Tuesday, April 29, 2008
K-8 Master Plan, Today's Election
In preparation for today's election, I read the Reporter's Q&A with all of today's candidates. There will be no endorsements from this site, don't worry. However, I'm very glad that Maureen Thomsen pointed readers to the town's K-8 Master Plan, thus accomplishing more than the Reporter has all year in one sentence. With just that move, she's earned my vote - albeit there's only two people running for two positions, so that's not a huge accomplishment in and of itself. That said, here's my brief summation and opinion of the 3/11 Master Plan, feel free to argue and bicker my points, as well as provide your own thoughts, news and commentary, in the comments.
Basically, the Master Plan boils down to 3 major options, with slight variances in each group: Do we want to organize our town with neighborhood schools, grade-level schools or consolidated (read: huger) schools. Educationally, the first option is definitely the best model. From grades K-4, it's shown that not only do class sizes make a huge educational difference, but school sizes do too. After around the 4th or 5th grade, both school size and class size become less important, as access to better and broader classes become far more meaningful than the sizes of a class or building.
The Best Option for Swampscott: To that end, the N1 (first option of the neighborhood group of plans) is by far the best option for the students of this town. It would ultimately cost the town about $10 million more than the other plans, but what's $10 million when the other plans will all cost the town upwards of 45-50, after state reimbursement. If we're going to spend the money, let's do it right.
The Best Option for Clarke-School Students/Parents: Other "neighborhood" options involve closing Hadley, which can mean a variety of things. N6 was a great option for selfish reasons - since the increase in school size would be almost entirely absorbed by Stanley/Hadley students (Clarke having a modest 270 students compared to Stanley at 680 in that scenario, both K-4 schools in the option). N6 is still a good option for the town, because the class sizes would still be small and it would save $10 million compared to N1, but it's not the best option for the students who would be sent to the new Stanley, in that hypothetical scenario. The other neighborhood options only get worse from there, for everyone, though many of them are still better options than the ones below.
Intriguing options: All of the grade-level options were interesting in that they would certainly bring complete parity to Swampscott schools, since the entire town would send students of particular grades to particular schools, but ultimately there are three reasons why the current grade-based proposals in the Master Plan don't make sense and would be unpopular: First, the school housing grades 1-4 would be huge, almost 700 students, meaning there'd be no educational gain. Second, building a Super Stanley, to house those 700 students, wouldn't represent any meaningful savings compared to other options. Most importantly (for the voters who would pass this, anyway), it would mean an extra trip for Mom and Dad, or an expensive bus system to be paid Mom and Dad yearly. Creating a grade-based system is certainly intriguing, but these options need tweaking.
Bad options: Consolidation. The consolidation plans aren't going to save anywhere near as much money as people would like, for the simple fact that such a plan would require a town bus system that ultimately would come out of the pockets of parents, and certainly deprives this community of it's biggest plus: an actual community feel in its public schools. Even worse is the fact that construction costs would be just as large as any of the other projects and even more disruptive since these would be large-scale projects. Consolidation would also mean operating two very large K-8 schools, which is just a bad idea from an educational standpoint, as well as fostering a greater likelihood of disparity.
The Master Plan
Basically, the Master Plan boils down to 3 major options, with slight variances in each group: Do we want to organize our town with neighborhood schools, grade-level schools or consolidated (read: huger) schools. Educationally, the first option is definitely the best model. From grades K-4, it's shown that not only do class sizes make a huge educational difference, but school sizes do too. After around the 4th or 5th grade, both school size and class size become less important, as access to better and broader classes become far more meaningful than the sizes of a class or building.
The Best Option for Swampscott: To that end, the N1 (first option of the neighborhood group of plans) is by far the best option for the students of this town. It would ultimately cost the town about $10 million more than the other plans, but what's $10 million when the other plans will all cost the town upwards of 45-50, after state reimbursement. If we're going to spend the money, let's do it right.
