Wayland Schools’ Q & A on May 2 bond issue continues

Greetings,
I’m attempting to balance an open mind with an appropriate level of skepticism. Forgive my ignorance, perhaps my questions and experiences can help shed further light on the “equation”. The queries from John Wilkens in the last bond related article were extremely helpful in understanding some of the figures more clearly, and the responses were enlightening on multiple levels.

Perhaps I’m getting lost in the weeds, but the example comparison with other districts causes me to wonder if it is really an apples to apples situation. My perception(that may be entirely wrong) is that Byron Center and Caledonia for instance, have a higher average property value, this in turn would result in a higher average contribution per property for those schools if my assumption is correct. Of course the number of contributing properties is a crucial factor as well.

Not to bog down the issue, but can a “value for dollar” comparison even be objectively evaluated or attempted? As far as the way we evaluate the “quality of education” for what is expended. Do we drive by and look at the impressively designed and constructed structures and compare them to neighboring districts? Do we compare sports stats, or track percentages of students who are accepted into advanced programs and higher education? Perhaps the grim side is a better measure, things like dropout rates or percentage of former students ending up in some form of incarceration before a certain age. Or are we to only look at standardized testing metrics? Obviously many other factors and influences are at play, and these are likely impossible to answer honestly, regardless of accuracy.

My gut feeling is that this is another example of the way that typical spending/budgeting is performed in many of our publicly funded institutions and governmental entities. The very obvious and well known practice of spending unnecessarily and excessively in order to “meet” the previous/existing budget(s) spending numbers in an effort at continuing or increasing the “established” levels of funding. In so far as “they have been paying x amount, they should be able to keep paying the same, so lets build out to/from that number”. I would like to be wrong on this, however this proposal’s “math” does seem to smell and taste of this wasteful practice. This style of abuse of trust builds animosity and discord in a significant portion of those involved, except of course those who are providing materials, contracts, and services, not to mention any beneficiaries of potential kickbacks. Perhaps this is an improper analogy, if so -my apologies.

This is likely another area of my ignorance. Does this proposal include increased funding for educators and other staff? Perhaps personnel or “human resources” are funded in a different way -from a different source? A notable amount of current national publicity is on what is represented to be overloaded, underappreciated, and in many instances abusive situations, with the expectations and treatment received from a fair amount of the parents and administrators. They are apparently required to fill additional roles that were not previously required from teachers. This treatment and workload often results in resignations and changes in careers, a significant amount of teachers are giving up or not even starting. How do we improve this seemingly important side of the “education equation”?

Personally, I’m all for the idea of an updated modern pool and the benefits it could bring to the rest of the community, not only the students. The thought of enhanced technological, fitness, and musical facilities feels wise. Obviously, things break down over time and repairs are a requirement. My perspective is likely warped and likewise out of date unfortunately. I have not experienced WUS facilities since I was a student decades ago, other than the visual impressions in passing of course. From what I have seen from the generations of students since, I would like to think things have improved and will continue in that direction.

I was a “tech” student, and what I remember from multiple years in auto tech/mechanics at WHS has left a bitter impression of local school administration. There were multiple new but unsaleable vehicles that had been donated by manufacturers, and various engines, transmissions, assemblies, ect were on stands behind fences or in cages. We were NOT allowed to “learn on” or touch these vehicles or components, we also were prevented from using a fair amount of the equipment/tools that collected dust. I never understood why at the time. I have since come to understand that I believe these items were being held and protected as assets, so that they could be “profited from” at a later date when they were able to be liquidated. What we were allowed to do was attempt to work on our own vehicles and stand around and socialize the rest of the time. We did gain skills, but it was more in line with the skill sharing that goes on among inmates. I was left with the impression that school was not about students learning things so much as it was about certain “money moves” and corrupted motivations.

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to acquire actual training at the county tech center, although the time spent in transit likely impacted my ability to spend appropriate time on other subjects. I hope that this lengthy history provides some insight into the distrust in the decision making of “those with a plan”. I imagine some other folks may have similar issues based on their experiences.

Perhaps this tale is an indicator of what the proposal could better provide.

Editor,

Once again you conveniently leave out the part of kicking the can down the road for another 25+ years. Let’s give the voter the complete story. You would consider adding 25+ years an increase….wouldn’t you?

Cheers!!