|
Post by daddydog on Jun 17, 2010 5:37:46 GMT -5
Look it's your spin or mine. You say we have a small school with 6 principals. I counted 7 titles with the word "principal" somewhere in them. I say we have 4 schools (high school, junior high, and two elementary schools). Traditionally almost everywhere in this country each school has a principal, That accounts for 4 of your principals. Most High Schools have an Assistant principal - that takes care of 5 principals. In most places the Athletic Director and Student Services person does not have the title of "Principal", so let's get rid of titles that really don't apply to people who are not managing entire schools. As far as a "small school" our high school is about the same size as Collingswood, Haddonfield, Haddon Township and Haddon Heights. They all have between 900 and 1,000 students. None of them are small schools. Bottom line, we have a principal for each school like most other school systems around the country. We don't have 6 principals all working in one "small" school. I have to agree with you. Reading through this thread it becomes apparent what the 'real' issue for the other poster is. Their little Johnny is losing freshman sports and they have to pay an activity fee. Okay, you don't like it...we heard ya. Well actually, I believe his point was that there was to be a reduction in one administrative position (by way of 1 less principal title?) that went along with the cutting of athletic funding. I really do agree with him/her that the number of principal titles (there are 5 if one accepts the information posted here) for the High School (we really don't have a "Junior High School"). I also saw that For the Children renamed the people who have dual titles in an attempt to show that there are only 3 principals. Thats fine, but then if they lose the titles, then they should lose some of the pay that went along with the principal title they picked up along the way. I hate to say this, but the old "when I went to school" phrase could apply here. I went to AHS when we had about the same number of students as now, but I seem to remember we had significantly more programs and class selections. We had one Principal and one Assistant Principal, and an AD. So it begs the question; why the need for these additional administrators? Sue McKenna has been around a long time. Was her promotion to Principal actually needed? And does the AD also need that title? I have no dog in this fight other than I pay taxes that help pay these salaries. My kids are long gone from the school system.
|
|
Its for the Children
Guest
|
Post by Its for the Children on Jun 17, 2010 7:40:27 GMT -5
I have to agree with you. Reading through this thread it becomes apparent what the 'real' issue for the other poster is. Their little Johnny is losing freshman sports and they have to pay an activity fee. Okay, you don't like it...we heard ya. Well actually, I believe his point was that there was to be a reduction in one administrative position (by way of 1 less principal title?) that went along with the cutting of athletic funding. I really do agree with him/her that the number of principal titles (there are 5 if one accepts the information posted here) for the High School (we really don't have a "Junior High School"). I also saw that For the Children renamed the people who have dual titles in an attempt to show that there are only 3 principals. Thats fine, but then if they lose the titles, then they should lose some of the pay that went along with the principal title they picked up along the way. I hate to say this, but the old "when I went to school" phrase could apply here. I went to AHS when we had about the same number of students as now, but I seem to remember we had significantly more programs and class selections. We had one Principal and one Assistant Principal, and an AD. So it begs the question; why the need for these additional administrators? Sue McKenna has been around a long time. Was her promotion to Principal actually needed? And does the AD also need that title? I have no dog in this fight other than I pay taxes that help pay these salaries. My kids are long gone from the school system. TheTerrace originally brought up a legitimate issue: "Did the BOE agree to get rid of one principal job in the budget (filled in by the Super)" TheTerrace says they made that commitment, I said - it was a back-up if the budget was defeated. The rest of this thread just muddies the waters with side issues, i.e. Freshman sports, one school 6 principals, etc.. Which is it , commitment or back-up? And, if a commitment -- did they keep the principal despite the promise to get rid of one? (that's not clear either).
|
|
|
Post by Politick on Jun 17, 2010 10:06:22 GMT -5
Athletic Director gets a principals salary WTF? As for the new commish's they haven't done crap. They didn't make any significant cuts and raised our taxes while adding a stupid second sewer tax. Chris Tassi is laughing his @ss off, John Ward is making the last group look pretty damn good. They actually cut more before they left then these new guys. It's business as usual. Chief of police gets a fat salary and works 1-2 days a week for 3 hours, everyone has a car, etc etc I'm betting Wardy in the end will be viewed worst then Jackie Boy Coyle. Look for a 3 Tassi ticket in 2013 Tom will be retired by then, Chris will snap back and add on another brother. First you claim the Police Chief is over paid and doesn't work, then you claim "the people" are going to elect him as a Commissioner when he retires because Ward allows him to get away with that and "the people" will turn on Ward. You're kidding, right? This sounds like Mr. Audubon logic, start a rumor that kills two birds with one stone.
