T-Bird wrote:
Still have 80 minutes to vote tonight! Turnout is big - I had to wait in a line of fifteen people to vote an hour ago. I've never waited to vote in a board of ed election before. THAT is change you can see.

stepanstas wrote:
I'm kind of interested in Patel. I don't get her whole point about yoga in school and whatever but she talked about turning off the lights when school was not in session and switching to recycled paper. I don't really care about the schools going green, but those two things will actually save money.

BrightMoment wrote

Mr. Valentin did not vote to cut 373 teachers. Mr. Valentin is cutting extraneous positions and trying to keep JC's budget in check by making sure that the teachers we are paying are actually teaching kids, not hanging out at Central Office.

It seems that Mr. Valentin has a much better "sense"
of fiscal management than either McCann or Dehere.

Horse wrote:
BrightMoment, tell me why I should vote for Angel Valentin. Because Steve said so?

Another City/County Employee for elected office?

RE: Mr. Valentin voting to "lay off teachers" because he voted for raises.

Please understand that the layoffs are actually what most of the public wants.

No mandated position will be laid off. For example, the federal IDEA law requires that there be no more than 8 students in an inclusion classroom. If there are 9 children, there will still be 2 inclusion teachers next year. That is a mandated position. The positions that will be cut are those "extra" positions that most people decry at public forums and on websites like this, those "fluffy" positions that do not directly service children, (like many of those at Central Office). Those teachers, because of seniority, will return to schools and go back to being classroom teachers. Yes, some of the new classroom teachers will be "bumped" out and laid off. If teachers received no raises, there would be 2 options: a) lay no one off and leave everyone in the positions they are in, including those fluff ones or 2) cut those fluff positions and have a whole bunch of extra people running around with nothing do to. Couldn't even send them all back to "new" classrooms, because where would you physically house those classrooms, and where would the money for the desks, bookshelves, curriculuar supplies, etc; come from?

Mr. Valentin did not vote to cut 373 teachers. Mr. Valentin is cutting extraneous positions and trying to keep JC's budget in check by making sure that the teachers we are paying are actually teaching kids, not hanging out at Central Office.

stepanstas wrote:
Okay, what about Dehere? Like McCann, he did well in the interview.

mia wrote:
...We need board members who will stand up to the teachers' union like Jerry McCann (11A). By orchestrating the defeat of the contract, the teachers, under recently passed state law, will pay a measly 1.5% or on average $750 PER YEAR for their insurance but we save $4 million in health insurance costs! Listen I don't care for his personality either but these economic times demand tough people who can read a budget and financials.....

My second choice is Sterling Waterman (3A) who regularly attends Board of Ed meetings so he has some idea what's going on, unlike the other candidates. My only reservation is that now that he's supported by the Teachers' Union he is anti- school choice. The charter schools on average get about 67% of the funding we spend on regular (non-special ed) students. Many are doing a fine job.

As for third choice.... I'm torn....

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

stepanstas wrote:
I don't know too much about McCann other than what was said on this board, so I had a negative opinion of him. But the other day I watched that clip and he seemed most aware of whats going on there.

Sure he does, because nobody - NOBODY - not the other candidates, other board members, the "media" as Mia likes to fashion herself, ever questions him.

Mia says: "It's been repeatedly mentioned that over 1,100 teachers have no classroom assignments". Yes, it's been said repeatedly by McCann. Does anyone ever stop, just for a second to think what that would mean? 1,100 teachers - what is that, a half of all teachers? A third? For reference, at any point in time, the NYC public schools - a district more than 30 times the size of ours - has 600 to 700 unassigned teachers in its "rubber room" as reported last week on WNYC.

Similar with the pulled-out-of-his-hat "373 teachers will be laid off" if the contract is ratified. Please, take 30 seconds to think about how does one arrive at such precision, what would be involved, whether or not individual teachers are already identified for layoff (which would be necessary to speak with such precision) and you quickly realize that, yet again, the man is lying.

You've always struck me as better than this, Mia. How do you buy into a lieing convict with a 30 year history of contorting his rhetoric to fit the prevailing wind? I know, I know - I wasn't here way back when and don't have all the backstory. You know what, I'm becoming convinced that is a good thing. The people who aren't skewed by the warped events of the past here probably can better see things for what they are in many cases.

stepanstas wrote:
I don't know too much about McCann other than what was said on this board, so I had a negative opinion of him. But the other day I watched that clip and he seemed most aware of whats going on there.