How would it feel to know that some people think your child isn't worth more than about $100?

William Saracino, Editorial Board Member of the California Political Review, at least offers some reasonable actions that might be taken if the parents — who opposed ideas like these in my school district — were convinced to support them. For example, Saracino proposes that "we can expand year-round school and better utilize our existing school facilities." I agree with this idea, and two of my school-aged children were on a year-round schedule through middle school. But the parents who have dreams of their kids becoming major sports stars (as some from my town have) protested vehemently against the high schools — our most impacted level — going year-round, lest their kid not make the football squad because he was off most of that quarter.

Saracino also points out, correctly, that Proposition 1D is a stop-gap measure, only covering two years worth of expense. He feels that a longer-term plan should be developed rather than patching together yet another financial bandage.

I have to agree with his conclusion, and yet I still lean in favor of this proposition, for as the Voter Guide points out, "Over the past decade, voters have approved a total of $28.1 billion in state bonds for K–12 school facilities. Approximately $3 billion of these funds remain available for new construction projects." We are using the money as fast as our political processes allow us to pass funding initiatives.

Because Proposition 1D will only cover two years, it is true that another law will have to be enacted to cover our growing educational needs. It is to be hoped that these next two years will be spent coming up with the long-term funding plan that Saracino calls for rather than be wasted in the partisan bickering that makes up the bulk of the blathering emanating from legislatures all across the nation.

I reservedly recommend that my California readers support Proposition 1D.