And sometimes it is simply too much action. There are things that I have wanted to cover that I have simply not had enough time to cover because the pace of events is so rapid.
It was a call last night that got me thinking about something. At the March 6, 2008 school board meeting–packed to the brink with students from DaVinci High School who were trying to save their school–the board was discussing options and mentioned that the deadline for putting another parcel tax on the ballot was March 7, 2008. So that option was not on the table. Their plan is to hope that the Governor’s cuts are not quite as deep–a reasonable hope at this point, I’ll add. But the Governor’s cuts are only 40% of the cuts. Then they are hoping that fundraising will cut into the needed cuts as well and in November 2008 they can put another parcel tax on the ballot.
At the time it made some sense to me, now after another discussion it no longer makes sense to me. The budget problem did not suddenly emerge on March 6, 2008. In fact, it did not seem on our radar at all until early January, but it had to be on someone’s mind even at that point.
Clearly by early January when they were talking $4 million in budget cuts, why wasn’t one of the items immediately on the table dealing with instead of the spending side, the revenue side?
There is a perception out there by some that school districts in general are bloated masses of bureaucracy that are easy to cut. And yet when it comes down to it, when we actually look at the system in place, it becomes obvious that to cut real money, you have to cut programs that people (especially kids) like. Our system, inefficient as it is, even with a good degree of past fiscal mismanagement still operates in such a way that the only way to cut real money, not talking $10,000 but in the millions, is to close a school, cut music, cut language, cut programs people want and care about.
Fine, I get it. So why not put a contingent parcel tax on the ballot that kicks in given revenue problems? Why not have it as a temporary item, for one year, for two years, to ensure that we don’t cut these programs. And then be honest and forthright with the public and tell them that we need this so that we don’t have to close Emerson, we don’t have to fire three-quarters of the teachers at DaVinci, so that we can still have music, and GATE, and programs that help the disadvantaged, and programs that help the smart kids, and programs that help the kids that don’t quite fit in elsewhere…
Why did we not just lay all out on the line and tell people that if they want their great schools that they pay twice as much in property value so their kids can attend, then we all have to pitch in an additional $50 to $100 per year and save them right now?
Instead, I have high school students writing me asking me to come to their high school so I can see all the great programs that they have.
Instead, we have parents and teachers looking for ways to fundraise so that we can put enough money together to land a bit softer.
They have a blog now that is focused on saving Emerson Junior High. They have a rally on Tuesday at 4 PM at Central Park in Davis.
I want to talk about Emerson because I live just two blocks away.
First their message is simple:
“We can not allow the School District to take rushed decisions without an in depth task force study. The proposal to close one Jr. High will have deep negative repercussions across the whole Davis community and the environment! Laying off 20% of our teachers, librarians, psychologists, etc. guts our wonderful schools, reduces our quality of life, lowers our property values and decreases the city’s tax revenue.”
I agree and I also understand the school district’s dilemma. But now I want to talk about the City of Davis’ dilemma. You have Valley Oak that is closing down pending a miracle from the County Board of Education. You have a shopping center where there is no longer a grocery store.
Now you have West Davis. West Lake Shopping Center is without its grocery store. Now they are talking about closing down Emerson Junior High.
Huge swaths of Davis are now becoming without grocery store and without school.
Tim Wallace who lives across the street from Emerson in Village Homes writes into the Enterprise:
It’s not hard to imagine that the property where Emerson Junior High School is sited being worth tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to real estate developers, even in the current market. Upon visiting the Davis JointUnified School District Web site, I couldn’t find anything even remotely resembling a cost-benefit analysis, or any analysis whatsoever justifying what seems to be the foregone conclusion, apparently advanced by the school board, that “Emerson will be closed.”
He continues:
The only problem I can see with this plan, if that’s what it is, is that it assumes the forbearance and apathy of West Davis parents and homeowners who will lose big in their quality of life and home values if it’s enacted. Further, it makes assumptions about our willingness to suffer disproportionately to the rest of Davis , based on no evidence and little to no meaningful public discussion.
While I found it impossible to tell from their Web site whether the closure of Emerson is on the agenda of the next DJUSD board meeting, I believe it’s on for March 20. West Davis might think about waking up before it’s too late to engage the board in a discussion.”
