Look who is on the SAF Board. One of the long time members of the Board is also a long time member of the Columbia Elem School Board and led the charge against unification the last time it was tried. Its not just that the issue is political, it also happens to be against the political inclinations of key SAF Board members. Using the SAF to defeat movements the Board happens to disagree with is wrong, but so is supporting a morally corrupt school administrator. No surprise here.
Don't we have math teachers who can run the numbers ? Or is just plain to
hard figure out , less people on the payroll saves money and also makes
making a decision less complicated . Stop protecting your job and do it
It would appear a study should produce facts and solutions...If facts and solutions are a political tool,maybe they should be considered and looked into....
Ask area 12 to kill all the momentum on the circulating petitions....
because we THOUGHT some sense was going to prevail.
The boards wanted to have the say..and of course they publicly go for a study while privately finding a way to kill it.
They Sure DID find that way. Read this article carefully...
Talk about progression.
rrhs, it's not just a matter of LESS people on the payroll.If we cut superintendents and upper administration (yay! I'm all for that!) there WILL be tasks that will have to be shifted to other staff (like teachers or classified workers). Contrary to popular belief, there ARE some tasks that upper admin and superintendents do that will still need to be done. I fully admit that they are overpaid, and probably do a lot of "busy work." BUT, there are SOME things that will shift and become someone else's responsibility. Only problem is, budgets for classified workers and teachers have already been reduced, thus fewer people to do these shifted tasks. So, there is the possibility that they will need to HIRE people to do these tasks.
Continued....Granted, these potential added workers won't make as much as admin, but, then do they get benefits? So there would be $ spent there. My point is, it's not just a matter of cutting administration means few dollars spent. There are other things to consider, because it will basically mean a whole change up of who does what, when, how, and with what resources.
SAF can and will do whatever they want with thier money. They're not sponsored with tax dollars and should'nt be criticized like they are. If theres a goup out there that would like a study done perhaps they should pay for it thmeselves. Seems like you believe everything that you read in the paper.
Right on Zibhammad....decisions are made not on what might be best for the community but what certain 'elite' individuals want. Concept behind SAF is amazing, reality behind the doors, not so......Irving might not agree with all their choices/decisions/actions/lack of actions.
to kidlady you are right better more indians and less chiefs .
@SOS If you knew Irving you wouldn't have made that comment.....
NOTE: You must be a registered site user and logged in to post comments (see links below).