|
|
|
Post by greenarrow on Jun 17, 2010 15:35:55 GMT -5
AHS would have sacrificed a HS PRINCIPAL to save two teaching positions. school would have suffered with super wearing two hats while being payed for one. The township asked for a 4% budget increase after hearing that an elementary school nurse would be let go. The union did not make a decision regarding cutbacks until they knew how much money would be available from the taxpayer. That's how these things work. after the budget passed, Union agreed to a two day furlough (this is a fact, go to a BOE meeting or check the papers) This allowed all staff to stay. i don't get what is so confusing or suspicious about this.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 17, 2010 17:38:21 GMT -5
I think we ought to be commended. While a majority of NJ towns dismissed their school budgets we did an excellent job in demonstrating to the voters the horrific damage that would be done if the vote failed. Listed a bunch of positions and activities that were being cut. . . indeed that the town did cut, to lead voters into how serious it was even if the budget passed. After the town saw the carnage they came out, tightened their belts and cut back on their own house hold spending and supported the budget to prevent further cuts.
After the school won the vote the school went back, sharpened the pencil and found more money and were able to keep all the jobs! Maybe even hiring more! If the voters weren't frightened over Armageddon approaching, the vote may well have failed and the school would have had to find an additional $90K to keep all jobs above the $400K found after the vote.
For the good of all - kids, teachers and staff sometimes the right politics is to twist the story to voters and boro residents. It's just good policy if we want to keep adequate staffing levels. You just have to understand that's how the game is played.
|
|
|
Post by stevemcgarrett on Jun 17, 2010 19:28:36 GMT -5
AHS would have sacrificed a HS PRINCIPAL to save two teaching positions. school would have suffered with super wearing two hats while being payed for one. The township asked for a 4% budget increase after hearing that an elementary school nurse would be let go. The union did not make a decision regarding cutbacks until they knew how much money would be available from the taxpayer. That's how these things work. after the budget passed, Union agreed to a two day furlough (this is a fact, go to a BOE meeting or check the papers) This allowed all staff to stay. i don't get what is so confusing or suspicious about this. Well put.
|
|
|
Post by the real deal on Jun 17, 2010 23:39:06 GMT -5
i don't get what is so confusing or suspicious about this. Confusing or suspicious weren't the terms terrace used; (s)he used DECEPTIVE. --- The Aud voters went to the polls being told quite explicitly that some dozen positions were being cut EVEN IF THE BUDGET PASSED. Turns out afterward that none are being cut. --- There is nothing confusing, or even suspicious about that. It is crystal clear what they did -- they're patting themselves on the back last night. The issue is did the end justify the means (and how many times can the boy cry wolf.) One can't help but wonder how much money can be miraculously be found over there if taxpayers were really serious about their money being taken from them. One can deplore Christie's bashing but then you have a district pulling this crap. Christie and NJ schools; perfect together.
|
|
|
Post by billmelater on Jun 18, 2010 5:02:10 GMT -5
I think we ought to be commended. While a majority of NJ towns dismissed their school budgets we did an excellent job in demonstrating to the voters the horrific damage that would be done if the vote failed. Listed a bunch of positions and activities that were being cut. . . indeed that the town did cut, to lead voters into how serious it was even if the budget passed. After the town saw the carnage they came out, tightened their belts and cut back on their own house hold spending and supported the budget to prevent further cuts. After the school won the vote the school went back, sharpened the pencil and found more money and were able to keep all the jobs! Maybe even hiring more! If the voters weren't frightened over Armageddon approaching, the vote may well have failed and the school would have had to find an additional $90K to keep all jobs above the $400K found after the vote. For the good of all - kids, teachers and staff sometimes the right politics is to twist the story to voters and boro residents. It's just good policy if we want to keep adequate staffing levels. You just have to understand that's how the game is played. Shouldn't the work to find savings been done BEFORE the vote ?
