SPEAKOUT

Monday, March 10, 2014

School bond issues

This is the response to the following Speakouts from Tom Williams, superintendent of Sikeston Schools: Research states that up to date new facilities will promote student achievement. Consider the following: 1 - Day-lighting - Better performance on standardized tests, as much as 20 percent in math and 26 percent in reading. 2 - Acoustics - Students in quieter schools score 20 percent higher on word recognition tests. 3 - IAQ - Poor Indoor Air Quality reduces the ability to perform mental tasks requiring concentration, calculation or memory. Improved IAQ increased student attendance due to less illness. 4 - Small Learning Communities - high schools experienced 59 percent fewer drop outs and 60 percent fewer missed days as compared to traditional high schools. New facilities not only will improve student achievement but they also will offer our students the "safest" and most suitable learning environment possible.

I just read the good news where the R-6 enrollment is up over 30 students in February. Total enrollment is still down 332 students from 2005. This is based on figures given by the state board of education. In 2005 was when we built the new science building that was supposed to attract new teachers and doctors to the community. If I might quote an article in the paper. Please think about this decrease in enrollment over the last eight years and the fact that Sikeston's population has decreased about 4 per- cent in the last 10 years when you make your voting decision on the $32.3 million bond issue. Remember that bond issue lasts for 20 years.

***

Maybe it is new age math being taught now, but if your enrollment was 4,455 students at the first of the year and now it is 3,460 students, old school math would figure we only gained 5 students. School enrollment is a dynamic number with families moving in and out of the communities. School enrollment usually dips a little bit in the last quarter of the year. Where did you start and where did you end - that's the number we need to assess. Publishing a front page article that implies that the enrollment of the district is increasing, when it has actually decreased over a number of years, gives me a false sense of leadership.

***

Thank you for publishing the math calculations on the tax increase. According to my calculations using the numbers you published, my taxes will be increase $577.63. I received only a $300 increase this year in my Social Se- curity. My question is where will the other $277.63 come from? Guess I'll have to vote no on the tax increase.

***

You just killed your School Bond Issue with your response to costs per assessment values. Unlikely most of your community is going to do the math as illustrated. Take your X's and ='s and /'s and [ ]'s come up with a realistic product. Much, much easier to just vote NO and be gone with it. Tom Howard, Tucson, Ariz., former resident of Sikeston.

***

The population of Sikeston has decreased 4 percent in the last 10 years. Enrollment of Sikeston R-6 District has decreased by about 400 students sine the last school bond issue in 2005 which was the Science Center. The performance of our schools, as they are today, indicates that 64 percent of the students are performing at basic or below basic. The condition of the present schools seems to be a major neglect of preventive maintenance that should have been addressed in operating budgets as problems occur, just as a prudent homeowner would do to their own property. The pictures that I saw of current conditions make me wonder how well managed the maintenance of new buildings and equipment would be operated and supervised for the next 20 years. The tax increase required to fund this issue will not be an incentive to attract new businesses given the state of our current work force and demographics as published it the city data website. This increase would give Sikeston the second highest tax levy in the Bootheel, even if Poplar Bluff passes their issue. And teachers must not forget that their average salary is very low comparatively and will not receive any financial benefit from this increase. Believing that they will come just because you build it is like living in a field of dreams.

***

Asking the R-6 district residents for $32.3 million and leading them to believe a child will get a better education is ludicrous. Public schools spend approximately $10,000 per student. Home school spending is thousands of dollars less, yet home-schooled students out perform public students by 37 percent in any scholastic category you want to compare. In other words, it doesn't take a fancy new building to educate a child. I could support an initiative to support parental involvement. I can't see the logic in building a new building at the taxpayers' expense. We did that in 2005, and have 400 students less now and the academic results are the same. An old boss once told me his favorite saying, "If you always do what you've always done, you will always get what you always got." Let's not make the same mistake on April 8 and get the same poor results.