Fisherman's and a Quarry

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:

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.


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

We shut down our best performing elementary school this year, along with laying off around 35 people in the Swampscott school system. So everything's going to be fine for next year, right? Things couldn't possibly get worse? Wrong. I just received next years projections and if Swampscott's taxes go up 2.5%, the maximum amount without an override, we'll be at least $880,000 in the whole. I don't see how Swampscott makes up that money without at least any additional support from the state. If the state increased Chapter 70 funding to previous levels - and the base level most towns in the state receive (around 17%, compared to Swampscott's ~14%) - it would mean more than $500,000 dollars for the town. If the state doesn't increase it, I don't know how many more cuts the system can take without making a mockery of the education I received as a member of the Class of 2002.

Labels: chapter 70, schools

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.

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 million 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.

Labels: chapter 70, dan whelan, schools, Swampscott