• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

...declining enrollment...

Things tend to go in cycles I think. butte, anaconda and Missoula/Bonner were the only real economic engines that drove the state for 70 years or so, other then the universities. The tax revenue and related jobs and employment from the old industrial sector are mind boggling compared to a short term oil boom. Thanks
[/quote]

Um, I’m not sure what you are talking about. There have been three separate and distinct oil booms in the eastern part of the state; the first was in the late ‘50s/early 60’s, the second was in the early to mid 80’s, and the last was more recently in the 2000’s. During those times, the half dozen or so counties in the far eastern part of the state carried the state and DIDN’t GET A DAMN THING IN RETURN! No help for infrastructure, nothing!
 
What is the total population of the counties that you are referring to... I think the allocation of limited state resources is supposed to be spread out based on the highest and best use. Kind of like socialism.lol.
 
Plainsman said:
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
dupuyer griz said:
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
Consolidation. What a dirty word in this state. And not just for athletics.
Too bad it’s a dirty word, we could all carpool for $1 but I’ll drive my own damn self for $10. The amount of money paid to keep schools like Augusta with their 12 high schoolers and Judith Gap operating with less than 10 for years is unbelievable. I guess if your letterman jacket you still wear doesn’t match the new name you’ll have to get a new jacket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And all those who say "We'll lose our community if we do" drive past how many vacant one room school houses every day? Local school board members and administrators who would lose their jobs are keeping all these tiny little schools open. It seems like nobody has the intestinal fortitude to do this.

Served as a school board member for a community class c school for nine years. For your information, school board members don't get paid so I doubt there is much concern if they "lose their jobs". I and the people I served with simply have the best interests of the students as our major concern. If we don't please the public at large, we get voted off the Board.
I didn’t make the comment about school board pay, maybe it was directed to another comment I missed. It would however save a good amount of money cutting back on superintendent pay. Probably would get rid of some of the shitty ones as well, there’s more than enough of those around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dupuyer griz said:
Plainsman said:
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
dupuyer griz said:
Too bad it’s a dirty word, we could all carpool for $1 but I’ll drive my own damn self for $10. The amount of money paid to keep schools like Augusta with their 12 high schoolers and Judith Gap operating with less than 10 for years is unbelievable. I guess if your letterman jacket you still wear doesn’t match the new name you’ll have to get a new jacket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And all those who say "We'll lose our community if we do" drive past how many vacant one room school houses every day? Local school board members and administrators who would lose their jobs are keeping all these tiny little schools open. It seems like nobody has the intestinal fortitude to do this.

Served as a school board member for a community class c school for nine years. For your information, school board members don't get paid so I doubt there is much concern if they "lose their jobs". I and the people I served with simply have the best interests of the students as our major concern. If we don't please the public at large, we get voted off the Board.
I didn’t make the comment about school board pay, maybe it was directed to another comment I missed. It would however save a good amount of money cutting back on superintendent pay. Probably would get rid of some of the shitty ones as well, there’s more than enough of those around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think of this. How many curriculum directors does this state need? How many special ed directors does this state need? How many school districts does this state need (sure as hell not 420). Want you community schools? Fine! Make the damn county superintendent an actual county superintendent and all these little schools in a county like Lewis and Clark, Flathead, Gallatin have building level administrators. This is pure bullshit the way it is set up now. Consolidate all the dead weight administrators and worthless school boards. OPI out to be the actual central office for the state.
 
Dutch Lane said:
Is not local control usually extolled as a virtue sort of like states rights?

How many empty one room school houses are there in this state? Do you even know how many there were supposed to be, and were, when this state was opened up for homesteading? Consolidation is not a new concept as it has been going on for 70 years. The puff daddies and bitches who want to let everybody know "I was on the school board, county commission, city council...etc." are the ones who resist consolidation today. Everybody has to be the boss.
 
It isn't just the small towns / schools that could be consolidated. Look at the Bitterroot valley. Start with Florence (Class B). Travel 9 miles and there is Stevensville (Class A). 9 miles away is Victor (Class C). 9 miles away is Corvallis (Class A). 4 miles away is Hamilton (Class A). 16 miles away is Darby. That is 6 full school districts within less than 50 miles. Look in the Flathead valley. Same thing. They complain about how they would have to travel if schools were consolidated, but then think nothing of a kid in Eastern Montana commuting 30+ miles each way.

