And make sure that you come out Wednesday night, May 28, 2008. Let them know you want lower taxes, but you do not want a ruined school system in return.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Memorial Day Parade Flyer
I was handed this flyer during the parade. If you have a friend or neighbor who did not receive it, print this out and give it to them.
And make sure that you come out Wednesday night, May 28, 2008. Let them know you want lower taxes, but you do not want a ruined school system in return.
And make sure that you come out Wednesday night, May 28, 2008. Let them know you want lower taxes, but you do not want a ruined school system in return.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Let's not forget the cuts to:
Books: significant cuts across the board on this line item. Let's improve test scores by cutting books! Ummmm....
Technology: The high school budget for technology has been reduced to zero. ZERO!
A teacher: A teacher is retiring and not being replaced. Is this just the beginning? Are we headed to large class sizes (see more below)
A principal: Mrs. Huggins is retiring and not being replaced, thus spreading Mrs. Taylor thin. Not only will she not be able to run the schools as effectively, it will affect her morale and will have a trickle-down affect on the morale of the rest of the staff. Unhappy employees leads to bad product (teaching/learning) which leads to unhappy customers (students/parents).
Additionally, there is rumor (as the flyer suggests) that this board will put all students in the middle/senior high school. Why is this any different from the proposed (now dead) "new" building? Because [1] this building is not designed for mixing Kindergartners and high-schoolers, the new building was. What does this mean? It means that a 5 year old that needs to go to the bathroom would have to walk down the hall and use the same bathroom as a 17 year old; the new building solved this issue. [2] while the current MHS is approximately the same square footage as the proposed new school, much of the existing space is unusable, i.e. wide hallways that lead to other hallways. It is not classroom space. The new building would've been up to current building code standards; the existing building has code issues that are "grandfathered." Yes, I am responding to rumors, because that's all we have to work with (how about a plan, folks?)
These are the kinds of destructive practices from which this district is just beginning to recover. It takes years -- YEARS!!! -- for this to show itself and years to recover from it. I was recently told the story of a high-school age kid who still struggles with reading because of the lack of individual attention (due to large class size) given when he was learning to read.
We are heading down a slippery slope.
The Technology Budget for the High School was consolidated into the Technology Budget. There is still High School Technology under the Secondary Technology Supplies. Look under the Technology Budget.
Anonymous, thanks for the tip. I will check it out. Note, however, that I brought this up at last week's budget meeting and the Board had the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding in their response. As usual, I got no response.
Peter, how could you possibly think and suggest that the technology budget is zero!!! Is this the same formula you use when you say that the board is cutting special ed? If a proposed increase is $250,000 and the board attempts to pare that down to $200,000, how can anyone call that "cutting special ed?" You decry cutbacks but what is your answer to double digit health care cost increases, 29% tech school increase, ever increasing salaries and skyrocketing special ed costs? You look like a white collar man of means but how do you expect seniors and plain average people to keep up? What's your answer Peter?
Peter is perfectly capable of answering himself, but what I don't think is the answer is rather arbitrarily reducing what the administration asked for in terms of special ed, charter schools, etc., which they have repeatedly said is not a "wish list", and was based on last year's actual student numbers.
Full funding of special ed., charter schools, etc. is mandated by law. What the board is working on is the 2008-09 "budget", so the board can "budget" any amount a majority votes for, but if actual costs turn out to be higher, they must be paid. By the taxpayers. By law.
So, if the board underbudgets and gets lucky, great. But if it underbudgets and actual costs come in higher, we must pay. So an underfunded budget could turn out to be mere financial gimmickry to make it look like the board's holding down taxes more, perhaps hoping folks won't notice later when the shortfall must be plugged.
I do wish to commend the board for its efforts to reduce the costs of prescription drug benefits, life insurance, dental, etc. If it can match the current benefit plan in service level and choice, it's kosher with the teachers contract, and it saves $113k as advertized, fantastic.
But... If the board underbudgets, and costs come in significantly higher, and we are obligated by law to pay them (be they special education costs or contractual teacher salaries) and the district spends out it's contingencies, we could find ourselves 1.) unable to make payroll (it's happened before) and 2.) required to change the millage rate and resend tax bills.
In either event (correct me if I am wrong, Mr. CPA) an audit will have MAJOR findings against the district for over-spending the budget, which will affect our financial standing, our bond rating and our ability to get loans (including any short term loans we might need to make payroll).
I have a hard time understanding why a CPA would want to put the district in that type of financial situation.
Perhaps it's Voo-doo economics at work again.
So that he can be VICTORIOUS!
(insert evil laugh)
Revenge of the nerds at their best!
(insert even more evil laugh here)
Post a Comment