I think this is a good point and I think we have all been asleep for too long on this.
Don’t get me wrong, I like most of the board members, I think they are good people who have a real passion for education–even ones that I disagree with on substantive policy issues. I think we hired a good man in James Hammond to be the Superintendent. But I think we got blindsided on this.
Here is my suggestion. Meet with County Clerk Freddie Oakley. Figure out how to get a ballot measure on the ballot before November. Figure out how to cut costs by making it vote by mail only. I do not think we can wait until November to save our schools. And I do not think we can afford to cut what is being proposed. Let’s all come together and fix the problem. Maybe that’s a crazy idea, but we have to do something for our community and for the kids.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I have several comments in response to your thoughtful article. 1. Disadvantaged kids are smart kids. There is no category “smart kids.” 2. District budgets ares supposed to have contingency funds that can be used for difficult situations. They are always too small for serious shortfalls. 3. Property taxes punish seniors and folks on fixed inciomes. Many of these people’s incomes become stagnant. 4. A tax measure such as you advocate demonstrates the advantage of “wealthy community districts” over poorer districts, thus heightening the gap between the rich and poor. The challenge is for the state to develop a contingency plan to protect schools. 5. Wealthy citizens and large corporations benefit most from successful education therefore that group should bare a greater tax burden. 6. The format of paying districts based strictly upon ADA is wrong. Districts must know what monies they have long before the previous year. The income to districts must be fixed like pensions and must contain cost of living increases to assure continuity and it must be guaranteed. Any reductions should be equal throughout the state. 6. Districts should not be forced into cutting by popularity polls or squeeking wheel demonstrations. This tactic never favors the disadvantaged. For example, GATE partents arte often squeeking wheels as they represent the advantaged getting extra funding whereas poorer students seldom have such strong lobbys. 7. I oppose the closing of Emerson and Valley Oak. To take a whole school from West Davis and/or central Davis and send those students packing from their neighborhoods is wrong and does not represent across the board reductions. Neither does cutting any one program such as music or math or English. Fairness both regionally and program-wise is the only fair game. 8. Program cuts that result in internal struggling between teachers and school administrators results in a lowering of the solidarity and support we should want from our school professionals. Favoritism promotes disunity. Teachers have collective bargaining contracts that spell out the process for dismissals. These are agreements are made between the board of education and workers and are and should be binding and honored. To avoid blaming and infighting such contracts must not be used negatively.
I have several comments in response to your thoughtful article. 1. Disadvantaged kids are smart kids. There is no category “smart kids.” 2. District budgets ares supposed to have contingency funds that can be used for difficult situations. They are always too small for serious shortfalls. 3. Property taxes punish seniors and folks on fixed inciomes. Many of these people’s incomes become stagnant. 4. A tax measure such as you advocate demonstrates the advantage of “wealthy community districts” over poorer districts, thus heightening the gap between the rich and poor. The challenge is for the state to develop a contingency plan to protect schools. 5. Wealthy citizens and large corporations benefit most from successful education therefore that group should bare a greater tax burden. 6. The format of paying districts based strictly upon ADA is wrong. Districts must know what monies they have long before the previous year. The income to districts must be fixed like pensions and must contain cost of living increases to assure continuity and it must be guaranteed. Any reductions should be equal throughout the state. 6. Districts should not be forced into cutting by popularity polls or squeeking wheel demonstrations. This tactic never favors the disadvantaged. For example, GATE partents arte often squeeking wheels as they represent the advantaged getting extra funding whereas poorer students seldom have such strong lobbys. 7. I oppose the closing of Emerson and Valley Oak. To take a whole school from West Davis and/or central Davis and send those students packing from their neighborhoods is wrong and does not represent across the board reductions. Neither does cutting any one program such as music or math or English. Fairness both regionally and program-wise is the only fair game. 8. Program cuts that result in internal struggling between teachers and school administrators results in a lowering of the solidarity and support we should want from our school professionals. Favoritism promotes disunity. Teachers have collective bargaining contracts that spell out the process for dismissals. These are agreements are made between the board of education and workers and are and should be binding and honored. To avoid blaming and infighting such contracts must not be used negatively.
