Councilman David Carter: An Open Letter To Gov. Meyer And Members Of The Delaware General Assembly
Dear Governor Meyer and Members of the General Assembly,
In 2024, New Castle County completed its first full property reassessment in over four decades, a court-ordered process meant to restore fairness and transparency to the tax system. Yet rather than relief, many residents were met with confusion, frustration, and sticker shock, particularly over increased school tax bills.
Much of this public unrest stems not from the reassessment process itself, but from long-standing flaws in Delaware’s property tax and education funding systems. These structural issues, rooted in outdated laws, inequitable funding models, drastically shifting commercial and residential property values and state-level preemptions, have created a situation where tax burdens fall heavily on those least able to pay, while counties are blamed for policies they don’t control.
It’s time to move past scapegoating and seize this moment to enact the bold, equitable reforms Delaware has needed for more than 50 years.
What the Reassessment Did, and Didn’t Do
Reassessment, by law, does not increase the total revenue collected by New Castle County. Instead, it redistributes the tax burden based on updated market values. Properties that were undervalued under the 1983 system, especially suburban homes and rural residences, have seen increases. Meanwhile, some commercial and industrial parcels, particularly office and retail properties, have seen much smaller increases in value due to market shifts like remote work and vacancies.
The goal was fairness and accuracy, not revenue growth. Indeed, the County was required to reduce its tax rate following reassessment to remain revenue-neutral.
Yes, some individual assessments may need correction. With over 200,000 parcels assessed, approximately 5,000 appeals have been filed, about 2–3% of all properties. These appeals are part of the process, not proof of systemic failure. A functioning system must allow for due process, and this one does.
The Big Issue: School Taxes and State Policy
While County property tax rates dropped post-reassessment, school taxes, now comprising about 80% of the average property tax bill, often rose. That’s because school districts, under state law, were permitted to raise local tax collections by up to 10% after reassessment without a referendum. Counties have no control over this process.
To be clear:
- Counties don’t set school tax rates.
- Counties can’t alter or forgive school tax bills or penalties.
- Counties are required by law to collect school taxes on behalf of districts.
This legal framework, districts set taxes, counties collect them, has fueled public misunderstanding.
Decades of Consensus, Time for Action
For more than five decades, commissions, consultants, task forces, and court cases have pointed to the same structural flaws: an overreliance on local property taxes for education funding, a failure to target funds based on student need, and a lack of transparency in how dollars are distributed and used.
A Timeline of Reform Efforts
1978–1980: Governor’s School Finance Task Force
Recommended shifting more responsibility to the state to reduce inequities between property-rich and property-poor districts. The proposal was not adopted.
2001: Augenblick & Myers Cost Study
Found that Delaware’s “unit count” funding model ignored key student characteristics like poverty, English learner status, or disabilities. Recommended a weighted student funding approach to align dollars with student needs. Not implemented.
2008: Vision 2015 Initiative
A public-private partnership emphasized student-based funding, early childhood investment, and accountability. While influential, its most ambitious proposals were shelved during the Great Recession.
2015–2016: Wilmington Education Improvement Commission (WEIC)
Proposed bold reforms to address chronic underfunding in Wilmington, including realignment of district boundaries and new funding formulas. Approved by the State Board of Education, but ultimately blocked by the General Assembly.
2018: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Report
Reinforced the call for weighted funding and emphasized the volatility and inequity caused by Delaware’s heavy reliance on local referenda. Recommended greater transparency and accountability.
2020: Delawareans for Educational Opportunity v. Carney Settlement
Resulted in $60 million in Opportunity Funding for high-need students and created the Equity Ombudsperson role. While a step forward, this was a legal settlement, not permanent policy reform.
2022–Present: Redding Consortium for Educational Equity
Named after civil rights leader Louis L. Redding, the Consortium has renewed calls for sustainable funding for disadvantaged students and a statewide transition to a needs-based model. These proposals remain under consideration but are not yet law.
