The gubernatorial candidates are sniping at each other over property tax issues. And Blue Mass Group poster “JohnK” has weighed in with a measured assessment of the claims and counterclaims, entitled “CHARLIEBAKERFAIL” or some such thing (they must be using a template at this point).

The latest salvo comes from the Patrick Campaign, which is trying a very delicate semantic pivot — that property tax increases have decreased under the GOV.

They put up this chart, which I can’t recreate. But from this DOR data, I get directionally the same results. (I’d note that I’m using “Total Tax Levy” to determine increases, if I’ve made an error using this, I hope someone sets me straight.)

One thing, I’d note is that the take from property taxes comes from two sources — existing properties and new growth. If the ‘decrease in the increase’ came from a slowdown in new growth, that’s not a good thing.

I grabbed a spreadsheet off of DOR’s website that tracks the role of new growth in the property tax base.

What you see is that taxable new growth (the blue line) has tailed off in the past few years. No surprise right? Homebuilding and commercial property development have taken it on the chin in this recession.

What you also see is that with an existing tax base growing inexorably at something close to 2.5%, even consistent levels of new growth in nominal dollars (never mind decreases) have less and less of an impact on property tax growth rates. (The red line is amount of new growth applied to tax base as a percentage of previous year’s levy limit)

So, the big takeaway? I’d be hesitant to take credit for a decline in property tax increases if the driver was a lack of growth and not relief for the average homeowner.

Now, I take a back seat to very few people in the privileged upbringing department — leafy green suburbs, high quality schools — but the new Newton North high school does give one pause.

I respect the desire to have the best for your kids (although I’m not happy with the negative incentives that ‘free’ state money provided), but this school is a bit much.

Look at all the stuff: A regular theatre and a ‘black-box theatre’ (whatever that might be)? The large flat screen TVs at various stations? Two gyms? Elliptical machines? and on and on.

I hope the edifice complex on display here does not obscure the one thing I hope they got right (and curiously absent from any public officials comments) — getting really good teachers.

And another observation — having seen a fair number of public and private institutional buildings at various stages, the finish of the exterior of this building, with its multiple materials and textures, and numerous decorative bends and turns, strikes me as a maintenance headache in the future.

Check out his assessment of the grim situation here.

Also check out Jim’s Boston.com blog Rock the Schoolhouse for more information on this hot topic.

This morning on the Todd and Tom show on WRKO, Joe Battenfield (who was sitting in for Todd Feinburg) noted that the Governor’s office is claiming that Pioneer’s view of the national standards issue is a result of politics. What they are suggesting is that because Charlie Baker was Pioneer’s first executive director 20+ years ago, we are running defense for him. You can listen to the whole interview here (it’s not too long, clocking in at 10 minutes). My response was

Ho-Hum.

What I noted was that it’s hard to say that when on the day of the Board of Education’s vote to scrap the state standards, we did a press release with Tim Cahill — not Charlie Baker. Does that mean Pioneer is shilling for Tim Cahill? Of course not. No more than we were shilling for Governor Patrick when we helped him craft the Bridge Repair program a couple of summers ago.

Then there are the little details like four major papers undertaken on the topic of state and national standards from January 2010 to July 2010. Dozens of papers on standards in the past half dozen years. The Governor has not been able to respond to the facts so he attacks Pioneer? Man, that is a funny one.

The big picture here is that the Governor could have been a game-changer for education in Massachusetts, but instead he sided with the adults in the system, at the expense of the core business of teachers and schools:

Bringing high-quality academic experiences to kids.

He sacrificed our standards for 33 cents a day per student in Race to the Top funds. He hitched our wagon with places like Mississippi, West Virginia and Ohio, so that each time we want to improve our standards, we will have to negotiate it out with them.

That. Is. Not. Smart. And that is not leadership.

The Governor has no doubt some accomplishments to boast of, but he has not turned out to be the self-described “education governor.”