The traditional elementary schools in Lancaster are set up to teach about 400 students each. Red Whiddon and the bond advisors from Gallagher Construction propose to make the new standard size for our elementary schools about 600 kids each.
According to The American School Board Journal :
Today, 25 percent of U.S. secondary schools enroll more than 1,000 students. Many researchers say that the appropriate size for an elementary school is from 300 to 400 students and that the enrollment of a secondary school should not exceed 800. … Small schools, on average, have fewer discipline problems, better student attendance rates, and fewer dropouts than large schools. Students who attend small schools have a greater sense of belonging than those who attend large schools; they are more likely to bond with their teachers and peers; and they more readily identify with their schools.
Terrence Stutz, writing in the Dallas Morning News, reported that:
Lower-income students in Texas and three other states have done better academically in smaller schools than in larger ones…The study conducted by education researchers at Ohio University and Marshall University found that school size is a significant factor in achievement levels for children from lower-income families. For Texas, the researchers looked at scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to learn how much school size affected results. Test scores were analyzed from 6,288 schools in 960 districts - most districts in the state. "Many schools serving lower- and moderate-income communities in Texas are too large to achieve top student performance on the TAAS," the report concluded.
Full details here.
It makes more sense to rehabilitate the old schools to serve at the 300-400 student per school standard that they were designed for, and that researchers agree is the optimum size for a school. Kids in the tree-lined heart of our community can hike the less-than-two-miles along our shaded side walks and natural paths to the historic old buildings. And new schools serving new neighborhoods should also be small, located in the heart of the community, and accessible by walking.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Investing? Squadering? Is there a difference?
Can anybody help me understand the difference between "investing" money and "squandering" it?
I don't need help with the notion of "spending" it. Spending, I understand I have money in my pocket, or maybe in the bank. I see something I want. I dicker with the seller, I put up my cash,and I buy what I want. That's spending. I'm pretty good at that. (Maybe too good for my own good. )
It's when I don't have the money in my pocket or in the bank that I start to misunderstand things.
People tell me that borrowing money for a decent car, so I can get back and forth to work, is really an "investment". It's an investment in keeping my job, not being late, appearing reliable, all that.
On the other hand if I bought a Hummer or a Lamborghini -- and borrowed several times the value of my annual pay for that car -- well, that would be, I'm told, squandering money.
But I'm funding the process of getting a car. Squander, invest , what's the difference?
Some people tell me that college loans are an investment. Pay the fee and get the degree. Cool. And if you have to borrow the money to pay the fee, first, well, that's a smart thing to do.
On the other hand, if I borrow money for four-years of coursework in 19th century French Poetry, the degree I get at the end of the period might not help me much when it comes to repaying the loan. Does that mean the money was "squandered"?
I'm funding an education. Investing, squandering, what's the difference?
Isn't the difference really about what results I get after the end of the process? If the money spent gets me long lasting good results -- a good job, more money in my pocket -- then I guess what I borrowed for was an "investment". But if I borrow money -- and pay interest on the loan -- for anything that does NOT have long-lasting good results, then I have a problem.
I know people like that. They put the monthly payments for the cell phone, the DSL line, the cable TV, dinner at Chili's a few nights per week, electric bills, all that -- all onto their credit cards. Sometimes they get into credit problems -- so they scramble to scrape up the payments, take out a home-equity or bill consolidation loan, and get their credit scores cleaned up. So they can then -- get more credit. Raise the limits on their cards so they can do dinner at Saltgrass instead of Chili's, you know.
I don't think that qualilfies as an "investment".
In 2003 the Lancaster school had months left at the end of the money and issued Bond Series 2003-B borrowing $2.5 million over FIVE YEARS to get them thru. In 2004 they issued another bond, for nearly another $3 miillion, because once again they'd had months of expense left at the end of the year's worth of money. And in August of 2005 and in June of 2006 and AGAIN last month, in August of 2006, the Lancaster school district STILL had month left after they'd run out of money and had to borrow AGAIN, to tide them over until the state bails them out.
