ROUND #2! RSU #50 Budget Meeting July 9th, Island Falls Municipal Building

deer_appletree“We are a small school!  Why do we need so much bureaucracy?”

“Why are we paying administration so far above the State average while teachers earn well below?”

“We do not need a curriculum coordinator!  …and for so much money!  Those responsibilities rightly belong to teachers!”

“The RSU has done nothing but cost. We haven’t saved a dime!”

Comments often heard out and about point to reasons, perhaps, that people voted the budget down the first time.  Had the Board listened to them before the vote; REALLY listened, and crafted a child-centered budget leveraging the advantages of their small schools rather than squandering them… … there may be no need for a meeting on Thursday evening.

But they didn’t, and there is.  The Board will take yet another bite at the apple on:

Thursday Evening, July 9th at 6:30pm

@the Island Falls Municipal Building.

YOUR vote will determine the budget that goes to the voters subsequently.    The above comments reflect very real problems in terms of priorities and even mindset in the leadership.  Change is not forthcoming from this Board without you.

Every voice, and every vote matters.

Timbered Classrooms thanks you for your interest.

3 responses to “ROUND #2! RSU #50 Budget Meeting July 9th, Island Falls Municipal Building

  1. Why are you so against a curriculum coordinator? Almost every high achieving school in the state, regardless of size, has one.


    • Thank you for your question – it is a good one.

      There are several reasons that I am against the addition of a curriculum coordinator for our small school(s), but first and foremost, is the visceral reaction of our most expert readers; active and retired professionals, here and elsewhere, faculty and administration….. The idea has been met with any number of eye rolls, head shakes and words I cannot repeat here.

      I believe you may be mistaken about “high performing schools regardless of size”, and I hope you will check again. We have looked at staff rosters of a fair number of schools of similar size to our own, and the only one where we find a Curriculum Coordinator is on MDI. Please remember, though, that the MDI school system attracts top faculty, offers world languages in the early years…. They are clearly not sacrificing anything – their children are not sacrificing anything… … to pay for a Curriculum Coordinator. To be coarse, they can afford it without shortchanging kids.

      A curriculum coordinator never sees a child. The recently retired music teacher that the district is NOT replacing? Saw many. Replacing that teacher and others is not only less expensive, but has a more profound impact on children.

      To close, what the Board fails to comprehend, is that large schools and small ones are different. Small schools serve children and taxpayers better, in many aspects than their larger counterparts. …but NOT if the leadership insists on running them on large school terms. The very fact that, due to our size, we do not NEED a curriculum coordinator; that those closest to the children are BETTER able to provide the same services on a more human scale is an advantage of smaller schools – an advantage squandered at every turn by a Board with large-school expertise and mindset.

      Communities will never understand why this Board so doggedly prioritizes administration; pays them so absurdly above the State average while teachers languish below. …and open positions go unfilled. The Board suffers from a deplorable lack of curiosity about why top faculty would rather eat bees than settle here, pretending its some sort of act of nature instead of their own poor choices.

      As much as I respect Mrs. Burton, I vehemently disagree with her assessment of a curriculum coordinator as “the most important person in the building”. That would be children. Those who spend the most time with them are a close second – faculty. It has become fashionable for Pearson, Marzano et. al. to profit by supplanting the expertise of faculty, but faculty expertise and input is at its most vital in our small schools. We cannot afford to waste it.

      “…trying to make all schools like our largest ones may be disadvantageous to small schools. The “one best system” of education envisioned by many businessmen and lawmakers may be counterproductive to producing effective small, rural schools.

      I know people on both sides of the districts share my views, which, as you can see, are well-rooted in educational expertise and research.

      Thank you again for your question – dialogue is good! I hope you will tell me what you believe a Curriculum Coordinator brings to kids that justifies its priority over faculty, and what small schools have a dedicated position that I may well have missed.


      • I agree, our school system does not need a curriculum coordinator!! Adding another high paying administrative position, (65,000+) as the board does away with other positions, teachers, techs etc, certainly does not benefit our children and community! Let the teachers do the job that they were trained to do, curriculum is a part of that. The board says,”we must consolidate, we can’t afford the schools we have now”! So why add new positions that statistics do not support? There will be a fight to keep Katahdin schools intact as it is, so I for one am absolutely against this new position. If the board feels it necessary to add to the budget, pay the teachers what they deserve!!

        Liked by 1 person

We want to know what YOU think! Post a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s