Even though one of them was participating by phone, all of Bethlehem's nine school directors managed to weigh in on next year's budget at their June 13 meeting. As children and televisions blared in the background, Director Rosie Amato phoned in a Yes to a $203.8 million budget that makes nobody happy. It imposes both a 1.7% tax increase while simultaneously furloughing 49 teachers, as well as another 48 workers. The remainder of the 145 total positions eliminated are the result of attrition. "I hate this budget," declared Director Michael Faccinetto, placing the blame on himself. "The blame cannot go any further than this room." Then he voted for the budget he hates.
So did Director Aurea Ortiz, who complained about the loss of 16 bilingual staffers in a school with a heavy Hispanic contingent.
They were joined by President Michele Cann and Directors Bill Burkhardt, Gene McKeon, and Rosie Amato.
Amato hung up as soon as he cast his vote.
Karen Becker, a professor at The College of New Jersey, slammed Faccinetto for his vote. "If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have voted for it," she chided, adding that he just approved a budget that will have an adverse academic impact. In the Middle Schools alone, there will now be 45 additional lunch hours and 60 less instruction hours.
Three Directors - Loretta Leeson, Irene Follweiler and Benjamin Tenaglia - voted No. Explaining her vote, Leeson noted taxes have already risen 11% over the past two years "in the worst economy we've ever seen."
As approved, the budget eliminates high school resource officers and guidance counselors, teaching teams and co-ed soccer at the middle schools. It also dips $1 million into the $2.6 million budgetary reserve. The pre-school SPARK building will be closed and leased.
A 1.7% tax hike means $57 more from a homeowner assessed at $75,000.
9 comments:
paying for many yesterdays today.
can't change the past - hopefully they will learn and change the future.
where's all the casino revenue ? they claimed it would lower our tax bill ?
if you still believe the casino tax relieve line call me. i've got a bridge to sell you
It's crazy that Congress is letting this happen in school districts all over the country. The federal government should be plugging state and local budgets until the economy recovers.
Jon, schools traditionally were reserved to the states in our federal system. Federal programs and mandates from the 1970s on have been one part of the multi-faceted financial burdens on public schools: IDEA and NCLB being tops. They have been costly, and do more to lower the top than to raise the bottom.
Your comments reflect the conditioning of American political culture since the New Deal to look to the 536 people in DC (Congress/Pres) to nationalize every problem facing state and local governments. Subsequently, power has been gravitating over time to the national government to the point that the public often has unrealistic expectations that Washington can fix all problems.
That said, I do support government student loan programs for college (extending the ladder to those with the ability/desire to climb it) that should get repaid and expand the middle class. I, also, would support block grants encouraging initiatives of national economic benefit (math, science, research, etc). However, what you propose is more federal money to support general operating expenses. Get the national government largely out of public education.
The federal and state governments have been pumping tons of money into the education system and what has all this money brought us? Dumber kids, dumber teachers and dumber administrators. It has also brought us higher taxes and soon it will bring us the bankruptcy of school districts.
Increased per child spending does not improve student performance. In fact, the opposite may be true. Ironically, the quality of education in the US has collapsed since the inception of the US Department of Education. Thank you federal government.
All that for 57 bucks. Makes me sick.
Increased per child spending does not improve student performance. In fact, the opposite may be true. Ironically, the quality of education in the US has collapsed since the inception of the US Department of Education. Thank you federal government.
Without qualifying where the money goes, this statement is not accurate. Are you saying hiring more teachers would not have a direct effect on student's achievement? Would spending on tutoring low achievers have an effect on performance? Of course funding can be helpful. It just needs to be focused.
Post a Comment