The Schwab wrote:Ok, my two cents on the topic:
Of course schools in bigger districts will get more funding, thus they will have better facilities. The problem I have is the oil money getting spread out into districts that don't feel the impact that comes with the oil industry. I know that schools on the eastern side of the state think that they deserve the money, but I don't necessarily agree with that. Our L. Gov is on record as saying, when talking about a western school in oil country. "Now there’s other things we’re doing wrong. We didn’t build them a house … and their kid had to sit in a school that was kind of cramped,” he said. “Those are problems of prosperity, but they are rich man problems.” As for the comparison of UND med to Johns Hopkins, that's comparing apples and wrenches.
ndlionsfan wrote:The money for schools doesn't only come from the legislature. Most of it is from mill levies and that is determined from the property taxes in a given district. Some districts are very large with a lot of land, others are very small. Schools in the big cities have a huge tax base compared to rural districts, so in turn have a lot more money to work with.
Baller wrote:Some communities are not willing to pay for it. In order to build better facilities, the taxpayers have to be willing to pay more. There are a lot of referendums out there that the people just don't pass when it comes to the voting. It is all up to how well the community wants to support its schools and programs.
heimer wrote:Hey, so, I haven't had time to read this all that closely, but I've skimmed enough to try to add two decent cents.
I call games, I officiate. I am at the point now where I see well-coached teams, decently-coached teams, and teams that are still apt to call "5 second rushing, set hut" to start a play.
You can talk about money all you want, population all you want, blah blah blah, but here's the mother-loving problem.
There's two of them..........
Wait for it......
Wait for it......
Mom,
and
Dad.
if your school could hire a coach to instill real discipline, and if that coach was free to coach, safe from the interference of mom and dad, money would not play nearly the part it does.
I just heard a story from a coach in a different state about a happening during their football season. Coach was caught having an affair on his wife. The kids basically stopped playing for him till he was gone.
The kids held their coach to a higher standard. That's the kind of kid we need.
Problem is, every time a kid is held to a higher standard, he/she goes home and whines, and AD gets a call, and coach gets an uncomfortable visit about his job, which is supporting his/her family, and the level of performance expected from a team goes down.
And guess what happens to the win-loss percentage in the process.
Money and population will play a part, no question. Pride comes from a lot of sources, and facilities are a part of that.
But a great deal of teams that don't perform could if Mom and Dad would get out of the way.
HammerTime wrote:
Public school should be considerably more even than it is right now. My property tax dollars go to help pay for some large school to pay for newer classes and opportunities to help kids get into college, while the kids in my own district will probably be stuck here.
north1 wrote:What is increasingly getting on my nerves is the large increases in sales tax in larger communities to fund sports facilities. I travel 50+ miles to pay 6-8% in sales tax and my small local school can't even afford to have a track field, long jump pit, pole vault facilities, etc. So I am paying for facilities my children will never get to use and they are competing against athletes that have access to them. In high school I had to build my own long jump pit for a shop class project just to practice! Didn't kill me, and made me appreciate it's use more, but didn't get it completed until halfway through track season so it didn't offer me a great deal of training benefit.
north1 wrote:Exactly, I don't expect them to pay for facilities in my community, so why should I pay increased sales tax to fund their athletic facilities, just because they have a pair of work boots or whatever in a store in that city? You can say, well you don't have to shop there. Yes, true, but when it is the only major city to buy supplies in a 100 mile radius, it leaves you little choice.
scoobyx2 wrote:north1 wrote:Exactly, I don't expect them to pay for facilities in my community, so why should I pay increased sales tax to fund their athletic facilities, just because they have a pair of work boots or whatever in a store in that city? You can say, well you don't have to shop there. Yes, true, but when it is the only major city to buy supplies in a 100 mile radius, it leaves you little choice.
I haven't ever heard of a local sales tax being allotted to fund a school. Do you have an example of that? Generally, local sales taxes are used to fund city-owned facilities like the FargoDome or the Bismarck Events Center. Schools are generally paid for with property taxes and bond issues associated with property.
north1 wrote:Sorry, I should have explained myself better. I know schools don't use sales tax for their facilities. I am talking about sports training facilities shared by schools in larger metro areas. This would include baseball/softball fields, sports training and enhancement facilities with indoor basketball courts, etc. The YMCA is for that sort of thing, I don't need to pay for these facilities with my hard earned money with no benefit to my local community or to children in local schools in my area. Their excuse is adults use them too, but who is going to drive 50+ miles on a regular basis for training or use, whether they be students or adults? They need to be funded locally via increased property taxes, privately, and/or with shared funding with schools in that city.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests