I'm going to try to start responding on a weekly basis to the absolute insanity that is making it ways into the paper and onto the blogs. I have one goal in life and that is to make sure that my kids have a better education than I did. We all know that it starts at home but a big part of that is the quality and type of education that occurs at the school. Without supporting our teachers and administrators nothing will ever change. This doesn't mean we give them a blank check - all need to be held accountable in the process - and that includes holding parents responsible to.
I have lots to say but little time in my crazy busy life to write it down but I'm going to be more focused and dedicated to writing. So I'm going to start modest and try to fit three things into my writings - Debate, School and Work. You may ask - why no family - I will from time to time but I for the most part live a pretty boring life. So here goes for the first one:
Response To Todd/281 Exposed:
In a recent Sun Post article we got some interesting comments from Todd from Plymouth and reposted over at 281 Exposed.
We heard for the longest time that Robbinsdale Area Schools needed money to reduce class size to enhance the learning experience. It's now apparent that Robbinsdale needed money to fund Stan Mack's "retirement" package.
Once again, even with the voter-approved levy, our students suffer. Money that should go into the system to improve student performance and graduation rates is only siphoned by the exiting superintendent.
I believe we need to hold the entire School Board accountable for wasting the levy funds on a false retirement. It's time for an across-the-board change of leadership for Robbinsdale Area Schools.
So our friend here is implying that the school board went and tried for a school referendum because they knew that Stan was about to retire and needed the extra money to help pay his severance. So let's first try to even accept that notion as fact (and there is no way you can possibly accept that as fact). Stan's payout represents 0.022% of the total budget for the school district. And of the referendum money, it's a sheer fraction of the total amount levied for.
Now, could have the district done a better job of negotiating a contract a few years ago, sure they could have. But they are tied by economics. Where did those economics come from? By the resolution of of a 2003 law that limited the cap that a school superintendent salary and benefits could not exceed 110% of the governors salary/benefits. {At the time, our republican House and Governors office argued that the limited needed to be removed to make school districts act more like businesses.) In the end now we have a broken system that has created an arms-race with school superintendents salary and benefits. If only there were people arguing against such a crazy system back in the day and could have forecast the absolutely disarray the system would become because of removing such limits. Instead of action, we now get complaints as people throw stones against the system they help create. As we have now created our own mini system of the rich/poor gap as those salaries at the top continue to rise and the salaries of those at the bottom decline we are forced to make decisions of which program to cut or how many teachers to fire.
DJ