Ballot Issue 3A - Be Informed Before You Vote
By Chloe Stein
Stronger schools, stronger community-- the truth value of this statement is different for everyone. When it comes down to it, it’s the voters’ decision on whether or not the extra tax is worth supporting Durango’s schools. In simple terms, a “yes” vote to 3A will raise property taxes by nine percent, adding an extra $45 a year to houses valued at $500,000 or over. This tax will raise $1.7 million the first year. That money will go to the Durango 9-R school district, including the charter schools Animas High School and Mountain Middle School. The community as a whole seems to be supportive of this mill levy, but there are two sides of this issue to consider. This article will explore the concerns as well as the benefits of additional school funding.
In 2001, Amendment 23 was passed in Colorado. This amendment requires the statewide base for school funding to increase by inflation (plus one percent for the first ten years). The overall funding is calculated through a formula that includes certain factors, in addition to the base funding. But in 2009, the legislature was re-interpreted. Now, those vital factors are not being acknowledged, and the formula is creating what is called “The Negative Factor.” Because of this, the state technically owes the district $37 million. And, without that money, classes like auto shop have been cut from Durango High School’s curriculum. Also, the district has announced that if 3A does not pass this year, full-day kindergarten will be cut from all elementary schools. This could potentially pose problems for some families, especially those living in poverty. Many parents are relying on full-day kindergarten as a safe place for their children to stay while they work. Another part of this issue is that the buses need more funding. Without buses, it would be the parents’ job to find a way for their kids to get home. This would force many parents to have to readjust their hours to get their kids from school. For most families living in poverty, this is not an option.
Of course, it’s not the citizens of Durango’s fault that the state has not been properly funding their schools. Why should they have to pay the price? The state of Colorado needs to make room for District 9-R without making the town pay more taxes than they already do. However, the tax is very reasonable. It’s a one percent mill levy-- most people will be paying between thirty and sixty extra dollars a year. That’s like going one week without a daily Starbucks coffee. Many would argue that this is a reasonable sacrifice for the good of our schools, and therefore our children.
But one problem with this mill levy is that the schools are being very vague about how the money is going to be spent. According to durangoschools 3a.com, the mill levy is going to help with “Preparing students for college and the workforce; safeguarding small class sizes and protecting programs valued by the community; maintaining the district and schools’ ability to attract, retain, and train high quality staff; and ensuring safe facilities, effective learning environments, and up-to-date infrastructure.” For the most part, this means maintaining transportation, lowering the teacher-student ratio, hiring more qualified teachers, keeping extra programs for the students, and keeping extra tools that enhance the children’s learning. The problem with this is that there is no proof that the current staff at Durango’s schools is insufficient. The standards as a town are higher than most when it comes to class sizes. They want to keep the teacher to student ratio at a safe level, but it could always get better. When do we draw the line?
Also, Durango’s schools are putting a strong emphasis on technology. Mountain Middle School, for example, has an entire computer lab with enough Mac computers for a whole class. In addition to that, each student has their own small laptop. These laptops are minimal and definitely not glamorous, but they require lots of funding. This is justified because Mountain Middle School is a project-based learning school meant to prepare students for the twenty-first century. But it seems like this way of thinking is rubbing off on other schools, too. Even the non-charter schools are trying to supply their students with more technology in order to help prepare them for jobs having to do with digital art/design, coding, social media, and technological programs. In our society today, these seem like very practical things to prepare students for. But not everyone is going to be the next Bill Gates. There are many students who aren’t interested in technology, or pushing technological boundaries. Many kids need to be trained for practical jobs that may not make them rich and famous, but will earn them a living and practically contribute to their community. In some ways, it’s a trade-off. Schools could either implement advanced technology or simple programs like auto shop for their high school students.
Lastly, there is the question of the importance of funding for schools. Of course, it’s important to have safe, functional schools with proper facilities and staff. But after a certain point, does extra money really matter? As long as schools meet the base standard, do extra programs and additional staff actually do anything for the students? According to an op-ed in The Durango Herald written by a local attorney, William Zimsky, increased spending does not directly reflect in test scores. The editorial states, “Perhaps the starkest comparison is between Utah, which spent $6,612 per pupil in 2012, and the District of Columbia, which spent $19,698 per pupil. While an amazing 97 percent of Utah seniors took the ACT test in 2012, which watered down the average results, they performed substantially better than the 32 percent of D.C. seniors, the higher achievers, who took the test.” This shows that when it comes to national testing, spending doesn’t matter. Zimsky argues that scoring well on tests and reaching academic achievements depends more on a student's’ personal drive to learn, not on the facilities or programs their school provides.
All in all, it’s your choice. Do you think the funding for our schools in unfair, and that if the state won’t help them, we should? Or do you think that we already pay enough taxes, and that our schools will always be asking for money, even when they are being sufficiently funded? Whatever your opinion is, it matters. Make sure you vote on November 8, and remember to give your opinion on Ballot Issue 3A.
