Superintendent explains FY08 budget drivers

In this video from Superintendent Wayne Ogden’s cable show “Inside the Franklin Public Schools, the FY08 budget drivers are explained and identified. In this segment, he offers an explanation of the components of the School Committee’s $6.4 million budget request for the next fiscal year.

Updated budget presentation schedule

The Superintendent and School Committee members will continue to appear at a number of public forums over the next few weeks to discuss the school budget and answer questions.  Town Councilors Scott Mason and Deb Bartlett will also attend and be available for questions and comments on the FY08 budget.  We look forward to working with you on this budget. If you know of a group that is not included on this list that is interested in hosting a budget presentation, please contact the School Committee by clicking here. The updated schedule is as follows:

Date	Time	Group & location	Member attending
May 1	7 pm	Open forum sponsored by Joint PCC at Horace Mann Auditorium (inviting School Committee, Town Council, and members of the public)	Full School Committee
May 7	7 pm	FHS PCC — FHS Cafeteria
May 9	7:30 pm	Franklin Newcomers @ K of C (Rte 140)
May 10	9 am	Senior Center	Jeff, Roberta
May 17	6 pm	Rotary Club at Franklin Country Club	Jeff

Councilor speaks passionately about override

At the April 11, 2007 Town Council meeting, long time Councilor Carlo Geromini spoke eloquently and passionately about the upcoming override vote in Franklin.  The video of his comments can be seen by clicking here.  You can also click the video box below to view it.

Massachusetts tax burden ranks 28th of 50 states

In a year when the nationwide burden of state-local taxes hit an all-time high of 11 percent of income, Vermont’s taxpayers are bearing the heaviest load in 2007, according to the annual study of state and local taxes by the Tax Foundation. With 14.1 percent of income going to pay all state and local taxes, Vermont ekes out Maine (14.0) and New York (13.8) to take the top spot.

Massachusetts ranks 28^th out of the 50 states with a tax burden as percentage of income of 10.6%, putting it on par with taxpayers in Utah and Mississippi. Since 1970, Massachusetts’ ranking has dropped by 11 positions, falling from 17^th place at one point. Alaska had the lowest burden at 6.6%.

The Milford Daily News ran an editorial in its April 15, 2007 issue indicating that our state can no longer be referred to as Taxachusetts. In fact, many other states face higher state and local tax burdens, and the blaming of our state and local officials here may be misplaced according to the empirical data.

For full results of the study, please visit http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22320.html.

History of overrides in Franklin

Proposition 2½ allows a
community to assess taxes in excess of the automatic annual 2.5 percent increase
and any increase due to new growth by passing an override. The override ballot
question must state a purpose for the override and a dollar amount.

A majority vote of the Town
Council allows an override question to be placed on the ballot. Override
questions must be presented in dollar terms and must specify the purpose of the
override. Overrides require a majority vote of approval by the electorate.

Since 1983 (the 24 years Prop
2 ½ has been in effect), Franklin has placed five override questions on the
ballot. The dates and results are in the table below.

Date	Purpose	Yes	No	Result	Amount sought
1-Jun-90	General Operating budget	2,031	3,425	LOSS	1,350,349
11-Jun-96	School operating budget	1,827	5,835	LOSS	3,500,000
23-Apr-02	General operating budget	1,789	3,898	LOSS	3,000,000
22-Oct-02	Funding solid waste	663	3,561	LOSS	1,400,000
02-Nov-04	General operating expenditures	7,037	8,185	LOSS	3,900,000

 More specific data on
overrides throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can be viewed at the
Department of Revenue’s website by clicking

here (You will note that the DOR data does
not include information on the 2002 overrides from Franklin).  In addition, the
DOR has a handbook on Prop 2 ½ which explains the law and process, which is
available by clicking

here.

The data included above does
not include so-called “debt exclusion” votes for the construction of buildings
in town.  That information has not been included because those funds do not
become part of the operating expenses for the town and do not address the
systemic problem of the property tax rate.  Exclusion questions are designed to
fund specific capital projects. The purpose of the borrowing must be specified
in the ballot question.

Why I believe in public education

In the April issue of the Central Office Update, Superintendent Wayne Ogden included a short essay that came across his desk as he was pondering the local budget dilemma. It bears repeating here:

In 1832, Alexis de Tocqueville came to America to assess the notion that our democracy was a beacon for the world. His astute observations remain a classic guide to America’s success.

American prosperity, he concluded, was founded on several conditions unique to this society.

First, we did not let class determine a person’s stature. A ruffian with a good idea and a work ethic could exchange places with a son of wealth who felt innovative thought and labor were beneath a gentleman’s dignity.

Second, movement within the country was unfettered. This lack of internal passports, documents common in eighteenth century Europe, was essential to the vibrancy found in American society. Regardless of their station, Americans could go where opportunity beckoned.

Third, our system of public education, raucous as it was, provided the skills and knowledge that our citizens could employ to take advantage of a classless and mobile society. Unlike old Europe, we did not fear an educated proletariat.

