For those who don’t know, we have a proposition on the ballot this November that has been called “The Idaho Local Public Schools Investment Act” which will raise our state sales tax to 7% (equal to that of Utah’s rate) to fund our schools. Proponants of the proposition argue that our schools are underfunded, overcrowded, and that Idaho is not doing well at attracting and maintaining quality teachers.
[Editorial Note - It appears there is some controversy over whether this act would raise the sales tax to 7% due to a recent emergency session in the Idaho Legislature, which raised the Idaho Sales Tax before this act would take effect. So, it seems possible that our sales tax will remain at 6% if this law is passed - but this raises another question. Where will the funding for this act come from? If the original act calls for a raise in the sales tax that is already in effect, how will this benefit our schools?]
That may be so, but will this act solve the problem?
One major argument coming from those who support the bill is that our textbooks are out of date, our schools are in disrepair, and that this money would be used to resolve those problems – however, if you look at the language of the proposition, there is nothing that provides for the money to be used in this manner. All we are promised is that it will be used on schools and that schools will provide an annual accounting of how the funds will be used.
So this raises two concerns: first, how the money will be spent. Second, how much are our schools in need of this money? Is this just another re-election ploy for the fat cats in Boise?
I graduated from High School not too long ago, and I was never wanting for text books, never saw disrepair in the school the threatened my education, and I had (mostly) great teachers who loved their jobs and tried their best to make a difference. I should also note that I plan on finishing my degree in Education within the time period that this act would affect our school system, so I have much at stake here.
Money is not going to fix the problems with our education system – it must be a teacher-student effort, with encouragement from parents, to raise our graduation and higher education rates.
I suspect that a good portion of this money would go to pork projects such as sports equipment and parking lots, another good portion to raises for the administration, and perhaps students and teacher would get whatever crumbs were left over. Since the act does not provide any guarantee as to how the money will be spent (or distributed!) this should be a major concern to all voters and tax payers.
Teachers are notorious for complaining about how much they are paid, but in my research, they are very well compensated for their time. The average teacher salary in Idaho reaches as high as $55,000, with first-year teachers making as much as $35,000. From my point of view, that is a very livable, very attractive wage, especially for a profession with as many legal holidays and 3-month breaks as teaching.
Perhaps if we vote this act down, the legislature will return with a more reasonable, safer bill which will provide for actual funding, not just throwing money at the problem. Perhaps a few million dollars for contracts with textbook publishers? Perhaps local levies to provide for certain repairs? Perhaps a bill specially designed to attract new teachers?
Prop. 1 is a band-aid on a bulletwound that is Idaho’s education crisis. Voting “yes” on this section of November’s ballot is a vote for ignoring the real problems. Let your vote tell our government that we want a real sollution!
Popularity: 4%
Related posts:
- Government Budgets Are Tight – Where Would You Cut?
- VOTE “NO” On The New School Bond! INSTEAD, Merge The Two Local School Districts Into One!!!
- Teacher’s Union President, Peggy Christensen, Wants District 93 to Stop Rewarding Teachers.
- What really goes on in school..
- Is raising the min. wage a good idea?
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
A thought:
If the argument is that textbooks are out of date, then what is the problem? The only subject that is time-sensitive on the High School level is History, namely Civics (and Modern History) … but is a newer, more expensive edition of a text book really necessary.
How about a subscription to TIME or Newsweek to resolve this particular issue? I bet the publishers would cut a great deal with the District.
I’m not sure on this issue myself. I’v heard the campaign was designed for
a)funding elsewhere in case of a penny increase (as we had with the property tax shift) and
b)flexibility to meet local needs.
I’m not an expert on this issue, but I understood they didn’t want to dictate funds for one purpose because the schools have different needs and would want local control over how to spend it (hey it’s a conservative value!)
I like your idea for TIME/Newsweek subscriptions, because that would keep students much more current than any textbook, and would expose them to a wider view of what’s going on in the world than they catch on the Daily Show.
I was thinking it will be nice when the day arrives that textbooks are ditched altogether and online materials used instead. There is not a single textbook where the same material cannot be found million-fold online.
If a student finds one author’s format difficult to learn from (using big words or small font or not enough real-world examples), the student would be free to just find another resource.
