LETTERS: SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER IN SMALL DISTRICT SEES HANCOCK IMPACT

To the editor:

This is also addressed to Louis J. Anesi of the Hancock II Committee. As a school board member in a small district and a citizen interested in the future of all Missouri children, I could not in good conscience allow Mr. Anesi's letter in Sunday's paper to go unanswered.

If Amendment 7 (otherwise known as Hancock II) forced only future major tax and rate increases to a vote of the people, I might also be a supporter of this legislation. However, there is a lot more involved. As other writers have stated more clearly than I am able, those who will feel a "jingle in the pockets" will only be a very small minority of those in the highest tax brackets and not the great majority of the average to above-average taxpayers and definitely not those paying the smallest amounts.

Most especially, I want to address Mr. Anesi's listing special interest groups as schools, cities and counties. If anyone who has children or grandchildren in school does not consider having a "special interest" in their education, then something is sadly awry. Our own district stands to lose more than $300,000 -- a big slice of our budget and would force reducing the teaching staff by 14 teachers and enlarging class size to 45 to 50 students per room. These same rooms are crowded when class size increases to 30.

Sports fans, prepare to say goodbye to football, basketball, baseball, volleyball and other extra activities. Think of school without art, music, physical education classes or without a counselor or librarian or teachers aide to give individual tutoring to students needing such.

If you feel your or anyone else's child is special to you and our future and is deserving of your special interest, then do what you can to see that they are not shortchanged and support the defeat of Amendment 7.

NANCY CALDWELL

Scott City