New School Costs
I, too, would congratulate the School Administration on the presentation of this bond proposal as compared to the one this summer. I eagerly await the answers to Francis Smith’s well-postulated questions and I would like to pose a few more.
Question 4: If we are building a new school to accommodate overcrowding, why is it necessary to spend $2+ million on JR Smith which, one would assume, would no longer be over capacity?
Question 5: In the public hearings by the school administration, it was my understanding the next school year would require a change of scheduling to either Year-Round School (YRS) or Extended Day and either possibility would cost about $500,000 additionally funding. A draft of YRS scheduling was even distributed. Either plan would alleviate the crowding for several years (Extended Day by one to three, YRS by five plus). If we are going to change to alternate scheduling for 2005-06, why not continue it for a few years and THEN build the new school, if needed?
By postponing construction until NEEDED,
1 Residents will be able to determine for themselves whether YRS provides the benefits supporters maintain, financial AND educational. (For a further discussion, pro and con, try "year round school" in any internet search engine.)
2 More new homes (which are basically the cause of the new enrollments) will be on the tax rolls, thereby sharing the burden of the bond.
3 If an economic downturn occurs, Wasatch citizens will not be encumbered with increased tax burdens for unnecessary buildings.
4 As a people we will not have succumbed to the philosophies of "buy now, pay later" and no expenditure is too great if "it’s for the children."
5 We can abide by the admonition to avoid (or minimize) debt, which is generally NOT advantageous to us personally OR as a society.
6 We can demonstrate our knowledge of the fallacy of the argument, "It’s only the price of a hamburger a day." Only a few pennies a day still amounts to payment of $15,000,000, with interest, in this case.
I was surprised to read Kraig Powell’s attack on the credibility of Keith Baker personally, (in an unrelated bilingual education debate between "social scientists") rather than the credibility of Year-Round Schools. While Baker’s bombastic approach may be offensive to some, his idea of putting more funding into education (instruction and curriculum), rather than buildings, is correct, in my opinion. It seems fundamentally obvious that better utilization of facilities (year-round) has to be an economic benefit, if not an educational one.
The needs of those PAYING (taxpayers) must be considered, as well as those receiving (students and parents). I would urge a YES vote on the leeway, (to allow for the increased expenses), NO on construction, and adoption of YRS district-wide.