I have several comments in response to your thoughtful article. 1. Disadvantaged kids are smart kids. There is no category “smart kids.” 2. District budgets ares supposed to have contingency funds that can be used for difficult situations. They are always too small for serious shortfalls. 3. Property taxes punish seniors and folks on fixed inciomes. Many of these people’s incomes become stagnant. 4. A tax measure such as you advocate demonstrates the advantage of “wealthy community districts” over poorer districts, thus heightening the gap between the rich and poor. The challenge is for the state to develop a contingency plan to protect schools. 5. Wealthy citizens and large corporations benefit most from successful education therefore that group should bare a greater tax burden. 6. The format of paying districts based strictly upon ADA is wrong. Districts must know what monies they have long before the previous year. The income to districts must be fixed like pensions and must contain cost of living increases to assure continuity and it must be guaranteed. Any reductions should be equal throughout the state. 6. Districts should not be forced into cutting by popularity polls or squeeking wheel demonstrations. This tactic never favors the disadvantaged. For example, GATE partents arte often squeeking wheels as they represent the advantaged getting extra funding whereas poorer students seldom have such strong lobbys. 7. I oppose the closing of Emerson and Valley Oak. To take a whole school from West Davis and/or central Davis and send those students packing from their neighborhoods is wrong and does not represent across the board reductions. Neither does cutting any one program such as music or math or English. Fairness both regionally and program-wise is the only fair game. 8. Program cuts that result in internal struggling between teachers and school administrators results in a lowering of the solidarity and support we should want from our school professionals. Favoritism promotes disunity. Teachers have collective bargaining contracts that spell out the process for dismissals. These are agreements are made between the board of education and workers and are and should be binding and honored. To avoid blaming and infighting such contracts must not be used negatively.
I have several comments in response to your thoughtful article. 1. Disadvantaged kids are smart kids. There is no category “smart kids.” 2. District budgets ares supposed to have contingency funds that can be used for difficult situations. They are always too small for serious shortfalls. 3. Property taxes punish seniors and folks on fixed inciomes. Many of these people’s incomes become stagnant. 4. A tax measure such as you advocate demonstrates the advantage of “wealthy community districts” over poorer districts, thus heightening the gap between the rich and poor. The challenge is for the state to develop a contingency plan to protect schools. 5. Wealthy citizens and large corporations benefit most from successful education therefore that group should bare a greater tax burden. 6. The format of paying districts based strictly upon ADA is wrong. Districts must know what monies they have long before the previous year. The income to districts must be fixed like pensions and must contain cost of living increases to assure continuity and it must be guaranteed. Any reductions should be equal throughout the state. 6. Districts should not be forced into cutting by popularity polls or squeeking wheel demonstrations. This tactic never favors the disadvantaged. For example, GATE partents arte often squeeking wheels as they represent the advantaged getting extra funding whereas poorer students seldom have such strong lobbys. 7. I oppose the closing of Emerson and Valley Oak. To take a whole school from West Davis and/or central Davis and send those students packing from their neighborhoods is wrong and does not represent across the board reductions. Neither does cutting any one program such as music or math or English. Fairness both regionally and program-wise is the only fair game. 8. Program cuts that result in internal struggling between teachers and school administrators results in a lowering of the solidarity and support we should want from our school professionals. Favoritism promotes disunity. Teachers have collective bargaining contracts that spell out the process for dismissals. These are agreements are made between the board of education and workers and are and should be binding and honored. To avoid blaming and infighting such contracts must not be used negatively.
People can view the agenda for the upcoming School Board meeting by going to the school district website, clicking on “Board” at the upper left, clicking on “agendas” on the drop-down menu, then clicking on 2007-2008 and following the further instructions there. They will eventually get to the agenda, which has links to download any documents in support of a particular agenda item.
The potential closing of Emerson and potential reconfiguration of Davis High School is on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. A cost-benefit analysis of various alternative scenarios can be accessed by clicking on that agenda item.
Keep in mind that district office staff wrote the cost-benefit analysis, not the School Board, so that document does not tell you what the School Board members are thinking or how they might vote.