Despite decades of consensus, Delaware still lacks a weighted student funding formula. School districts remain heavily dependent on the strength of their local property tax base, and the willingness of voters to pass referenda. That means some children’s educational futures are determined not by their needs, but by their zip code and political circumstances.
The Growth Paradox: State Preemption, Local Consequences
Compounding these challenges is Delaware’s statutory preemption of local authority to manage school concurrency. New Castle County is legally barred from slowing or denying residential development, even in areas with overcrowded schools, if a developer pays the Voluntary School Assessment (VSA). Codified in 9 Del. C. § 2661(4), this law prohibits tying development approvals to school capacity.
The VSA, administered by the Department of Education, covers only a fraction of the costs for new schools or classroom expansions. In high-growth districts like Appoquinimink, this disconnect results in new developments fueling overcrowding while taxpayers shoulder the costs of expansion through higher school taxes.
The result is a vicious cycle: new homes strain schools, inadequate VSA revenue leaves gaps, districts raise taxes via referenda, and property owners pay the price. Meanwhile, the County is blamed, despite having neither the authority nor the tools to address the root causes.
What Reassessment Revealed and Why it Matters
The reassessment has exposed uncomfortable truths. Lower-income and moderate-value homes, especially in fast-appreciating neighborhoods, often saw large increases. The process uncovered major shifts in property values, particularly between residential and commercial classes. On average, all property types saw substantial increases in assessed value, about 353% overall. However, residential property values rose even more sharply, increasing by 433%, while commercial properties rose by an average of just 173%. This imbalance reflects market dynamics that accelerated during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, including surging demand for suburban and single-family housing. In response, both New Castle County and the City of Wilmington implemented separate tax rates for residential and commercial properties to mitigate the impact. Commercial parcels, which haven’t always kept pace in market value, sometimes saw reductions. These are not errors; they are the outcome of applying modern, market-based valuations to a system that hadn’t been updated in four decades.
Blaming the reassessment for these outcomes distracts from the real issue: an outdated and inequitable tax and education funding system.
Cherry-picking examples of commercial properties that saw reductions may feel satisfying, but it’s not sound policy. It’s a policy position disguised as critique, one that ignores legal requirements for uniformity and constitutional fairness. If we want progressive taxation, it should be pursued via income or gross receipts taxes, not through unequal property assessments.
Solutions: What We Should Consider Now
The reassessment was a necessary first step. What’s needed now is meaningful, systemic reform. Policy options that could be considered:
For Education Funding:
- Adopt a Weighted Student Funding Formula – Reflect student needs like poverty, English proficiency, and disability.
- Reform Equalization Aid – Provide stronger state support to property-poor districts.
- Modify or Replace the Referendum System – Explore automatic inflation indexing or state-funded baselines.
- Broaden the Revenue Base – Use tools like education surcharges or income tax adjustments for high earners.
For Tax Equity and Growth Management:
- Repeal 9 Del. C. § 2661(4) – Restore local control over school concurrency in development decisions.
- Eliminate the 10% Post-Reassessment School Tax Increase Allowance – Require referenda or stronger justification.
- Expand Homestead Exemptions and Circuit Breakers – Protect seniors and low-income households.
- Allow Property Tax Deferrals for Income Eligible Seniors – Enable payment of increased taxes upon property sale, based on means testing for eligibility.
- Cap Annual Property Tax Increases – Stabilize taxes in fast-changing neighborhoods.
- Consider Split-Rate or Tiered Taxation – Target underutilized land or high-value parcels without harming small businesses.
Time for Bold and Equitable Action
The 2024 reassessment was not the problem; it was a mirror. It revealed how outdated our property tax and school funding structures have become. It surfaced decades of inaction and policy avoidance. And it gave us a clear mandate: fix what’s broken.
Now is the time to act. We must resist the short-sighted impulse to blame the reassessment itself, pursue costly and ineffective audits, or deflect attention from the deeper issue, a broken and outdated system. The time for finger-pointing has passed. We need to shift the conversation from assigning blame to advancing real solutions, from court-mandated fixes to proactive, forward-looking leadership. Delaware doesn’t suffer from a lack of research or viable policy ideas, it suffers from a lack of both political will and thought leadership to implement them.