I don't think there is much hope for the rural farming schools. The 5000 acres that once supported 5 or 6 families now supports just one (if that). Honestly, looking at farm and ranch prices (many are the same as they were in the 80's), and the price of everything else they have to pay for, I don't know how they do it. Montana's landscape is full of towns that have risen and failed over the past 100+ years. It will continue to do so. Unless school districts can evolve and adapt, they will go out with the ghost towns.
 
dupuyer griz said:
Plainsman said:
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
Yep. And all those who say "We'll lose our community if we do" drive past how many vacant one room school houses every day? Local school board members and administrators who would lose their jobs are keeping all these tiny little schools open. It seems like nobody has the intestinal fortitude to do this.

Served as a school board member for a community class c school for nine years. For your information, school board members don't get paid so I doubt there is much concern if they "lose their jobs". I and the people I served with simply have the best interests of the students as our major concern. If we don't please the public at large, we get voted off the Board.
I didn’t make the comment about school board pay, maybe it was directed to another comment I missed. It would however save a good amount of money cutting back on superintendent pay. Probably would get rid of some of the shitty ones as well, there’s more than enough of those around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not meant at any particular poster.
..."the shitty ones..." Ageed! Here's a true story of a former high school referee, and damn good one, and school administrator, was followed into the locker room after a game, and yelled at by the SUPERINTENDENT of this particular school district. Nose to nose, the ref finally told him to get the f*ck out or he'd make sure refs would never come back again. The Supt. left red faced and pissed. The ref made the following comment after the guys departure: "Where do they get these people?"
 
grizpack said:
It isn't just the small towns / schools that could be consolidated. Look at the Bitterroot valley. Start with Florence (Class B). Travel 9 miles and there is Stevensville (Class A). 9 miles away is Victor (Class C). 9 miles away is Corvallis (Class A). 4 miles away is Hamilton (Class A). 16 miles away is Darby. That is 6 full school districts within less than 50 miles. Look in the Flathead valley. Same thing. They complain about how they would have to travel if schools were consolidated, but then think nothing of a kid in Eastern Montana commuting 30+ miles each way.

I don't think there is much hope for the rural farming schools. The 5000 acres that once supported 5 or 6 families now supports just one (if that). Honestly, looking at farm and ranch prices (many are the same as they were in the 80's), and the price of everything else they have to pay for, I don't know how they do it. Montana's landscape is full of towns that have risen and failed over the past 100+ years. It will continue to do so. Unless school districts can evolve and adapt, they will go out with the ghost towns.

What about Flathead County? 23 indpendent fucking school districts. Coulumbia Falls 7 miles from whitefish, 17 miles from Kalispell and Bigfork 25 or 30 miles completes the circle. All have a curriculum director, SPED director and a superintendent plus there's a co-op replicating their work for Christ's sake! How many little school districts from West Glacier to Somers are there? Damn, get some common sense. And then look at Gallatin County...we are a bunch of idiots.
 
Dutch Lane said:
putter said:
Interesting that it was the small counties making a ton of money from the oil boom. The bigger counties cried that they should share in the revenue... 🤔

Things tend to go in cycles I think. butte, anaconda and Missoula/Bonner were the only real economic engines that drove the state for 70 years or so, other then the universities. The tax revenue and related jobs and employment from the old industrial sector are mind boggling compared to a short term oil boom. Thanks

Thanks Dutch. Being from Butte I am very familiar with what natural resources have contributed to our state. Montanans are stubborn and are not easily swayed to changed. This state needs a general sales tax to get revenue from our state’s second largest industry. We have 1 million people and most are f the land is owned by zag producers. Ask a farmer to pay $1 more per acre in property tax and you get a fight. We have a crazy educational set-up and too many counties (as mentioned before). Only way to be in a better financial situation is to become more efficient as a state or increase revenue, preferably from out of state visitors to help pay for our services
 
grizpack said:
It isn't just the small towns / schools that could be consolidated. Look at the Bitterroot valley. Start with Florence (Class B). Travel 9 miles and there is Stevensville (Class A). 9 miles away is Victor (Class C). 9 miles away is Corvallis (Class A). 4 miles away is Hamilton (Class A). 16 miles away is Darby. That is 6 full school districts within less than 50 miles. Look in the Flathead valley. Same thing. They complain about how they would have to travel if schools were consolidated, but then think nothing of a kid in Eastern Montana commuting 30+ miles each way.