I just thought of one reason for newer textbooks could be students’ habits to markup their books, and the distraction that can be to the next students. After a few years the textbook content may be fine, but the accessibility of it may be diminished due to the markups. Just like when you buy your used college textbooks, you skim through them to find the ones with the least markups.
I don’t know that voting this down will motivate the legislature to do another bill. I think they’ll take it as a symbol that Idahoans don’t want to spend more on education and will act in that direction.
Could someone answer the extra penny sales tax issue? I thought I’d heard it was designed to not go to 7 cents, but rather to pull the moneys elsewhere?
The sales tax will not go to 7%. It will force the legislature to get the money elsewhere. If nothing else, is Prop 1 passes, it will send a message to the legislature that the citizens of Idaho are not happy and we demand better schools.
I think you’re talking about a clause in the law that dictates that if the schools spend the tax money on something other than what is allowed in the bill (ie buying the principle a new tie) then the money has to be replaced from another source. Maybe?
I like your idea about internet learning … but there’s so much disinformation out there, where could the students look? I’m a fan of books myself. I believe that McCullough’s 1776 should be required reading for every high schooler everywhere. High schools should follow the format of college-level classes by giving teachers more autonomy over what they teach – as in, so long as the teacher covers the American Revolution, what they teach and how they do it should be up to them. This state-written curriculum concept is absurd.
Thanks Jessica, I thought I’d heard that.
Jereemy, now I’m not sure what I was talking about, probably should examine what the proposition says moneys should be spent on. And it should dictate funds can’t be used to replace moneys shifted to frivolous items. And I don’t think it says that. That’s a weakness.
There is absolutely a ton of disinformation out on the web, and part of online learning is developing the ability to decide if a source is trustworthy or not. Many students today do not have that ability, and it’s sad to see how big suckers they can be.
I once had a high school computer student ask me if he could use the phone to call an 800 number on a popup ad that promised he had won a milion dollars. The kid was actually smart, so I was shocked how easily he was taken in by that ruse.
So shifting to online reading materials would have to be accompanied with increased focus on discerning trustworthiness and authority.
I’m a huge fan of books also. I can just more easily afford online reading. 8^) Maybe schools could more easily afford online reading materials?
Jeremy,
I would have to disagree with you about giving teachers more autonomy, especially for an area such as ours where the majority of the teachers are of the one predominant religion. Without state mandated curriculum it is too easy for, say a history teacher, to interject his distorted version of historical events into the mix in an attempt to proselytize his students; I recall this happening all too frequently a hundred years ago when I was a student in SD# 91.
I’m with you on about everything else you’ve brought up though, as I will probably be voting against the proposition (I just need to do a little more homework on the subject before deciding). Keep the info coming.
I don’t know about the effect religion would have on teacher autonomy since most teachers are exasperated with what little subject matter they can teach, let alone religios teachings. I see your concern, though.
Jeremy, you may not have realized you were actually agreeing with the curriculum standards: “as in, so long as the teacher covers the American Revolution”
You mean the teachers should teach the core knowledge in the subjects, right? I think that’s what the curriculum guidelines also try to do, but there’s an argument about balance and also the high stakes attached to those guidelines.
I thought of another concern. Our legislature seemed kinda hostile to this proposition, so even if it does pass what’s to keep them from simply deducting the same amount out of education that they are forced to put in, essentially making it a wash?
I’m going to try forwarding this article to someone involved with the proposition, see if they can add something to the discussion that we don’t know.
I’m a little curious about your salary information. I spoke with two local educators this evening and in their district the pay scale with a Doctorate Degree and maxed out experience will pay them about $57000. However, since you plan on finishing your degree in Education… My understanding is the same as Jessica’s. The sales tax will not increase to 7%, but the additional 1 cent that would have funded education would be made up by the legislature. They have already cut educational funding by $50 Million. I do agree that there should be more controls in place for the allocation and spending of the funds. It’s a difficult situation as each school and district will have different circumstances and needs.
So if we don’t think increasing funding will help improve schools, what can we do that is free? This isn’t about throwing money at a problem, it is about funding schools so they can provide better educations to its students. Schools will have to account for every penny they spend with the increased funding.
