Just over a month ago, the Board of Education pulled themselves out of their fall hiatus when board president Mike Sommer called the body together to debate a provision that would amend a tax rate of $5.18, passed two weeks prior, to $5.13. Through all the debate and squabbling over relatively minuscule amounts of petty savings, the question begs, should we be providing our schools with the meager bare minimum? Of course we shouldn’t. Of course we should take as much money as we can for education. Of course we should spend hundreds of millions on schools. Of course we should spend tens of thousands of dollars per student. Education isn’t a Ponzi scheme; it’s a right. Education is the silver bullet. It’s the end all, be all. It’s what has gotten the District to where it is, and it’s what will take us where we want to be.
The tax rate that was first passed would not only have made the District fiscally solvent, but would also have provided the District with a $1 million surplus to be used at the District’s discretion. Most arrows pointed to a “rainy day” fund, which, given the volatile economic condition, wouldn’t have been a poor investment. However, after heated debate and pointed fingers and a special session, the District, for the first time, voted to amend that rate.
In just over a year, the District will lose the 20 cent Sunset Provision that has kept the sinking District budget afloat for the past three years. When the District loses this levy, if they do not choose to put it to a tax payer vote, they will lose $4 million and see a set of austerity measures that it hasn’t had to cope with in over a decade. And, all this at a time when EOC scores are growing at a sub-average rate, graduation rates are stagnate, and the looming No Child Left Behind deadline plagues the minds of administrators.
The sustainability of this plan relies on the hope that the state government will provide as much money as the formulas say they should. The state’s in the midst of its own budget crisis, with a general assembly that can’t pass legislation without gridlock, so dependence on them is wishful thinking at best. Long-term self-sustainability needs to be at the forefront of revenue policy discussions. If the Board holds the rate at $5.13, assuming it doesn’t ask voters to make the Sunset Provision a permanent revenue source, the District has projected that it will lose $37 million over the next seven years.
The tax payers passed the sunset provision not once, but twice. And in two years, they’ll do it again. The Board just has to ask. Now is no time for austerity measures, especially ones which are self-imposed. The idea that the difference between the rates will save a significant amount of money is laughable compared to the difference between the rates in terms of benefit for the District. The median home value in the District is $225,000. The owners of such a home would pay a mere $21 more with the $5.18 rate compared to the $5.13, and when paying for a $225,000 home already, what’s $21 more?
Our schools should be palaces. Our teachers should be experts. Adequate shouldn’t be enough. Good shouldn’t be the goal. Great educations cost money, and Francis Howell students deserve nothing less than extravagant.
