- By Chris and Clara Barrett
- Opinions
Print 
The forces beyond our control in this context are three. First, a few years ago the state of New York changed graduation requirements, forcing all high school students to take additional classes, notably two extra years of science and a year of fine arts, which require more space than other subjects due to laboratory and performance needs. Second, a globalizing economy heightens competition among graduates for good-paying jobs and among communities to host desirable businesses that offer good jobs and are solid corporate citizens. Third, the high quality of life in our community continues to attract new residents. Census data show that growth of family households in the Town of Lansing far outpaced any other jurisdiction in Tompkins County since 1990. If the proposed sewer project moves ahead, that growth will likely continue.
These three forces imply increased need for classroom hours, especially in larger, more specialized classrooms and higher stakes of failing to meet that need. Collectively we must decide if we want to pay now … or if we want to pay much more later, and at the expense of the town’s children.
One year ago, Lansing’s Board of Education reviewed a laundry list of $70 million of credible potential capital improvements to the schools to meet these challenges. That amount was too much for a small town. After months of intensive deliberations by a range of community stakeholders, including staunch opponents of any new capital projects, the proposal now before voters is less than one-third the scope of the earlier listing. $20.8 million is still a lot of money. But at 40-98 cents per $1000 in assessed property value, depending on one’s STAR exemption status, this is a reasonable deal.
Consider our options. Currently, the kids (and teachers) pay. Serious overcrowding in science and music classrooms poses real safety hazards that should alarm us all. Overcrowding also forces an extraordinary amount of teacher travel from one classroom to the next. This shortchanges kids who need just a few minutes’ help after or before class, because the teacher has to rush off to or in from another class in a different location. Add up the 5 or so minutes commonly lost per class per day to teacher transit, and one finds that kids get roughly one month’s less instruction than the calendar suggests they do. That hurts kids’ future prospects for colleges and good jobs.
One option considered would lengthen the school day so as to lessen overcrowding. But then kids would have to sacrifice extracurricular activities that are a hallmark of the Lansing experience. That comes at a high price. The best current economic research finds that participation in high school athletics generates handsome rewards later in life: an 11-22% adult earnings premium over non-participants. The effect exists as well for participation in non-athletic, structured high school extracurriculars (e.g., drama, music, clubs), although the adult earnings premium appears smaller, perhaps only one-third that for athletes. Extracurricular participation also reduces negative behaviors such as illegal drug use, unprotected sex, school absenteeism, cigarette smoking and criminal activity. A longer school day might save some current tax dollars … but at a very high price, once again paid by our kids.
Consider two other costs to not supporting the capital improvement proposals. First, school quality is central to business location decisions because firms need to attract well-trained, able workers and to induce loyalty among employees who wish to remain because of their children’s schooling. Since commercial taxpayers foot much of the current school tax bill, if we undermine Lansing’s attractiveness to businesses, we residents ultimately stick ourselves with a much bigger school tax bill.
Second, after controlling for house-specific attributes (square footage, amenities, etc.), economic studies find that the biggest determinant of home value is the jurisdiction’s school quality, reflected in test scores and similar metrics. We can pay through modest tax increases now or through diminished home prices and business activity and a larger share of the overall tax bill later.
When there’s not much substantive basis for opposition to a measure, a common political tactic is to insinuate ethical lapses on the part of the leadership supporting it. We note with dismay that some opponents of the Lansing schools capital project seem to be stooping to this through recent quite public complaints about the District’s handling of Freedom of Information Act requests. While we unequivocally support individuals’ rights to public information, the timing of these complaints is surely not mere coincidence. Rather, the point is to confuse the real issues voters face by implying that District leadership cannot be trusted. We denounce such tactics.
We must deal with the changing educational and economic landscape thoughtfully and soberly. There is simply no way to avoid paying the price of inevitable change. The issue before Lansing’s voters on February 6th is quite simple. We can pay now by voting for a carefully vetted set of modest capital improvements. Or we – and Lansing’s children – can pay dearly later. We strongly urge voters to join us in voting for both of the capital improvement propositions on February 6th.
----
v3i4