Opinion
What are School Board Members thinking?
What are School Board Members thinking?
Should the School District’s Technology Levy be rejected? I think so.
The District is proposing a new six year levy that “Will not increase taxes” but this is not the whole story. This levy is designed to provide every student in the school district with some kind of “Digital device” in the next 6 years, presumably to “Increase student achievement!” All of this “Discussion” was done without any opportunity for public comment!
One could make a significant case for the fact that the increases in “Digital devices” we have seen in the past six years have mostly stalled the efforts we have seen to “Increase student achievement.” I-pods, X-Boxes, My-Space, text messaging, Twitter, cell phones, Game-boys have all been a distraction in the home and sometimes in classrooms. Kids no longer seem to have time, or focus, to devote to “studying” and “learning.”
Recently a prominent University of Washington Science professor discovered that only 57% of his students could calculate the area of a circle! How these kids got into the University of Washington escapes me. Could it be that their “Learning experiences” in high school, or middle school, didn’t cover this topic adequately? Or was it that most of the UW students have been “Busy” with their digital devices “Communicating” with their peers on other topics? I think so.
Schools have been guilty in the past of expending vast sums on electronics and other “Magic Bullets,” Language Labs, Television in every classroom, Dial Access Television to name a few concepts that are now in the scrap heap. The district now has approximately one computer for each six students. Most students now also have one in their homes and the few that don’t can easily access one in computer labs and libraries in the school as well as in the public libraries. Those that have an honest need to do either word processing, or actual research, are not without options.
How is it that the school district can say this will not raise taxes? Is this “Smoke and Mirrors?” I think that there is some of this here.
The current levy raises approximately $ 1.8 Million each year and the District proposes to continue this expenditure. These dollars will be used to maintain and support the current level of technology. This seems reasonable to me. Here’s where the kicker comes in.
The District wants to boost the expenditure from $ 1.8 Million to $ 4.4 Million by increasing the levy amount to offset the retirement of facilities bonds!
One has to ask, “What kind of facilities could be built with the $ 2.6 Million instead of spending $ 2.6 Million on temporary assets such as computers and the support of such a complex system?”
According to the Chief Financial Officer of the District this would fund approximately $ 25 Million of new facilities.
The District has many facilities that are either completely obsolete, and expensive to maintain and patch up, or facilities that will soon reach this status. Federal Way High School, a hodge-podge of buildings, some from the 1930’s certainly meets this criteria.
Clearly for $ 25 Million one could replace the academic portions of FWHS.
Are we looking at a short term possible panacea or should we be looking at something more long term? I would favor the long term investment.
If the voters would reject this levy proposal, it would be possible to propose one that doesn’t start with the idea of a “Digital Device” for every student, unless they can be determined to be the “Magic Bullet.”
Schools are already full of distractions. Do we need more distractions with declining achievement scores? I don’t think so.
Most Viewed
Perhaps our consistent guest
Perhaps our consistent guest would like to write a "pro" column?
2010 Federal Way Public School Technology Levy
Thank you, Mr. Hoff, for making the case to vote for the Technology Levy.
The district has not indicated that technology was a magic bullet, and in fact we are also arguing that it isn't. We have readily admitted that simply putting technology in place isn't enough and that including a focus on professional development in the levy will be necessary to ensure that our teachers are able to successfully integrate technology into their instruction and appropriately model its usage. It is in this way that we will engage students with the technology that they are already familiar with, so that it will positively impact their learning as the collaborative tools they have the potential to be, rather than be the distractions that scare an older generation. Thank you, Mr Hoff, for emphasizing this position for us.
It is interesting to me that it took the advertisement of the District for opposition to the technology levy, for one to actually surface. After a half dozen or more of public board work studies and equally public board meetings that discussed both the technology levy, technology plan and their dependency upon each other, it took that advertisement for opposition of them, for that opposition to actually exist.
During these meetings, describing the district's technology needs and presenting multiple options of funding and funding models for essential equipment and services didn't illicit conversations of waste or frivolity. Instead it engaged us in conversations on the integration of technology in our lives and the unconscious need for it. Thank you, Mr Hoff, for demonstrating the ubiquitous nature of technology.
During those same meetings, we discussed how important it was for all students, that each of them have equitable access to the technology that will help make them successful in a future that doesn't yet exist. In light of these conversations, I don't appreciate how Mr Hoff was able to so quickly dismiss the 'few' students that don't have access to computers at home. I cannot pretend that those 'few' are not at a significant disadvantage in this informational society that we live in.
It further disturbs me that Mr Hoff believes it to be more relevant, in this day and age, to memorize a mathematical formula than to be able to google it the once or twice anyone would actually use it outside of the classroom. There's an app for that! Shame on you, Mr Hoff, for discounting these 'few' students we value as we do all of our students. However, I want also want to thank you, Mr Hoff, for punctuating this need for technology equity within our district.
Unfortunately, supporting technology in the classroom isn't without a cost. And since WA State doesn't include technology as a part of basic education funding, it is important that our community recognize the importance to do so. Once again, Thank You, Mr Hoff, in making the case for this importance. However, I will add that no investment in children should ever be considered short term, when it is they that hold the key to our future. It doesn't get more long term than that.
Post new comment