Sister Ship SS ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
- School District Bond issues on ballot in Scott County — Polls open 7:00 AM to 8:00PM
- See here for voting locations (much reduced from November general election locations).
- On behalf of our Bettendorf School District tax payers — we say tough love for students — as for the educational apparat — not so much of the love part
- Vote no on the costly Bettendorf School District bond referendum.
- As for the Davenport School Board’s proposed ~~ basically to let them have carte blanche with existing finance authorization (supposedly not an increase in property taxes) — nyet as well. We are not impressed with your ability to spend money wisely or anticipate needs
- Make it a no confidence vote, send them back to the drawing board
- Bettendorf and Davenport Boards should show commitment and especially results in academic performance across the student spectrum, not ‘woke’ ideology and make do like everybody else has to in tough economic times
Bettendorf School District Board wants 67 MILLION dollars for improvements additions to its middle school and high school. Have you seen Bettendorf High School campus? — it has had major additions out the wazoo and what has that done for basic student academic performance, contentment? Isn’t that supposed to be the basic goal? The place has a roof, secure walls and HVAC, a gymnasium and auditorium — most everything else is superfluous in the scheme of things. If there is genuine student enrollment growth (one wonders why given school choice and Bettendorf’s discipline record) the can-do administrators can tack on a few modular class rooms.
The claim is the middle school needs extensive improvements and is to receive most of the money. The middle school for the most part feeds the high school, one would assume at a one to one basis through to graduation (reality is somewhat lower depending on drop-out rate and departures from the school district offerings due to inferior educational performance). Growth in one largely coincides with the other.
So the middle school is coping now, we say continue to cope.
If there are genuine increases in enrollment, then as we advocate for the high school, the school board should go back to the drawing board, lower their expectations for permanent buildings and then only after the tax-paying economic situation stabilizes. Tack on modular classroom additions commensurate with what enrollment can’t be absorbed.
Given the city’s related amenities we are unimpressed by claims of a need for still more athletic facilities. Few students or parents with their heads screwed on straight have children in an athletic category shopping for schools with the best work-out rooms. Parents with their heads screwed on straight want solid academic performance for their kids and they will inform their charges – you are going where we think you will get an education and be reasonably safe. If a school system is not delivering those then the problem is about the culture that is being cultivated within the walls, not the size of the walls.
Even if Bettendorf (or Davenport) academic performance was solid, that academic success was achieved without the gold-plated improvements proposed belying the “need.” And by the way, if costly fancy schools (rather than academic performance) increases property values, a contention of supporters of increased taxes in the Bettendorf bond vote, then fancy schools increase taxes on the fixed income and the economically stretched and hurting. It is the inescapable other side of the coin.
The Davenport Schools Bond Boondoggle proposal is not for an increase in property taxes per se like Bettendorf’s. They want your carte blanche authorization for a kitchen sink wording about the use of state allocations — no doubt the bulk of which will go to close, consolidate and build up selected schools (see their plan) necessitated because of declining enrollments which of course has nothing to do with the district’s stellar performance in academic achievement. We cannot get past the impression the community is being played with the wording of this proposal. The last part of the proposal insists your non-agreement does not stop them from spending the money according to their previous no doubt catch all authorization. We say use the opportunity to vote no as a message of no-confidence. They will understand the meaning.
The effects of the Bettendorf School District proposal on property taxpayers in that district are described in this article: See Chart. Homeowners can expect to pay hundreds of dollars more in taxes for a long time. As regards commercial property owner taxes The Board’s spokeshole is quoted in the QCT article “Our bond consultant, Piper Sandler, let us know there are (rollback) changes coming to the Iowa commercial tax code,” Curt Pratt, the Bettendorf district’s director of operations, said. “So they’ll actually be paying less property taxes overall.” What that means is that if the property tax increase succeeds that commercial property tax payers will see no relief, but should be happy about that or something.
Critics of the Bettendorf proposal have pointed out that many property taxpayers are on fixed income and that for many the increase along with other costs will be a substantial burden taking away any small partial relief they receive from Social Security increases. The critique also applies to the Davenport proposal in that it allows for using the state funds for property tax relief which we highly doubt will be done. So property taxpayers in the Davenport School District will likely be screwed out of relief because the board (and city leadership) is such a failure at attracting students to the city and its schools because of poor academic performance, crime and overall taxes. Those sorts of people should not be given any kind of approval.
