65 Million for public schools?

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:00 pm

andy

You may have tried but apparently there are not enough people on the committee interested in change. Is it spelled out to these members what is expected of them?

Is it possible they were on the committee for the wrong reasons?
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby chancellor » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:03 pm

At the heart of the matter is really one question? Could the schools provide an effective education for less than 65 million? If the answer is absolutely NO, then somewhere along the line we f'd up and spending got out of control. Andy to say that our per-student cost is in-line state averages is a cowardly comparison... who cares about the rest of the state. Care about Merrimack and its citizens.

If the answer is YES, that it could be done for less than 65 mil, then can we please put forth a clear list of areas that can be cut immediately? My taxes hurt me and my family...

Andy, your hyper-analytical approach to every answer here suggests that you have a great ability to analyze problems and processes, but have an imperfect understanding of the real issue at hand --- people. You see things like an engineer, in that as budget chair you set out not to cut or increase the budget, but to listen and understand. And therefore you ended up at exactly the sample place you started. No discernible goal, not measurable outcome. You set out to do nothing, and therefore achieved nothing. In your mind, problem solved. I've still got a problem with a 65mil budget for schools. You may be a good facilitator, but your passion for the people of this town is nil.

I'd rather have my $15,000 (or $12,000) or whatever the amount is, so I can decide where to educate my kids.

Very disappointing.
chancellor
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:14 pm

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:18 pm

Matt Publicover

That's one hell of an attitude. You win - we lose? We are ALL losing. Your goal is to throw money at schools and expect what? Better results? Please tell me how that works? FYI - I ran for budget committee before and lost by a few votes then I got sick and unable to run again. You would know that if you were a regular poster here.

If all this Committee is about is to play winner and loser rather than what's best for the ENTIRE town then I say don't bother anymore.

Want to teach Chinese? - buy a few copies of Rosetta Stone for those students interested in learning it
Need a new building because the basement isn't handicap accessible and the rooms are crowded? - purchase a stair lift and use some of the empty classrooms

Those few ideas would save at least $2million dollars. But people like you would be against them because the don't fit into your idea of a utopian education. What's missing on these committees is the ability to think outside the box.

I don't know what you do for a living but I hope it isn't finding ways to cut costs,
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby Dennis King » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:42 pm

chancellor wrote:Andy to say that our per-student cost is in-line state averages is a cowardly comparison... who cares about the rest of the state. Care about Merrimack and its citizens.



Absolutely, how the BC could just sit by when people are losing their jobs, losing their homes, and town workers are being laid off is beyond me.

How is it that we spend $20,000.00 to educate our High School kids when a private school (Trinity) can do it for $8,700 and the in town charter school can do it for $5,500? BTW, the charter school has a 98 percent proficiency or better in math and an 89 percent in science. Now I do feel the charter school is being set up as $5,500 is not enough, the $8,700 is probably a better number but since the Dept of Ed has a say, well of course they would rather have kids going to the public school at a cost of $20,000.00+ so they set the school at $5,500, yup, they sure support education!



chancellor wrote:Andy, You set out to do nothing, and therefore achieved nothing. In your mind, problem solved. I've still got a problem with a 65mil budget for schools. You may be a good facilitator, but your passion for the people of this town is nil.

I'd rather have my $15,000 (or $12,000) or whatever the amount is, so I can decide where to educate my kids.

Very disappointing.


Parents are already sending their kids to the local charter school, I believe the enrollment was about 180 this year and is projected to go to 300 next year. Since it is in Merrimack, I presume many of those students are from this town, wonder if the SB or BC even thought of yet another decline in enrolment. Did you even talk to the school? I am with Chancellor, give us out money back and let us choose where to send our kids, sure wish that was an option for my kids, one of which was clearly not served by the school and in fact, he was irreparably harmed. As I said, some real bad apples there and because of the unions, they will never be fired!

We need more school choice and a voucher system to send our kids to the school that is best for them.

$65,000,000.00? ... riduculos! :roll:
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby MissyB » Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:07 pm

Thanks, Andy. That is what I thought.

Yes, chancellor, you are right then somewhere along the line we f'd up and spending got out of control

This issue will not be solved here in Town, and definitely not on this Board. We need to contact our Congressional and State reps and work to make changes at the State and Federal level. The only thing I can see that can be done at this level is to vote down Article 3 and send a message to the School Board that it isn't good enough.
MissyB
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby Debra Huffman » Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:19 pm

Andy, you took over chairmanship of the committee hoping to get the BudCom more involved in the budget process and you succeeded. I congratulate you on that. It's not easy to alter the course of a large committee that has done things the same way for many years.

May I remind readers that Andy did not decide who would run for BudCom, he did not vote them all into office, and he cannot dictate how they proceed. He can only encourage the BudCom to be more involved, and he's doing that. It's a step in the right direction, and I thank Andy for being willing to take that step.
Debra Huffman
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:41 am

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby chancellor » Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:34 pm

Yes, chancellor, you are right then somewhere along the line we f'd up and spending got out of control

This issue will not be solved here in Town, and definitely not on this Board. We need to contact our Congressional and State reps and work to make changes at the State and Federal level. The only thing I can see that can be done at this level is to vote down Article 3 and send a message to the School Board that it isn't good enough.


Missy, not sure what you mean by this...? Government is the reason for our school budget? Voting down article 3 is, indeed, a first step.
chancellor
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:14 pm

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby chancellor » Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:38 pm

Debra Huffman wrote:Andy, you took over chairmanship of the committee hoping to get the BudCom more involved in the budget process and you succeeded. I congratulate you on that. It's not easy to alter the course of a large committee that has done things the same way for many years.

