Letter: Spend money on education, not bureaucracy

To the Editor:

It’ll be hard, tough — “devastating,” a couple of school officials called it but …

“From my perspective as a superintendent,” Baldwin said, keeping three elementary supervisors is a “non-negotiable” need.

“It’s a totally different environment,” Baldwin said. “The bottom line: Leadership matters.”

I agree 100%, Ms. Baldwin. “Leadership matters.”

But just so I understand this: You are saying three administrators supersede improved curriculum? This really makes you sound more like a bureaucrat than a school superintendent whose priority should be focused on learning.

Despite fewer students, the reason we had a 5.5% increase in last year’s school budget was — according to you — because we had to solve IEP inequities.

Well, this year IEP is still the problem. In fact, it has been a problem for every one of the 19 years I’ve lived in Ridgefield. Time to come up with something else, I think.

Naturally, parents fall for your edu-speak because they want the best for their child. That’s totally understandable but does it make sense?

Well, I’m one resident who is willing to spend more of my money on education but not on more bureaucracy. So I will vote ‘no’ on this budget especially when other towns in our DRG have requested far less.

For parents who, like me, want more dollars spent in the classroom, here’s a thought: 1,262 kids are issued Chromebooks costing $189,300. How about you buy that $150 Chromebook for your child; not a big deal for a wealthy community, right?

It would be a tiny bit of tax relief for your neighbors or it could mean more dollars for the classroom, if you can make it clear to your superintendent that you want your tax dollars spent in the classroom — not for more administrative bureaucracy.

PTA, BoE and all voters, remember: “the bottom line, leadership matters.”

Jan Rifkinson

New Road, April 17