. In the midwest, it seems many parents spend their weekends at extended family's home, so are unlikely to have direct, uninterrupted interaction with their anyway.

Promoting a solid pre-school program would be more likely to lead to success of our children.

PAT's... pshaw...