Regarding the Fairfield Taxpayer High School Class Size Analysis, there is a telling statement in the middle of the post, …the purpose of this exercise is to identify courses that seem to have limited student demand so that the Board of Education can consider whether they are cost effective. Why is this so enlightening? 1) FT must not feel the BOE is competent enough to run an analysis, so it did one for them. 2) FT asks the BOE to consider the cost effectiveness of these “limited student demand” courses, yet it doesn’t trust their budget request. 3) FT did not include the number of staff in their analysis, typical of the consistent cherry picking of data, making it difficult to determine cost/benefit- but they imply there is mismanagement and waste. 4) FT assumes that the BOE has not looked at this as a potential source of savings. Program cuts made last year prove this is not the case. I’m not against looking for opportunities for savings, but, if you’ve been following the budget development, it’s unfair and unhelpful to do what FT is doing in the manner they are doing it.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:51:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015