It is also important to note that some of the identified financial costs of some of the proposals (such as relocating portables) would be paid out of facilities funds. This is money that cannot be used to pay for teacher salaries. The facilities fund currently has adequate assets.
Note that closing Emerson yields $600,000 in annual savings. That would save the jobs of quite a number of teachers — music teachers, or Da Vinci teachers, or English or social studies teachers, etc. Another way of looking at it is that the district will have to lay off a lot more teachers to keep Emerson open.
It is also important to note that Emerson has been complaining for years that it does not have enough students to offer as many electives (or as wide a range of music classes) as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been subsidizing Emerson with one-time funds to allow Emerson to offer those classes even though the enrollment in those classes did not justify offering them.
If Emerson is not closed, it is reasonable to assume that it will not receive that subsidy next year. Just the opposite — all the secondary schools will be offering many fewer electives if Emerson remains open, but Emerson has the smallest enrollment so it will have the fewest offerings. Keeping Emerson open may not be in the best interests of the students who are districted to go there.
People can view the agenda for the upcoming School Board meeting by going to the school district website, clicking on “Board” at the upper left, clicking on “agendas” on the drop-down menu, then clicking on 2007-2008 and following the further instructions there. They will eventually get to the agenda, which has links to download any documents in support of a particular agenda item.
The potential closing of Emerson and potential reconfiguration of Davis High School is on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. A cost-benefit analysis of various alternative scenarios can be accessed by clicking on that agenda item.
Keep in mind that district office staff wrote the cost-benefit analysis, not the School Board, so that document does not tell you what the School Board members are thinking or how they might vote.
It is also important to note that some of the identified financial costs of some of the proposals (such as relocating portables) would be paid out of facilities funds. This is money that cannot be used to pay for teacher salaries. The facilities fund currently has adequate assets.
Note that closing Emerson yields $600,000 in annual savings. That would save the jobs of quite a number of teachers — music teachers, or Da Vinci teachers, or English or social studies teachers, etc. Another way of looking at it is that the district will have to lay off a lot more teachers to keep Emerson open.
It is also important to note that Emerson has been complaining for years that it does not have enough students to offer as many electives (or as wide a range of music classes) as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been subsidizing Emerson with one-time funds to allow Emerson to offer those classes even though the enrollment in those classes did not justify offering them.
If Emerson is not closed, it is reasonable to assume that it will not receive that subsidy next year. Just the opposite — all the secondary schools will be offering many fewer electives if Emerson remains open, but Emerson has the smallest enrollment so it will have the fewest offerings. Keeping Emerson open may not be in the best interests of the students who are districted to go there.
People can view the agenda for the upcoming School Board meeting by going to the school district website, clicking on “Board” at the upper left, clicking on “agendas” on the drop-down menu, then clicking on 2007-2008 and following the further instructions there. They will eventually get to the agenda, which has links to download any documents in support of a particular agenda item.
The potential closing of Emerson and potential reconfiguration of Davis High School is on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. A cost-benefit analysis of various alternative scenarios can be accessed by clicking on that agenda item.
Keep in mind that district office staff wrote the cost-benefit analysis, not the School Board, so that document does not tell you what the School Board members are thinking or how they might vote.
It is also important to note that some of the identified financial costs of some of the proposals (such as relocating portables) would be paid out of facilities funds. This is money that cannot be used to pay for teacher salaries. The facilities fund currently has adequate assets.
Note that closing Emerson yields $600,000 in annual savings. That would save the jobs of quite a number of teachers — music teachers, or Da Vinci teachers, or English or social studies teachers, etc. Another way of looking at it is that the district will have to lay off a lot more teachers to keep Emerson open.
It is also important to note that Emerson has been complaining for years that it does not have enough students to offer as many electives (or as wide a range of music classes) as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been subsidizing Emerson with one-time funds to allow Emerson to offer those classes even though the enrollment in those classes did not justify offering them.
If Emerson is not closed, it is reasonable to assume that it will not receive that subsidy next year. Just the opposite — all the secondary schools will be offering many fewer electives if Emerson remains open, but Emerson has the smallest enrollment so it will have the fewest offerings. Keeping Emerson open may not be in the best interests of the students who are districted to go there.