Let’s change that. Let’s modernize our tax system, reform school funding, and build a structure that reflects our values: equity, transparency, and opportunity for every Delaware student and taxpayer.
I respectfully urge you to make these issues a central part of your deliberations, both in the Governor’s Office and starting at the upcoming Special Session of the General Assembly on August 12, 2025.
I look forward to working collaboratively with you to address these long-standing challenges and to advance solutions that serve all Delawareans with fairness, foresight, and equity.
Sincerely,
Councilman David Carter, PhD
I like a lot of this and I appreciate Councilman Carter’s history and some of his solutions. However, I’m stung by his belief the County isn’t somewhat responsible here. Tyler Technologies worked through the County here. Tyler Technologies is a huge problem. The County needs to own that and hold TT and itself accountable.
A comment I read today really put things in perspective. TT held “11,647 informal hearings request by property owners challenging tentative assessments, with 6,082 receiving a change.” That represents a 62% error rate. 62%?!?!?!? Personally, I did not appeal because we all were told “Don’t worry about it. Yes, your assessment went up 500%, but your taxes aren’t going to go anywhere near that!” Had I known this was going to turn into this absolute mess, I would have appealed (my taxes nearly doubled from 2024-25). A 62% error rate says there’s a lot more to this story and I don’t think Councilman Carter focuses enough on the data itself being problematic.
There are absolutely some HUGE systemic issues here that need to be addressed in our funding system, but I’m honestly not sure saying “We need a weighted student funding system” is a solution for a really shitty job by TT and, quite frankly, a Council I feel was too hands off in this whole process. I have heard from multiple sources that in the years TT was doing business in NCC, Council received only TWO formal updates. Was Council hamstrung by rules that allowed TT to only communicate to Council Executive Meyer (whose silience here, I believe, is beyond problematic) and appropriate County staff?
Councilman Carter says “Cherry-picking examples of commercial properties that saw reductions may feel satisfying, but it’s not sound policy. It’s a policy position disguised as critique, one that ignores legal requirements for uniformity and constitutional fairness.”
This may be a fair point, however, it also cries out for an audit so we have a full picture. Respectfully, some of these commercial properties are getting away with MURDER. Amazon’s tax being REDUCED from $3.5 million to just over $1 million is SHAMEFUL. This is a company valued at $2.5 trillion. At the very least, we deserve a FULL understanding of how the inequitable increases or decreases played out across the whole county, which is what I believe the audit request from Councilmen Tackett and Toole will do. I would urge Councilman Carter to please support the audit ordinance put forth last week. If only to help satisfy REASONABLE concerns NCC residents have about the disparity.
I appreciate what Councilman Carter has to say here, but I feel like we need a truly full picture of what went down.
Mike–a question. Didn’t Tyler Technologies do the reassessments for the other two counties as well?
Yep, and there wasn’t as much drama. They finished them on time a year ago. NCC required a one year extension.
In some research I’ve done, it seems there are often complaints when TT works in jurisdictions with larger urban and suburban populations vs. more rural.
However, I do concede that it would be nice to see some disparities in the lower two counties like we are seeing in NCC. I don’t quite know why things were so different versus what we are experiencing now.
Not quite true. Kent County went first a year ago; NCC and Sussex went next, in tandem.
“Amazon’s tax being REDUCED from $3.5 million to just over $1 million is SHAMEFUL. This is a company valued at $2.5 trillion”
The latter fact has nothing to do with the former. Property tax is about the worth of the property, not the company. Whether the assessment was fair or not is a different question, but remember how long that site sat empty before Amazon bought it. It was not a hot property.
And? At this point, I don’t care. Poor and middle class residents saw their taxes go up by hundreds — if not thousands — of dollars per year. We are knocking on a new gilded age in this country and we need our policymakers to be responsive to this. I don’t care if it brings about a lawsuit. In this climate, Dems need to fight.
The county used two different formulas. For commercial, they used income potential for valuations. For residential, they used actual property values. I don’t care if that’s an industry norm. Can landlords demand a lower tax rate when they aren’t generating acceptable income from their apartments and condos?
So I will die on this hill. Amazon going from $3.5 million to $1 million is bullshit. Full stop. A single mother in a single family home who saw her property taxes double while the pigs at the trough at Amazon and hundreds of other commercial sites see theirs decline is a moral crisis demanding of direct action from our DEMOCRATIC legislature and DEMOCRATIC county council. Again, if it results in a lawsuit, fuck it. Democrats want to see Democrats fighting for them instead of rolling over, which is usually the default response for members in our party.
My point was that property taxes are linked to property values, whatever way they’re going to calculate it, and Amazon’s tax bill on its property isn’t related to its value as a corporate entity. If the company were losing money its tax bill would be the same. I believe this was Carter’s point.
As I said, whether it’s fair or not is a separate question.
Carter just did what many in the General Assembly don’t do…..he told the truth as hard as it is to hear
I think that we should get Councilman Carter, Mediawatch, and Mike Matthews together with legislative attorneys, and just pass whatever they come up with.
Count me in. Two nits to pick with Dave Carter. 1.We do not over rely on property taxes for school funding. Our school tax rates are significantly lower than in neighboring states. 2. The mostly good ideas here are not going to preempt the work of the Public Education Finance Commission, which is roughly halfway down the road to its solution, which will include weighted student funding.
We have to fix what we can now, which requires reviewing Tyler’s methodology, especially how it looked at residential vs. commercial values, and dealing with some process issues, like the 10% boost for school districts and circuit breakers and/or payment plans for seniors and low-income residents. I don’t have great hopes for the PEFC, which is loaded with old-school types, but they deserve a chance to try, and maybe some of the current uproar will influence their decisions.
Agree, mediawatch. Delaware is quite the opposite from a majority of states. MOST states are 70/30 property taxes for school funding. Delaware is 70/30 STATE funding for schools.
The final WEIC report cited above was published in April of 2015. The foreword was titled “Waiting is No Longer an Option.”
Here we are 10+ years later. I suppose we should be glad this is at least spurring some debate albeit for the wrong reason.
Every crisis is an opportunity, I heard someone say once.
I want to thank all of you for your thoughtful and passionate comments. I fully understand why many residents are frustrated, and I do not dismiss the real financial stress that reassessment has brought to many homeowners. I know it has hit the rural area of SNCC extremely hard, largely due to the increases in land values, and fear it will literally force some to have to sell their homes. It is real, and we must find some short- and long-term policy adjustments and relief.
You raise valid points about the need for accountability, transparency, and a deeper review of how this process played out, not just on paper, but in people’s lives.
Let me share my thoughts on a few of the key concerns raised:
On Tyler Technologies and Council Oversight
You’re absolutely right that Tyler Technologies was contracted through the County, and it’s fair to scrutinize how the process played out. But I want to be clear: the reassessment process was governed by court order and had to follow nationally accepted mass appraisal standards under IAAO and USPAP. The same firm conducted reassessments in all three counties under these standards.
As for the Council’s role, we were not passive. We received periodic updates and, speaking personally, I regularly shared those updates in my newsletters and public meetings. The reality is that, for most of the three-year process, very few members of the public, or even advocacy groups, engaged. That’s not a criticism, just an honest observation about how difficult it is to get sustained attention on technical but critical processes until the impact becomes immediate.
On the 62% Appeal Adjustment Rate
The idea that this reflects a 62% “error rate” is simply not accurate. The informal appeal process allows property owners to bring additional information, such as errors in square footage, condition issues, or market comps. Adjustments made in response to that new evidence are not proof of a flawed methodology; they’re the intended function of the appeals process.
On Commercial vs. Residential Valuation Methods
I understand the frustration when you see large commercial properties with reduced assessments while homeowners are struggling. But this wasn’t about favoritism; it was about market-based valuation methods.