God help us all if the state decides to delay payment and do the kind of audit on Lancaster they did on Wilmer Hutchins.
This year the district has moved some payroll expenses to the 2004 capital improvement bonds budget. Elvin Lotten is working full time on bond related issues -- so , as the expression around here goes, There is Nothing Illegal About This. But it's like using your home equity loan to pay the kid who mows your lawn ...
So, did you know, that according to our Red Whiddon, the solution to lend the district MORE money?
Well, as we say around here, There Is No Law Against Stupid.
Can anybody help me understand the difference between "investing" money and "squandering" it?
I don't need help with the notion of "spending" it. Spending, I understand I have money in my pocket, or maybe in the bank. I see something I want. I dicker with the seller, I put up my cash,and I buy what I want. That's spending. I'm pretty good at that. (Maybe too good for my own good. )
It's when I don't have the money in my pocket or in the bank that I start to misunderstand things.
People tell me that borrowing money for a decent car, so I can get back and forth to work, is really an "investment". It's an investment in keeping my job, not being late, appearing reliable, all that.
On the other hand if I bought a Hummer or a Lamborghini -- and borrowed several times the value of my annual pay for that car -- well, that would be, I'm told, squandering money.
But I'm funding the process of getting a car. Squander, invest , what's the difference?
Some people tell me that college loans are an investment. Pay the fee and get the degree. Cool. And if you have to borrow the money to pay the fee, first, well, that's a smart thing to do.
On the other hand, if I borrow money for four-years of coursework in 19th century French Poetry, the degree I get at the end of the period might not help me much when it comes to repaying the loan. Does that mean the money was "squandered"?
I'm funding an education. Investing, squandering, what's the difference?
Isn't the difference really about what results I get after the end of the process? If the money spent gets me long lasting good results -- a good job, more money in my pocket -- then I guess what I borrowed for was an "investment". But if I borrow money -- and pay interest on the loan -- for anything that does NOT have long-lasting good results, then I have a problem.
I know people like that. They put the monthly payments for the cell phone, the DSL line, the cable TV, dinner at Chili's a few nights per week, electric bills, all that -- all onto their credit cards. Sometimes they get into credit problems -- so they scramble to scrape up the payments, take out a home-equity or bill consolidation loan, and get their credit scores cleaned up. So they can then -- get more credit. Raise the limits on their cards so they can do dinner at Saltgrass instead of Chili's, you know.
I don't think that qualilfies as an "investment".
In 2003 the Lancaster school had months left at the end of the money and issued Bond Series 2003-B borrowing $2.5 million over FIVE YEARS to get them thru. In 2004 they issued another bond, for nearly another $3 miillion, because once again they'd had months of expense left at the end of the year's worth of money. And in August of 2005 and in June of 2006 and AGAIN last month, in August of 2006, the Lancaster school district STILL had month left after they'd run out of money and had to borrow AGAIN, to tide them over until the state bails them out.
God help us all if the state decides to delay payment and do the kind of audit on Lancaster they did on Wilmer Hutchins.
This year the district has moved some payroll expenses to the 2004 capital improvement bonds budget. Elvin Lotten is working full time on bond related issues -- so , as the expression around here goes, There is Nothing Illegal About This. But it's like using your home equity loan to pay the kid who mows your lawn ...
So, did you know, that according to our Red Whiddon, the solution to lend the district MORE money?
Well, as we say around here, There Is No Law Against Stupid.
There's nothing illegal going on.
Buying Laptops for Lancaster ISD students isn't illegal.
Borrowing money for thirty years isn't illegal.
Borrowing money for thirty years to buy laptops that last three is ...
Well, I dunno. Do you?
I think it's pretty hard to pass a law against "stupid." Frankly I'm of the opinion we all have a inalienable birthright as Americans to be stupid. (If there ever was a law against stupid, I know I would be in big trouble...)
The laws about what Texas schools can use bond funds for The relevant laws are hyperlinked
here ,
each common school district under its jurisdiction, may:
(1) issue bonds for:
(A) the construction, acquisition, and equipment of school buildings in the district;
(B) the acquisition of property or the refinancing of property financed under a contract entered under Subchapter A, Chapter 271, Local Government Code, regardless of whether payment obligations under the contract are due in the current year or a future year;
(C) the purchase of the necessary sites for school buildings; and
(D) the purchase of new school buses; and
(2) may levy, pledge, assess, and collect annual ad valorem taxes sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds as the principal and interest become due, subject to Section 45.003.
Also here .
32.105. EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS. A school district or open-enrollment charter school may spend public funds to: (1) purchase, refurbish, or repair any data processing equipment transferred to a student under this subchapter; and (2) store, transport, or transfer data processing equipment under this subchapter.
and here.
§ 32.202. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN FUNDS. A public school that provides a computer used to access the Internet is not eligible for a loan or grant under Subchapter C, Chapter 57, Utilities Code, unless the school adopts and implements an Internet safety policy under this section or under the federal Children's Internet Protection Act
Oh, and maybe here.
§ 143.005. FUNDS. (a) The technology program is funded by appropriations and by gifts, grants, and donations made for that purpose.
Go help me find where we are allowed to use borrowed money for laptops. Maybe, if you're smarter than I am, you can figure it out.
Buying Laptops for Lancaster ISD students isn't illegal.
Borrowing money for thirty years isn't illegal.
Borrowing money for thirty years to buy laptops that last three is ...
Well, I dunno. Do you?
I think it's pretty hard to pass a law against "stupid." Frankly I'm of the opinion we all have a inalienable birthright as Americans to be stupid. (If there ever was a law against stupid, I know I would be in big trouble...)
The laws about what Texas schools can use bond funds for The relevant laws are hyperlinked
here ,
each common school district under its jurisdiction, may:
(1) issue bonds for:
(A) the construction, acquisition, and equipment of school buildings in the district;
(B) the acquisition of property or the refinancing of property financed under a contract entered under Subchapter A, Chapter 271, Local Government Code, regardless of whether payment obligations under the contract are due in the current year or a future year;
(C) the purchase of the necessary sites for school buildings; and
(D) the purchase of new school buses; and
(2) may levy, pledge, assess, and collect annual ad valorem taxes sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds as the principal and interest become due, subject to Section 45.003.
Also here .
32.105. EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS. A school district or open-enrollment charter school may spend public funds to: (1) purchase, refurbish, or repair any data processing equipment transferred to a student under this subchapter; and (2) store, transport, or transfer data processing equipment under this subchapter.
and here.
§ 32.202. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN FUNDS. A public school that provides a computer used to access the Internet is not eligible for a loan or grant under Subchapter C, Chapter 57, Utilities Code, unless the school adopts and implements an Internet safety policy under this section or under the federal Children's Internet Protection Act
Oh, and maybe here.
§ 143.005. FUNDS. (a) The technology program is funded by appropriations and by gifts, grants, and donations made for that purpose.
Go help me find where we are allowed to use borrowed money for laptops. Maybe, if you're smarter than I am, you can figure it out.
Thirty years is a long time.
If the current bond proposal passes the district has promised to purchase computers for students who will move entirely thru the school system -- from Pre-K to graduation -- in 14 years. Think about that. At maximum the time a child will spend in our schools is less than half the duration of that loan. The district proposes to borrow money, provide a child a laptop; and when that child has graduated, in 2020, perhaps married in 2022, maybe has bought a house in 2023, and finally sent his OWN child to a Lancaster school, sometime in 2028 -- then our district will STILL be re-paying that 2007 bond. We, and our adult home-owning, taxpaying, used-to-be laptop-using-children, will still continue to owe principle and interest on the 2007 Bonds for another nine years. If the laptops are only provided to students in fifth grade and higher, those students will graduate ( I hope ) in 2013. Then their children might be entering LISD school in about 2022. Those kids will move from Pre-K thru 12th, and graduate in spring of 2035 -- and the Lancaster ISD will STILL have TWO YEARS of payments on the 2007 Bonds. This is assuming that the district doesn't decide on a 40 year bond. In that case the district won't make the last bond payment until 2047, when the current fifth-graders' GRANDCHILDREN could be starting school.
