Post a New Topic
East Palo Alto district to shutter two schools
Original post made
on Jun 17, 2011
Two of Ravenswood's eight campuses will not re-open this fall as the K-8 district serving 3,900 children in East Palo Alto and eastern Menlo Park looks to save on administrative and maintenance costs.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Friday, June 17, 2011, 9:53 AM
Posted by DDee
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 17, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Just as I ask myself why no serious person high enough in the ranks to make a different call at city, state and national venues, I wonder why no one in the school district has seriously addressed the arrogance factor in this particular budgetary crisis.
What do I mean? We have drunk so long and so deeply from the fallacy of "best and brightest" that we can no longer see the herd of elephants in the room... the oversized salaries that we pay anyone in executive positions (while trashing the unions and negotiated salaries of the comparably lower paid associate professors, city, state and federal workers who - sigh - only provide direct services and save our collective tooshies from things like ignorance, bad people, catastrophe and fire). The UC system, State systems and local school districts suffer from the same cancer.
In this article, the savings from operations and utilities from closing 2 schools, plus the savings represented by taking 5 paid work days out of the pay checks of ALL the remaining staff of the other schools, barely overshadows the salaries of 4 people.
If our decision makers cannot see that there is something wrong with that equation, well, I guess the rest of us can pray that we end up in one of the better castes when the dust settles and the US power-brokers have finally met their goal of turning us into Calcutta, where the wealthy live opulently, the comparatively small upper middle class live quite nicely, and all the rest scrape out an existence...or not.
State budget, same issue... Federal budget, ditto.
The bubbles have long burst. Tec first, then real estate and its derivatives, yet we still think that CEO's and execs of any and all stripes --- including many in our non-profits and churches --- MUST be paid a salary that is decorous and decent and equivalent to what they would make in some fantasy private sector job. That this means that their salary and benefit packages are 500% + greater than what those same boards are willing to pay the people who staff the trenches, do the work, and are basically the backbone behind ours having been such a prosperous and privileged country, is unconscionable, unethical, unwise and - ultimately - killing us and any hope we can have for a good ending if not a better future.
We need to urgently re-define our terms and what it means to be middle class. We must ground ourselves on the real numbers of what our country can actually afford instead of what people "expect." We are a country with values that have been jettisoned by 3 decades of embrace of Randian thought, but it isn't too late to reclaim ourselves from the brink. That would allow us the mindset of raising the lower salaries that have actually lost incredible ground over the past 2 decades, while lowering significantly the top salaries across the spectrum of public service. I'd propose we set a goal of reducing CEO and top exec overall packages to a mere 60 to 100 times what the lowest paid staff person makes.
Simple math, people. How many property and sales taxes can one wealthier person pay into the local economy, and how many repairs, services, etc can one person generate that create demand thus jobs, that all feed into building up the common good?
But, if that person does well, AND others are at least kept employed and doing fairly… if instead of laying off teachers and janitors who live in the community, we figure out how to merge districts and cut excess while leaving people on the job, then we will have all that many more people paying their taxes, creating demand for services and basically creating jobs and supporting a healthier local economy.
Statewide, we can save money on such costs as pumping water and reducing the effects of drought and the dangers of flooding by switching to saner zoning and agricultural policies such as refusing to subsidize water-intensive crops, while offering help to change those out for water efficient crops and farming practices; encouraging valley homeowners and builders to relocate or build on high ground so that we can let some of the levies fail and perhaps allow one or two of the valley's great rivers to run free at least part of the year so that once again the valley floods seasonally, which would benefit the bay, the valley's natural fertility, the wildlife and the fisheries.
AND if we decide to restore even greater sanity to our budget and increase our revenue stream by actually collecting taxes on corporate profits obtained within our state or by ending the practice of destroying or giving away our common heritage for next to nothing such as our water or our fisheries or, worse, for free as with our irreplaceable natural resources (unlike our red state giants of Alaska and Texas, whose political and fiscal conservatism has not impeded them from charging huge payouts for the mining rights to their oil and gas), then our shared picture and our future becomes bright indeed.
But we would have to start by breaking the mold we settled into with Reagan and got crusted over with every party and every administration since then. What trickled down was not prosperity, but canker, and it is now or never if we intend to beat this thing. Unfortunately, anyone paying attention to Washington or Sacramento will have seen by now that it will have to be a bottom-up healing, so why not start in Ravenswood?