I don't think there is much hope for the rural farming schools. The 5000 acres that once supported 5 or 6 families now supports just one (if that). Honestly, looking at farm and ranch prices (many are the same as they were in the 80's), and the price of everything else they have to pay for, I don't know how they do it. Montana's landscape is full of towns that have risen and failed over the past 100+ years. It will continue to do so. Unless school districts can evolve and adapt, they will go out with the ghost towns.
ironically, i remember in the 70's, hamilton tried to merge with corvallis and victor(i think), but were rebuffed by the smaller schools. i think state law says that large schools cannot absorb smaller schools unless the smaller schools want it.
 
putter said:
Dutch Lane said:
putter said:
Interesting that it was the small counties making a ton of money from the oil boom. The bigger counties cried that they should share in the revenue... 🤔

Things tend to go in cycles I think. butte, anaconda and Missoula/Bonner were the only real economic engines that drove the state for 70 years or so, other then the universities. The tax revenue and related jobs and employment from the old industrial sector are mind boggling compared to a short term oil boom. Thanks

Thanks Dutch. Being from Butte I am very familiar with what natural resources have contributed to our state. Montanans are stubborn and are not easily swayed to changed. This state needs a general sales tax to get revenue from our state’s second largest industry. We have 1 million people and most are f the land is owned by zag producers. Ask a farmer to pay $1 more per acre in property tax and you get a fight. We have a crazy educational set-up and too many counties (as mentioned before). Only way to be in a better financial situation is to become more efficient as a state or increase revenue, preferably from out of state visitors to help pay for our services

This state could benefit from a general sales tax. However, a few things need to happen before it ever will. Agriculture producers would possibly be in favor of a sales tax, if the state will reduce or cap property taxes. The fear for the farmer/rancher is that property taxes will stay the same or increase and they will have pay an additional 5% to 9% on equipment and other inputs. Forestry and agriculure producers pay the lions share of property taxes in the state, so they are very sensitive to any talk of additional tax without some reform on their current property tax rates.
 
Local control versus state control?

I think polling in Montana would favor local control by a country mile:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/parentsandthepublic/2012/07/what_the_public_wants_in_school_control.html

"A study of 40 years of public opinion polls shows that the public wants to run and improve local schools via elected school boards, but looks to federal and state authorities to ensure equitable distribution of funding and shared standards for what children learn in school.

Education scholars from Michigan State University in East Lansing, Mich. found that Americans support local control of their schools—even as some have tried to portray school boards as "dinosaurs" of governance.

The public believes that all three levels of government—local, state and federal—should be involved in education policy, and that local officials should be in charge of day-to-day operations of the schools, Rebecca Jacobsen, lead researcher on the project, is quoted as saying in a Michigan State release about the paper.

Jacobsen, assistant professor of education, and doctoral student Andrew Saultz analyzed some 40 years of public surveys involving education. Their analysis, in a Public Opinion Quarterly article that was published online yesterday, comes as federal education efforts such as No Child Left Behind Act and Race to the Top have led many policy advocates to focus on federal control of schools.

Parents and community members, too, have been debating the issue of whose role it is to govern schools and what children learn—sometimes quite strenuously—as the traditional public school model and its impact comes under intense scrutiny.

But Jacobsen said it's a mistake to discount the popularity of local school boards. More than 90,000 locally elected representatives serve on nearly 15,000 school boards in the United States.

"A lot of policymakers today think they can just go around the local boards; that the federal government can create a policy that goes directly to the schools or works around the existing institutions," Jacobsen said in the release. "But that's not going to work in the long run, because local control is not dead. People still feel it plays an important role."

When it comes to policy decisions related to equitable funding and standards across all schools, the public favors state and federal government control, Jacobsen said.

"At the national level we want schools to be relatively equitably funded, and we want schools to teach relatively the same topics and make sure kids have access to the same types of curriculum," she said.

But the public also believes local officials should be in charge of "running schools" or "improving schools," the paper found. These findings are particularly powerful, Jacobsen said, given that this preference remains strong even as national policy discussions have criticized local control and taken steps to diminish local decision-making ability through policy changes.

"Some argue that local school governance is a 'dinosaur' that needs to be replaced, but local leaders are going to be the ones implementing these federal policies," Jacobsen said. "So if they're going to have a major hand in how these policies get shaped at the local level, then we better pay attention to their resources, their capabilities, and not just dismiss them."
 
