|
|
Post by concerned on May 27, 2008 9:36:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on May 28, 2008 18:58:42 GMT -5
Yet the school can barely afford to keep all its programs and teaching staff...
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on May 29, 2008 10:01:50 GMT -5
We do things backwards in NY state. Cities are run by mayors with significant powers compared to their boards or common councils. Meanwhile, schools have powerful school boards with relatively weak superintendents and need to have budgets approved by the voters.
It would make a lot more sense to reverse things: let a powerful education professional run the schools and let people vote on stop signs and manhole covers, instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 29, 2008 17:06:36 GMT -5
I would vote against stop signs, but for manhole covers. Just aesthetics, I guess. A local powerful educational professional is definitely not in the the State's interest, so we'll never see it. While the Superintendent is hamstrung by the board, and the board kept busy with impossible dilemmas and politics, the State has quietly taken over our children's education while maintaining the belief on the part of local parents ... amazing to me ... that we have control over the schools down here on the ground. I don't mind that so much ... local parents can be scary ... but I wish the State would pay for it. I always thought that the amount of energy used up in local school politics, votes, anger, what-have-you, would probably light a small size city. And after all of that, the state edicts, controls, and measures students to their own understanding of what makes a well rounded graduate. And localities have so little say in that. The only local decisions made are who to lynch.
|
|
