Fisherman's and a Quarry

They're bleeding so bad that I just saw an online ad they posted on the Bay Windows, a popular glbt newspaper. Meanwhile, kids are screaming to get into charters in such places as Boston.

If that school is such a mess and they're bleeding students so badly, why bother keeping it open when there's the already very respectable Marblehead and Swampscott school systems those kids could be attending?

Labels: schools

Click here. Parents, teachers, residents and anyone and everyone who's interested in our town's budget problems and how we can work together in common cause to save the schools should click that link.

Labels: advocacy, schools, Swampscott

I never got to posting my notes from this week's Town Meeting, but there's plenty on it here and here. The major piece of news is that Swampscott will allow the sale of the old Temple, old Greenwood Ave school, the old senior center and old fire station. That's a lot of old that's about to get new - or should I say renewed? - potentially bringing in over $5 million to the town, with over $500,000 a year in property taxes when these properties are redeveloped.

All of this is good news. We'll have more resources to deal with our problems, hopefully with several other solutions coming down the line, too. Swampscott is poised to rebound from the past few years of fiscal turmoil. Hopefully, that means we'll rebound from the bad blood and anger that's festered in the town as of late, too. But what's the end goal? What's the long term vision? Coming up with a vision for the town is paramount to improving our community, becoming the kind of place we want to be.

So, what is Swampscott? Whenever people discuss the town, it's usually in comparison to some other town. Marblehead is the usual victim. Lynnfield's been a frequent target too. Wayland's popped up now and then, as well. While some of the demographics of Swampscott are similar to Marblehead, our towns really aren't very similar. Marblehead is closer to Newburyport than it is Swampscott, if we want to talk town character. Marblehead, unlike Swampscott, is a destination town - which isn't anything near as good as it sounds. Why? People have to wake up one day and decide to say to their friends or their spouse, "I want to go to Marblehead," then drive there and find a parking space. In other words, people have to want to go to Marblehead. People just drive through Swampscott, whether they want to or not.

Comparing Swampscott to Lynnfield is even more laughable. The towns couldn't be more different. Sure, there's around the same amount of people living in Lynnfield as Swampscott and, sure, a similar student body. Honestly, the median family incomes aren't too far off either - Swampscott's median family income is $72k, Lynnfield's is $80k. However, aside from that, the two towns are completely different, with Swampscott being an incredibly dense and far more diverse community than our more conservative, wealthier neighbor to the west.

So, what is Swampscott? To have a good vision, we need to focus on and improve our strong suits. First, Swampscott is a nexus that connects several large communities together. Second, we're a densely populated, small town with almost unlimited means for transportation and quick access to Boston and the entire North Shore. Swampscott has buses, the train and is highly walkable. Moreover, most of the town is in walking distance to what is truly our best assets - our beautiful beaches and assortment of restaurants and other small businesses. Third, we're an economically diverse town with some of the wealthiest residents of the state, as well as people who live on fixed incomes or are decidedly working class. As such, we have million dollar houses and affordable houses and everything in between. Wrap that entire package up with our rich history and strong community and there's no doubt that Swampscott's a clearly unique town with many assets and potential to be better.

If Swampscott were to be compared to any other town in Massachusetts, one of the best is honestly Brookline. Like Brookline, we have great public transportation, with walkable neighborhoods and a variety of options for entertainment, restaurants and shopping. We're smaller and less affluent, but we're also far more affordable. Plus, we have the beach. In fact, that's what I like to tell people when they ask me about Swampscott, "it's like Brookline, but with a beach."

In order to become a better town, we need to focus on those assets. We need to continue to foster small businesses across the town, making sure they have the tools they need to compete and thrive. We need to improve our already good transportation options, perhaps even further opening access to our beaches and small businesses by emphasizing biking for those who live just a little too far away to walk downtown. Bike lanes are cheap and help reduce traffic, as Humphrey and other major streets are repaved, bike lanes should be added. The plan for the police station, which would also open up a pathway to the beach, is another high priority in improving our town's natural assets.

