|
|
Post by oldetowne on Jan 28, 2009 7:43:54 GMT -5
The superintendent's budget that was "unveiled" last night calls for a 3.88% increase in the amount of money needed to service 31 fewer students.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jan 28, 2009 13:51:51 GMT -5
I believe the figures are:
Student Population 2008-2009 (actual) 3,833
Student Population 2009-2010 (guestimate) 3,802
Difference (guestimate) -31
I would call such a decrease negligible at less than one percent. I hope that you are not suggesting that because of this -31 count there should be a substantial decrease in the WPS budget. I believe that there are more substantial reasons for a budget-otomy.
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Jan 29, 2009 5:41:47 GMT -5
education-challenged
northern urban neighbors
to cap those
empties |
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Feb 1, 2009 9:59:03 GMT -5
Our very well paid, town-budget unfriendly, NewYorker, superintendent wants to hear from you. Posted on the WPS website:
So give him an ear full, you cash-strapped taxpayers of Wethersfield.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Feb 1, 2009 11:13:53 GMT -5
Though Mr. Kohlhagen ends the provided quote with "all comments will be considered and accepted in confidence," he apparently forgets that this type of communication is not exempt under the Federal and State Freedom of Information Acts. All communications in this context are what I call FOI-able - by any member of the public. The same applies to most but not all communications with the Town's administrators, employees and members of boards and commissions. So, say what you must. Please be judicious. Remember, anyone can insist on access to your comments. FOI day is fast approaching; protect, promote and enjoy the "sunshine" which our President Obama has ordered ( www.whitehouse.gov See executive orders). |
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Apr 6, 2009 2:59:34 GMT -5
120
student cars sniffed outside but
no faculty cars!
|
|
|
|
Post by pruffy on Apr 19, 2009 0:49:01 GMT -5
120
student cars sniffed outside but
no faculty cars!
Actually, as a student of WHS and a rather outspoken libertarian, I was appalled when I heard that the teachers cars were not searched. Whatever happened to the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause? If they are going to search the entire parking lot (which in my opinion is an atrocity to begin with) they should search EVERYONE'S vehicle. I could easily make the argument that a member of the faculty in possession of illegal substances would be exponentially more of a threat to the well being and safety of the students than one student (yes they only caught one) with paraphernalia. In addition to this, I want to know why parents were not called and asked for consent to these searches. These cars are property, and most are not property of the children. Many of these children are under the age of 18 which brings in yet another legal question. I've heard stories from former state employees about the misconduct of police officers during these drug searches (planting drugs, etc.) and I think it would be in the best interests of the rights of the students to require parental consent/parental presence during these searches. I also found it astounding that the majority of the student body has little or no knowledge or has had little or no education about what their rights are. In an attempt to combat this, I've begun to hand out educational fliers around school pertaining to the proper usage of rights. Lastly, let's not not forget the accuracy of these searches. Out of the 5 potential hits, only 1 turned out to be correct. 20% accuracy, in my humble opinion anyway, doesn't seem like a very solid reason to be violating students' privacy. |
|