People can view the agenda for the upcoming School Board meeting by going to the school district website, clicking on “Board” at the upper left, clicking on “agendas” on the drop-down menu, then clicking on 2007-2008 and following the further instructions there. They will eventually get to the agenda, which has links to download any documents in support of a particular agenda item.
The potential closing of Emerson and potential reconfiguration of Davis High School is on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. A cost-benefit analysis of various alternative scenarios can be accessed by clicking on that agenda item.
Keep in mind that district office staff wrote the cost-benefit analysis, not the School Board, so that document does not tell you what the School Board members are thinking or how they might vote.
It is also important to note that some of the identified financial costs of some of the proposals (such as relocating portables) would be paid out of facilities funds. This is money that cannot be used to pay for teacher salaries. The facilities fund currently has adequate assets.
Note that closing Emerson yields $600,000 in annual savings. That would save the jobs of quite a number of teachers — music teachers, or Da Vinci teachers, or English or social studies teachers, etc. Another way of looking at it is that the district will have to lay off a lot more teachers to keep Emerson open.
It is also important to note that Emerson has been complaining for years that it does not have enough students to offer as many electives (or as wide a range of music classes) as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been subsidizing Emerson with one-time funds to allow Emerson to offer those classes even though the enrollment in those classes did not justify offering them.
If Emerson is not closed, it is reasonable to assume that it will not receive that subsidy next year. Just the opposite — all the secondary schools will be offering many fewer electives if Emerson remains open, but Emerson has the smallest enrollment so it will have the fewest offerings. Keeping Emerson open may not be in the best interests of the students who are districted to go there.
Dick is correct on may things and this is a state issue. But we need a parcel tax.
Why was the surplus of a few years ago not put into a reserve instead of being refunded as auto registration rebates? That was ridiculous then and unspeakably stupid now. But we in Davis can’t fix it statewide just now. We maybe able to pass a parcel tax and save school programs for kids. Yes it obviously hurts the wealthy far less, but everyone benefits from education. Just because it is not the best solution in good times does not mean it should not be undertaken now. Sliding scale on value of home (no that is not always fair either) but something has to be done and a parcel tax seems like the best option now. Maybe fundraisers could also have a rebate system to fixed income people that could have donations cover the portion for those who really can’t pay and increased tax and would be hurt. I have no idea and I do not pretend to say it is fair across the board, but I think it is necessary.
But how about a Prop 98 with no budget crisis loophole. education gets funding period, flat out no cuts no matte what. California is ranked 47th for education last year down from 46th. THAT IS BEFORE THE CUTS!!!!!!!! This is nuts California’s population is huge to be at the bottom like that for so many kids is like slowly killing society. We are in effect saying uneducated masses go forth and suffer we have other priorities today and could give a crap about the adults of tomorrow who will have no education or skills to manage their lives or society. Education needs funding and the state is screwed up, but we should and hopefully will fix what we can for DJUSD. GO PARCEL TAX!!!!!!! In whatever way it can be done the fastest!
Dick is correct on may things and this is a state issue. But we need a parcel tax.
Why was the surplus of a few years ago not put into a reserve instead of being refunded as auto registration rebates? That was ridiculous then and unspeakably stupid now. But we in Davis can’t fix it statewide just now. We maybe able to pass a parcel tax and save school programs for kids. Yes it obviously hurts the wealthy far less, but everyone benefits from education. Just because it is not the best solution in good times does not mean it should not be undertaken now. Sliding scale on value of home (no that is not always fair either) but something has to be done and a parcel tax seems like the best option now. Maybe fundraisers could also have a rebate system to fixed income people that could have donations cover the portion for those who really can’t pay and increased tax and would be hurt. I have no idea and I do not pretend to say it is fair across the board, but I think it is necessary.
