Some of these are questions I’ve anticipated, others are questions from folks whom I’ve spoken with about the plan.

If you have a question or comment about the plan, send it here. If you have a complaint, please feel free to include feedback on how to make this plan better. I’m open to your feedback, and if this plan can be improved, I’m happy to do so. Thanks, again, for your interest.

Q: You’re taking the levy away. What about local control?

A: In Tenet 2, I talk about shifting existing M&O levies to state collection - and indeed, that would take them away from local districts. In the same breath, if not the same tenet, I talk about setting new (and lower) local levy limits - to 10% or $1 per $1,000 of assessed value for the district. So I’m not suggesting we take away local levies - far from it. That’s been tried before, and it doesn’t work. It also doesn’t seem right. So local control - the ability to control, or in this case contribute, to local school districts is still available in my plan with the implementation of Tenet 5. And remember, districts are to be guaranteed no loss in revenue during the transition. That means when their current M&O ends and the collection shifts to the state, they are guaranteed the same revenue they collected when the M&O levy was going directly to them.

Q: We didn’t have a levy before... how is shifting local levy collections to the state not a new tax?

A: Good, tough question. The tax authority was there before, it just wasn’t put before the voters in your district, or it wasn’t passed. It’s an existing authorized tax that was never collected. So students in your district didn’t get the benefit of the same basic education as kids in other districts that did have levies... or at least not to the same level of funding for programs. Education is important, and so is equity. The legislature put a new law in place that redefines education - for everyone. I think that means everyone should contribute, and everyone should benefit... especially folks who are seeing an increased tax rate. Education helps local communities, helps local kids, but it doesn’t come without cost. And there’s a cost for not investing in education... that costs local communities, and local kids, too.

Q: Why would having the state bond for capital improvements be more efficient? Wouldn’t that just cost more?

A: It’s more efficient because you can use stock plans that are vetted as cost-effective structures, and you can administer through local ESDs and provide (more) assistance for districts who would otherwise be pressed to get their facilities. Maybe the latter is less efficiency, and more insurance for equity in education across the state during this redefinition period, but I snuck it in anyway.

Q: Your question could go here.