Yes, commercial income-producing properties are often assessed using the income approach, while residential properties are assessed using the sales comparison approach. These are well-established national standards. Suppose we, as a community, believe commercial entities should pay more. In that case, we need to pursue that through clear, legal policy tools, such as corporate taxes, gross receipts taxes, or education funding reform, not by undermining the legality and consistency of the assessment process.
On the Amazon Example
The reduction in Amazon’s property tax may be emotionally jarring. Still, it’s not based on the company’s wealth; it’s based on the valuation of the property, which sat underutilized for many years. If you want Amazon to pay more, and I share that sentiment, that requires state-level tax reform, not a selective rejection of appraisal standards that could leave the County legally vulnerable. I have reviewed and conducted extensive analysis of warehouses, out of concern that we are oversaturating NCC with these buildings, finding that they have limited uses if they are vacated, and are likely to sit idle for long periods of time due to limited commercial value. They are big, relatively inexpensive giant boxes.
On the Audit Request
I know there’s growing support for an audit. I won’t oppose efforts to increase public understanding, but I’m also not convinced an audit will have a significant impact. We already have a clear picture:
• Assessments followed national standards
• The appeals process has and is functioning as intended
• Market forces, not conspiracy or incompetence, drove the disparities
An audit won’t resolve the underlying issues: the over-reliance on local property taxes that vary significantly across our excessive number of school districts, the broken structure of school funding, and the absence of statewide policies to address tax fairness.
Let’s not pretend an audit will fix what’s a policy problem, not a process failure.
On Public Engagement
This was a multi-year process, and it would have helped to see more engagement from the public and, frankly, from some of our most vocal civic advocates. Many people didn’t pay close attention until the bills arrived, which I understand. But that doesn’t mean there was no transparency. We shared updates throughout. We invited public comment. We held workshops. This was not a rushed or hidden process.
On Delaware’s School Funding Split, and the Catch
Some have pointed out that Delaware is different from most states in that about 70% of school funding comes from the state, with only 30% raised locally, typically through property taxes. On paper, that might sound like a fairer or more centralized approach. But here’s the catch: that local 30% is raised through voter-approved referenda, tied to property wealth, and highly volatile among what I believe is an excessive number of school districts in NCC. Districts with stronger tax bases or higher voter turnout can raise significantly more, while others struggle to maintain even basic services. And because Delaware lacks a weighted student funding formula, districts with the greatest needs often have the fewest resources. So yes, Delaware’s split is unusual—but the system remains deeply inequitable. The reassessment didn’t create this—it just exposed it.
This reassessment has exposed deep systemic issues, and I’m committed to addressing them. But we cannot fix inequity by ignoring the law, overriding professional standards, or fueling outrage with selective anecdotes. If we believe in progressive change, we must pursue structural reforms that are transparent, legal, and sustainable.
I hope we direct our energy toward real solutions, weighted student funding, circuit breakers for low-income households, and serious property tax reform. That’s where the fight is. And that’s where I’ll be.
Thank you for this, Councilman Carter. I deeply appreciate it. In the last 48 hours, I’ve learned more about the standards of property assessments (commercial vs. residential) and, to me, this is a systemic issue that we have accepted for too long. It’s a system that very clearly could have negative outcomes for working class people versus corporations. Maybe we as a society need to have broader conversations about the deep inequities in how commercial vs. residential properties are assessed, but I realize that’s likely not something that can happen now and it’s certainly not something a small state like Delaware can lead on its own.
That being said, Democrats seem to exist in a world where the inequities are just magnified. See, for example, what’s happening with the Texas gerrymandering case. Democrats continually disadvanted by systems-level decisions that were made years or decades ago, and it appears we are constrained by that same systems-level mess with reassessments.
I’m frustrated and I’m angry and I feel like the poor and working class are under continued assault in this country, and what we’ve dealt with in this reassessment only continues to confirm that.
I surely hope that whatever split-rate bill passes next week will provide actual and LARGE relief to the poor and middle class homeowners hit by this unjust increase in their taxes — an increase that is effectively redistributing wealth from poor to rich.
Thank you for your work and I still hope you will consider supporting the audit resolution from Councilmen Toole and Tackett.
