<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Control</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.showmedaily.org/2008/07/control.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.showmedaily.org/2008/07/control.html</link>
	<description>Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 19:02:29 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Audrey Spalding</title>
		<link>http://www.showmedaily.org/2008/07/control.html/comment-page-1#comment-362</link>
		<dc:creator>Audrey Spalding</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=1071#comment-362</guid>
		<description>PRenea,

When I have spoken with superintendents, they have been quick to highlight the increasing costs of fuel and food as budget issues. The Columbia School District actually voted that teachers no longer bring personal appliances to schools because of the electricity costs. The district estimated that alone (fewer coffee makers and refrigerators) would save about $200,000.

There are much bigger costs for districts that are rising faster. For example, the price of paying for a school employee&#039;s retirement package, through the statewide PSRS program. That&#039;s a state requirement that a school district can do nothing about -- and school district critics unfortunately often miss that distinction.

But districts can control other things. The number of employees, the salary raises they award for certain types of teacher certification, technology upgrades, etc. 

Ideally, money would be spent where it is needed. It would be wonderful to have a blank check for education. But, someone somewhere would have to pay. And I think that the general goal should be to spend money effectively. Some Missouri districts do that, and need more. Others don&#039;t.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PRenea,</p>
<p>When I have spoken with superintendents, they have been quick to highlight the increasing costs of fuel and food as budget issues. The Columbia School District actually voted that teachers no longer bring personal appliances to schools because of the electricity costs. The district estimated that alone (fewer coffee makers and refrigerators) would save about $200,000.</p>
<p>There are much bigger costs for districts that are rising faster. For example, the price of paying for a school employee&#8217;s retirement package, through the statewide PSRS program. That&#8217;s a state requirement that a school district can do nothing about &#8212; and school district critics unfortunately often miss that distinction.</p>
<p>But districts can control other things. The number of employees, the salary raises they award for certain types of teacher certification, technology upgrades, etc. </p>
<p>Ideally, money would be spent where it is needed. It would be wonderful to have a blank check for education. But, someone somewhere would have to pay. And I think that the general goal should be to spend money effectively. Some Missouri districts do that, and need more. Others don&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PRenea</title>
		<link>http://www.showmedaily.org/2008/07/control.html/comment-page-1#comment-343</link>
		<dc:creator>PRenea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:25:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=1071#comment-343</guid>
		<description>As a percentage of total funding, the State&#039;s support for public education has declined over the last 10+ years.  During this same time period, fixed costs in school districts have continued to increase (such as diesel fuel, new school bus emission systems, heating fuel, salaries, just to name a few), resulting in the need for additional local revenues.  The State has essentially pushed its Constitutional obligation to fund public schools on to the backs of local citizens in order to avoid the argument that Jefferson City raised taxes, yet that is exactly what has happened indirectly.  It is unreasonable to assume that school districts or any other public entity can continue to cut costs without sacrificing quality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a percentage of total funding, the State&#8217;s support for public education has declined over the last 10+ years.  During this same time period, fixed costs in school districts have continued to increase (such as diesel fuel, new school bus emission systems, heating fuel, salaries, just to name a few), resulting in the need for additional local revenues.  The State has essentially pushed its Constitutional obligation to fund public schools on to the backs of local citizens in order to avoid the argument that Jefferson City raised taxes, yet that is exactly what has happened indirectly.  It is unreasonable to assume that school districts or any other public entity can continue to cut costs without sacrificing quality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