Most importantly, though, we need to keep our schools strong, so they don't erode before things get better - even if that means trying to pass an override to hold us over. Otherwise, Swampscott's modus operandi is at risk and this whole vision thing is moot. We're going to be facing more challenges ahead over the next few years, but solutions will be on their way, it's just a matter of making it to the finish line without keeling over. The sale of these buildings in town will soon net us around $500,000 a year in new revenue. Governor Patrick has several proposals that could benefit the town, including a 1% meals tax option that could net the town at least $330,000 a year in new revenue. We're set to receive our fair share of Chapter 70 within 2 years, which will net us another $500,000 or so. Even President Obama and the US Congress could save us funds by taking up health care in 2009. For example, Obama has called for making insurance companies cover autism expenses, instead of schools, which would save this town tens of thousands a year, alone.

Hopefully, that's just the start of it. But if we close Hadley or strip an entire program from our schools - and lose all that institutional memory - it'll take years or decades to recover, even when things get better, if we ever really can. There's too many towns like Swampscott that are struggling to no end for things to remain the same. Too many cities and towns know that their heading in the same direction - and soon. Hopefully the people of Swampscott have the vision to see that.

Labels: schools, Swampscott

I just saw this website and the numbers are terrifying. If Question 1 passes, here's the estimated cuts to town services:

Detailed breakdown [of cuts to state aid]

Municipal
Public safety and other aid
Total aid: $1,842,843
Estimated cut: $1,192,774
Percent cut: 65%

Road/bridge construction and repair
Total aid: $233,901
Total cut: $151,392
Percent cut: 65%

Total municipal aid: $2,076,744
Total municipal aid cut: $1,344,165
Total Percent Cut: 65%

School district: Swampscott
General education aid (Chapter 70): $2,701,925
Estimated Ch. 70 cut: $2,701,925
Estimated Ch. 70 aid cut percent: 100%

Special education total aid: $440,738
Estimated cut: $285,266
Estimate percent of cut aid: 65%
Other aid, including grants (est.): $627,143
Estimated Cut: $401,634
Total estimated percent cut: 64%

Total state aid to schools: $3,769,806
Total estimated cut: $3,388,825
Percent of total estimated cut: 90%

What's all this mean? If question 1 passes, we're screwed. I have a friend who recently said, "if passed, your chapter 70 problems would seem cute and simple." He was right. Vote no on 1.

Labels: schools, taxes

[Update: I got some numbers mixed in up reading all the comments and articles at the Reporter -and things were actually more bleak than what I originally thought. I've updated the blog to reflect that. My apologies.]

Honestly, I'm not even going to link to the Reporter, and all the many budgetary articles (and sordid comments) that go along with it. We all know the budget problems - and they're not good.

Let's just deal with the facts:

Fact Number 1. We're facing a budget shortfall of around $1.3 million. That's a pretty hefty number, but not so huge that it can't be tackled in a way that can save this town's elementary schools - the one area on the MCAS where Swampscott scores among this state's elite.

Fact Number 2. The town unions voted against the GIC, which would have saved around $500,000 a year. That doesn't make them "greedy," just shortsighted. There are very real reasons for the union to vote against the GIC, but they still missed the bigger picture. It would have been a quid-pro-quo they could have collected on in the future, when times were better. Plus, it would have saved jobs. Most importantly, it may have healed the bad blood between the town, its elected officials, administration and teachers. That bad blood is making this entire town stink.

Fact Number 3. We're sitting on two properties worth approximately $5 million combined, along with several others that will be sold off. The sales can't be used on the general budget, but the property taxes they'll bring can be used for those purposes. How much will those property taxes be worth? If town meeting passes the recommendation, they'll be in excess of $500,000 - going a long way toward solving our fiscal woes. If Town Meeting doesn't pass the recommended plans, it will be just as damaging to the town as the town employees voting down the GIC.

Fact Number 4. If $1.3 million or something close to it is what it'll take to keep Hadley open, that's a few hundred dollars per taxpayer over an entire year. That's not a huge number to keep our integrity and maintain our record of elementary-level excellence. At worst, Swampscott is set to reach its fair share of Chapter 70 funds in two years - which will mean hundreds of thousands more in school spending. It won't be that much longer before the town will get the $500,000 annual income in property tax revenue from the Greenwood/Temple projects. This isn't a time for any nuclear options, such as closing Hadley, but rather it's a time to do what it takes to stay affloat - the metaphorical need to work overtime, not declare bankruptcy and foreclose on the house.