Sales taxes are always started with the promise of a low rate, and ALWAYS end up much higher than the original promise. Other taxes go up too. It's a spending problem. I've lived in five sales tax states. Rates all rise. The subject raises it's ugly head in Montana every few years. As I recall, voters rejected the idea 3-1. FTC and FTST!
 
I just need to comment on a previous post that said that ag and forestry pay the bulk of property taxes in the state. I have been very involved in tax policy on the state level for quite a few years, and I will tell you that ag and forestry pay very little of the property taxes in this state. They are not valued on market value but an arcane production model which is way below market.

The people who pay the vast bulk of property taxes in this state are the residential and small commercial property owners who pay on market value, which needless to say is constantly rising.

The other segment of property taxes in this state is large industrial, which hardly exists any more, and the amount that they pay is practically negligible. They do not pay on a market-based rate.

I'm afraid it's just you and me, the homeowner and small business owner, who are paying the majority of property taxes, and that in turn is what finances schools and local government services.

A rational tax system would not be so reliant on one type of tax (property) and a sales tax would certainly have the virtue of a wider scope to include all of the tourists who are coming to Montana. However, I do share the concern that, once enacted, every session of the Legislature would be tempted to increase the amount. Then you end of like Seattle with a 9 % sales tax with few exemptions. That really hurts.
 
What keeps the legislature in check is that all these programs the left and the RINOs sign onto, is reliance on income and property taxes. The bill comes due once a year, and it IS noticed. People push back. The sales tax is insidious, paid everytime you buy something, every day. Hard to notice, unlike income and property taxes. Gov't still quietly picks your pocket. Spending is NOT restrained. One unnoticed flaw(and quietly suppressed) in the sales tax argument is the EXEMPTIONS from the tax. Lobbyists would descend on Helena like flies on shit, to get their product/service free of the sales tax. Idaho goes through this every other year. The battle to eliminate their dear exemption is bloody, and very little gets done. Their last attempt resulted in a half percent INCREASE in the sales tax, 5.5 to 6.0 percent(started at 3 percent). Spending is NOT restrained. Washington statewide sales tax is 6.5 percent, but local taxes can be an additional 3.9 percent. Current rate by city: Seattle 10.1, Tacoma 10.1, Spokane 8.8. The tax and spend politicians pushed a state income tax. The voters shot it down.
 
grizfromhel said:
I just need to comment on a previous post that said that ag and forestry pay the bulk of property taxes in the state. I have been very involved in tax policy on the state level for quite a few years, and I will tell you that ag and forestry pay very little of the property taxes in this state. They are not valued on market value but an arcane production model which is way below market.

The people who pay the vast bulk of property taxes in this state are the residential and small commercial property owners who pay on market value, which needless to say is constantly rising.

The other segment of property taxes in this state is large industrial, which hardly exists any more, and the amount that they pay is practically negligible. They do not pay on a market-based rate.

I'm afraid it's just you and me, the homeowner and small business owner, who are paying the majority of property taxes, and that in turn is what finances schools and local government services.

A rational tax system would not be so reliant on one type of tax (property) and a sales tax would certainly have the virtue of a wider scope to include all of the tourists who are coming to Montana. However, I do share the concern that, once enacted, every session of the Legislature would be tempted to increase the amount. Then you end of like Seattle with a 9 % sales tax with few exemptions. That really hurts.

Some of my clients are farmers. What they pay in property tax is as impactful to their businesses as any other small business or commercial property owner. Even more difficult in that you are at the mercy of commodity prices and other factors beyond your control. Much more difficult to build that cost into your cost of goods. In fact, they can't.
 
I agree about the sales tax and the fact it can become a runaway. How, in a state of 1 Million people can we afford to pay for 2 major universities and what, 5 smaller colleges? Ag is the #1 industry and you can't raise taxes on Ag land and #2 is tourism. We have sales tax in this state already in gas and lodging taxes but we leave a lot on the table from out of state people. I would like to see legislation to cap state income tax or even let local land-owners pay taxes on the value of the land when they purchased it and not at the ridiculous prices when out-of-staters drove up the land values. Let them pay taxes and slap an out of state surcharge to help pay some bills.
 
Mt is doing a pretty good job of controlling Gov costs. It a shame we don’t ask our out of state friends to help us support the infrastructure they enjoy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
I own agricultural land and pay 35,000 a year in property tax. I do not want to pay 35001. Farmers in our rural counties pay the majority of the property tax bill.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top