The 65 Percent Rule
Lower Taxes and a Good Education
By Daniel Muniz

Out in the suburbs where my parents live, booming development created numerous new neighborhoods that resulted in the overcrowding of nearby schools. However when a new elementary school was constructed to relieve the pressure of overcrowding, portable buildings had to be placed inside the new campus for the first day of class. The rapid growth of the new suburbs had been underestimated.

But what surprised me the most was the outrage that many suburbanites in that area experienced. They simply felt that being in a new house in a new neighborhood warranted a shiny new building for their children. And area residents could not understand why portable buildings had to be placed inside the campus of a brand new school. To them, it just seemed like idiotic planning on the part of the district, especially for the booming suburbs.

However, for taxpayers, that was perhaps the smartest move that a school district could make (whether or not that was the original intent is a different story). Somehow too many people have the false notion that a quality education can only occur inside the halls of a new building. That is, anything that is not made of concrete and steel and is more than twenty years old must mean that a child is getting a lousy education.

First of all, too many school districts have outrageous capital projects and erroneous visions of massive building programs. And the school districts that do not have a big enough tax base complain that they too need new buildings just like the ones in the rich districts. Our school system as well as many parents and certain homeowners are hooked on big construction projects even though the taxpayer gets walloped in the process.

But what is really responsible for a quality education?
 

Story Continues Below ê

Today's Top Stories

● Smoking and Parenting - Activists Invade Your House ● Excused Absences - No Excuse for Missing Assignments ● Deceptive Republicans - Screwed By Your Own Party ● Drug Lord's New Strategy - Pot Farming in National Parks ● Death in the Family - The Funeral of My Aunt and Uncle ● Gringo Papers - Credit for Illegal Aliens

Yesterday's Top Stories

● Nuclear Power - Too Much Corporate Welfare ● Lights Out - Teacher Caught in Sex Act ● So Much Baloney - Politics and Stem Cell Research ● Girl Takes Life - Bad Parenting Becomes Lethal ● Illegal Alien Terror - Breakdown of Immigration Laws ● Ebonics And Tex-Mex - English By Any Other Name

Is it the brick and mortar or is it the educational leadership and its teachers that provide the learning experience?

Too many people have their priorities confused on what should come first at a school. And a new building should not be at the top of the list. Instead, it should be capable administrators, qualified teachers, and a good curriculum. Consequently, where does a new wing or a new football stadium fit into that?

For people who are not willing to look hard enough, it easy to get suckered into thinking that new buildings helps enhance learning because you can look and touch it while a “quality education” is actually more abstract. As a result, some people become more concerned about a kid being in a classroom made of cinder blocks instead of one made of wood.

Even portable buildings are often designed to look hideous. Many schools never bother to give them a paint job or make them look tidy and presentable. In fact, many of them appear so dilapidated that it is easy imagine the portables belonging to a ghetto or a housing project instead of being classrooms for our children. And I often wondered if school districts intentionally make them look that way so to evoke sympathy for the big construction projects and bond issues.

Instead, school districts need to adopt a 65 percent rule for all of their campuses.

That is, “only” 65 percent of classrooms ought to be a permanent structure. And a special area of a campus should be designated for temporary buildings for the remaining 35 percent of classrooms.

This rule is aimed specifically at classrooms so that the other structures can be built for maximum capacity such as a cafeteria or gym. That way the campus has the facilities to accommodate the full capacity in permanent structures outside of classrooms.

This strategy could save taxpayers a fortune while still offering a quality education (as long as you accept the notion that good administrators, good teachers, and good curriculums provide it).

The designated area could be planned out and developed so that utilities and other necessary connections are already in place so that when portables are needed, they can easily be put into place. If school districts adopted a uniform policy for all of its campuses, then the costs of the portables can be tremendously driven down since only a few designs will be required and then mass produced. And multiple districts can form a co-op to buy the portables in greater numbers which can also drive the costs down even lower.

And if people are still concerned about physical appearance, then it shouldn’t cost too much more to make a portable building look more stately especially when they are being mass produced. Besides, a school ought to have a decent maintenance budget for the temporary structures especially since their budgets will not be servicing the costs of big infrastructure. And making the portables look so unsightly is irresponsible and juvenile. A school board and parents simply should not allow that to happen.

But most importantly, it is not demeaning for a student to be taught inside a wood structure. After all, quite a few ordinary people already live in wood houses (or derivatives like hardy plank) and they don’t find it humiliating.

Overall, it is outrageous for school districts to be spending such a huge sum of money on so many new buildings when temporary structures can be bought for a fraction of the cost.

Unfortunately, plenty of parents and many homeowners have to be persuaded that such a plan will not diminish the value of an education and perhaps that will be the most difficult obstacle to overcome. Parents, especially suburbanites want their children in nice new buildings and certain homeowners feel that their property values will increase if their schools have fancy structures in them.

Instead, the value of capable administrators, qualified teachers, and good curriculums ought to be emphasized. In addition, it should also be explained that a quality education can still happen inside a portable. And a bad education happens all the time even in brand new buildings.

We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about this article. Click the Your Feedback menu item to send us your comments.