Conclusion: If we have to lay off a few town employees, we can always hire more in a few years, when our fiscal situation is better. We can't always open up a new school. That's the biggest reason there is to do whatever it takes to keep Hadley open.

It'll take some time to sell the town's vacant properties, but not so long that they couldn't make a difference in next year's budget (even if its number will be significantly reduced compared to what they'll bring in 5 years from now). That could help alleviate some of this pain, though only a small fraction. Thankfully, despite the the state's fiscal difficulties, our local aid won't go down in next year's budget - as politicians will be loathe to reduce municipal aid. All this means better days are ahead, but Swampscott needs vision and courage to get there.

Labels: budget, schools, taxes

Amazingly, Town Meeting accomplished all of its goals tonight, even if some of them were altered. Most of the night consisted of routine tasks that require votes every year and move quickly, but there were a few highlights for the night.

• Capital Expenditures: these are bonds that Town Meeting approves which don't require a Proposition 2 1/2 override. They have to be paid in ten years time, accrue interest mounted to the debt and are typically meant for minor and medium projects such as road repairs and new town vehicles. This year, there will be one new police car, a new roof for Clark, as well as some radios of the non FM variety for Police and Fire. Overall, Swampscott agreed to take on nearly $2 million more in debt of this variety.
  
• Debt Exclusions: a fairly new phenomenon in Mass Municipalities, this is the process of proposing one-time fees to voters that they can approve at the ballot box to fund specific projects, instead of creating the less transparent and more expensive Capital Expenditures. Taxes go up for one year to pay for the project(s), then they go back down the next. A brand-new concept for Swampscott, it truly harkens back to the days of early Colonial America, when New Englanders paid for things as they were needed. If a town needed a new bridge, for example, Town Meeting would assemble and vote on it. If it passed, a levy would be created to specifically pay for the project over the next year or two. After the project was paid for, the levy would end. When the British Government tried to move away from that system, the American Revolution began. [See Boston Tea Party.]
  
  Obviously, the scale of operating society today is different - but the idea of having an election to raise local revenue for necessary expenditures on a one or two year basis, instead of issuing a bond and leaving it for future generations, is a noble one - not to mention both more democratic and transparent.
  
  This year, assuming the Board of Selectmen approve the question, voters will be given the chance to vote for a one-time fee as part of their taxes that would cover a new fire engine, replacing the Fire Department's 1988 classic, as well as repave 12 of the worst roads across town. Town Meeting will pay for both either way, but if voters approve the Debt Exclusion, they'll save over $200,000 compared to paying for those items using bonds. The roads will collectively cost $150k and the Fire Truck $300k, costing the average voter an additional one-time fee of $58 in their property taxes, the savings of over $200,000 comes from not having to pay the interest on unnecessary bonds.
  
  Editorial Note: Several Selectmen were afraid Debt Exclusions would be too confusing for voters -would it be seen as an override? And, if it would, would it prevent voters from approving the real override that will come either next year or the one after? Of course, that's a low opinion of voters given the fact that the Fire Truck will cost a one-time fee of $58 next year if passed at the ballot, or far more if they don't.
  
  Instead of taking leadership on educating voters about the simplicity and transparency of this new process, several Selectmen sheepishly argued to just make them Capital Expenditures, the money savings be damned. That's a funny comment coming from that group, all of whom talk about being "creative" in looking for ways to save money. Isn't this a creative solution that at least merits a try? Selectmen should know all people want is a transparent government - to know where their money is going. Capital Expenditures is the antithesis to that: it's exactly the kind of thing people don't like about government. They're less transparent. They're debt towns will pay for a decade later and, in the long run, they cost way more money than paying for them up front. People don't have the chance to approve Capital Expenditures and often questionable items are included (such as text books). Convincing people there's a better way won't be difficult, but it will take leadership that the Board of Selectmen will have to grow into - to put it nicely.
  
