Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Conversation with SC Chair, Dave Whelan
I've been meaning to update this blog forever, but between my main blog, rather large assortment of friends and family - and no doubt some laziness - a particular story was never written when it should have been. In any event, I've been having some chats with the School Committee Chair, Dave Whelan. While I may not agree with everything he's said (for example, that Swampscott wouldn't have passed an override to save Machon - we just don't know), most of what he's said makes sense. Here's his general thesis.
Swampscott, meanwhile, receives the same rate as Concord, Massachusetts. Concord isn't just an historical town, it's also a very well-to-do town, with a median family income of almost $116,000 - $33,000 a year more than Swampscott's median family. Furthermore, people will note that almost all the towns that are struggling the worst this year are on this under-17.5 list: Saugus at 16.2, Stoneham at 14.6, Gloucester and others. It isn't a coincidence that most of these towns are facing large layoffs, school closings and fee hikes, just inan attempt to keep up.
Whelan largely blames Peterson, McGee and other local State Representatives and Senators. They are the ones who create these formulas and certainly, he notes, and by just about any count Swampscott does not receive its fair share. Certainly, no one is clear of any blame, but it's not as if Peterson and McGee are trying to keep Swampscott down. It's just a difficult issue to build a coalition around when so few towns are unfairly impacted like Swampscott and Nahant. It's going to take a lot of work to convince the majority of the state to change the formula, but it's a worthy goal - and the quicker it happens, the more teachers and schools Swampscott and other towns will save.
A lot of people may ask why Swampscott deserves more than 14.3%: after all, just look at all themillion five million dollar homes on the beach. The town may be wealthy, but certainly not as wealthy as most of the other towns sharing spots on that list: just go to Metrowest and almost every city or town has at least the same median family income and property value. Heck, toss out the few families living on the ocean in Swampscott and things would be a lot different: most of Swampscott, contrary to popular myth, is very middle class (not that I have to tell most residents that). We may be lawyers, but we're also teachers, nurses and police officers too. Heck, Massachusetts is so expensive nowadays that even many practicing lawyers and doctors are within the boundaries of the middle class.
I don't know the specifics of what any of the answers are - it's a real complex problem that calls for real experts, of which I am not. Furthermore complicating the problem is the fact that restoring Chapter 70 funding is only a band aid solution. If Swampscott had the extra $500,000 this year, maybe we could have saved Machon - but what about the year after that? What about the next elementary school, next year? A lot of people in this town want to close Hadley, as well. The real reason Swampscott, as well as most other towns in Massachusetts, are suffering has everything to do with rising rates of health care, oil and special education costs. It's different problems, for a different blog, yet helps explain just why most towns in Massachusetts are struggling to keep up. Until we tackle those problems, as a state, Chapter 70 is an issue we can wrack our brains over all day, yet will be a small piece of the pie compared to a few more years of 10-15% rising rates at Blue Cross, Blue Shield.
As you probably know Swampscott (and Nahant) are two of the 50 or so communities that receive less that the allotted 17.5% reimbursement rate under chapter 70. That rather remarkable bit of inequity costs the Town of Swampscott over $500k in educational aid.... It should also be noted that we have been living with this inequity for years. While this issue is not the sole reason for the financial crunch that we deal with here in Swampscott, it surely has not helped.Whelan also forwarded me a few different statistics, though I'll admit a few of them can't be opened because I don't have Microsoft Excel. However, one of the interesting lists he sent over shows all the towns that receive less than the 17.5% standard state reimbursement rate. Why is it so interesting? Lynnfield and Marblehead aren't even on that list - meaning, they receive at least 17.5%. Don't they have higher median family incomes and property values? Yes.
Swampscott, meanwhile, receives the same rate as Concord, Massachusetts. Concord isn't just an historical town, it's also a very well-to-do town, with a median family income of almost $116,000 - $33,000 a year more than Swampscott's median family. Furthermore, people will note that almost all the towns that are struggling the worst this year are on this under-17.5 list: Saugus at 16.2, Stoneham at 14.6, Gloucester and others. It isn't a coincidence that most of these towns are facing large layoffs, school closings and fee hikes, just inan attempt to keep up.
Whelan largely blames Peterson, McGee and other local State Representatives and Senators. They are the ones who create these formulas and certainly, he notes, and by just about any count Swampscott does not receive its fair share. Certainly, no one is clear of any blame, but it's not as if Peterson and McGee are trying to keep Swampscott down. It's just a difficult issue to build a coalition around when so few towns are unfairly impacted like Swampscott and Nahant. It's going to take a lot of work to convince the majority of the state to change the formula, but it's a worthy goal - and the quicker it happens, the more teachers and schools Swampscott and other towns will save.
A lot of people may ask why Swampscott deserves more than 14.3%: after all, just look at all the
I don't know the specifics of what any of the answers are - it's a real complex problem that calls for real experts, of which I am not. Furthermore complicating the problem is the fact that restoring Chapter 70 funding is only a band aid solution. If Swampscott had the extra $500,000 this year, maybe we could have saved Machon - but what about the year after that? What about the next elementary school, next year? A lot of people in this town want to close Hadley, as well. The real reason Swampscott, as well as most other towns in Massachusetts, are suffering has everything to do with rising rates of health care, oil and special education costs. It's different problems, for a different blog, yet helps explain just why most towns in Massachusetts are struggling to keep up. Until we tackle those problems, as a state, Chapter 70 is an issue we can wrack our brains over all day, yet will be a small piece of the pie compared to a few more years of 10-15% rising rates at Blue Cross, Blue Shield.
Labels: chapter 70, dan whelan, schools, Swampscott