But how about a Prop 98 with no budget crisis loophole. education gets funding period, flat out no cuts no matte what. California is ranked 47th for education last year down from 46th. THAT IS BEFORE THE CUTS!!!!!!!! This is nuts California’s population is huge to be at the bottom like that for so many kids is like slowly killing society. We are in effect saying uneducated masses go forth and suffer we have other priorities today and could give a crap about the adults of tomorrow who will have no education or skills to manage their lives or society. Education needs funding and the state is screwed up, but we should and hopefully will fix what we can for DJUSD. GO PARCEL TAX!!!!!!! In whatever way it can be done the fastest!
Dick is correct on may things and this is a state issue. But we need a parcel tax.
Why was the surplus of a few years ago not put into a reserve instead of being refunded as auto registration rebates? That was ridiculous then and unspeakably stupid now. But we in Davis can’t fix it statewide just now. We maybe able to pass a parcel tax and save school programs for kids. Yes it obviously hurts the wealthy far less, but everyone benefits from education. Just because it is not the best solution in good times does not mean it should not be undertaken now. Sliding scale on value of home (no that is not always fair either) but something has to be done and a parcel tax seems like the best option now. Maybe fundraisers could also have a rebate system to fixed income people that could have donations cover the portion for those who really can’t pay and increased tax and would be hurt. I have no idea and I do not pretend to say it is fair across the board, but I think it is necessary.
But how about a Prop 98 with no budget crisis loophole. education gets funding period, flat out no cuts no matte what. California is ranked 47th for education last year down from 46th. THAT IS BEFORE THE CUTS!!!!!!!! This is nuts California’s population is huge to be at the bottom like that for so many kids is like slowly killing society. We are in effect saying uneducated masses go forth and suffer we have other priorities today and could give a crap about the adults of tomorrow who will have no education or skills to manage their lives or society. Education needs funding and the state is screwed up, but we should and hopefully will fix what we can for DJUSD. GO PARCEL TAX!!!!!!! In whatever way it can be done the fastest!
Dick is correct on may things and this is a state issue. But we need a parcel tax.
Why was the surplus of a few years ago not put into a reserve instead of being refunded as auto registration rebates? That was ridiculous then and unspeakably stupid now. But we in Davis can’t fix it statewide just now. We maybe able to pass a parcel tax and save school programs for kids. Yes it obviously hurts the wealthy far less, but everyone benefits from education. Just because it is not the best solution in good times does not mean it should not be undertaken now. Sliding scale on value of home (no that is not always fair either) but something has to be done and a parcel tax seems like the best option now. Maybe fundraisers could also have a rebate system to fixed income people that could have donations cover the portion for those who really can’t pay and increased tax and would be hurt. I have no idea and I do not pretend to say it is fair across the board, but I think it is necessary.
But how about a Prop 98 with no budget crisis loophole. education gets funding period, flat out no cuts no matte what. California is ranked 47th for education last year down from 46th. THAT IS BEFORE THE CUTS!!!!!!!! This is nuts California’s population is huge to be at the bottom like that for so many kids is like slowly killing society. We are in effect saying uneducated masses go forth and suffer we have other priorities today and could give a crap about the adults of tomorrow who will have no education or skills to manage their lives or society. Education needs funding and the state is screwed up, but we should and hopefully will fix what we can for DJUSD. GO PARCEL TAX!!!!!!! In whatever way it can be done the fastest!
To put it bluntly,Davis voters were lied to by the District and Board, by omission, when they pitched their recently approved educational parcel tax. If these “special” programs need funds to weather the hopefully temporary District financial crisis, let them be funded by those parents who utilize them with ample waivers for those families at the lower income levels. To tax everyone to maintain them while refusing to do the same to keep Valley Oak Elementary open is unconscionable. What is good for the goose,…. etc.
To put it bluntly,Davis voters were lied to by the District and Board, by omission, when they pitched their recently approved educational parcel tax. If these “special” programs need funds to weather the hopefully temporary District financial crisis, let them be funded by those parents who utilize them with ample waivers for those families at the lower income levels. To tax everyone to maintain them while refusing to do the same to keep Valley Oak Elementary open is unconscionable. What is good for the goose,…. etc.
To put it bluntly,Davis voters were lied to by the District and Board, by omission, when they pitched their recently approved educational parcel tax. If these “special” programs need funds to weather the hopefully temporary District financial crisis, let them be funded by those parents who utilize them with ample waivers for those families at the lower income levels. To tax everyone to maintain them while refusing to do the same to keep Valley Oak Elementary open is unconscionable. What is good for the goose,…. etc.
