Reaching a conclusion on tangential and illogical arguments does a disservice. The conclusion in the News Tribune's Oct. 24 endorsement editorial, "'Yes,' 'no,' 'no' on school questions," was based, in part, on six headlines/arguments.
The first two related to budgets and budgeting, specifically, the district's $4 million deficit and fiscal instability in general. The second levy question on the ballot Nov. 6 would help remedy budgetary complaints. It would lower class sizes and proactively rebuild the reserve fund.
Nearly all Minnesota districts rely on voter-approved levies for fiscal stability. Passing question 1 would put Duluth fourth-lowest among 15 comparably sized Minnesota districts. Passing all three questions would put us 10th among those 15 - assuming no others pass levies this cycle.
Another headline was about the district CFO being put on leave. It happened. Rather than see it as a move to ensure confidence, the editorial used it to give the district or superintendent a black eye.
The dip in ACT scores headline seemed to presume the community shouldn't invest in schools until they start doing better. Consider cause and effect.
ADVERTISEMENT
The "rat infestation" headline: how this connects to funding class-size reduction or technology investments was baffling.
Finally, the decreased value of the Central property headline: short of selling the property for use as a school, the district doesn't influence the market value of the property.
Aging and dying technology, addressed by question 3, is one of many Red Plan outcomes we can complain about or step up to address.
If the editorial's beef was with the superintendent, respectfully, it shouldn't use school funding as a pawn in that fight.
There are certainly many needs not addressed by these levies. Still, voters can choose "yes," "yes," and "yes" to vote for quality education, fiscal stability, and a better future for the community.
Kevin Skwira- Brown
Duluth
