Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and recommendations on two funding proposals that may appear on this fall’s ballot. Your input will shape how we move forward. These are your schools. You have the final word.
— Statement by Archuleta School District Board President, Greg Schick, on the cover page of the recent ‘Public Opinion Survey’ mailer.
The Public Opinion Survey from the Archuleta School District arrived in my Post Office box a few days ago. My assumption is that the survey may have been mailed to all registered voters in the District, considering that ASD will need a positive vote from a majority of those same taxpayers, should the District decide to place one or more tax increase proposals on the ballot this coming November.
The survey must be dropped in the mail or dropped off at the School District offices at 309 Lewis Street by this morning, Friday June 15.
Some Daily Post readers may have enjoyed our recent coverage of those proposals, in which case, you might feel ready and able to answer the 16 questions posed by the mailed survey. But in case you are not entirely certain of the correct answers and want a bit of up-to-the-minute information, we’re pleased to help you with the correct answers to the questions, starting with Questions 1-4, below.
Considering that, after all, that the answers might be worth more than $100 million over the next two decades.
We’ll begin by noting that ASD has been complaining about a shortage of tax revenues, and about their ‘old’ school buildings, pretty much non-stop since 2009, when Governor Ritter and the Colorado General Assembly decided not to honor the intent of Amendment 23 and opted instead for a balanced budget, which in hindsight may have been a wise decision.
Over the past two years, the possibility of asking Archuleta County voters to approve two separate tax increases has been a consistent discussion item at School Board meetings, and that possibility looked extremely likely as the month of May arrived — and as the District waited, hopefully and anxiously, to learn if they would be blessed with three Colorado Department of Education grants worth a total of about $14.9 million. The approval of those grants would virtually guarantee a decision by the School Board to place a matching $35 million bond issue before the voters, and perhaps also a ‘mill levy override’ issue as well.
The CDE grants to ASD were not approved as requested. Instead of $14.9 million, the District was awarded less than $200,000.
This means that ‘Phase I’ of the Facilities Master Plan developed by Colorado Springs-based RTA Architects would cost local taxpayers about $50 million instead of $35 million, making it the largest bond proposal in Archuleta County history.
Here are the questions from Public Opinion Survey that you may have received in the mail. We’ve done our best to provide the correct answers to that survey.
1. Before receiving the enclosed information, how much had you read, seen or heard about Archuleta School District 50 JT’s two funding proposals?
If you’ve been reading our Daily Post articles about the tax increases, the correct answer is, “Some.” We’ve shared pretty much all we’ve learned from attending dozens of public meetings, but ASD has not yet revealed some of the most important details, such as what it would cost to remodel the existing Pagosa Springs Elementary School — instead of abandoning it and building a totally new school adjacent to the Pagosa Springs High School.
If you have been reading only the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN — and not the Daily Post — the correct answer is “Hardly anything.”
2. How likely are you to vote in the November 2018 election?
The correct answer to Question 2 is “Very likely.” No one should miss a chance to approve (or reject) a $50 million school bond, plus a mill levy increase.
3. If you had the chance to grade Archuleta School District 50 JT’s performance, what grade would you give it?
This is a tricky question. If you were going to answer on the basis of recent standardized test scores, you might be likely to give the district a grade of “C” or “D.” If you were using the performance of the PSHS sports teams, you might be likely to award an “A” or “B”. But the correct answer would be based on the experience of the students who leave the school district — either as dropouts or as high school graduates. Are they able to build satisfactory lives with the knowledge, skills and character habits that ASD has helped them acquire?
About 6 out of 10 PSHS graduates apply to attend college or workforce training after graduation, but only about half of them graduate within six years. Those who drop out of college join the millions of U.S. college dropouts who have amassed an average of $20,000 to $30,000 in student debt, but who have never earned a degree or certificate.
Thus, maybe 7 out of 10 PSHS students eventually enter the workforce with little to show but a high school diploma. The District is just now in the beginning stages of re-instituting vocational education to help those who wish to begin their life with some basic technical skills rather than a college degree. This kind of vocational education has been basically missing from the PSHS curriculum since the 1990s.
Because vocational education is still in its beginning stages, the correct answer is “C.” Just average, overall.
4. How confident are you that Archuleta School District 50 JT is handling taxpayer money wisely?
How confident are we that ASD is handling our money wisely? Those of you who have had the pleasure of interacting with ASD Finance Director Mike Hodgson might sense that the best answer is “Very confident.” Those who have experiences only with other ASD administrators, or only with the ASD School Board would probably select “Somewhat confident” — which is the correct answer.
For full disclosure, I sit on the board of the ASD-authorized Pagosa Peak Open School, the public charter school that opened its doors last September for grades K-4. The school is tuition-free to all Archuleta County families, and plans to add a grade each year to become a K-8 school. Any mill levy override money approved by the voters would be shared with Pagosa Peak. I would love to see Pagosa Peak benefit from additional taxpayer funding — but I would expect that our board would first have a definite plan for how the additional taxes would be used, and some evidence that the money would produce better educational outcomes.
Thus far, ASD has failed to produce any evidence that the millions of dollars in additional taxes suggested by their Public Opinion Survey would produce better student outcomes. Without that evidence, we must give a ‘Low Priority’ to all of the items in Question 5 and 6.
Question 7 lists six “arguments” that the District has made in favor of the possible tax increases. None of them are convincing as part of a package deal. Some of them might be convincing if they were being voted on separately, but we’re not normally given an opportunity to be frugal when governments make tax increase proposals. It’s all or nothing. Perhaps the increased teacher salaries is a compelling argument — but we have no definite plan for how the mill levy would be divided. Would teachers really get the largest portion? Or would administration get it?
Question 8 lists some of the arguments that have been raised in opposition to the package deals. We suggest that all of these arguments are at least somewhat convincing.
Question 9 asks you to tell the District how you would vote on the mill levy override. Until we get complete information about how the money would be used, the correct answer is “Probably No.”
Question 11 asks how you would vote on a $50 million bond issue. The correct answer is “Definitely No.”
Questions 13 through 16 asks you about personal details, like your age and whether you have children attending ASD schools. We suggest you simply skip the personal questions. They are only intended, I assume, to target future marketing efforts.