With all due respect, Q, just because you continue to choose to remain ignorant, your insistance that the BOE give the super a number and tell her to meet it, is contrary to the whole reason we have a BOE. Your repetition is what solves nothing and does nothing except waste it.
I am not a fan of spanish, and haven't been a fan of it since its introduction. If - and this is a big IF - we are forced to make reductions, it would seem better to me to remove this before we increase class sizes, or before we remove art or music, library, or other non-mandated activity. I agree that the Spanish teacher not being certified in other classes is that teacher's problem - I don't know if she was hired by Cruz, Collins, or Silver, but I have the impression that she is teaching more "culture" than Spanish, and have heard that more Hebron students request different languages at RHAM because they get turned off of Spanish.
I admit it is hard to understand the point that Mrs. Cruz is making regarding scheduling, but I think she is saying the students need a special every day because some of the teachers (I actually think it is most) have to deal with a special needs student every day. While the rest of the students go to specials, this is the one opportunity for the state mandated 1-1 extra time with students who need it. But I don't believe that Mrs. Cruz is intentionally trying to "confuse people with bullshit"- comments like this do not help maintain civil discussion. I do thank you for the link to the state dept of eductation on SRBI, as it helps clarify the superintendent's point.
I think the big disagreement is when you and others state "we cannot afford any increase above zero percent". The BOF has not given a number to the BOE that is set in stone, at least at this point. The direction given was "keep it as lean as possible, we'd like zero percent but we don't want you to have to cut anything"
Every year there are lots of folks opposed to any budget increases - a few folks turn out to vote, and budgets get passed. So when you ask for suggestions on how to fix the problem, perhaps you're assuming too much, overestimating what the problem really is. Or perhaps the Supt. is underestimating the problem.
I have a hard time believing some of these chronic budget opposers would actually vote yes to approve any budget above 1985 spending levels. I do believe there are some folks in our community who would vote for a 0% overall increase, even if they voted no on last year's budget. My gut tells me that the Supt. is hoping the past patterns continue, and if they can get the budget approved, great, if not, well only then they will consider delaying implementation of ADK, dropping programs and cutting staff.
My guess is that trash pickup is needed because of one thing - are you are forgetting they serve lunch. The volume of trash at two schools is enormous. Getting all this trash to our local transfer station would no doubt also be expensive, requiring at least a part time staffer and equipment that, if I recall correctly, the town does not currently have.
The word cut is used because getting to a zero percent overall increase, with salaries and benefits guaranteed to increase because of collective bargaining, means that programs or staff have to be cut, eliminated, reduced, whatever word you like. There is no getting around that fact. I like the choice of the word cut because it best describes the situation, and perhaps is helpful to the BOE in the negotiations with the teacher's union. I remain hopeful, but not optomistic, that the teachers will grant concessions.