• The Town Building Oversight Committee. The night's second big event was approving the Town Building Oversight Committee's creation, discussed in yesterday's blog. Thankfully, a compromise was reached before Town Meeting's second night began. The Selectmen gave up the rights to make the committee an Advisory Committee in exchange for defining how the Committee will be comprised - which will include 7 members, one of which will come from the Town Finance Committee, the Board of Selectmen and the current Town Building Review Committee. Other members will be residents appointed by the Moderator and Selectmen. This committee will have authority to propose guidelines for what can be developed and built on the old Middle School, the Phillips Beach Ave Fire Station, the former Sr. Center and the Sewage Pumping Station on Highland Ave. A report on their findings is due no later than Nov. 15th, at which point Town Meeting reconvenes to take action.
• My Final Note: Voters should insist on being involved in the building oversight process. Go to the public meetings; its imperative committee members know how residents feel, making those the #1 priorities, even beyond land value and future property tax receipts. For most residents, surprising would be putting it mildly at just the taste of what could come given the Building Review Committee's report last night. Picture more than 40 units of luxury living on the old Temple Grounds, comprising at least four stories, or the core of the old Middle School's demolish in favor of two structures on the same property, with even more units than the Temple. Not pretty at all.
  
  Especially in this soft residential market, Swampscott could use more commercial base - not residential. Wouldn't it make sense to at least explore the option of turning the old Temple site into quiet office space - after all, that couldn't be any busier thanTown Hall, located there for the past year. Office space will certainly be less busy than the former Temple.
  
  None of this is to say the Review Committee's report didn't show promising results of what's to come - indeed, it was downright optimistic. One of their suggestions, for example, was to promote the idea of trimming the old Middle School back to it's historical original, a stunningly beautiful building. It may be too small for what developers would want, but definitely is the basis for a project Swampscott residents could be proud of.
  
  The committee's best idea was to expand the use of our town's pumping station. Specifically, land could be cleared to add space for parking and Whale's Beach access, as well as a new police station. The best part is it collectively represents a strategy for improving Swampscott's downtown - highlighting Swampscott's connection to the beach. It could do the nearly moribund downtown a great deal of good, making the area somewhere Swampscott residents congregate, at least in warm weather.
  
  However, all of the good ideas make it even more imperative that residents become involved (even good ideas can fail). The night's common theme among speakers: once these buildings are sold and changes made, there's no going back. This is a once-in-a-generation question for town residents; most communities wish they were this property rich, with options and tools to combat the difficult problems that arise. Town Meeting members in large numbers concur that it's important Swampscott consider what could happen in the future before we make rash decisions now, hence the creation of the new committee. But the answers to these questions don't rest solely in the members who will be appointed to the Building Oversight Committee. The answers come collectively, from town residents being engaged in the process and making sure the committee does right by the people of this town. If we don't become engaged, we'll get what we deserve - and the town may very well be worse off than we are now.
  

Labels: schools, Swampscott, taxes, town meeting, town politics

Here's a rundown of the first night of Swampscott's Town Meeting. Tune in for tomorrow's installments here as well.

• First up, the moderated opened Town Meeting. New members (including me) were sworn in. A reverend from one of Swampscott's churches lead us in prayer (why we need to ask Jesus to bless us, I don't know, but I found the whole "tradition" offensive). Representative Lori Ehrlich came to thank the town, as well as quickly discuss some of the things she's done while in office (including $350,000 for Humphrey Street - if it gets through the Senate). Various town committees reported on their year's work, some details below.
• The K-8 Master Plan. Quick run through by the Committee's chair. Readers will note I recently discussed the Master Plan on this website. The only news is that the committee suggested the Grade-Level 1 option, which would turn Clark into a Pre-K/K building and house grades 1-4 at Stanley. Editorialized Comments: They're selling it as a means to increase "parity," which is silly given the overall quality of Swampscott's elementary schools (among the best in the state - all of them). "Parity" is really a creative disguise to save money, at the cost of Swampscott's K-4 educational quality.
  
  Ultimately, all of Swampscott's elementary schools excel at teaching kids - the only disparity that exists are the kids who get the teachers who are right for them, versus the ones who don't - and that kind of disparity would continue to exist at whatever new schools we build. Smaller schools have been proven just as important as smaller class sizes in the K-4 age group, which makes a lot of sense when looking at Swampscott's MCAS scores. With Swampscott's elementary education system among the best in the state, why destroy the neighborhood-school model? It can only dampen the educational standards, whether or not the buildings our kids use are shiny and new.
  
• Bylaws. The town's committee on updating the bylaws attempted to do two things: fix what they suggested were 'inconsistencies' and 'typos' in the town's bylaws, as well as offering a motion to change the bylaws to insert a clause that would force town citizens to shovel sidewalks.
  