By Chloe Stein
Stronger schools, stronger community-- the truth value of this statement is different for everyone. When it comes down to it, it’s the voters’ decision on whether or not the extra tax is worth supporting Durango’s schools. In simple terms, a “yes” vote to 3A will raise property taxes by nine percent, adding an extra $45 a year to houses valued at $500,000 or over. This tax will raise $1.7 million the first year. That money will go to the Durango 9-R school district, including the charter schools Animas High School and Mountain Middle School. The community as a whole seems to be supportive of this mill levy, but there are two sides of this issue to consider. This article will explore the concerns as well as the benefits of additional school funding.
In 2001, Amendment 23 was passed in Colorado. This amendment requires the statewide base for school funding to increase by inflation (plus one percent for the first ten years). The overall funding is calculated through a formula that includes certain factors, in addition to the base funding. But in 2009, the legislature was re-interpreted. Now, those vital factors are not being acknowledged, and the formula is creating what is called “The Negative Factor.” Because of this, the state technically owes the district $37 million. And, without that money, classes like auto shop have been cut from Durango High School’s curriculum. Also, the district has announced that if 3A does not pass this year, full-day kindergarten will be cut from all elementary schools. This could potentially pose problems for some families, especially those living in poverty. Many parents are relying on full-day kindergarten as a safe place for their children to stay while they work. Another part of this issue is that the buses need more funding. Without buses, it would be the parents’ job to find a way for their kids to get home. This would force many parents to have to readjust their hours to get their kids from school. For most families living in poverty, this is not an option.
Of course, it’s not the citizens of Durango’s fault that the state has not been properly funding their schools. Why should they have to pay the price? The state of Colorado needs to make room for District 9-R without making the town pay more taxes than they already do. However, the tax is very reasonable. It’s a one percent mill levy-- most people will be paying between thirty and sixty extra dollars a year. That’s like going one week without a daily Starbucks coffee. Many would argue that this is a reasonable sacrifice for the good of our schools, and therefore our children.
But one problem with this mill levy is that the schools are being very vague about how the money is going to be spent. According to durangoschools 3a.com, the mill levy is going to help with “Preparing students for college and the workforce; safeguarding small class sizes and protecting programs valued by the community; maintaining the district and schools’ ability to attract, retain, and train high quality staff; and ensuring safe facilities, effective learning environments, and up-to-date infrastructure.” For the most part, this means maintaining transportation, lowering the teacher-student ratio, hiring more qualified teachers, keeping extra programs for the students, and keeping extra tools that enhance the children’s learning. The problem with this is that there is no proof that the current staff at Durango’s schools is insufficient. The standards as a town are higher than most when it comes to class sizes. They want to keep the teacher to student ratio at a safe level, but it could always get better. When do we draw the line?
Also, Durango’s schools are putting a strong emphasis on technology. Mountain Middle School, for example, has an entire computer lab with enough Mac computers for a whole class. In addition to that, each student has their own small laptop. These laptops are minimal and definitely not glamorous, but they require lots of funding. This is justified because Mountain Middle School is a project-based learning school meant to prepare students for the twenty-first century. But it seems like this way of thinking is rubbing off on other schools, too. Even the non-charter schools are trying to supply their students with more technology in order to help prepare them for jobs having to do with digital art/design, coding, social media, and technological programs. In our society today, these seem like very practical things to prepare students for. But not everyone is going to be the next Bill Gates. There are many students who aren’t interested in technology, or pushing technological boundaries. Many kids need to be trained for practical jobs that may not make them rich and famous, but will earn them a living and practically contribute to their community. In some ways, it’s a trade-off. Schools could either implement advanced technology or simple programs like auto shop for their high school students.
Lastly, there is the question of the importance of funding for schools. Of course, it’s important to have safe, functional schools with proper facilities and staff. But after a certain point, does extra money really matter? As long as schools meet the base standard, do extra programs and additional staff actually do anything for the students? According to an op-ed in The Durango Herald written by a local attorney, William Zimsky, increased spending does not directly reflect in test scores. The editorial states, “Perhaps the starkest comparison is between Utah, which spent $6,612 per pupil in 2012, and the District of Columbia, which spent $19,698 per pupil. While an amazing 97 percent of Utah seniors took the ACT test in 2012, which watered down the average results, they performed substantially better than the 32 percent of D.C. seniors, the higher achievers, who took the test.” This shows that when it comes to national testing, spending doesn’t matter. Zimsky argues that scoring well on tests and reaching academic achievements depends more on a student's’ personal drive to learn, not on the facilities or programs their school provides.
All in all, it’s your choice. Do you think the funding for our schools in unfair, and that if the state won’t help them, we should? Or do you think that we already pay enough taxes, and that our schools will always be asking for money, even when they are being sufficiently funded? Whatever your opinion is, it matters. Make sure you vote on November 8, and remember to give your opinion on Ballot Issue 3A.