And no one initiative will completely fix the problem.
Last years teacher contract.
http://www.d91.k12.id.us/board/ifea%20contract.htm
Thanks for the salary schedule, Guest. I thought your “first-year teachers making as much as $35,000″ comment was off, Jeremy, but I hadn’t seen the salary schedule for a few years and wasn’t sure.
Looks like you’ll have to work 10 years until you get over 35k, What really happens though is teacher’s have to take minimum 6 college credits every five years.
Suppose you get fired up and complete your Master’s degree quickly, you still won’t clear 35k until your sixth year.
Where did you hear that first year teacher’s make as much as $35k?
Please don’t say ‘coaching’ because it does not pay that much, and it’s only available to such a minority of teachers so as to be discounted as a realistic income opportunity. Extras like yearbook, etc. usually earn teachers less than $1k per year.
Looking over the schedule, Jeremy, I also have to wonder where you get the idea average teachers make $55k? That number is not even on the scale for someone with 28 years experience!
After reading that guest column in this morning’s Post Register, I’m wondering if my vote might swing back to yes now, if only to send the signal that I value education in Idaho. Maybe this isn’t the best solution, but it’s better than the legislature has been doing.
I used to live in IF and way back when the Lotto was getting going it was supposed to help fund the schools. But the people pushing the Lotto didn’t tell everyone that instead of using the Lotto funds to supplement the current schools budget, they were going to use the Lotto to fund it solely and re-purpose that budget. Now, my question is this:
Where did that original funding go? Whose pockets are getting lined with it?
I am still of the opinion that the state should be split into 2 from Salmon down to Twin Falls so the money getting generated on the eastern side of the state will STAY there instead of being a sort of welfare for the western part of the state.
But, then, that is just my opinion and, well, you know what they say about THOSE!
Have a great day.
AAY
Thanks for your comment AAY. I like your idea of splitting the state. I’ve often thought Idaho should at least be split around Riggins to separate north from south.
I think the lottery monies have been used mostly for schools. I did a speech on it in college, and found like 10% is used for their administrative/marketing, whatever percentage is used for prizes, and the rest really is sent out to schools.
I think all the monies are used for facilities like construction or repairs. I think the lottery website details it.
Yeah, I think it goes to schools but after that happened, the state decreased its funding. Not sure about this though…
Ahhh, if that’s true then it was truly a wash and an extra tax on us Idahoans.
And that’s what I’m concerned about with this, that there isn’t a way our legislature will snooker it around so it’s a wash and funding is not really increased.
I guess I just don’t trust our legislature to make decisions that are in the best interests of the majority of Idahoans.
Checking back and still no response from Jeremy about his figures. The only thing I can think of for an average of $55000 is including college and university professors. I did a funding project in college and found that the ISU football coach (paid by the state) made over $110,000 per year and my least favorite professor pulled in over $86,000. That was over 5 years ago. Who knows where it is now. I agree with Joe, I may vote yes on 1 just to show that education is important. There is no doubt that we rank very low in spending per student and have crowded classrooms. Yes, there are some charter schools popping up, but I feel that is because people are frustrated with education and are looking for more.
Sorry, missed your question. I got my initial figures from this site: http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_ED03000011.html
Which were based on Sept. 2006 figures. On closer inspection, those figures were for national averages, so I asked around to local teachers (one of which I work as a waiter with) who supported the data.
So, I looked up a release from the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) which can be found here:
http://www.aft.org/salary/2004/download/releases/SalarySurvey-ID.pdf
These figures show even higher wages than I initially considered. However, this particular study came to different conclusions that I have – they seem to think that 55,000 is an unlivable wage, which I think is an outrageous statement. The study notes that beginning teacher wages in Idaho are around 25,000, which is a bit lower than I have found in other sources.
Then I found these figures, based on 2004 numbers:
Average teacher salary (2004) $40,111.00
Average beginning teacher salary (2004) $25,908.00
Located at http://www.edweek.org/agentk-12/states/id.html
So my figures presented in my initial post were very vague, survey figures, which is reflect in my language. ie “As high as”, etc. I am unable to find any defining numbers on the matter.