|
|
|
Post by stevemcgarrett on Jun 18, 2010 7:01:01 GMT -5
i don't get what is so confusing or suspicious about this. Confusing or suspicious weren't the terms terrace used; (s)he used DECEPTIVE. --- The Aud voters went to the polls being told quite explicitly that some dozen positions were being cut EVEN IF THE BUDGET PASSED. Turns out afterward that none are being cut. --- There is nothing confusing, or even suspicious about that. It is crystal clear what they did -- they're patting themselves on the back last night. The issue is did the end justify the means (and how many times can the boy cry wolf.) One can't help but wonder how much money can be miraculously be found over there if taxpayers were really serious about their money being taken from them. One can deplore Christie's bashing but then you have a district pulling this crap. Christie and NJ schools; perfect together. I certainly don't recall it playing out this way, I don't feel 'deceived' and frankly I don't have a problem with what is spent for education. I guess that is why we have a vote on the budget. Those that don't agree, vote no. I have maintained whenever this discussion comes up that the issues lies beyond our town. The issue is the corruption in our state, and the plethora of municipalities and school districts that need to be supported. The system is broke, corrupt and inefficient. That being said, I'm not ready to let my kids education suffer for it. That's just one man's opinion of course. Maybe I'm the fool, who knows. As of now however, I'd vote yes again. Ask me next year, the answer might be different.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 18, 2010 9:36:17 GMT -5
Confusing or suspicious weren't the terms terrace used; (s)he used DECEPTIVE. --- The Aud voters went to the polls being told quite explicitly that some dozen positions were being cut EVEN IF THE BUDGET PASSED. Turns out afterward that none are being cut. --- There is nothing confusing, or even suspicious about that. It is crystal clear what they did -- they're patting themselves on the back last night. The issue is did the end justify the means (and how many times can the boy cry wolf.) One can't help but wonder how much money can be miraculously be found over there if taxpayers were really serious about their money being taken from them. One can deplore Christie's bashing but then you have a district pulling this crap. Christie and NJ schools; perfect together. I certainly don't recall it playing out this way, I don't feel 'deceived' and frankly I don't have a problem with what is spent for education. I guess that is why we have a vote on the budget. Those that don't agree, vote no. I have maintained whenever this discussion comes up that the issues lies beyond our town. The issue is the corruption in our state, and the plethora of municipalities and school districts that need to be supported. The system is broke, corrupt and inefficient. That being said, I'm not ready to let my kids education suffer for it. That's just one man's opinion of course. Maybe I'm the fool, who knows. As of now however, I'd vote yes again. Ask me next year, the answer might be different. lol. your kids education is suffering. ask them whether they'd want to have their extracurricular activities cancelled or another highly paid admin; additional AP courses or another admin? Volleyball or admin. They told all of us the money wasn't there and we find it really is. . . . they thrive on voters and parents as yourself. Honestly, I used to feel the way you do -- have argued your exact position but I've come to see the light. Someday you will too. I'll be around next april to remind a few discerning voters what happened this year when the school starts its yearly whine. Keep in mind that this isn't just maintaining status quo. The school deceived the voters by crying poor and when the "magic" money suddenly appeared after the election, they poured it into administrative salaries and kept kids programs cut. It is really despicable . . . imo. The first step in seeing the truth is acknowledging the lie.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 18, 2010 9:39:03 GMT -5
I think we ought to be commended. While a majority of NJ towns dismissed their school budgets we did an excellent job in demonstrating to the voters the horrific damage that would be done if the vote failed. Listed a bunch of positions and activities that were being cut. . . indeed that the town did cut, to lead voters into how serious it was even if the budget passed. After the town saw the carnage they came out, tightened their belts and cut back on their own house hold spending and supported the budget to prevent further cuts. After the school won the vote the school went back, sharpened the pencil and found more money and were able to keep all the jobs! Maybe even hiring more! If the voters weren't frightened over Armageddon approaching, the vote may well have failed and the school would have had to find an additional $90K to keep all jobs above the $400K found after the vote. For the good of all - kids, teachers and staff sometimes the right politics is to twist the story to voters and boro residents. It's just good policy if we want to keep adequate staffing levels. You just have to understand that's how the game is played. Shouldn't the work to find savings been done BEFORE the vote ? you know how this works. Scream "the sky is falling" in order to milk every last dime. It's for the kids!! End result; not a penny of admin costs for 2010/11 but significant cuts to kids programs.
|
|
|
Post by greenarrow on Jun 18, 2010 18:35:58 GMT -5
Ugh. Given what the BOE knew ( ie not taking into account Union concession) jobs would still have been cut even if the budget passed. SOOOO the union then made concessions. YOU DON'T MAKE CONCESSIONS BEFORE YOU KNOW WHAT THE BUDGET IS!! Jesus this isn't rocket science. The Union gave back lil more than $ 400,000 work two days FOR FREE to ensure school remains fully staffed so the manifest mission of AHS (education) does not suffer. Would you work two days for free to save a position at your place business? Freshman sports (which is not the manifest mission of any school sys) is cut. Audubon kids can play up to JV.
