I have to relate again my observations of a principal, several years ago, at a high school not too far from Poway High, although in a different district. When his district was opening a new high school, which would relieve overcrowding in his high school, he made a fervent pitch to the parent "foundation" to raise even more money than they had in prior years. I was in a meeting where he said words to the effect that, "We will not get the state funding that we have had in previous years, so we are looking to The Foundation to make up as much of the short-fall as possible."
Now, his enrollment was going to drop by about 40% the following year because those students would be going to the new high school. Not one person in that meeting suggested to him that perhaps his school didn't need as much money as before, because they wouldn't have as many students the next year.
He has since been promoted to higher office within the district.
lol. That sounds about normal.
The school funding fiasco gets even better. In the school district near where I live, the district now has two relatively new schools that are totally unoccupied due to changing demographics and a declining K-8 enrollment in the immediate area served by the schools. But no problem for school administrators as they are now building still another school across town, which in all probability, will have a declining enrollment as demographics change. And, the local citizens voted themselves still another bond obligation for regular maintenance and technology upgrades that won’t do a thing toward enhancing student achievement and allows the use of bond money for routine maintenance.
Unfortunately most young parent voters are clueless and uninformed, and like most parents, are more focused on the basics of life such as paying bills, or keeping and finding job, to be involved in local school politics. So, in the “anything for the kids mentality”, they vote to give the schools more money even before finding out if they’re getting good value for the money they already give to the schools. The fact is, they are not.
Then no one considers that school buildings are probably one of the most poorly used public resources, often only being used for education only 6 or 7 hours per day. A typical high school begins school around 8 am, and discharges the students about 2:30 or 3 pm. How much creativity would it take to adjust schedules to use the school classroom assets from say 7 am to 6 or 7 pm. Perhaps such a schedule is not quite as convenient, but certainly a better alternative to going into serious debt. Naturally the teachers unions would whine, but who cares since they would probably still have classroom time of less than 5 or 6 hours per day. Then beyond that, the same assets could be used 12 months per year instead of the typical 8 or 9 months.
The school funding fiasco gets even better. In the school district near where I live, the district now has two relatively new schools that are totally unoccupied due to changing demographics and a declining K-8 enrollment in the immediate area served by the schools. But no problem for school administrators as they are now building still another school across town, which in all probability, will have a declining enrollment as demographics change. And, the local citizens voted themselves still another bond obligation for regular maintenance and technology upgrades that won’t do a thing toward enhancing student achievement and allows the use of bond money for routine maintenance.
Unfortunately most young parent voters are clueless and uninformed, and like most parents, are more focused on the basics of life such as paying bills, or keeping and finding job, to be involved in local school politics. So, in the “anything for the kids mentality”, they vote to give the schools more money even before finding out if they’re getting good value for the money they already give to the schools. The fact is, they are not.
Then no one considers that school buildings are probably one of the most poorly used public resources, often only being used for education only 6 or 7 hours per day. A typical high school begins school around 8 am, and discharges the students about 2:30 or 3 pm. How much creativity would it take to adjust schedules to use the school classroom assets from say 7 am to 6 or 7 pm. Perhaps such a schedule is not quite as convenient, but certainly a better alternative to going into serious debt. Naturally the teachers unions would whine, but who cares since they would probably still have classroom time of less than 5 or 6 hours per day. Then beyond that, the same assets could be used 12 months per year instead of the typical 8 or 9 months.