Drove my Chevy to the School District Levy.

So today I went and voted myself higher taxes.

About 20 local school districts are requesting more money from taxpayers. Such elections are a bit controversial: they pit the right of all children in the state to get a consistent level of education wherever they may happen to live with the right of parents to vote themselves higher taxes and better schools. Although theoretically any community can decide to pay more money for schools, the fact of the matter is that in poor communities — whether they are urban or rural — there is no more money. School inequity will be a fact of life as long as schools can receive funds from property taxes.

Another problem with such levies is that they are often approach extortion. Proponents will say that sure, you can vote against the levy, but then there will be overcrowding. Or if voters say no to the school expansion they will just have to spend the same kind of money on portable classrooms and surely you don’t want that. Or surely you don’t want to destroy the [insert popular program, class, or extracurricular here]. Or surely you want the kids to have the latest technology, don’t you?

Now, this last point is very sensitive in these parts. Large local employers include Boeing, several large medical/hospital groups, and Microsoft. Those companies all use computer technology. One of them makes computer technology. I suppose you could, through convoluted logic, say that school technology levies create local jobs. It wouldn’t be true, but you can say it. It isn’t like Microsoft has to write new code every time a school district orders a thousand new PCs.

I actually have a problem with this.

Computers are pretty expensive. Particularly when a school district wants to buy hundreds or even thousands of them. And these resources aren’t like desks, that last for many years and can be replaced piecemeal. And these resources aren’t like textbooks, where certain subjects like Math or English Literature just don’t change much from year to year. These computers that the local school district wants to buy today will be hopelessly obsolete in 5 years, unable to run modern programs and operating systems, many crippled by malware, and the school district will want to buy new ones. I have seen schools that had rooms full of obsolete computer equipment. Rooms full of taxpayer money long since spent and now occupying a room that should be full of children.

I am leaving aside for now discussion of the fact that most educational software that I have come in contact with in the last 10 years is crap. Furthermore, I will overlook the fact that the “computer curriculum” in most schools is nothing more than “Typing 1 and How to Use Microsoft Office.” Don’t tell me about how great digital textbooks can be and how schools can save on buying classroom quantities of classic literature unless you can tell me the title of the last book you read cover to cover at Project Gutenberg.

Almost all school districts would be better off leasing computer equipment. This would mean that every year or two, schools would have new, fast, virus free computers and peripherals. The money for technology could be planned and budgeted rather than begged from the populace every 5 years. Kids would consistently be using current technology — one of the stated purposes of having technology in the classroom in the first place. And school districts would not have to figure out how to dispose of ancient hardware. That is a win-win-win-win situation if I ever saw one.

If a High School or advanced Junior High group (I refuse to call it Middle School) wants to build computers, that’s wonderful and I applaud it. I wish more High Schools had hands on practical educational experiences. But the vast majority of computers in schools should really be leased.