Comments about ‘House says no to tapping into alcohol revenue to fund schools’

Too many legislators talk a good game when it comes to funding eductation. These was a concept that doesn't raise any taxes and comes from growth in revenue yet they wouldn't vote for it. Many of these same lawmakers overturned the Governor's veto and earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars for roads but couldn't muster the courage to vote for 7 million dollars for schools.

So once again, when it comes time to put OUR money where THEIR mouths are, our state legislators balk. It's hard to believe the priority is on education when we avoid common sense solutions to help fund it.

Of course, last year they had no problem with earmarking highway funds with alcohol sales. I don't think the problem is with earmarking funds to aspects of the state budget. The problem is that we have a group of anti-public education legislators who desire to deprives schools of needed funding. If earmarking funds is a problem, then they should prove it by undoing past earmarking laws tied to alcohol sales.

What percent of school funding actually filters to the classroom?

To "Kings Court" and "Claudio" and what are you going to use the funding for? Unless you are specific with what the funding is to go towards, you will end up with more district or non-teaching staff positions or more funding for online testing.

If you want more teachers, why not cut the number of non-teaching administrative staff at the schools and the district specialists that are paid a lot for not teaching.

To "worf" the national average for funding that actually makes it to the classroom is about 60%.

Kings Court,

Just like in our personal budgets we spend money on what we value. The majority of our republican legislators value roads much more than they value education.

The reason they don't want to tie this money to education is to keep it available for their own little pet projects. Which again they value more than the education of the children of this state.