Re: School Levy

["Archie" <archie@moscow.com>]

Some folks have an agenda when they present "statistics" out of any context, and it's not in
support of public education in my opinion.  Are these valid numbers?  Are they typical for a school
district of this size?  Does the use of subs allow the district to save on full-time personnel?
You won't get that information from these guys.  Don't believe everything posted by admitted foes
of public education.

I'm going to vote for the levy.  I'm very pleased with the district and the teachers.  Idaho has
one of the lowest pay scales in the nation for teachers, thus it's necessary to raise local funds
to rise above the typical Idaho level.
Archie George
Moscow

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce and Jean Livingston" <jeanlivingston@turbonet.com>
To: "Vision2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: School Levy


> I have been inclined to support the school levy and probably still am,
> despite this distubing note from John Danahy:
>
>     The district currently pays for 4000 sub days.  That is the equivalent
> of more than 4 weeks per full time certified position.  Or 11% of the time
> your child spends in class is with a sub.  Cutting the sub days by 50% would
> provide enough funds to pay for the Junior High Teams with funds left over
> for the reserves.  Yet, we are not being asked to support 4000 sub days, we
> are being threatened with the loss of the Junior High Teams.  Why?
>
> Can someone enlighten us on this?  I find it impossible to believe that this
> information is correct and that every full-time teacher is taking time off
> in this order of magnitude.  Could it be that sub days are authorized in
> this obscene amount but not used?  Certainly, most employers give their
> employees something on the order of a week or two of sick days per year.
> Four weeks of sick days in a nine month year seems grossly high and a likely
> target for concessions in a labor contract.
>
>
>
>