The superintendent of schools and the board of education appear to be out of synchronization with the school district parents and taxpayers. While they continue their push for runaway spending, the rest of us are reeling from the confluence of this year's 9 percent school budget increase in spite of a negative vote, massive property tax increases, the uncertain additional effect of property re-evaluations and the recent decision to build a new library. While there are numerous families in the district who have to decide how to prioritize meager incomes between food, fuel, medicine, mortgage payments or house taxes, the school authorities first proposed a Ferrari but have now downsized to a Mercedes SUV. Dr. Bozzomo's discussion on choosing between Italian marble and a Home Depot slate was illuminating.

Why do we need either? Widows with children, struggling with large mortgages; seniors on fixed incomes that were adequate for years before the massive tax increases; and those who live from hand-to-mouth cannot absorb unnecessary costs that do not clearly add value to our children's education.

We are not getting our money's worth as it is. Children from other Long Island districts perform equally or better than ours on standardized tests. Moving the sixth grade to the high school building and then modifying it to segregate them adds nothing to the quality of their education.

The move is predicated on a demographic study whose author, when he was last here, cast doubt on his own study's growth projection. No alternate resolutions to a possible enrollment growth have been seriously considered. One alternate that the authorities refuse to discuss is to increase class sizes by one or two from the present 21 to 26 (K-12) to 23 to 28. The recognized limit is 30. Thus the 35 classrooms of students in each elementary school could absorb 140 new students. Another suggestion put forward is to reduce to 6 from 12 the rooms set aside in each school for specific activities. This would house another 150 students. That's nearly half of the projected (uncertain) growth. A similar review could be made of the high school room usage.

Similarly, the proposal to buy property and build a new bus terminal without a thorough appraisal of alternatives, such as outsourcing bus service, is wrongheaded. At one meeting it was reported that it had been looked into; but a student's mother thought that she would prefer knowing the bus driver's name, so it was dropped. That's the kind of forthright and objective analysis we are getting from our School Board to substantiate the $4.1 million item in the bond proposal.

It is interesting to note that only the superintendent and the architect have made presentations in favor of the bond issue. The board vice chair pointed out at one meeting that the board had not yet voted in favor of the bond issue. The chairperson has never said a word at these meetings on behalf of the plan. It is apparent from this that the board is being run by the superintendent. This board has been elected to provide the leadership guidance to run a viable school district. Where is their direction to the superintendent to reduce costs by a stringent and objective review of activities? Where is their direction to the superintendent to limit activities to providing quality education as opposed to offering extravagant and unlimited opportunities in every spectrum?

The proposed plan is presently a house of cards hidden in lengthy "PowerPoint" presentations. It lacks the foundation of relevance, incisive review and clear functional need that is absolutely necessary to support a successful bond referendum. Pertinent questions have been asked, but the factual answers are not forthcoming because the authorities refuse to divulge the weakness in their plan. They want run-away spending.

Paul Early