The Best Option for Clarke-School Students/Parents: Other "neighborhood" options involve closing Hadley, which can mean a variety of things. N6 was a great option for selfish reasons - since the increase in school size would be almost entirely absorbed by Stanley/Hadley students (Clarke having a modest 270 students compared to Stanley at 680 in that scenario, both K-4 schools in the option). N6 is still a good option for the town, because the class sizes would still be small and it would save $10 million compared to N1, but it's not the best option for the students who would be sent to the new Stanley, in that hypothetical scenario. The other neighborhood options only get worse from there, for everyone, though many of them are still better options than the ones below.
Intriguing options: All of the grade-level options were interesting in that they would certainly bring complete parity to Swampscott schools, since the entire town would send students of particular grades to particular schools, but ultimately there are three reasons why the current grade-based proposals in the Master Plan don't make sense and would be unpopular: First, the school housing grades 1-4 would be huge, almost 700 students, meaning there'd be no educational gain. Second, building a Super Stanley, to house those 700 students, wouldn't represent any meaningful savings compared to other options. Most importantly (for the voters who would pass this, anyway), it would mean an extra trip for Mom and Dad, or an expensive bus system to be paid Mom and Dad yearly. Creating a grade-based system is certainly intriguing, but these options need tweaking.
Bad options: Consolidation. The consolidation plans aren't going to save anywhere near as much money as people would like, for the simple fact that such a plan would require a town bus system that ultimately would come out of the pockets of parents, and certainly deprives this community of it's biggest plus: an actual community feel in its public schools. Even worse is the fact that construction costs would be just as large as any of the other projects and even more disruptive since these would be large-scale projects. Consolidation would also mean operating two very large K-8 schools, which is just a bad idea from an educational standpoint, as well as fostering a greater likelihood of disparity.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Whelan's Appeal and the Solution
Every once in a while, School Committee Chair David Whelan sends out a mass email essentially about how Swampscott is continually screwed by the State of Massachusetts in Chapter 70 funds compared to other cities and towns across the Commonwealth. We receive less money per children than towns that are comparable to us. Often, even wealthier communities than Swampscott do better in terms of Chapter 70 funding per child. Whelan almost always has a solid point, and the most recent email - "Another View of Chapter 70" is no different, but ultimately David's line of argument is doomed to failure.
Here's the gist of what he has to say:
The second flaw, the one that fatally wounds David's argument, is the fact that by comparing Swampscott to Lynnfield, Marblehead and others, he's actually pitting cities and towns against each other. For too long, that's how politics has worked on Beacon Hill - and as long as that's the way things work there, Swampscott is always going to be one of the big losers. Swampscott will just never have enough leverage to receive more than its fair share; it'll take another 3 years to receive just the 17.5% Chapter 70 funding (which is what David is asking for). David's arguments, while correct, end up in dividing his own natural base to be conquered - manipulated only by human nature. Bigger cities and towns, with more political clout than a freshman legislator, don't even have to work hard to protect the status quo, because natural allies like Swampscott, Marblehead and Lynnfield are already feuding.
A far more effective way of addressing the problems of state aid funding (or a lack thereof) is in underscoring its universal problems - which, if solved, would do even more to address the current nightmare than reforming Chapter 70's formula for every town. Each and every town across Massachusetts is facing difficult economic times - some far worse than Swampscott (and that's saying something). Ultimately, the real solutions to our economic problems are solutions that will positively effect each and every municipality across the Commonwealth - from Swampscott to Lynn to New Bedford to Pittsfield.
So, Ryan, if David's wrong - what should Swampscott be doing? Of course, that's the big question, isn't it? Well, Swampscott needs to work with municipalities that are facing similar problems - which is certainly something David is trying to do - but that alone isn't a winning coalition. Small, fairly-well-to-do towns that don't receive their fair share aren't going to overcome the stink at Beacon Hill. Does anyone honestly think there are state legislators who serve these towns that don't want to see Chapter 70 changed? Maybe some could do more, but if only towns like Swampscott represent the coalition for change on Chapter 70, we're tilting at wind mills.