I’m going to date myself here but I remember when the sales tax was first implemented (at 3%) We had an absolute promise, guarantee, sworn oath, by our politicians that it was only temporary but that we needed the extra money to fund the schools. So, after the sales tax began rolling into the coffers, the legislature diverted money that had been coming from the budget to other projects and the funding levels for schools remained the same. Each time we bellow for more money for the schools, we get it from somewhere – increased sales tax, lottery, etc – and then we “lose” it when the amount of money coming in from those projects is taken out of the general fund and diverted elsewhere such as prisons, roads, etc. We will never get ahead of this problem as it’s just a bait and switch for the politicians to acquire more money so we don’t have to consider alternatives to spending so much ie. rehabilitation versus incarceration (did you know housing a criminal in a halfway house is like a tenth of the cost of housing him in prison? That’s a ton of money considering that 70-80% of inmates are there for non-violent crimes) I can’t see my way clear to voting for any sort of a tax increase until we have greater accountability for the spending.
I received one of those voter information phamplets in the mail the other day, and it outlined the aspects of this proposition. This bill was obviously written before the emergency session of our legislature happened and our sales tax was raised by a penny then to offset our reduced property taxes. If one reads the bill carefully, you will see that it will NOT raise our sales tax to 7%. What it does say is that our sales tax will be raised back to 6% from the 5% it was before, (and this is important…) OR our politicians must find another line of funding to equal the revenues that would be generated by that raise. Unfortunately for us taxpayers, that only means that they will be required to find another way to raise taxes, tax us for something else or add fees to something we buy or do in order to raise the funding in question. As for myself I cannot possibly justify this bill. I’m still trying to figure out just how they’ll come up with that money, and at the same time keep our property taxes lowered, all the while spending unjustified millions on new state parks that no one really needs. Whassup with that? As far as I’m concerned, having a political office in this state is the equivalent of being a legal thief and nothing more. All of us need to stand up on our soapboxes and demand fiscal responsibility at every level of government.
Will Jeremy change the text of this entry so that it is more accurate? I am specifically referring to his comment that Prop 1 will raise the sales tax to 7%. This is not true.
Inside Observer: you remember when the sales tax was started at 3%?! holy cow!
You and Barney Dog make a strong point that if passed, this proposition likely just means we’ll be taxed more, or the politicians will take money from something else we need (like highways, regulatory oversight, higher education, etc.).
It is a terrible shame that we cannot even vote support for our priorities without shooting ourselves in the foot.
Jessica: I wouldn’t quite say change his original article, because it’s out there and good or bad it was what he originally wrote.
I’ve written my foot into my mouth numerous times (though I think Jeremy made a simple error without quite putting his foot in his mouth here).
Rather than try to rewrite history to make myself look better, I usually just add an ‘UPDATE’ at the bottom of the original article. I don’t know if he’d want to do that; it could refocus the discussion on the other merits rather than keep hammering on a point already made. It’s up to him.
Jessica – I’ve added an editorial note with some clarifying points that I believe will resolve your issue.
So really, now that the details have been bickered about, what does everyone think this bill will actually DO for Idaho schools? Every now and then, we have these kinds of “emergency” acts that promise to fix our education crisis, but it remains. Remember the levie for local schools in Idaho Falls not too long ago? It was supposed to resolve so many issues, but they persist. This should teach us a lesson that the Idaho education crisis is not going to be resolved through funding – only through a change in leadership. I recommend a total revamp here – sweeping reforms from politicians all the way to administration at local levels. Our education leaders have proven that they cannot manage our schools effectively, so instead of paying them more to do less, let’s make them earn their job security!
I don’t think the issue is our education leaders. The issue is our elected officials who continue to undermine education by not fully funding it. Yet Idahoans continue to re-elect the same baffoons who are in the back pockets of special interests.
Now I am not saying every educational leader is doing a good job, but these leaders can only do so much with the money they have.
Hello all…..I remember from college learning about how much of our tax money in Idaho went for education. This amount included sales tax, property tax, and any other type of tax that went into the school system. I for the life of me can’t remember the percentage of taxes but I remember being shocked! Is there anyone that has this type of information….it would be interesting as well as eye opening for many here.
Jester, were you shocked because it was higher than you expected or lower?