Deceived. Go to a BOE meeting and ask your "tough questions"
|
|
|
Post by stevemcgarrett on Jun 19, 2010 8:53:23 GMT -5
Ugh. Given what the BOE knew ( ie not taking into account Union concession) jobs would still have been cut even if the budget passed. SOOOO the union then made concessions. YOU DON'T MAKE CONCESSIONS BEFORE YOU KNOW WHAT THE BUDGET IS!! Jesus this isn't rocket science. The Union gave back lil more than $ 400,000 work two days FOR FREE to ensure school remains fully staffed so the manifest mission of AHS (education) does not suffer. Would you work two days for free to save a position at your place business? Freshman sports (which is not the manifest mission of any school sys) is cut. Audubon kids can play up to JV. Deceived. Go to a BOE meeting and ask your "tough questions" Again, well put. But no minds will be changed here. People will vote what they believe, whether they agree with you or I...or feel they have been 'deceived.' I'm not sure why some internet posters feel the need to repeat themselves ad naseum once their original point has been made.
|
|
Its For The Children
Guest
|
Post by Its For The Children on Jun 19, 2010 9:51:51 GMT -5
Ugh. Given what the BOE knew ( ie not taking into account Union concession) jobs would still have been cut even if the budget passed. SOOOO the union then made concessions. YOU DON'T MAKE CONCESSIONS BEFORE YOU KNOW WHAT THE BUDGET IS!! Jesus this isn't rocket science. The Union gave back lil more than $ 400,000 work two days FOR FREE to ensure school remains fully staffed so the manifest mission of AHS (education) does not suffer. Would you work two days for free to save a position at your place business? Freshman sports (which is not the manifest mission of any school sys) is cut. Audubon kids can play up to JV. Deceived. Go to a BOE meeting and ask your "tough questions" Again, well put. But no minds will be changed here. People will vote what they believe, whether they agree with you or I...or feel they have been 'deceived.' I'm not sure why some internet posters feel the need to repeat themselves ad naseum once their original point has been made. The budget won by an overwhelming majority (20%). It gives the BOE a mandate to operate the schools as they see fit because they have the confidence of the people. Those who voted against the budget would like to believe the election somehow was unfair and the budget only passed because the Board tricked the voters. The voters knew what they were voting for. Audubon is not the City of Fools.
|
|
|
Post by theterrace on Jun 25, 2010 11:06:55 GMT -5
Reading through this thread it becomes apparent what the 'real' issue for the other poster is. Their little Johnny is losing freshman sports and they have to pay an activity fee. Okay, you don't like it...we heard ya. Keep your day job; the real Detective McGarrett was never so dense. I have trouble understanding why some feel the need to ignore the issue and make up fake motivators. My child isn't affected by frosh sports - heck, this particular issue (and activity fees which will affect me) wasn't even in my initial post. The thread is interesting to see the different opinions; primarily falling into the categories: 1. Indifference. Just continue to make monthly payments and have the bank pay the tax bill. This covers most who don't care enough to even post. 2. Clueless Ignorance. Admittedly it is virtually impossible to be deceived when your head is buried two feet in the sand. This covers itsforthechildren who has no idea what she was told; worse, she really doesn't care. The budget passed so children are better off. Having kids pay more and having their programs cut so adults keep admin jobs is a good thing for our kids. One can only chuckle at the though of ending all kid programs and doubling our school admin. I mean, how great would the kids have it then? 3. The insider. greenarrow knows the voters were told of a dozen personnel cuts with more to be made if budget failed but he knows the secret. It wasn't going to really happen because there was hidden magic money to be found. He wasn't "deceived" because he knew all along the admin/board propaganda was a scare tactic and that no jobs would really be cut. Just scare the voters into passing the budget. If you didn't know this you are a "fool" and audubon isn't a city of fools. 4. The average voter. He wants the school to succeed and believed the board when they said there was big trouble and that 12 positions were to be cut. He digs deeper into his pocket; making the personal sacrifice only to find out it was all a big scam. Perhaps he's learned that only a fool believes the board's budget next year when he votes. I missed the big wink when they handed it to me to digest prior to voting. 5. The Bloatee. Thriving off the taxpayer and the administrative gravy train that NJ schools have become. They can't print enough money to satisfy. 'nuff said. The shame is that the admin/board misled residents to believe there was a crisis and 12 positions -- or more!! -- were going to be cut along with kid programs. They posted this stuff to the website. Held town meeting to get the propaganda out. Now I learn it's just part of the game -- we should all know this is how it works. See you next year. I acknowledge the above but note when the real numbers came in; as has been the case for the past few years, all positions were restored and saved at the expense of kid's programs. The kids are worse off but the adults are saved. In a way I'm glad the budget passed. I have a child in school. My issue is that the budget given to voters wasn't the truth; kid's programs were cut; and one, imo, very poor administrator was saved. Even if we going to cut kids and keep adults, the kids, parents and community can find a much much better principal. IMO. The kids, parents and community deserved much better. In the following weeks I will follow up with numbers on how utterly mediocre our current admin has done with the town's schools. Just facts and numbers. If for no other reason than to spin up the school defenders of the status quo and how saving admin jobs is helping our kids. I want to see the school improve. See ya. . . .
|
|