Is this better for the students?

Frontiersman editorial board

The recent revelation that the Mat-Su School District is running a large deficit that required nearly 50 lay-offs can be viewed in many ways. For the families directly affected by the lay-offs, it can likely be viewed only as a tragedy for the time being. For the district administration, the school board, the students and parents and the many who will keep their jobs, however, it would be best if they view this as an opportunity. It is an opportunity to change the political posturing and communication problems that have caused so much trouble in the past.

Ultimately, it is the district's budget, and the administration is on the hook for the current problems. Still, each of the parties mentioned above bear some of the responsibility, and all of them should take this opportunity to put the hard feelings of the past aside, and create a new paradigm that focuses upon problem solving and planning that applies the only criterion that should matter -- improved education for the students. As each new decision is made from here on out, one question should be answered in the affirmative. "Is this going to be better for our students?"

The last round of contract negotiations between the district and its two major unions became unpleasant, and none of the parties were particularly thrilled with the outcome. The teachers' union will begin a new round of negotiations with the district soon. The district contends that the last contracts were burdensome enough to cause at least part of the current budget strain. It's too late worry about who is to blame for that. It's not too late for the district and the unions to resolve to cooperate in the next round of negotiations. It's not to late to ask, "Is this going to be better for our students?"

This district has a history of feuds between the administration and the school board that often end with the superintendent's dismissal. The last episode, the Pat Chesbro chapter, was particularly ugly. Parents and students would be better served if the district was more receptive to recommendations from the board, and if the board realized that it can't always get what it wants. A constructive debate is always healthy, but we'll never have a consistent, successful education program as long as small brush fires are allowed to blossom into conflagrations. The board should have its voice, but the administration should also be allowed to press its vision without fear of a trench war every time a board member feels slighted. As we move forward from this difficult chapter in the district, we're left to wonder -- is this going to be better for our students?