As stated on the PASS website, if the levy doesn't pass, then the district will lay off 20 teachers.

Rather than lay off 20 teachers, would it not be more beneficial to ask 20 teachers with 30 years or more of service to retire? They will collect a pension, but what will the 20 teachers that get laid off collect? Unemployment? What would the teachers who retire collect? 95% of their pay?

If the 20 teachers retire rather than put teachers out of work, the savings would amount to around 1.8 million. We would then have enough for busing and cover the $900,000 deficit at the end of the 2009-2010 school year.

The question is then, will the 30 years plus teachers be considerate of their peers or will they let them be laid off?

The additional $900,000 left could then be used for the tutors, Library Aides, the Attendance Officer, the Office Aides and the Computer Aides.

The teachers could then fill in as the Lunchroom and Playground Aides saving the district the $56,900 for those positions.

I'm sorry if that makes sense or is the logical solution to this dilema.

I wonder if the 30+ teachers would do that for their community and their peers? It is food for thought.

After all, as they say "it is for the kids". Isn't that what they are always telling us? Will they come up to the plate for the community and the children? Is there a solid good reason why we shouldn't ask them to do if for the community and the children?

Those items jobs listed above that we could keep total $404,600. That means we would have $495,400 to carry over to the next year!

In these current economic times and the hardships that many are going through, it would seem like the proper thing to do. Why risk losing some good teachers by laying them off when all could reap benefits from this idea?

I think it would be easy to figure out who should retire. Take the ones with the most years and request they take retirement first.

Think about it teachers. You are asking the community to give when they can't, couldn't you give when you can? Would you experience hardships like those you would place on the community you work for or the students you teach?

On another note, rather than have an Administrator for every 400 students (which by the way IS NOT a state requirement, but just a preference by someone the last Superintendent couldn't tell me who), could we just go to the state minimum on that? There's an additional savings to our district.

Also, could we not ask the Administration staff to take at least a 10% pay cut? Would that really hurt them as much as this 9.5 mil levy that want passed would?

Martin Fleming