Carter should be President of County Council, I trust him with my land — and I trust him with my money. I am not sure I agree with eliminating the 10% allowance, but perhaps the number should not be set in perpetuity and rather each reassessment, in particular if they don’t more meaningfully modify or replace the referendum system. The legislators dropped the ball by not instituting structures of trust and expertise and developing standards. The County has done the best they could with the … nothing they’ve been given. And it’s costing them a pretty penny too. I’ve been hearing a lot about other states having Property Assessor Offices and think the legislators should think about it too. Both state and county officials should also be publishing real numbers and not just percentages and highlighting our low taxes compared to other areas around us. I also think the residential/commercial split, as Carter has noted, may not be nuanced enough. Maybe based on income of company not just size of site?
All that said, even Tyler admitted that Wilmington’s assessment was flawed. So multiple things can be true at the same time.
1. Tyler didn’t do a great job, especially in Wilmington or urban areas. They made similar mistakes in Philadelphia and Baltimore.
2. The problem is much deeper than Tyler
3. As always, whenever the government is forced to do the right thing by the courts, they always half-ass the details. This includes the State and the County.
Also, I completely disagree with the idea that some how the education system is “too dependent on local property tax” . The courts basically ruled the exact opposite, which is why the county was forced to do the reassessment in the first place. The State already covers a much larger percentage of education funding than surrounding states. We’ve spent 30yrs bragging about our low property taxes as though there was no consequence to using 40yr old property values.
Also, the most important state action that probably could be implemented wasn’t even mentioned here. It would be reducing the reliance on profitability to determine the property values of a commercial bldg. This is an unfair metric which allows the lack of vision of a property owner to ruduce their tax liability and offload that burden on to residents.
This was a very well written strategy to protect Tyler, and through extension, the County from any blame. At best, there is enough blame to go around.
Your final paragraph really struck me, because as much as I respect Dave Carter, I basically read this as him running defense for TT and the County.
This is Madinah…I thought about doing a line by line response to this (it’s drafted in Microsoft Word) but I don’t think it would come through clearly formatting wise so I’m just going to respond from the heart…
I’ll start by saying: Yes, we do not fund our schools adequately and a big part of that was the outdated reassessments and addressing that was one of the goals of the lawsuit. I disagree with the assertion made by Councilman Carter (and also by some members of the GA) in that this is a “this or that” situation, or rather an “us or them” problem. In my view, there are at least six issues in front of us, and elected officials at every level of government had opportunities to jump in and fix things (or at least sound alarm bells) in the years and months prior.
1. New Castle County Council did not perform a core function of county government: Doing reassessments as mandated by law. This was found to be true by the Courts. One of my first bills after being elected was to mandate they be completed every five years. But the law had been “periodic” and it was a political choice by the counties, made over time, to not do it. Being forced to do so by the Courts was less than ideal for policy implications, but again that was a political decision by Council. It was also a political decision by many GAs to not mandate a period of time on the Counties. It was also a political decision by the Council to have the reassessment be revenue-neutral, it is not required by law to be. The County could’ve raised revenue up to 15% according to Code, and I would’ve loved to see an equitable increase used to fund another core function (imho): The Fire Service. I suppose that’s neither here nor there… And I will state for the record by my recollection the Councilman was not in office at the time any of these decisions were made, and neither was I 🙂
Related to this issue, is that some tax increases will remain once the other issues (listed below) are addressed: because higher-valued properties *should* be paying their fair share. We should, however, institute policies that help homeowners who did not anticipate this increase to get through this shock. There is legislation being advanced this week to do so in the GA, and I believe the County is also committed to addressing this.
2. Tyler Technologies inaccurately assessed too many properties in the County, particularly in the City of Wilmington. Large, very lucrative commercial properties were assessed much lower than market value resulting in a shift of the tax burden from commercial properties to residential properties. There is a lot of documented criticism of their work in other similar urban/suburban areas across the Country. If we take the Councilmember’s word for it, then restate this first problem as: “Commercial property did not appreciate at a rate equal to residential property resulting a shift of the tax burden to residential property owners.” And sure, we can work on policies that offer more progressive taxation that are in line with industry standards for assessment. Sure.
