Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Tanner Hamlett wrote on May 6, 2009 1:12 PM:
1) 'Higher-Ups'. I am not making an assumption.
2) This is a public labor issue; therefore, public employees' unions are very much involved. To say that the union has nothing to do with it is just plain ignorant, and borderline stupid.
3) You oversimplify the process of consolidation. The vote of the people makes the end-game decision, but there is an entire game to be played beforehand (i.e. how it's going to work). Again, another asinine commment on your part.
bfrazier wrote on May 4, 2009 10:50 PM:
In the mean time, ask your school board members how much the OSAA's giant agenda actually costs - ask them not only for the athletic budget (and Athletic director's cost out of the Administrative budget) but also the cost of all the transportation to all the events far and wide. They likely won't have an answer even close.
As for what to cut, since it really sounds like something has to give, I'd still rather cut those programs that weren't so closely aligned with so many family wage job skills found in today's (and tomorrow's) rural Oregon job market, and certainly not prior to others less central expenditures.
citizen wrote on May 2, 2009 6:07 PM:
Sara Bellum wrote on May 2, 2009 1:42 PM:
teacher wrote on May 2, 2009 5:16 AM:
Instead of trying to cut and slash things that we need, and accuse and offend, we all really need to be banding together to decide how to solve the long-term funding issues of education in this state. This will require thinking outside the box and demanding more from our budget and lawmakers.
Q wrote on May 1, 2009 2:45 PM:
If we're going to pull stops on the OSAA and consider athletics that are listed under their organization... did any of you realize that CHOIR is a recognized SPORT under OSAA???
Do you know how many hours goes into becoming a lettered member?
Have any of you done studies on the correlation between mathmatics ability and musical ability? I'd think not. That's why I had to be the one to 'tutor' so many of the football players from my class.
If it wasn't for people like me, who in high school were in choir, and would take the time to help others... some of those STAR players in the day would have NEVER been permitted to play!
Think about that before you knock the validity of art programs. It's the art students who keep culture in the schools... and many of whom receive ACADEMIC scholarships... unlike the players who depend on their physical prowess.
For the shame of it all... Consolidate already and SAVE OUR SCHOOLS!!!
just saying wrote on May 1, 2009 1:02 PM:
You're right. You don't get my point.
Quotes from your earlier post that I disagree with:
1) "The only people against it are those who benefit from the inane redundancy (i.e. two superintendants, admin staff, etc.)." I know several of the people that this statement would encompass. They are not against it. You are making assumptions and being hostile (for some unknown reason; possible dislike for people who have higher education/income?) in the process.
2) "Thank your local public employees' union representative for this exercise in idiocy." While exposing your anti-union viewpoint with this statement, the truth is that unions have nothing to do with it.
...and from your most recent post:
3) "I think it is about time that the higher-ups start giving it serious consideration." Once again, contrary to your assumptions, it is not up to the "higher-ups". It's up to a vote of the people within the districts proposing consolidation. That would normally start with a petitioning process. The "higher-ups" couldn't stop it, even if they wanted to, if the people voted it in.
bfrazier wrote on May 1, 2009 12:06 PM:
So you have three "dollars" and can "buy" one course of action - use common sense, classes that have an economic and life long relevance for a wide majority of student should remain. Athletic to could obviously be handled in a vastly more cost effective manner than we have been saddled with by the OSAA.
bfrazier wrote on May 1, 2009 12:00 PM:
Public schools have the responsibility of educating every single child who shows up and they have higher educational standards for their teachers, just for starters - so that's why.
Lifeisgood! wrote on May 1, 2009 10:22 AM:
Tanner Hamlett wrote on May 1, 2009 9:36 AM:
I guess I just don't get your point, because it seems you agree with me.
As for starting with the people, I think it is a topic that has been talked about in the area for over 50 years.
I think it is about time that the higher-ups start giving it serious consideration.
Oh Really? wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:58 AM:
AnOldDude wrote on Apr 30, 2009 6:55 AM:
they are your children you are failing
Stay at home Moms, recently unemployed, how about swing shifters. A REAL effort by every one and our schools would be better places by the time the economy turns around
JVW wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:34 PM:
I agree that bus trips for away games need to be drastically curtailed. The state sports association needs to get real about the distances and costs involved not to mention missing classes.
And I agree with Karen Helland that you should not be cutting programs that lead directly to the workforce, even if they are smaller enrollments. I was a guidance counselor in NY state for 20 years. During that time about 25% of high school graduates eventually got a 4 year degree. I do not think that number has changed appreciably. Though students need training for life, and an appreciation for lifelong education, they don't all need a 4yr degree. It is a shame we don't have more vocational programs in our high schools and our community college.
bfrazier wrote on Apr 29, 2009 6:52 PM:
teacher wrote on Apr 29, 2009 5:47 PM:
Duh.
In your little world, teachers would be working with a hundred and four tempature and be writing a thank you note to the public for allowing us to do so.
Secondly, do you know how many teachers have literally hundreds of sick days stockpiled because we NEVER take a day off unless our child is ill or something is really wrong? I am new in a district and I have over 50 I haven't used.
This is a funding problem. Quit using the teachers who are working hard to make a difference as your scapegoat.
I am so tired of apologizing for getting paid even though I have a masters degree, getting a normal amount of sick-leave and having some health benefits. How DARE I expect to make a good living for working hard!
Coquillian wrote on Apr 29, 2009 4:57 PM:
nascargrl8899 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 3:16 PM:
just saying wrote on Apr 29, 2009 2:09 PM:
1) I don't know anyone personally who opposes consolidation. That includes several school staff members, administration, the CB superintendant, etc. Manufacturing villains doesn't help.
2) Consolidation starts with the people. The districts can't just go to work one day, make a couple of phone calls and make it happen. It requires petitioning and votes of the people. Get the ball rolling instead of just complaining about it.
3) I would imagine that, in any business, the boss would make more than the scores of employees in their charge. Your bet would seem to be a safe (and obvious) one.
Just saying...
Gene wrote on Apr 29, 2009 12:54 PM:
School Districts need to get back to the Basics until the economy improves.
Gene wrote on Apr 29, 2009 12:49 PM:
Tanner Hamlett wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:59 AM:
The only people against it are those who benefit from the inane redundancy (i.e. two superintendants, admin staff, etc.).
I bet De La Vergne and Hollensteiner both make significantly more than a typical teacher or school nurse. Just a guess.
Thank your local public employees' union representative for this exercise in idiocy.
dan wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:40 AM:
Local Lady wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:30 AM:







The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines