I have lived in Culver City for more than 15 years. I don't have any children in school anymore, but I am still interested in Culver City schools. I rarely attend the School Board meetings, but I do often watch the replay on television.
The School Board still has to cut more than $1 million from the budget, and I imagine that the Board is having a hard time deciding what to cut. I have a suggestion.
I am struck by comments made almost every meeting by the Teachers Union President David Mielke. Mr. Mielke keeps asking for different cuts. Each time he tells the board “to keep the cuts as far away from the students as possible.”
I agree. But I am still struck. Does a teacher’s salary really relate to the students or how the students are taught? When my daughter was in school, I don’t think the amount that a teacher was paid played any role in her education.
It seems to me that when there is money around, the Teachers Union has its hand out, asking for every penny. When there is no money around, why doesn't the Teachers Union offer to have the teachers take a cut in pay? Isn’t that fair? Why doesn’t Mr. Mielke offer to have the teachers take a cut instead of telling about everything else to cut except for teachers’ pay?
Wouldn’t it be better for everyone, including the students, if the Teachers Union agreed to take a 2 or 3 percent pay cut to save our schools?
If a teacher is making $60,000 per year, a 3 percent cut would only be about $2,000.
If we have 500 teachers, this would save about $1,000,000. This would do exactly what Mr. Mielke wants. It would make a lot of the cuts as far away from the students as possible. If that is what Mr. Mielke really wants.
This is my suggestion, but it probably makes too much sense.