Despite our flawed application of these principles, opportunity, mobility and education remain the pillars supporting American democracy, and education makes the others worthwhile. In the truest sense, we do not pay taxes to support the education of our individual children, we pay taxes to support the role public education plays in civilizing and enriching our society.

Writing today, de Tocqueville might note the erosion of our public schools and the roles played in that by racism, failed discipline, missing parents, rote teaching and testing gone berserk. But, he would be confident in our defense of public education. He would argue that it was not within the American character to shrink in the face of challenge. He would expect that we would tax ourselves sufficiently to provide for the common educational good.

He would not be surprised when we raised the station of our teachers. He would anticipate our solution of the dropout problem and our reinstitution of discipline and mutual respect in our schools. He would expect that we would use tests surgically to expand an improved curriculum.

de Tocqueville loved an America whose citizens cared little for self-pity but cared much about bringing in the harvest.

That is why I support public education for it may well produce our most important harvest.

That is why I do not support any “choice” that would further impoverish our public school system, that, however unintentional, could result in a few fleeing the problems that affect the many, that could create educational slums to warehouse an overwhelmingly poor and minority population. That would not be the America that enthralled de Tocqueville. That might be a fatal harvest.

I am sure that those who disagree with me are acting out of the courage of their convictions. I would ask, however, that they also have the courage of the consequences of their convictions.

I have no children in our schools and I have reached an age when it is tempting to leave the driving to someone else. On the other hand, I remain a passenger on our national bus and I would like to ensure the driver knows the route.

Public education is one of the bedrock guarantees that America will continue down freedom’s road.

You can view the full essay by clicking here. The author, Jon Samuels, is a Board Member Public Education Partners, Aiken, South Carolina and a founding partner of Synergem Emergency Services , L.L.C. He is also affiliated with the Public Education Network, whose mission is to build public demand and mobilize resources for quality public education for all children through a national constituency of local education funds and individuals.

Franklin under state average in 9 of 11 spending categories

In an analysis of Franklin spending conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Education, it is revealed that our community spends far less than the state average in 9 of the 11 categories reviewed by the state. You can view the data on the DOE web-site by clicking here.   You will note that the data concerns 2005 spending.  This is the latest available data, as the Department of Education has not completed its audit of 2006.

As shown in the table below, Franklin spends half of what the average community spends on administration. We spend 25% of what the average community spends on professional development. Other areas of under-spending include instructional leadership, guidance, pupil services, operations and maintenance, and special education costs. This data dispels the myth that the school department over-spends town funds.

The two areas where Franklin marginally exceeds the state average are in classroom and specialist teachers and instructional materials. In other words, your tax dollars are going where they belong – to the kids in the classrooms.

If Franklin were to increase its spending to the state averages in all categories, the school budget would need to increase by $12 million over present levels. As noted by the Superintendent on a number of occasions, if Franklin spend the state average on education, we could deliver the “Good to Great” budget which was presented in January 2007. Understanding that finances were tight in Franklin, the School Committee trimmed the budget request to $57 million, in order to maintain level services in the school system.

FY05 Expenditures by Function, All Funds – Summary

  Summary for all districts     11/27/2006

	general fund approp- riations	grants, revolving &other funds	total expendi- tures all funds	function as pct of total	expendi- ture per pupil	state average per pupil
In-District FTE Average Membership = 5,969.4
Out-of-District FTE Average Membership = 433.8
Total FTE Average Membership = 6,403.2
Administration	1,126,212	0	1,126,212	2.03	188.66	363.27
Instructional Leadership	2,701,544	39,935	2,741,479	4.95	459.26	706.70
Classroom and Specialist Teachers	24,886,687	2,080,615	26,967,302	48.66	4,517.59	4,194.24
Other Teaching Services	2,195,208	0	2,195,208	3.96	367.74	712.83
Professional Development	282,394	0	282,394	0.51	47.31	194.25
Instructional Materials, Equipment and Technology	1,187,345	1,005,245	2,192,590	3.96	367.30	337.39
Guidance, Counseling and Testing	1,252,403	0	1,252,403	2.26	209.80	295.97
Pupil Services	2,419,209	1,314,841	3,734,050	6.74	625.53	938.39
Operations and Maintenance	4,909,250	0	4,909,250	8.86	822.40	878.00
Insurance, Retirement Programs and Other	4,336,178	0	4,336,178	7.82	726.40	1,594.31
Payments To Out-Of-District Schools	4,468,610	1,210,017	5,678,627	10.25	13,090.43	18,907.54
TOTAL EXPENDITURES	49,765,040	5,650,653	55,415,693	100.00	8,654.37	10,626.14
percentage of overall spending from the general fund			89.8 %

Analysis of tax burden in Franklin

Steve Whalen, a member of Franklin’s Finance Committee, conducted extensive research and analysis of the town’s current property tax burden relative to 29 other towns in Massachusetts. His detailed findings are available in two excel spreadsheets which you can view by clicking here.  The first worksheet is labeled “Status Quo.” The second is entitled “With $2.7M Override.”