3. The school districts are unable to split tax rates (e.g. commercial at a higher rate, residential at a lower rate). The County and the City of Wilmington did this, the school districts’ attorneys believe they are not allowed to do so under current law. This is being addressed via legislation in the coming days.
4. We do not take income into account for billing when we assess residential property values. We do not currently have any circuit breaker programs (like other states and municipalities do, e.g. Maryland) to protect them from paying more than they can afford. This hurts low-income homeowners and homeowners on a fixed-income, especially those who have paid off their homes and therefor do not have the ability to spread the bill out over a year. This is being addressed via legislation in the coming days and months.
5. I will hold off on opining on my fifth belief publicly as I am currently in communication with folks to better understand this issue, in earnest, which I believe to be a human resource capacity problem…which will hopefully be addressed via legislation in the coming days and months.
6. Locally-funded schools lead to inequitable tax burdens on property-poor communities. I believe the Councilmember and I agree on this point. But it is important to recognize that the State is already contributing about 60% of funding to districts on average.
It is important that we have property taxes continue to support our schools. That is the norm across the Country. But it is not the norm to force school districts to campaign for funding, nor is it the norm (nor should it be accepted by Democrats, in my opinion) that property-poor communities be required to over-tax themselves to have schools that are well-funded. I have heard others propose this idea: what about a county-funded system that is locally governed?
Finally, I will say as a legislator in her third-term and as someone who initially ran purely because of how unfair our education system is funded* we have a lot of work ahead of us. As I sat reading memos and research I had compiled for me by our diligent staff in 2021, I was sickened to see a report from 2008 outlining all the ways we could’ve avoided the problems we are seeing this year post-reassessment. Shout out to former Rep. Oberle (R) for being ahead of his time yet again, and to the work of the committee for offering recommendations to address problems 2, 3, 4 and 5 listed above.
My biggest regret is not revisiting that report and memo in the years after the settlement was implemented. I remember being somewhat excited when the settlement was reached (because I was skeptical it would go far enough, turned out to be true) but I relaxed too quickly. I should have thought more deeply about the State’s role in implementation. I have to live with that; what if I had dusted off that report and looked at it with new eyes? I can say, however, that I will do *everything* in my power, as a legislator and as a citizen of this State, to ensure we address these issues both in the short and long-term.
Sincerely,
-Madinah
/I typed this in the comment box so please excuse any typos or grammatical errors./
*I first heard the word “referendum” as a 7th grader in Science class. Our teacher copied a worksheet onto a transparency, placed it onto the projector, and instructed us to copy what we saw onto our notebooks and then answer the questions. One of us asked, “Mr. ****k, why are we doing this?” [Read as: “This is boring!”] And he told us that the Christina School District referendum had failed and teachers were rationing paper. This was in the 2005-2006 school year, for reference. This is how long we have allowed this problem to persist, myself included. We owe our students and their families better.
Having kicked off this discussion on DL last week, let me say that I’m heartened and gratified by the thoughtfulness of the vast majority of the comments these threads have received. Dave Carter, Mike Matthews and Madinah Wilson-Anton give me hope that these complex and pressing issues will be addressed in a serious manner this month, and that details that cannot be resolved in the short term will receive due consideration in the regular course of business for our county and state governing bodies. I’m looking forward to seeing what our legislators propose in the bills they will prefile later this week.
What is disappointing me right now is the apparent absence of our governor from the discussion. As the state’s leader and the former NCCo executive, he must have some ideas on how to address these issues. Perhaps he and his secretary of education believe that their views should be channeled through the Public Education Finance Commission, but what we’re facing now cries out for some leadership, some strong suggestions from the executive branch of state government.
There should be a seat for the governor at the table. If it’s empty in the coming days, it will become increasingly difficult for Matt Meyer to follow through with his pledges to engineer a broad reform of our school finance system. Time to step up, Matt.