As we enter the new year 2010, we will be faced with many new challenges, choices and decisions.
We are as a society and community diverse in background and ideas. I believe it is possible for people to come together from these various positions for the common good of all when we have at the center some common ground we all value. I would like to believe that is our young people – children. And if it is not our young people it is the value they can bring to society as workers in the future, taxpayers and
consumers. Still at the heart is the value placement. Feb. 9 will be the day of reckoning. Do we stand behind the improvement of our schools and show our support by voting for the two new replacement levy proposals or not?
I vote yes.
Why?
These two levies are not new taxes. They replace the four year levies that were approved in 2006 and expire at the end of 2010.
The facts:
• Proposition 1
Replacement school program and operations levy
This four year levy provides 20 percent of the district’s annual operational revenue. It bridges the gap between state funding, which is the largest source 64.6 percent and federal funds at 12.3 percent and 3.2 percent other.
This levy pays for supplies, services and approximately 1-in-5 employees.
I would like to list some concrete examples:
• transportation services;
• smaller elementary class sizes;
• extra help to address larger class sizes in middle and high schools;
• additional classroom supplies;
• music and drama programs
• extra curricular programs like athletics;
• safety officers in our schools and
• clean health, and well-maintained schools and classrooms.
I would not like to visualize a 20 percent reduction in any of those areas if this proposal fails. How does this help our community move forward by short changing our most vulnerable in our population? How does this help tap and maximize our greatest resource – our kids? How does this impact them finding their dream?
• Proposition 2-replacement technology levy
This proposal allows the Kent School District to continue paying the cost of maintaining the technology tools used by the students and teachers on a daily basis. We are in the 21st Century and in order to compete today our children-students have to be prepared for this technology that is all around us in the workforce and in our daily lives. Take a moment to go to the Web site and you will see for yourself how our local community workforce uses this technology daily and also you will see Kent schools presenting and using it in their classrooms starting on the elementary level.
Again I would like to use a few concrete examples Proposition 2 would provide:
• student computers for classrooms and libraries;
• teaching stations, 1 in every classroom
• station includes, multimedia projector, document camera, DVD player and
• Interactive white board classroom computers for teachers use.
The value a community places on education will determine its future. Drop by any realty office and they will tell you that neighborhoods with good school districts increase property value. This is good for business. Communities where kids have access to learning and after school programs have reduced crime statistics.
Communities where people have people interested in their schools simply stay in touch with one another and connect. It is obvious from our Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Web site KSD is a very diverse one. Reaching out to all children from all backgrounds only enriches society. Together we can show this POWER OF COMMUNITY. Together we can invest in schools instead of prisons.
In closing, I know several of you are saying, “just show me the bottom line”, so I will conclude with the charts for funding.
Proposition 1
• Levy year
2010
collected year
2011
approximate levy
rate per 1,000 assessed value
$3.16
levy amount
56,100,000
• Levy year
2011
collected year
2012
approximate levy
rate per 1,000 assessed value
$3.28
levy amount
59,500,000
• Levy year
2012
collected year
2013
approximate levy
rate per 1,000 assessed value
$3.30
levy amount
62,000,000
• Levy year
2013
collected year
2014
approximate levy
rate per 1,000 assessed value
$3.28
levy amount
64,000,000
Proposition 2
• Levy year
2010
collected year
2011
approximate levy
rate per 1,000 assessed value
.28
levy amount
5,000,000
• Levy year
2011
collected year
2012
approximate levy
rate per 1,000 assessed value
.28
levy amount
5,000,000
• Levy year
2012
collected year
2013
approximate levy
rate per 1,000 assessed value
.27
levy amount
5,000,000
• Levy year
2013
collected year
2014
approximate levy
rate per 1,000 assessed value
.26
levy amount
5,000,000
The facts simply are the facts. What you do with them will be a reflection on our Society in this Community
We all live in and are surrounded by. Each one of you has the Power to shape it in your vote. Do not miss this opportunity to have your voice count.
Leslie Hamada
Past PTA president
