Letters to the Editor 02/04/2009

To the Editor:

In the interest of keeping discussions of the Local Option school levy focused on the facts, I'd like to offer some observations about the numbers presented in the opinion piece last week:

Public school enrollment this year is currently 1,323 pupils (not 1,200). Spending per pupil is $9,110, not the $10,000 stated in the opinion piece, so spending per classroom is about $210,000 - not $230,000.

Yes, $210,000 is a lot of money. It includes teacher's salaries, heating, transportation, maintenance, custodians, sports programs, clubs, administration, nurses, counselors, special education teachers, technology, textbooks, supplies and more.

Is it too big or too small? Depends on your vision of what kind of education you think best prepares kids for the future workplace and how much such an education costs in today's world.

Professional educators use spending per pupil as a starting point to compare school district spending. By this measure 30 states spent more than Oregon in 2005-06 (U.S. Census Bureau). Spending per pupil in Sisters is hardly out of line.

Finally, what about the increase in education spending over time? Taking 2004-05 as the base year, as last week's opinion piece did, general operating expenditures in the adopted 2004-05 budget were $8,874,486, and enrollment was 1,280 pupils as of October 2004, so spending per pupil was $6,862. Spending per pupil increased by about 33 percent between 2004-05 and 2008-09 - not the 50 percent stated last week.

But don't forget, costs increased as well. Corrected for inflation, spending per pupil increased by 19 percent over five years - a little less than 4 percent per year.

The Sisters School District gets great results with state funding levels that are below the national average. Local option is a big part of the reason. Let's keep it that way. Vote yes to keep the local option.

Christine Jones

School Board Chair

•••

To the Editor:

Young, old, married, not married, we all have to think of the kids in this community as our kids and look beyond our own homes or families. Our kids are challenged every day in the developmental decisions that will help shape their character and the character of others they know or have yet to meet.

Smaller class sizes, more focused teacher interaction, exceptional arts and athletic programs, student service clubs and community involvement all help develop a strong character and open avenues for success.

In a challenging economic environment, we all look for ways to save a few dollars and cut expenses. However, in economic times like this is when we need to continue funding our children's education and look beyond the short-term situation we are in.

School districts all across the state are cutting programs that will forever affect the level of education their students of today are receiving and we don't have to be one of them. Without increasing any taxes we are already paying, we can maintain the programs and the high level of education our children deserve.

We may disagree with some of the past decisions and issues that have happened in our school district but our children should not have to pay the price.

Sisters is a special place to the people that live here, not just because of its beautiful forests, high mountain fresh air and clean water, but more importantly because of the character and inner strength of the people that live and work here. The children help make this community strong and provide the foundation for its future, support the ones that are trying, kneeling to help the ones that don't know how yet and continuously challenging the ones that excel.

Continue to make a difference; vote YES on the local option levy.

Mark A. Reifschneider

•••

To the Editor:

Although I have been a critic of the school district in the past, I am a strong supporter of its mission to educate our children. I supported the last Local Option campaign both financially and as a volunteer, and I am doing so again.

The Local Option campaign is supported by volunteers that believe the Local Option funding has been vital to achieving and maintaining a high quality education program.

For proof of the benefits one only needs to look at the performance and achievements of our students. One extremely important statistic is our very low dropout rate.

The Local Option enables our school district to provide a broad range of classes, activities and support that keep our children engaged and feeling positive about their schools. Engaged students are successful and do not drop out.

Please vote "yes" for continuing the Local Option levy. Let us continue to invest in our children's education for their success and well being.

Mark Yinger

•••

To the Editor:

As it sometimes happens, money issues can be confusing right from the get-go, and such seems to have been the case for the Sisters local option school levy, which is about to expire. I thought it was going to be a new tax, but thanks to Merry Ann Moore, who explained it to me, I find it's not so, but the same-old-same-old. For a poor, somewhat retired old-timer on a fixed income, that makes a big difference.

Some say we can no longer afford to have schools in Sisters that excel; preposterous! Or that cutting $1 million per year from the schools' budget won't make much difference; absurd!

There is also a perception among some that Oregonians pay too much for education. We can NEVER pay enough for education, as long as the administrators continue to use the funds wisely, which is what I think is happening in the Sisters School District.

When my son Reuben was a little guy, my wife Sue and I made the decision to move to Sisters from Bend because the Sisters School District was the best in Oregon. All three of our kids graduated from Sisters High School with a top-dollar education, and the quality and standards of our school district is still top-notch.

The sad thing is, those ill-informed people who feel they must file frivolous law suits against the school district confound the situation by causing administrators to spend time and money educating the accusers and not kids.

Let's quit squabbling and follow the lead of President Obama when he explained why Americans need to "grow up and be sober, realistic, clear-minded, undaunted - absolutely equal to the occasion and the times."

I no longer have children in the Sisters schools, but that's no reason for me to shirk my responsibility of seeing that the best possible education is offered to the children of today and tomorrow. So come on, all you old geezers, join me in supporting the old time school tax.

Jim Anderson, Naturalist

•••

To the Editor: 

This comment is in reference to the article concerning District Ranger Bill Anthony in the January 28, issue of The Nugget Newspaper ("Anthony departs Sisters for temproary assignment," The Nugget, page 1).  The resumé of the ranger is probably very impressive and may deserve some attention. 

However, working for the Forest Service for 30-plus years is more self-serving than not. The article reminded me of a Soil Science Technician with the NRCS who was prevented from moving to a higher pay grade to better support his family simply because his supervisor of 30-plus years chose not to retire. Never mind that this supervisor had no financial hardships and his kids were all grown. This technician eventually left the NRCS to work in the private sector - under duress. 

I am not stating that this is absolutely the case with District Ranger Bill Anthony. 

Though, when reading statements such as, "I plan to keep at this for at least a few more years, and this will give me a chance to see if I want to keep being a District Ranger or whether it's time to move on," gives an impression that this individual believes he deserves the option based along the lines of tenure. 

Anyone who can use their position to secure that same position to avoid change is already a bureaucrat. Working for the Civil Service is not like most other jobs, it is a privilege job paid for by taxpayer dollars with exceptional benefits. 

Why not give others within the organization or even new employees more room to excel and experience their own accomplishments and keep the years to retirement reasonable? This would be especially important today with the failing economy and the quality of life for most Americans on a downward spiral. I believe this is a common occurrence within the Federal Government, and the only way these unnecessarily lengthy tenures can come under control is to require mandatory retirement at 30 years of service.

Scott Stone

•••

To the Editor:

Recent articles in the press as well as on TV demonstrate the urgent need for a revival of a CCC-like program.

Some of the articles showed the large numbers of American young people who failed a basic Army physical. Many have told of the drain upon state and national security because of the large numbers of our National Guard in active service in Iraq, Afghanistan and other U.N.-mandated trouble spots around the world.

Just this week the removal of reserve, vital farmland in Iowa in order to produce more corn for ethanol pointed out the danger to our ability to feed our nation, while pictures from around the world showed the increased global warming by failure to replace vanishing forests.

Will we wait for a national food shortage or a national health crisis or a national security alert before we address the issues?

A CCC-type program would address all of this. It would put our unemployed young people to work (and the economy at the same time), add to national security, help to restore our irreplaceable farms and forests.

Surely our experts can come up with a modern code word if they are reluctant to use CCC! I wonder what our Senators and Representatives are thinking about these problems!

Russell B. Williams