May I remind readers that Andy did not decide who would run for BudCom, he did not vote them all into office, and he cannot dictate how they proceed. He can only encourage the BudCom to be more involved, and he's doing that. It's a step in the right direction, and I thank Andy for being willing to take that step.


OMG Debra, do you also advocate giving every child a trophy for trying real hard? This isn't personal against Andy...I don't even know him personally. It is, however, personal for my family. The budget is out of control, my taxes are sky high, and you want to pass out "atta boys"... just great. Sorry state of affairs, I must say.
chancellor
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:14 pm

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:54 pm

And yet Matt Publicover claims I am in the minority for complaining.

Take a look at the comments here. I am not in the minority.

VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 3
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby TonyRichardson » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:02 pm

What exactly is the function of the budget committee anyway?

Apparently they are unable to make actual changes to the budget, only the school board can do that.


It looks to me like their only actual function is to exist so that the budget committee and the school board can each blame the other for the ridiculously high tab for the Merrimack schools.
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby Debra Huffman » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:10 pm

chancellor wrote:Andy, your hyper-analytical approach to every answer here suggests that you have a great ability to analyze problems and processes, but have an imperfect understanding of the real issue at hand --- people. You see things like an engineer, in that as budget chair you set out not to cut or increase the budget, but to listen and understand. And therefore you ended up at exactly the sample place you started. No discernible goal, not measurable outcome. You set out to do nothing, and therefore achieved nothing. In your mind, problem solved. I've still got a problem with a 65mil budget for schools. You may be a good facilitator, but your passion for the people of this town is nil.

Mr. Chancellor, you most certainly DID make it personal against Andy. I generally try not to bother responding to posts such as yours, but in this one case I will.

Debra Huffman wrote:Andy, you took over chairmanship of the committee hoping to get the BudCom more involved in the budget process and you succeeded. I congratulate you on that. It's not easy to alter the course of a large committee that has done things the same way for many years.

Did Andy change the process? Yes. Is it easy to alter the BudCom? No. So exactly what part of that statement is untrue, Mr. Chancellor?

Debra Huffman wrote:May I remind readers that Andy did not decide who would run for BudCom, he did not vote them all into office, and he cannot dictate how they proceed. He can only encourage the BudCom to be more involved, and he's doing that. It's a step in the right direction, and I thank Andy for being willing to take that step.

Did Andy elect the BudCom? Can he dictate how they proceed or how they vote? Exactly what part of that statement is untrue, Mr. Chancellor?

Your comparison of awarding trophies to children to congratulating an adult for taking on a difficult job is insulting. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with Andy's opinion of the budget, I disagree with it myself, but your personal attack on him was beyond the pale, in my opinion.
Debra Huffman
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:41 am

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby MissyB » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:24 pm

Yes, chancellor, government is part of the problem. Another part of the problem is how the Town vote went when the economy was a little better. As a result of the vote in November, this is the chance to change some things that are now requirements. Change is going to happen slowly. Check out some of the bills currently in the State Education Committee.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/c ... x?code=H05

We need to let Reps know how we feel. There is at least one bill in Committee that would change a requirement now to a non-requirement. Once it is a non-requirement, the Town can put it up to a vote as to whether or not they want it. If the vote is "no", it gets taken off the budget. Send a message to the Education Committee asking them to send the bills you want to see passed to the full House for a vote. Tell your State Reps how you would like for them to vote. If they don't represent your views, vote against them out in two years. I would like to see more Charter schools. The Town's school budget would go down, there would be more competition, and I believe that will lead to the children getting a better education for less money.

I think it is also important to let our Senators and our House Rep to know what we want. Is it really necessary to have education departments at all three levels of government? Our taxes pay for all three levels.
MissyB
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby chancellor » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:48 pm

Debra Huffman wrote:May I remind readers that Andy did not decide who would run for BudCom, he did not vote them all into office, and he cannot dictate how they proceed. He can only encourage the BudCom to be more involved, and he's doing that. It's a step in the right direction, and I thank Andy for being willing to take that step.

Did Andy elect the BudCom? Can he dictate how they proceed or how they vote? Exactly what part of that statement is untrue, Mr. Chancellor?[/quote]

Debra, I cheer for home runs, not singles. Changing a "process" as you stated Andy accomplished, is equivalent to a single, in my opinion. Affecting real change....and I mean the type of change that exposes the BudComm for its ineffective guidance, the type of change that deeply engages the public through whatever means possible, change that is firmly rooted in the people's best interest, change that is unequivocally based on achieving what the people want .... lower taxes. That's a home run, baby. A major shift in thinking.

You are out of your mind to think that "a change in process" is going to lead anywhere fast..."gee, Andy, great job on that process change." Instead of settling for false accomplishments, we could try something a little different? Such as making Merrimack a model of excellence, a town that all other towns will measure themselves against and wonder "how the hell do they produce such bright kids with such a reasonable budget".

What is wrong with shooting high? Let's identify the dunderheads and dimwits who feign intelligence and seek power and get them the hell out of the way. Let's set a new standard for what it means to be a great town. We might surprise ourselves... and more importantly our children. All we are proving is that Merrimack is an expensive place to live.
chancellor
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:14 pm

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby Debra Huffman » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:54 pm

A single means he was at least at bat. Can you say the same, Mr. Chancellor? Or do you just like to throw stones at those who try to accomplish anything, while pipe-dreaming that somehow you would change the world... if you only you had the time.
Debra Huffman
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:41 am

Re: 65 Million for public schools?

Postby MissyB » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:57 pm

Wow, chancellor, I would vote for you for Budget Committee.
MissyB
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to School Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron