Your class attack is unwarranted. I don’t drive a fancy lease car, I don’t buy (or drink) lattes, I make coffee at home and bring it in a cup. I brown bag my lunch. I contacted Dr. Williams at Huron re: the wasted postage on the report cards, and got no response. Is my question regarding putting in an astroturf soccer field during an economic downturn unwarranted? When you see things spiraling down you only spend money if you have it (unless you’re a business trying to knock off the competition).

@Jim Carty:

Yes, my taxes have gone down since I moved into the state in 2007, due to the value of my home going down. My equity in my home is down, even though I bought partway into the downturn. I moved into this state hoping to see it turn around, and lost my job in the process due to the US economy (not the state economy). I’ve invested hugely on a personal basis. But I didn’t and still don’t understand building a 3/4 empty (then 1/2 empty then 1/4 empty) High School, so I moved into an area where I knew my son wouldn’t be going to Skyline. I question the investment, and I question the psychological impact on 9th graders in a building by themselves, and then 9th and 10th graders by themselves, … We came from a district that renovated a school and my son had to go to another school for a year and then come back. He did fine. After renovating several schools, and not controlling costs, the school board came back and asked to renovate the High School, and the voters said no. Repeatedly. So the school district put temporary classrooms on the front lawn to give the voters a constant reminder of their “bad decision”. Childish.

I’ll support new school funding WHEN I feel that the schools have cut everything that I believe they can without significantly affecting the quality of education. And when the request for funding doesn’t auto renew after 5 years. Until then, I’m voting no.

I wasn’t meaning that it was a loophole in a technical or legal aspect, only that it was a backdoor clause written into the original proposal that allowed for this very rare event to occur, and that the original proposal probably had to make concessions for it, since it was sort of against the spirit of centralization (I am not a fan of Prop A, in general, but I agree with the philosophy, similar to my thoughts on No Child Left Behind). By mediocre, I meant that in my experiences teaching at Pioneer HS, things could be much better (cuts are not going to help, believe me).

Mr. Designated Conservative,

Do I think that the proposal is perfect? No. Do I think that the school system is perfect? No. Do I think that by reserving funds and allowing major cuts and making things tougher on the system is a good idea? No. By lesser of two evils, I mean that there are two options: YES or NO. A vote of NO sends a loud message that the state is doing the right thing by cutting funds for education, and reinforces our state government’s decision that children should suffer just like anyone else. The $500k house comment was to point out that it boils down to a cup of coffee per day, and I am of the opinion that children count for more than that. I truly believe that the schools are always looking to make things better, but that means they need REAL SUPPORT from the community, not just silly mandates about performance from the national level (NCLB) or from activist groups protesting that the “schools need to be more responsible and accountable!” That doesn’t help matters. It only makes things worse. The bottom line is that of all things, we need to make sure that children are provided for as best as possible. The state has sent a message that children are not the #1 priority, and have been cutting funds in recent times. This proposal is the only way to counter those cuts. The state doesn’t have what it takes to make the tough/unpopular decisions and save our programs, but at least the ISD is making an effort. Teachers have already agreed to pay freezes (shocking!) and cuts in benefits, and they are actively working on methods to restructure things in the districts.

No tax will ever be looked at as favorable or desirable, and people will always question the competence of the people managing that money’s use and distribution. Does that mean that taxation is evil? Well, in general, I’d prefer that I pay for what happens in my own community, and not for something thousands of miles away, and that’s really what this is about.

I admire your faith, and I hope you’re right should the millage fail today.

But with the state cutting school aid, I would rather have a little insurance.

If this is really how it works, then why should we stop at just 2 mills? Let’s go for 20 mills, and then our home values will skyrocket and there will be tons of jobs. It’s just a big free money and job tree!

How much you want to bet we will get the same accolades even if we vote no on the millage? I’m voting no.

As noted in the article, the ability of WISD to go to the voters for the millage is not a loophole. It is codified in law at MCL 380.1211c. It is not, as claimed on the Citizens for Responsible School Spending website, an attempt to circumvent Proposal A. In fact, it was a specific provision of Proposal A. This is not the “bad old days” when individual districts could repeatedly go to the voters for increased operating mills. Proposal A ended that. Under this provision, ISDs are allowed to ask for up to at most 3 mills and it has to be spread across the ISD.

Could schools become more efficient in their spending? Yes – I have a child in the Ann Arbor Schools, and I agree with the sentiments made by many here regarding the need for schools to become more efficient. House Speaker Andy Dillon’s proposal to pool public employees’ health insurance deserves much greater support in this regard. So too do the recommendations of the Business Leaders for Michigan to consolidate local government and school services and to transform Michigan’s tax structure to be more aligned with a shift towards a services-based economy. But these changes have to be driven by Lansing and thus far the political will does not appear to be there.

What do we do in the meantime? Some feel that they can’t afford any more taxes right now. I have sympathy for those feeling the pinch, but our area is certainly in a better position than any other part of Michigan to absorb this millage right now. According to the Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth, the Ann Arbor Metropolitan Statistical Area was the only MSA in Michigan in September 2009 with single digit unemployment. Others feel that 2 mills is not justified and that the schools need to cut just like everyone else has. The schools have made cuts – in Ann Arbor approximately $16 million. As I said before, addtional efficiencies are possible, but they need to be driven by Lansing.

For me, it comes down to a value proposition. Compared to other entities that receive tax payer dollars (I’m sure you can think of a few recent examples), at least most of the schools in our area manufacture a consistently excellent product. US News and World Report and School Evaluation Services awarded 2009 medals to three Ann Arbor schools, and most Washtenaw County schools consistently perform well on the Michigan School Report Card. As a value proposition we get a strong return on our investment in this area for our school tax dollars.

I’m voting yes tomorrow on the WISD school millage.

You have written a great response. I just disagree with making this “for the children.” I do not believe that this is black and white as in either you are for the tax (and in support of the children) or against the tax (and against supporting children).

School population is currently less than it was in 2003 – yet funding is 50 million more. Fewer students sharing 50 million more dollars than just 6 years ago doesn’t seem like an emergency. How does a budget jump 50 million dollars in 6 years and yet not be enough? At this rate, what will the new budget be 6 years from now?

People are leaving Michigan. Locally, the budget per student is about $700.00 more than it was just 2 years ago.

I cannot justify allocating more when locally the spending per child is over 11 thousand dollars — a very good amount nationally.

I am pro child. I am against this tax.

Wow. What an argument for the millage: Drop down into the class warfare gutter AND admit that all the tax would do is keep “mediocre education intact, all at the same time.” Even a bonus follow up that this millage is “a lesser of two evils.” I surely home our county residents have not yet become so disheartened and apathetic that such an argument would be persuasive….

Nice try, but no.