[Note: This material is copyright
by The Gazette, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use"
for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require
the prior approval of The Gazette.]
Public schools are dear
to Iowans, so when school districts say they need more resources to further
their mission to educate our children, it’s difficult to say no.
Who can argue with
the importance of safe and secure classrooms, effective learning tools,
such as computers, and reliable transportation systems?
But it’s fair to
assert that Iowans must have assurances that their tax dollars for education
infrastructure are spent wisely; that meaningful steps must be taken now
at the local level to initiate the long overdue reforms in how our children
are educated and how Iowa’s public education system is organized and administered.
So as voters in Johnson
and Linn counties prepare to decide on Feb.
13 whether to add
a 1 percent sales tax to raise more money for schools, many questions are
raised.
Have the districts
explored all options before laying plans to spend more money? Are these
plans realistic, based upon accurate and current information and reasonable
projections in enrollment? Can district officials accurately predict the
changes, likely to be significant and challenging, that affect Iowa’s public
schools over the next 10 years?
And, what is the
best and fairest way to collect public money if these plans should be funded?
As much effort as
school officials in these two counties have put into making their cases
for passage of the school infrastructure local-option tax (SILO), too much
ambiguity still exists to vote yes.
The reasons voters
should say no to the SILO are: 1. A 10-year tax period is too long, regardless
of the so-called incentive that would allow more of the revenue to stay
in local districts versus shared with a state pool for all public schools
in Iowa. Voters should not be encouraged to raise taxes because of greed.
2. The districts’ spending lists are too long. School officials simply
cannot know how their needs will change over 10 years, or even five years.
Advancements in technology, building systems and materials and transportation
are likely to change how schools operate. The public should be able to
approve or turn down projects as they come along, not with one vote that
gives thumbs up or thumbs down to a long to-do list. Enrollments are difficult
to project, as demonstrated by some districts’ previous estimates, which
were too rosy.
3. As it’s now prescribed
by law, a SILO offers nothing to solve the recurring problem of under funding
of education. Even if a SILO is approved, the local districts will undoubtedly
continue to seek bond issues because the additional tax will not be adequate
to fund all infrastructure needs as school districts are now organized.
Talk in the Legislature about instituting a statewide SILO would be only
a BandAid on a school funding system in need of a major overhaul. Nor does
the SILO do anything to mitigate the problem of inequitable funding for
districts across the state.
4. Voters are not
being offered a choice on how to pay for school projects. Bond issues have
inherent costs associated with long-term financing of debt and they require
60 percent voter approval, but this financing system has withstood the
test of time — and public accountability. Let voters first decide whether
school infrastructure needs should be funded with a bond issue, which requires
detailed specificity, versus a SILO, which offers a vague statement on
how the money would be spent. To their credit, districts say some SILO
revenue would be used for property tax relief. The property tax burden
is but one of many symptoms of a tax system in need of significant reform.
5. The SILO offers no incentives for districts to step up sharing or achieve
efficiencies by merger or consolidation. Essentially, a SILO allows some
districts to put off making inevitable decisions about their future.
To be sure, the broad
needs of the districts are real if the goal is to maintain an outdated
public education system that consumes way too much money for infrastructure.
It’s time to shed that goal and press for meaningful reform on how schools
are funded, how the money is spent and how all of this improves students’
education and prepares them for a global economy.
In the meantime,
it’s clear that some school projects in Johnson and Linn counties should
be pursued. This means school boards need to go back to the drawing board,
tighten their spending lists and come back to the voters with a bond issue
or a shorter-term SILO.