Whoever handles public relations at the Anoka-Hennepin School District earned their pay this week, sliding an entire press release apparently verbatim into the Minneapolis Star Tribune, disguised as a news article. It advocates passage of a capital project levy for technology that will raise about $3 million a year for ten years. It should be emphatically voted down by district voters.
There are three questions on the November 8 ballot. Question one renews a $48 million operating levy. Question three would add another $12 million of so, contingent on question one passing. So this question two looks tiny by comparison, and it's for a good cause they say, needed technology upgrades in the district.
Officials have described catastrophic cuts that would result from failure to renew the operating levy, which is set to expire in 2012.
But passing the technology levy is no less vital, said Patrick Plant, the district's chief technology and information officer.
Currently, about 40 percent of the computers students use are more than six years old. Some are twice that.
Teachers and students describe computers that take nearly half a class period to boot up, then crash in the middle of their projects. Or computers that lack the processing speed to run current programs and applications. Access also is a daily issue, with a current ratio of four students to each computer.
So why shouldn't a District 11 voter support this referendum? Because it's a sham.
First of all, consider the amount, $3 million a year, to be adjust upward with inflation over its 10 year term. The District 11 general fund is about $400 million a year, so this represents less than 1 percent of that. A mere $3 million more will soon be asssimilated into the Borg, which in fact is the goal. Take no comfort in assurances that this is a capital levy. Trust me, the money can and will flow as needed.
But why is a new funding source even needed for technology? Computers are much cheaper than even 10 years ago, so the existing sources like the general fund should be more than adequate. Obviously those funds have been diverted, like into teacher contracts and benefits. This is just like what some cities have done, charging property owners a street light utility fee so that they can spend that part of your property taxes on something else.
So in other words, the schools have deliberately allowed their technology infrastructure to decay to fund other "investments" that to judge by test results don't seem to be paying off. But you can fix that by giving them more money!
"We have an excellent school system, and we are doing the very best we can for students," Plant said, "but I would have to say haphazard patchwork funding we have right now creates an environment where we can't ensure all students are developing the basic tech skills necessary for today and to prepare them for future education and the workplace."
The district created that haphazard patchwork funding rather than engage in some serious budget scrutiny, like questioning why we pay teachers extra for graduate degrees that are clearly of no value to the district or its students?
The district clearly cannot ensure that all students are developing the basic math and literacy skills necessary for today, as the latest round of test scores again confirmed. So how can they possibly ensure they acquire basic tech skills lacking these prerequisites? Obviously they cannot. Obviously this whole proposal is a sham born of prior mismanagment that continues today. But don't worry. You have an excellent system where everyone is doing their very best!
Don't reward this double shuffle. Vote no on Question Two.
