Nearly 400 local educators receive preliminary pink slips by Mo...

learning from Sac-town wrote:

"Forty-one teachers agreed to retire at the end of the school year under an offer to pay them 80 percent of their final salaries over time."
Deferring costs to the future is a way to "borrow" money that will need to be paid back later. Hasn't anyone noticed how well that plan's been working out for the State of California?

Class Size Perspective wrote:

Being raised in Santa Cruz in the 60's and 70's, our class sizes were on par with what they are today...We weren't complaining and griping back then why the change now?

Tim wrote:

44 posts bemoaning the situation, and not one addressing the problem. The largest portion of the state budget is education, and the declining economy has caused state tax revenues to plummet. This is not the fault of teachers, or principals, or parents or unions. Schools across the state and in most other states have the same problem. The idea that there is some vast pool of money being "wasted" is ludicrous to anyone who has struggled for years to save a minimum of core services in schools with falling budgets.
The question is whether we care enough to pay more. Less than $100 per year per taxpayer would eliminate the planned cuts to education. But proposing any kind of tax increase is a sure road to retirement for anyone in the government.
I'm willing to pay my share for better schools. How about you?

Diane Rejman wrote:

It's difficult to understand why someone would even choose to be a teacher these days. The pay is horrible. The teachers are often blamed for the bad parenting that brings unmotivated and undisciplined children to their classroom. They are increasingly expected to teach children everything about everything. This is ridiculous.
There is often no money for basic supplies - the teacher will have to pay for them, or go begging. I was stunned when I learned a charitable organization was supplying things like pencils to local classrooms.
Many children are spending their days sitting in class hungry. And an increasing percentage are being prescribed medications for ADD and even depression at very young ages. Many are addicted to tv and video games. Where do you even start trying to teach them in a classroom?
I've heard significantly more bad thing about "No Child Left Behind" than good. What is the point of teaching only to pass a test? Of course, this law has been a great success for the military, since it forces schools to turn students' personal information over to recruiters. We have become a society that is very focused on teaching violence and hatred. We are increasingly successful at this.
In the meantime, children are seeing the world implode around them. New graduates are facing a hopeless job market. Many fell for idea of student loans, and are faced with attempting to pay back up to $100,000 in debt while working at low paying jobs they could have gotten with no college degree. They are aware their parents' generation is leaving them a legacy of a $14 trillion debt, money spent mostly on pointless wars and financial bailouts for the wealthy.
Our society has lost touch with what is important.
How dare we blame the teachers for all of this.

Tim wrote:

44 posts bemoaning the situation, and not one addressing the problem. The largest portion of the state budget is education, and the declining economy has caused state tax revenues to plummet. This is not the fault of teachers, or principals, or parents or unions. Schools across the state and in most other states have the same problem. The idea that there is some vast pool of money being "wasted" is ludicrous to anyone who has struggled for years to save a minimum of core services in schools with falling budgets.
The question is whether we care enough to pay more. Less than $100 per year per taxpayer would eliminate the planned cuts to education. But proposing any kind of tax increase is a sure road to retirement for anyone in the government.
I'm willing to pay my share for better schools. How about you?

newguy40 wrote:

<quoted text>
Frankly, I am sick of being told to throw money at problems with out addressing the root cause.
Cut spending across the state and then let's come back and talk a bit more about "fixing the schools for the KIDS!!!" for the upteenth time.

Yari wrote:

Why don't they fire some of their principals? Do you know, at Aptos High, they have one principal and three vice principals? Two of them could go.

dON wrote:

<quoted text>
BobbyA, when a voter enters the booth AND only the top two vote getters move on to the final ballot, the voter does not follow your hypothetical scenario of voting for the worst of the other party. There is only ONE primary...open your eyes!...

Tim wrote:

44 posts bemoaning the situation, and not one addressing the problem. The largest portion of the state budget is education, and the declining economy has caused state tax revenues to plummet. This is not the fault of teachers, or principals, or parents or unions. Schools across the state and in most other states have the same problem. The idea that there is some vast pool of money being "wasted" is ludicrous to anyone who has struggled for years to save a minimum of core services in schools with falling budgets.
The question is whether we care enough to pay more. Less than $100 per year per taxpayer would eliminate the planned cuts to education. But proposing any kind of tax increase is a sure road to retirement for anyone in the government.
I'm willing to pay my share for better schools. How about you?

Fred flyer wrote:

<quoted text> We weren't over run with mexicans back then.

Gdude wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, are you prepared to release non-violent "criminals" from California prisons that cost us 425-50,000 per year to house?

speakin the truth wrote:

<quoted text>
outstanding post Tim! well done

Fred flyer wrote:

<quoted text> Gosh, Tim! The old "Let's all pay our fair share....we're all in this together....just another hundred dollars...just another assessment district...just...just...just. .." That worked for about thirty years but guess what? It's NOT just and fair. The "Government" and "Politicians" have bled us dry. Ain't no more water in the well, Tim. However, there ARE a couple of things we could do that COULD buy us a lot more time and put us all on the road to recovery. FIRST GET THE MEXICANS OFF THE BACKS OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS. THEY ARE PARASITES. Next, CAP ANY TAXPAYER FUNDED POSITION OCCUPIED BY A HUMAN AT $50,000 per year total compensation. The deal WAS, way back when, that if you were a public servant you didn't make a lot but you were guaranteed a career that you could live off of. THIRD, get rid of the company called "the federal reserve"...They are also PARASITES. Open the BANK OF CALIFORNIA. Read up on the two (?) states that have their own bank and see why THEY ARE THE ONLY STATES NOT IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE.

The Scream wrote:

<quoted text>
Kindergarten with no aide? When some of you claim that teachers are overpaid or over-pensioned, how EASY do you think it is to control 32 FIVE-YEAR-OLDS by YOURSELF for FOUR HOURS? And actually teach them something -- because a LOT of teaching goes on in K these days. Standards require it. Yes, I've been there; subbed kinder.
In truth, most kinder teachers around here haven't had full-time aides for years. But they'll get one for maybe an hour a day, and that makes a huge diff. NO AIDE AT ALL also makes a huge diff; in the wrong direction.

newguy40 wrote:

<quoted text>
The three most common threads I see from folks like you are...
1.) You must hate children because you want to lay off teachers rather than pay more taxes!
2.) You must want more crime because you want to lay off police rather than pay more taxes!
3.) Unless you let us raise your taxes, we'll have to let criminals out of prison!
As if these were the ONLY places that need trimming!
Of course, you are a UNION man! Wouldn't want us taxpayers looking at contracts and corrupt union practices now would you?

newguy40 wrote:

<quoted text>
The three most common threads I see from folks like you are...
1.) You must hate children because you want to lay off teachers rather than pay more taxes!
2.) You must want more crime because you want to lay off police rather than pay more taxes!
3.) Unless you let us raise your taxes, we'll have to let criminals out of prison!
As if these were the ONLY places that need trimming!
Of course, you are a UNION man! Wouldn't want us taxpayers looking at contracts and corrupt union practices now would you?