I was thinking that too, Blue! Wierd to drive right through Lindsay to Humphrey High. How far is it to St. Ed? Would that be an option?
St. Ed is only a 22 minute drive so that could easily work. Possibly Madison too, but I'm not sure NG would want to join up with a larger town again.
Where did you read it? I’d like to read it as well.
Firm disagree with this. The state level will never understand the needs of the local level better than those that live at the local level.
I am well aware....but Creek Valley is not co-oped with anyone else....its just Creek Valley. Unlike Arnold who is with Calloway or Allen who is a part of Tri-County Northeast
Totally agree. Now, St. Edward and Newman Grove are not natural consolidation partners in my opinion. St. Edward should have been included in the Twin River merger or the Albion-Petersburg merger (Boone County High).
Agree with you hailvictors2. Nebraska is consistently in the top 10 of school rankings nationally while Iowa is in the 20's. This with Nebraska's state monetary support around 48th in the country. The local constituents should decide to keep their school if they want. The state shouldn't mandate anything in regards to forcing coops unless they want to fully fund it from their budget. Every board has a public meeting when setting the local levy. Once the state takes over, who knows what any community will get from the taxes they pay.
This is all code for cutting jobs. Thats the reality. Roughly 85% of a school district's budget goes to salary/wages/benefits. The article conveniently sugar coats the estimated 1.24 million as "savings". Technically that might be true, but... it is 1.24 million of people you aren't paying anymore because you cut their job. Some would call that "savings", others would call that layoffs. I'm out on that. If the local communities are willing to pay those salaries (which they essentially are doing by voting to stay open, approve bonds, the levy, etc), then why should the state get a say in that?
When Iowa made this change (I believe in the 50's or 60's, the majority of school funding was coming from the State level. My dad was actually in school in Iowa when this change came about. The rural areas went to County Schools. I always found it odd when I would ask someone where they went to school and they would say "Davis County" ex. and I just didn't understand that. I remember thinking, I don't care what county you live in, where do you go to school. Then my dad explained it to me.
You are 100% percent correct, these small schools are 90% funded by local tax dollars, it is a perfect example of local control and freedom, it is thier choice to pay and have a school. To wish otherwise is a vote for more big government and less local voter control
This is true. If a town wants to keep a school open with 12 kids, and wants to pay for it, then that's the way it should be. I may not agree with it, but that's the right. You wonder what the opinion is of the farmer who owns all the land, pays most of the taxes, but still only has one vote. Land doesn't vote, but its paying for a lot of those schools.
I agree but lets be honest and this opinion may not be a look at as favorable one in Nebraska but can you honestly tell me how many poor farmers you know any more. With most farms now very large and corporate you are basically taxing the rich and farms are not getting smaller and land is now bought by the ultra wealthy and will be even more in the future. Before I get blasted here is few facts: In 1980 there was 68000 farms and today there is 44000 farms The average farm net income in Nebraska is $253,000 a year. The average for the rest of Nebraska residents is family net income is $86000 a year
I just want more opportunities for students who are the future of our great state. Students are going to get more opportunities in a larger district. And I'm not talking about a Class A B or C1 school even. There are plenty of communities that are neighbors that could consolidate, still have small classes and use their combined resources to provide more opportunities for kids. We could use a few more schools that are C2 size in this state.
Key words: You want this ( I just want ) but the people in those districts want the opportunities they see and vote for.
I do understand what your saying, although in the short term a coop doesn't save money until the facility upgrades are paid for and I think the overall cost savings can be a lot less then people think because a class of 40 takes 2 teachers instead of 1 for 20 students and labor is the largest cost to any district. Most schools (definitely not all) are also willing to look at pickup up activities such as golf/baseball/softball/wrestling/etc.. through a coop with neighboring districts while keeping the school in their town.
I completely agree with your stance. But we live and govern the way we do for a reason. The people who live there want to do it that way. That's on them. I would prefer that towns/districts are more progressive and forward thinking. They have every right to hold onto it as long as possible, despite it negatively impacting their students. Not everyone wants more opportunities for their kids. They may just want their kid to play or start or be within an arms reach of a school as opposed to putting them on a highway or dirt road for 20 miles. I don't have to agree with it. If people disagree with it in that district, they can pull their kids.
I completely agree that farmers, on average, probably make more money. That isn't the case all the time. Now, if the farmers are making 3x as much income, are they only paying 3x in as much property taxes? And there could be somebody living in town that makes more money than the farmer but lives in a home that's not anywhere near the value of land, and ends up paying less in property taxes. I'd be curious to look at some school districts that fit the criteria for merging and looking at what percentage of farmers/landowners are in support of sticking with the school district or seeking a merger.
BUT That is the complete purpose of THE USA, so that every vote counts NOT JUST THE RICH
Nebraska needs more small towns to be progressive like Clearwater, Ewing and Orchard. Summerland is a great example of what can happen if people put the past aside. Their facility is awesome. Their student body is strong and they have a new identity.
The whole summerland thing took like a decade for the towns to agree upon and it only finally got done after the OC co/op fell apart and Ewing had no where else to go. I’ll agree their facilities are great though. Hopefully they are able to get that county road repaved at some point too
I know it took a decade. That’s why schools in a communities need to continue to talk about merger plans for down the road. Do the studies, gauge the student interest (because that’s who it should matter to at the end of the day.) It’s crazy it takes 10 years but I get it.
Just doesn’t work that way, summerland and boyd county are examples of it only working once all the communities get to the point that theirs just nothing left in them. Verdigre-Niobrara graduated 12 total kids last year, verdigre dumped a ton of money into their school like ten years ago against a lot of people’s wishes. Niobrara will be flush with money forever it seems and probably has one of the nicest facilities in northeast Nebraska. Idk how many they will graduate this year but both of their elementary enrollments are not in good shape.
I agree with this 100%. Having the bigger and better facilities such as Summerland is not a direct correlation of 1-1 for better opportunities for kids. Coming from a small school if I had not had the opportunity to be a 3 sport athlete all 4 years there is no way I would have went on to be a college athlete. I think you said it perfectly that some of these parents in these small schools just want their kids to be able to do whatever activities they want. Its possible these small schools struggling to stay open may not have the resources to get these students to their fullest potential, but how are we as the "Keyboard Warrior Nation" going to be the judge of that if the local tax payers are the ones willing to sacrifice to keep these schools open. Co-ops are great when the work but its hard getting that many people to agree especially when it comes to the funding and their kids. I would also like to say this thread has been refreshing with how much insight everyone has given and all the different views without anyone getting too grouchy because someone may not agree.
I would say that a merger with Shelby makes a bit more sense…. 6 miles away, they co-op many youth sports together.
I think it does too, just not sure if Shelby would want it.
Idk it would be hard to not recreate one of the best team mascots maybe ever…… The Stormdogs. I mean they did win a state title 50 percent of the time lol. (They were only together for two years for those of you wondering.)
Totally agree. We can agree to disagree on points without getting hot at each other.