Furthermore, since there just isn't enough money to go around, Swampscott's gains would be Lynn's detriment - and I don't think there's a whole ton of people in this town that think urban communities have too much money to fund their schools. Neither do towns that are similar to Swampscott, yet aren't screwed over by Chapter 70: they're facing difficult times too. It should be obvious that picking fights among communities facing similar problems, even if some are facing stiffer consequences, isn't a winning strategy for change. It would make more political sense to create larger coalitions and go after common solutions.
The biggest political winner, in my book, would be to create a .5%-1% income tax increase specifically geared toward funding schools across Massachusetts on a per-child basis. Every city and town would stand to benefit and it would be more than just a band-aid approach to a solution. It would also benefit towns like Swampscott most - it will act as a security net for when municipalities eventually get screwed over by arcane educational formulas, with little means for state recourse. At some point, most every city or town is going to get screwed over by difficult-to-understand and even-harder-to-change formulas, so every city and town stands to gain by a larger base funding mechanism.
If school committees across the Commonwealth came out in favor of such a measure, it would be a solution to the problem that everyday legislators could get behind. Ultimately, any state legislators fearing the T-Word could just blame it on Celluci, to boot, because he's the one who set Massachusetts up for failure by pushing through tax cuts that were too steep to meet core services. Restoring just some of them could fix the failed experiment while keeping the state fiscally grounded with a still-modest income tax rate compared to the other 49 states in the union. What other solution exists that won't set up scenarios where cities and towns become too busy fighting each other to work together, that actually addresses the revenue problem and does so in a way that would be quick to implement and wouldn't cost an arm and a leg? I'm all ears.
Here's the gist of what he has to say:
How does Wellesley with almost three times the income per today’s Boston Globe get $105 more per child? How does Lynnfield get almost $600 [more] per child given their similar level of income per the referenced Globe article?Of course, as I've said, at no point is David actually wrong. There probably aren't two people in Swampscott who don't get that. Unfortunately, though, while David is right on the merits, his argument fails to overcome two fundamental flaws. The first is that there just isn't enough cookies in the cookie jar to go around since Celluci drove through this state's last major tax cut. No matter how the cookies are divvied up, there are going to be some towns and some kids who get screwed over. Heck, even the towns that do 'well' in Whelan's analysis are facing tough economic times - despite the fact that they benefit from the overly-complicated and fundamentally flawed Chapter 70 formulas. The fact that every city and town across Massachusetts is facing similar problems with the current formula means that there isn't a huge incentive for rank and file state legislators to fix Swampscott's problems - because in order for Beacon Hill to fix our problems, it's going to have to fix the bigger ones first (lest other towns register similar complaints to our current ones).
The second flaw, the one that fatally wounds David's argument, is the fact that by comparing Swampscott to Lynnfield, Marblehead and others, he's actually pitting cities and towns against each other. For too long, that's how politics has worked on Beacon Hill - and as long as that's the way things work there, Swampscott is always going to be one of the big losers. Swampscott will just never have enough leverage to receive more than its fair share; it'll take another 3 years to receive just the 17.5% Chapter 70 funding (which is what David is asking for). David's arguments, while correct, end up in dividing his own natural base to be conquered - manipulated only by human nature. Bigger cities and towns, with more political clout than a freshman legislator, don't even have to work hard to protect the status quo, because natural allies like Swampscott, Marblehead and Lynnfield are already feuding.
A far more effective way of addressing the problems of state aid funding (or a lack thereof) is in underscoring its universal problems - which, if solved, would do even more to address the current nightmare than reforming Chapter 70's formula for every town. Each and every town across Massachusetts is facing difficult economic times - some far worse than Swampscott (and that's saying something). Ultimately, the real solutions to our economic problems are solutions that will positively effect each and every municipality across the Commonwealth - from Swampscott to Lynn to New Bedford to Pittsfield.
