Public schools must show fiscal responsibility
To the editor,
Public schools have monopolized the education process for primary schools. The schools have forced people to pay into a system that educates students to “their” standard without asking the public how they want it done. The public schools of Minnesota have had a shrinking pupil rate, and yet they ask for more money and give fewer results. The schools, meaning the superintendent, his office, and the school board, need to be fiscally responsible with how they use the taxpayers money, and not just in Farmington, but in all school districts.
Throughout grammar school, I went to a private school that cost $2,100 a year. It cost $6,293.50 to send my brother, my sister, and I there per year. When I got into the public system, I was nearly a year and a half ahead of the most accelerated classes that Farmington’s middle school had to offer. In Minnesota, on average, school districts spend about $10,000 per pupil per school year, which is over four times as much, and yet they were behind the private school. Everyone who owns property pays the public school system, which is forcing many low income families to use their ineffective and inefficient system.
On Nov. 6 many Minnesota school districts had a referendum, and about 65 percent of the school districts came out victorious. The government is the only place where you can vote yourself a raise! Now how about that; if you work for the public schools you can give yourself a raise and not be expected to do a better job. In the public sector of society you would be scoffed at for requesting such a thing.
Friedman said, “Education in the United States should be guided by a clear conception of the meaning of democracy and choice - this ideal demands a high level of efficiency in our schools.” There is no democracy or choice in the American school system.
Public schools tell people that by giving them more money they can be more efficient. The definition of efficient is accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure; if the schools were truly being more efficient then they would be teaching more students with less teachers and technology, but the opposite is true, the public school wants smaller classes which is less efficient. An effective way to describe the public school system would be to call it a monopoly, which, once again, is only legal for the government. Now they can raise their own salaries and force people to get a lower education than what most parents would want for their children.
Basically the public school needs to show some fiscal responsibility
Tom Fischer,
Farmington
 E-Mail to a Friend
|
Government education is a failed system. Doing something over and over and expecting to get different results is the definition of schizophrenia.
If adults would just quit handing over their children to this bureaucracy and take educational matters into their OWN hands, it would collapse. Just because you don’t have to spend any money, does not make it free either. Children are not commodities. They are the future and based on what we’re seeing, the future is not too bright. We will end up paying for this waste of time and money.
Comment by pullemout — December 14, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
The price of public school education is too complex to average. Every state, every district, every school has variables which add to the cost of educating its students. With the dwindling share the state and federal governments pay, the price that the local taxpayer is asked to foot is ever increasing, which is so unfair. Although it sounds like a mantra, special education and the influx of second language students adds a big chunk to those costs, however disproportionately. Also, the cost of transportation, insurance and building maintenance are costs which are totally out of the local district’s control. From asbestos abatement and handicapped accessibility, the local boards and even the states have little control over federal mandates. The local taxpayers feel their control is in vetoing the referendum, but actually their control was taken away twenty years ago with the beginning of federal mandates, and their pocketbooks have been ravaged when those mandates ceased to be funded by the feds.
Those deceptive “averages” include large metro areas that have statistically high enrollments of special needs populations that cannot produce the test scores that would validate the spending. Most Minnesota schools are under your “average” pupil expenditure amount, with fine results. It is my position as a three decade educator that all forms of education need to unite, because it is about every child. Parents need the right to provide education as they see fit, however we as parents need to support those students who need the public schools for education. Criticism without constructive and ongoing support is not good for any child, muchless any school system which strives to educate that child. In turn, homeschooled students should be able to benefit from public school offerings in performing arts and sports. Local and state boards need to be able to monitor non-traditional schooling for abuses. Be it public, private, home or cyber, we as a society must embrace education for every child, not just our own. The demise of any one of these options will not serve the best interests of anyone.
I invite our homeschool advocates to visit our special education classrooms, talk with our principals about the programs we are required to provide to all students, and get involved in public education as taxpayer. In my local district, we have always had private school parents on our public school board, and I sincerely hope that someday we could have a homeschooling parent elected. Then our board will certainly represent the diversity of educational offerings that every child should have. And then we will no longer have to weather criticisms of the cost of education for our children, as all children will once again belong to the whole community, not the community now being divided by issues which cannot be simplified into mere statistics.
Comment by Sue Cechal — January 8, 2008 @ 6:51 am
Hello. I’m work in Coleraine, Minnesota which is having a school referendum vote this month (May). Folks for the referendum say that if we don’t pass it, the school (graduating classes of around 80-100 students per year) will have to dissolve or be combined with another. The folks who don’t want the referendum say to vote no and have the school administration become more fiscally responsible. Here’s my question: What does fiscal responsibility mean regarding school district referendums? Is it operating with a balanced budget? Operating with a small surplus for a “rainy day” fund? Allowing a small deficit in slow economic times? It seems to me that the phrase “fiscal responsibility” means different things to different people. I am interested in feedback regarding this issue. Thanks for your time.
Comment by Mitzie — May 7, 2008 @ 5:41 pm