Our consultant, Red Whiddon, points out that in the 2004 Bond, there were similar purchases of technology. Maybe, having gotten away with it once, we have established a legal precedent and can expect to get away with a bigger,more expensive, and grandiose experiment. After all, there are other districts who've provided laptops to students, and look at the ... results? ( Even no results are results, right? )
The comptroller told in 2004 that the state would study the use of laptops in classrooms and let us know how well it works, in 2007.
Three years. Just to study how much bang for the buck a school gets with a laptop.
Three years is a LONG time.
But not as long as thirty years.
If the current bond proposal passes the district has promised to purchase computers for students who will move entirely thru the school system -- from Pre-K to graduation -- in 14 years. Think about that. At maximum the time a child will spend in our schools is less than half the duration of that loan. The district proposes to borrow money, provide a child a laptop; and when that child has graduated, in 2020, perhaps married in 2022, maybe has bought a house in 2023, and finally sent his OWN child to a Lancaster school, sometime in 2028 -- then our district will STILL be re-paying that 2007 bond. We, and our adult home-owning, taxpaying, used-to-be laptop-using-children, will still continue to owe principle and interest on the 2007 Bonds for another nine years. If the laptops are only provided to students in fifth grade and higher, those students will graduate ( I hope ) in 2013. Then their children might be entering LISD school in about 2022. Those kids will move from Pre-K thru 12th, and graduate in spring of 2035 -- and the Lancaster ISD will STILL have TWO YEARS of payments on the 2007 Bonds. This is assuming that the district doesn't decide on a 40 year bond. In that case the district won't make the last bond payment until 2047, when the current fifth-graders' GRANDCHILDREN could be starting school.
Our consultant, Red Whiddon, points out that in the 2004 Bond, there were similar purchases of technology. Maybe, having gotten away with it once, we have established a legal precedent and can expect to get away with a bigger,more expensive, and grandiose experiment. After all, there are other districts who've provided laptops to students, and look at the ... results? ( Even no results are results, right? )
The comptroller told in 2004 that the state would study the use of laptops in classrooms and let us know how well it works, in 2007.
Three years. Just to study how much bang for the buck a school gets with a laptop.
Three years is a LONG time.
But not as long as thirty years.
Lancaster ISD proposes to borrow money for 30 years to buy (among other things) laptops.
Did you know laptops, like most computers, will be obsolete in 3 years?
The school administration assures us that in the first few years of the bond repayment period, we'll apply those payments to the assets with the shortest depreciation period. Like laptops. This is exactly like how I make the monthly payments on my five-year auto loan. The first year's payments apply to the windshield wipers. Then I apply payments to the air filters, fan belt, and the tires. Then I pay for the upholstery, floor mats, and timing chain. Only after all those items have worn out and been replaced do any of my car payments apply to slow-depreciation parts of the car like the transmission, engine, and paint job. Of course that's how my loan contract works -- doesn't everybody's?
But then, maybe a 5-year car loan is different than borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars for three decades.
Maybe it's not.
But there is nothing obviously and certainly illegal about this.
But maybe, just maybe, there ought to be.
Did you know laptops, like most computers, will be obsolete in 3 years?
The school administration assures us that in the first few years of the bond repayment period, we'll apply those payments to the assets with the shortest depreciation period. Like laptops. This is exactly like how I make the monthly payments on my five-year auto loan. The first year's payments apply to the windshield wipers. Then I apply payments to the air filters, fan belt, and the tires. Then I pay for the upholstery, floor mats, and timing chain. Only after all those items have worn out and been replaced do any of my car payments apply to slow-depreciation parts of the car like the transmission, engine, and paint job. Of course that's how my loan contract works -- doesn't everybody's?
But then, maybe a 5-year car loan is different than borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars for three decades.
Maybe it's not.
But there is nothing obviously and certainly illegal about this.
But maybe, just maybe, there ought to be.