To put it bluntly,Davis voters were lied to by the District and Board, by omission, when they pitched their recently approved educational parcel tax. If these “special” programs need funds to weather the hopefully temporary District financial crisis, let them be funded by those parents who utilize them with ample waivers for those families at the lower income levels. To tax everyone to maintain them while refusing to do the same to keep Valley Oak Elementary open is unconscionable. What is good for the goose,…. etc.
In reply to anymous8:46.
Teachers, facilities and staff are not special programs. Special programs benefit all kids and should be part of every child’s education. Music, art etc… should be at every school. Because the board messed up on Valley Oak and closed it NO REASON TO PUNISH THE KIDS by saying no to a parcel tax. Boot the board meembers, recall them whatever over their idiocy on Valley Oak. This is a separate issue. DO NOT out of spite allow others to suffer that same fate of school closure and all kids those from Valley Oak now going to other locations will suffer when teachers and programs are no longer available. Do Valley Oak kids deserve to get hit twice and have their school and community taken away and now face overcroweded facilities, portable classsrooms and no music or art, GATE etc… Isn’t that slappig the kids twice for the State and school Board’s screw ups?
As adults and parents we fix what we can for the kids and do not hold school yard grudges at their expense.
In reply to anymous8:46.
Teachers, facilities and staff are not special programs. Special programs benefit all kids and should be part of every child’s education. Music, art etc… should be at every school. Because the board messed up on Valley Oak and closed it NO REASON TO PUNISH THE KIDS by saying no to a parcel tax. Boot the board meembers, recall them whatever over their idiocy on Valley Oak. This is a separate issue. DO NOT out of spite allow others to suffer that same fate of school closure and all kids those from Valley Oak now going to other locations will suffer when teachers and programs are no longer available. Do Valley Oak kids deserve to get hit twice and have their school and community taken away and now face overcroweded facilities, portable classsrooms and no music or art, GATE etc… Isn’t that slappig the kids twice for the State and school Board’s screw ups?
As adults and parents we fix what we can for the kids and do not hold school yard grudges at their expense.
In reply to anymous8:46.
Teachers, facilities and staff are not special programs. Special programs benefit all kids and should be part of every child’s education. Music, art etc… should be at every school. Because the board messed up on Valley Oak and closed it NO REASON TO PUNISH THE KIDS by saying no to a parcel tax. Boot the board meembers, recall them whatever over their idiocy on Valley Oak. This is a separate issue. DO NOT out of spite allow others to suffer that same fate of school closure and all kids those from Valley Oak now going to other locations will suffer when teachers and programs are no longer available. Do Valley Oak kids deserve to get hit twice and have their school and community taken away and now face overcroweded facilities, portable classsrooms and no music or art, GATE etc… Isn’t that slappig the kids twice for the State and school Board’s screw ups?
As adults and parents we fix what we can for the kids and do not hold school yard grudges at their expense.
In reply to anymous8:46.
Teachers, facilities and staff are not special programs. Special programs benefit all kids and should be part of every child’s education. Music, art etc… should be at every school. Because the board messed up on Valley Oak and closed it NO REASON TO PUNISH THE KIDS by saying no to a parcel tax. Boot the board meembers, recall them whatever over their idiocy on Valley Oak. This is a separate issue. DO NOT out of spite allow others to suffer that same fate of school closure and all kids those from Valley Oak now going to other locations will suffer when teachers and programs are no longer available. Do Valley Oak kids deserve to get hit twice and have their school and community taken away and now face overcroweded facilities, portable classsrooms and no music or art, GATE etc… Isn’t that slappig the kids twice for the State and school Board’s screw ups?
As adults and parents we fix what we can for the kids and do not hold school yard grudges at their expense.
The public schools are the root of all societies problems, period. They should be abolished now. The Constitution should be amended to provide for the “separation of school and state.”
The public schools are the root of all societies problems, period. They should be abolished now. The Constitution should be amended to provide for the “separation of school and state.”