This is a printer friendly version of an article from the The Olympian.
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.

Published March 29, 2008

Letters to the editor March 29

Attend school board sessions on levy

I have been closely associated with the levy and bond issues in the North Thurston Public Schools district for the past six years. I am amazed at how much of a misconception there is regarding school levies and public school funding among many of the voters in our district.

Two years ago, we put a building bond issue before the voters. This bond, which was subsequently passed, is being used for much-needed renovating projects. Bonds and levies serve different purposes. An easy way to remember this is that bonds are for building, levies are for learning!

The 2008 levy is a REPLACEMENT levy. Please note that you can only run a levy or bond twice in one year.

All four of our children are being (or were) educated by NTPS. Each has individual talents: art, music, diving, volleyball, football and choir. Should this next levy fail, we (and all other NTPS parents and families) stand to lose those enrichments. And it all goes away along with community access to all of our school resources — fields, courts, buildings, swimming pools and performing arts center. I would be very disappointed to see this happen.

I have been to school board meetings, budget meetings and district roundtable discussions. Have you? I would suggest EVERYONE attend upcoming meetings to become more informed so you might make an intelligent decision when it comes to levies and bonds.

Kathleen Holland, Olympia

Technology is key to well-rounded education

As I perused The Olympian’s March 13 editorial regarding North Thurston school district’s levy loss and suggestions for changes that voters might find more palatable, I was taken aback by the characterization of technology as “frosting” on a crumbling cake.

Let’s leave aside for the moment that The Olympian editors misrepresents the maintenance and operations levy (as) the cake — the foundation of public education. In fact, the M&O levy is only necessary because the real foundation of public education funding — our state constitution — is not followed, i.e., public education is not fully funded by our state.

So, back to the frosting. Note first that the frosting had greater support from the public than did the cake. Second, I would ask the editorial writers whether The Olympian is prepared to offer a North Thurston school district graduate a professional position without that graduate having skills and knowledge related to the 21st century. And would the desk assigned to that new employee be equipped with slate and chalk or with modern technology that most enterprises now depend on?

If anyone needs a context within which to consider whether technology is not only an appropriate but a necessary expenditure for schools in 2008, I would suggest they point their computer browser at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnh9q_cQcUE or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U and spend a few minutes with the result.

Richard Barnhart, Olympia