Education answer not more money for Springfield

Ralph Martire's article "No defense for state's unfair approach to school funding" makes some salient points using statistics that equate school spending and achievement, which leads to the future success (or not) of the students in later years.

He goes on to talk about "fairness" and how this cannot be achieved under our current taxing system, whereby most school funding comes from local property taxes and not from the state government.

He ends by challenging readers to explain why they wouldn't support a tax increase for education.

The inspiration for his piece is from listening to the Illinois state superintendent of schools. Does it surprise anyone that an appointed educator with deep roots in California would advocate for controlling school funding at the state level?

I'm not implying that central control of school funding is wrong, but in Illinois where there is a long history of fund sweeps, politically motivated appointments, corruption and irresponsible management, letting locally elected school boards (who are then more likely to be held accountable) make decisions results in the most funding getting to the students as opposed to being used for bureaucracy.

Elected (and appointed) leaders in Illinois have and continue to fail us, and things have to change. Experience tells us that state government can't be trusted.

The unfortunate reality is that parents have to work hard and make sacrifices so their children are assured a good education or to protect their investment in their home by being within a "good" school district. Taxpayers are not likely to agree to divert even more money and power to Springfield, and get nothing in return. That would be unfair.

Keith Gray

Mettawa