A Better Way
So, Ryan, if David's wrong - what should Swampscott be doing? Of course, that's the big question, isn't it? Well, Swampscott needs to work with municipalities that are facing similar problems - which is certainly something David is trying to do - but that alone isn't a winning coalition. Small, fairly-well-to-do towns that don't receive their fair share aren't going to overcome the stink at Beacon Hill. Does anyone honestly think there are state legislators who serve these towns that don't want to see Chapter 70 changed? Maybe some could do more, but if only towns like Swampscott represent the coalition for change on Chapter 70, we're tilting at wind mills.
Furthermore, since there just isn't enough money to go around, Swampscott's gains would be Lynn's detriment - and I don't think there's a whole ton of people in this town that think urban communities have too much money to fund their schools. Neither do towns that are similar to Swampscott, yet aren't screwed over by Chapter 70: they're facing difficult times too. It should be obvious that picking fights among communities facing similar problems, even if some are facing stiffer consequences, isn't a winning strategy for change. It would make more political sense to create larger coalitions and go after common solutions.
The biggest political winner, in my book, would be to create a .5%-1% income tax increase specifically geared toward funding schools across Massachusetts on a per-child basis. Every city and town would stand to benefit and it would be more than just a band-aid approach to a solution. It would also benefit towns like Swampscott most - it will act as a security net for when municipalities eventually get screwed over by arcane educational formulas, with little means for state recourse. At some point, most every city or town is going to get screwed over by difficult-to-understand and even-harder-to-change formulas, so every city and town stands to gain by a larger base funding mechanism.
If school committees across the Commonwealth came out in favor of such a measure, it would be a solution to the problem that everyday legislators could get behind. Ultimately, any state legislators fearing the T-Word could just blame it on Celluci, to boot, because he's the one who set Massachusetts up for failure by pushing through tax cuts that were too steep to meet core services. Restoring just some of them could fix the failed experiment while keeping the state fiscally grounded with a still-modest income tax rate compared to the other 49 states in the union. What other solution exists that won't set up scenarios where cities and towns become too busy fighting each other to work together, that actually addresses the revenue problem and does so in a way that would be quick to implement and wouldn't cost an arm and a leg? I'm all ears.
Labels: budget, chapter 70, david whelan, Swampscott, taxes
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Town Dem Potluck
The town dems are having a potluck for new members (me included) on Sunday at 6pm. If anyone's interesting in joining the town committee, this would be a good time to meet everyone and see what it's all about. Plus, it's good to be a part of the community. I know this is short notice, but if anyone would like to come, email me over the next day or so and I'll forward your name and number to the hosts.
Labels: Swampscott, town dems, town politics
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Cuts Not Fun
I don't envy any of the decision makers deciding this current budget, but they have to be done without axing the truly core services - and not just Math, English and Science - but what keep students going to school. Unfortunately, while the Super says he gets that, big chunks of the what keeps kids in school are up on the chopping block anyway.
How can the town even have the kind of time to get creative, or entertain an override, if it doesn't have all the facts ahead of time? Heck, it wasn't long ago that headlines paraded the (typically no good) Swampscott Reporter saying all our problems were solved, since the health care plan wasn't going up. Whoops.
So what should the administration cut? First off, Paul Maguire's right: stay away from core programs and their teachers. As much as they're needed, cuts to administration, new textbooks and professional development should be first.
Then, if that isn't enough (and it probably won't be), members of the town are unfortunately going to have to ask themselves "what's our top priorities?" Obviously, that starts out with Science, Foreign Languages, History, English, Math and Health/Phys Ed. However, it doesn't stop there: music, art, tech, and business (computer) classes are right up there too. Why? While each alone doesn't cater to everyone, together they make a huge, meaningful impact in each and every student's ability to get through school and learn their math and science. A base level of all of those programs need to be there.