• The first amendment - which promised to be a quick exercise - proved to be much more daunting than it looked. Yes, the committee fixed typos and inconsistencies in the bylaws, but they also changed certain aspects of the bylaws that went above and beyond the committee's purview. The worst offender was a change in fees for violating certain town codes - which originally were to be 'no more than $50,' but would have become 'no less than $50' - for each offense. Under state law, that would mean that the town could penalize people up to $300 for each offense if those codes were violated. An amendment passed which would make each violation be exactly $50 per offense.
  
• The second amendment, on snow removal, was effectively killed. Proponents wanted to make sure town sidewalks were properly shoveled, opponents said that the change was unfair because not everyone is physically equipped to shovel and can't afford the unfunded mandate of paying for the walkways to be cleared. The Committee Chair also said that the town technically owns the sidewalks and referenced the fact that in other towns, the town itself pays to clear major sidewalks, especially those on busy streets and streets used by kids walking to and from school.
  
• Buildings. The committee reporting on what to do with the town's many properties gave focused on several buildings: the Phillips Beach Fire Station (currently used as the town's ambulance service), the Humphrey Street pumping station and the current police station. Its suggestion was to sell the Phillips Beach Fire Station, use the Humphrey Street property for a new police station and to lease out the current police station as the new town ambulance service, conveniently located next to the fire department. Additionally, it was recommended that the old middle school be sold.
  
• The Night's Wrap Up. On the whole, there was little contention over the sale and reuse of the town's buildings, but the night ended on a heated exchange when the building committee suggested the creation of a new committee to have oversight of how the buildings could be sold - including the creation of new town bylaws that would be up for approval by Town Meeting, likely in the fall.
  
  Several Selectman came out against the proposal, insisting they retain the oversight of those matters. Instead, they offered an amendment to create an advisory committee instead. Multiple people spoke out in favor of both options and the crowd went back and forth, however momentum in the crowd seemed to shift when one of the building committee members came out and said their process was necessary to avoid another Temple scenario - where the town purchased only a part of the old Temple property, when members of Town Meeting thought the entirety was purchased. Given the applause in the crowd, it seemed Selectmen's amendment would fail and an Oversight committee would be created, but the Town Selectmen were given a reprieve because, as the clock turned to 10:46, people were anxious to leave and voted to table the decision for Tuesday Night.
  
• My Final Comments: There was some dispute as to whether or not the Selectmen must come back to Town Meeting before a sale could be finalized, but it makes more sense to create an independent authority to come up with suggestions for town meeting (read: the Oversight Committee). The Selectmen would still be given great weight in the process, since they'd be the people selecting who would serve on that committee, but ultimately they wouldn't be able to steamroll a decision on the town.
  
  Given the language in the Town Meeting Warrant of the sections on actually selling the buildings in question, there was nothing to assure that the Selectmen be forced to come back to Town Meeting before a sale was finalized - as they tried to say there was. Furthermore, even if they did come back, what's to prevent them from still steamrolling their wishes since they could essentially suggest Town Meeting sell the buildings as they see fit, or else they'll lose the deal negotiated by the Selectmen. It's better to set the conditions to those deals first, so that tactic can't work, because these significant properties ultimately impact the character of Swampscott.
  
  This could be especially important for the Old Middle School, which is well over a hundred years old and represents the highest point of town. Residents can easily see it from as far away as the hills by the old Machon. Elected leaders, professional athletes, actors and CEOs have come out of that building in its 100+ years of existence, so it's only right that the citizens of this town have some more say in how it - and all of the other town property in question - can be sold.

Finally, if Town Meeting is extended to Wednesday (even though we were repeatedly told we'd finish by Tuesday night, that's not going to happen), I won't be able to go given the fact that I previously agreed to a job interview, meaning I won't be able to give a report. If any Town Meeting members will give their own rundown on Wednesday's happenings, let me know. I'll be delighted to post it! Town Meeting is exceptionally important - and rarely covered in the Reporter - so it takes true Citizen Journalism to make sure people have access to what's really going on.

Labels: bylaws, lori erhlich, schools, Swampscott, town meeting, town politics

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.

Labels: education, schools

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.

"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

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