School bonds have become the sacred cows of referendums: Why would anyone vote to deny a child the right to attend a shiny new school? Such thinking has proved remarkably remunerative, garnering billions of surplus dollars for new school construction. And school districts are often given a blank check, with little accountability or scrutiny of their long-term capital plans. In fact, between 1995 and 2001, North Carolinians passed 48 bond referendums, requesting over $4 billion for capital projects. Yet, in spite of all of this money, schools are still failing to keep pace as enrollments swell.
Who pays the tab for districts’ financial mismanagement? More and more often, it is the taxpayer. Both Iredell and Mecklenburg Counties will be testing taxpayer patience soon, with school bonds appearing on ballots this fall. Forsyth County won’t be far behind, with a bond issue scheduled for the 2006 ballot.
Voters in Iredell County will be presented with ballots on October 11th, including a request for roughly $45 million for Iredell-Statesville Schools and the Mooresville Graded School District. If passed, the bonds would raise property taxes by about 7 percent. But some voters have had enough. The group, Quality Education without More Taxes is pushing for a “no” vote and questioning the efficiency of current school board growth plans.
Mecklenburg County is also asking for more capital funds, with a $427 million bond on the November ballot − the first installment of an almost $2 billion master facilities plan designed by the system and school board. The 2005 bond will mark the first of four bond referendums (others are scheduled for a vote in 2007, 2009, and 2011). But opposition is growing, with some elected officials hoping to mount a campaign against the bond.
Recent feedback from Mecklenburg County residents should bolster this anti-bond insurgency. In August, Charlotte Advocates for Education released its 2005 Community Assessment, a survey based on telephone interviews of more than 1,200 registered voters in Mecklenburg County. The survey held bad news for bond supporters: county residents do not trust the school board when it comes to financial stewardship. Only 12 percent rated the board’s performance of “ensuring tax dollars are used effectively” as “good,” while 40 percent rated the school board’s performance as “poor.”
Last week, the John Locke Foundation published a policy report, Building for the Future: The School Enrollment Boom in North Carolina, evaluating school bonds in Mecklenburg County. Announced at a news conference in Charlotte (and endorsed by the Alliance), the report suggests that school districts manage enrollment growth using proven, money-saving construction, renovation, and maintenance solutions. Public argument on this issue is sure to continue for some time: next week, I will be participating in a debate on bonds held by the League of Women Voters, with panelists from Citizens for Effective Government and the Vote Yes committee.
Voting against school bonds is the only sure way to force the education establishment to shift course. If bond money continues to flow, there is no need for school boards to tighten the belt and employ cost-effective and innovative alternatives, like public-private partnerships, virtual classrooms, increased choice, and building design modifications.
There’s no question that students deserve a high-quality education in a functional school, but spending ourselves into oblivion won’t get us there.
Miss Kakadelis heads the North Carolina Educational Alliance.