Unfortunately, that means there's not much room for cuts - except in how those classes are taught. Now, since when I graduated in 2002 - and there were seemingly endless amounts of AP Classes (many of which I took) - I hear there are far fewer. However, even more unfortunately, there may need to be even less. No matter how anyone looks at it, having extra AP classes aren't as important as making sure there's enough educational diversity and opportunity at school to keep students happy and learning. Even if a student is taking American History, instead of AP History, they're still learning about our founding fathers.
Plus, on a per student basis, teachers could give those who are interested in taking the AP exam extra work for preparation. It isn't ideal, but students don't have to take an AP class to take an AP exam. So, if there have to be teachers laid off and classes that need to be cut from the budget, the classes that are needed least are the ones that should be first to go - and those classes don't include the musics, arts and techs. Of course, all these classes are needed - and these were all classes I took not too long ago - but music and art can't be viewed through a different lens when, on the aggregate, they do the same thing and mean the same thing, even if its to different people.
In the meantime, let's all call our state legislators and ask them why we're still stuck at a 5.3% income tax rate. It's clearly not working and hasn't worked for even a year since its implementation, in good economic times or bad.
"I love tech ed," Malone confessed. "If it wasn't for tech ed, I wouldn't have made it through high school. It's unfortunate something popular is on the chopping block, but these are the hard decisions we have to make.”Add band and other important classes to that list. Yet, the most disturbing thing about all of this is - again - is that Swampscott faces another budget battle without all the facts in advance. Last year, parents didn't know Machon would be shut down until months before classes closed. This year, there were "discrepancies ... found in personnel and payroll files" and suddenly, the town was in debt hundreds of thousands more. Not good enough.
How can the town even have the kind of time to get creative, or entertain an override, if it doesn't have all the facts ahead of time? Heck, it wasn't long ago that headlines paraded the (typically no good) Swampscott Reporter saying all our problems were solved, since the health care plan wasn't going up. Whoops.
So what should the administration cut? First off, Paul Maguire's right: stay away from core programs and their teachers. As much as they're needed, cuts to administration, new textbooks and professional development should be first.
Then, if that isn't enough (and it probably won't be), members of the town are unfortunately going to have to ask themselves "what's our top priorities?" Obviously, that starts out with Science, Foreign Languages, History, English, Math and Health/Phys Ed. However, it doesn't stop there: music, art, tech, and business (computer) classes are right up there too. Why? While each alone doesn't cater to everyone, together they make a huge, meaningful impact in each and every student's ability to get through school and learn their math and science. A base level of all of those programs need to be there.
Unfortunately, that means there's not much room for cuts - except in how those classes are taught. Now, since when I graduated in 2002 - and there were seemingly endless amounts of AP Classes (many of which I took) - I hear there are far fewer. However, even more unfortunately, there may need to be even less. No matter how anyone looks at it, having extra AP classes aren't as important as making sure there's enough educational diversity and opportunity at school to keep students happy and learning. Even if a student is taking American History, instead of AP History, they're still learning about our founding fathers.
Plus, on a per student basis, teachers could give those who are interested in taking the AP exam extra work for preparation. It isn't ideal, but students don't have to take an AP class to take an AP exam. So, if there have to be teachers laid off and classes that need to be cut from the budget, the classes that are needed least are the ones that should be first to go - and those classes don't include the musics, arts and techs. Of course, all these classes are needed - and these were all classes I took not too long ago - but music and art can't be viewed through a different lens when, on the aggregate, they do the same thing and mean the same thing, even if its to different people.
In the meantime, let's all call our state legislators and ask them why we're still stuck at a 5.3% income tax rate. It's clearly not working and hasn't worked for even a year since its implementation, in good economic times or bad.
Labels: schools
