School officials unfairly burden taxpayers

I read in the paper that only "34 percent of students completed fourth-grade proficient in reading" and "36 percent of eighth-graders are ready for high school course work." This was followed by, "If we want to remain competitive, not just inch forward, we're going to have to invest more in education." Really? For those kinds of results?

A couple days later I see "District 214 proposes 2.4 percent tax levy hike." And Superintendent David Schuler says the increase is "conservative." This was followed by a barrage of notices of proposed property tax increases.

My question is this: Is there any one superintendent or school board member anywhere who sees part of their job as controlling, and reducing, the cost of education? Or is their only job balancing their budgets on the backs of the taxpayers?

I'm living on what they call a fixed income. Of my real estate taxes, 78 percent goes to education. A "conservative" increase of 2.4 percent would be $184 on a house I bought years ago for $165,000. Tell me, where do I get another $184?

I think when you are as rich as a superintendent who will never be living on a fixed income, it's easy to balance your budgets no matter how many people you drive out of Illinois. But is there any end to your majesty?

Bill Hartman

Barrington