In summary, currently, our residential property tax rate ranks 26^th out of the 30 towns in the sample, meaning that there are 4 towns with a lower residential tax rate than Franklin’s in this sample. Currently, our Residential Tax Burden (Average Annual Residential Property Tax Bill/Median Family Income) also ranks 26th in the sample. 

A second table shows how Franklin’s tax burden would rank relative to the other towns in the comparison if the Town voted to raise our property tax rate by 54 cents to $9.40 from the current $8.86. As demonstrated by the analysis, if the Town voted to raise our property tax rate by 54 cents (i.e., passed a $2.7 million override), Franklin would rank 24th among the 30 towns in the sample in terms of Residential Property Tax Burden. The analysis assumes that for each 20 cent increase in the property tax rate, an additional $1 million in revenue is generated, so that an 54 cent rise would generate an additional $2.7 million in revenue.

In case you’re wondering how much of an increase in our property tax rate would be required for our Residential Tax Burden to be in the middle of our peer group, the answer is an increase of $3.00 ($15 million) would rank us 8th among the 16 towns in the sample with a single property tax rate.

Some of the other key highlights from this analysis include the following:

• The second grouping of 15 towns in the middle of each worksheet is comprised of Franklin (which has a single property tax rate) plus the towns in the sample that have a split tax rate. Not surprisingly, towns with a split tax rate have lower average residential property tax rates than towns with a single rate ($9.64 compared to $11.92) in this sample of 30 towns. Currently, in terms of residential tax rate, when compared to towns with a split tax rate, Franklin ranks 12th out of 15 towns. If we raised our property tax rate by 80 cents, we would rank 7th out of the 15 towns in this middle grouping of towns with a split rate. Currently, our Residential Tax Burden (defined above) ranks 12th in this middle sample of 15 towns. If the Town voted to raise our property tax rate by 80 cents, Franklin would rank 8th among these 15 towns.
• The third grouping of 16 towns on the right hand side of each worksheet is comprised of the 16 towns including Franklin which have a single property tax rate. Currently, in terms of residential tax rate, Franklin ranks 15th in its peer group of towns with one property tax rate, with only Shrewsbury having a lower rate. If the Town voted to raise our property tax rate by 80 cents, we would rank 14th out of the 16 towns in our peer group. Currently, our Residential Tax Burden (defined above) also ranks 15th in our peer group of 16 towns with a single property tax rate. If the Town voted to raise our property tax rate by 80 cents, Franklin would still rank 15^th among these 16 towns.

Updated school budget conference schedule

The Superintendent and School Committee members will continue to appear at a number of public forums over the next few weeks to discuss the school budget and answer questions. We look forward to working with you on this budget. If you know of a group that is not included on this list that is interested in hosting a budget presentation, please contact the School Committee by clicking here. The updated schedule is as follows:

Date	Time	Group and location	Member attending
Tuesday, April 10	8:45 a.m.	Jefferson PCC	Jeff, Roberta
Wednesday, April 11	12:30 p.m.	Remington PCC	Ed
Wednesday, April 11	2:10 p.m.	Remington faculty	Paula
Wednesday, April 11	7:00 p.m.	Town Council chambers with Franklin Town Council	Full School Committee
Thursday, April 12	9:00 a.m.	Horace Mann PCC	Roberta
Thursday, May 10	7:15 p.m.	ECDC PCC (re-scheduled from April)
Friday, April 13	9 a.m.	Keller PCC	Paula
Friday, April 13	10 a.m.	Kennedy PCC at Town Hall training room	Cora
Tuesday, April 24	9 a.m.	Joint PCC at Oak Street	Roberta, Cora
Tuesday, May 1	7 p.m.	Open forum sponsored by Joint PCC at Horace Mann Auditorium (inviting School Committee, Town Council, and members of the public)	Full School Committee
Thursday, May 10	9 a.m.	Senior Center	Jeff, Roberta

Franklin is not alone on budget issues

If there is one thing that is abundantly clear in the FY08 budget process, it as that Franklin is not alone. The Boston Globe has launched a website to provide coverage of Prop 21/2 override campaigns in more than 30 communities in Greater Boston, including Franklin. The site is updated daily by the Globe staff. You can view the site by clicking here. The site is affectionately known as Override Central.

FY08 Budget materials available

FY08 budget materials are available online. You can access those materials by clicking here, which will take you to the Superintendent’s budget page. There, you can view an Executive Summary of the budget, a list of budget cuts from previous years, proposed cuts for FY08, student enrollments for the past 10 years, and a long range projection of student enrollment trends. In addition, you can see how Franklin performs in comparison to the state average in budget categories by viewing data compiled by the Department of Education.

The Superintendent and School Committee members will be appearing at a number of public forums over the next few weeks to discuss the school budget and answer questions. We look forward to working with you on this budget. The current schedule is as follows:

Date	Time	Group and location	Member attending
Tuesday, April 3	9 a.m.	Oak Street PCC	Cora, Roberta
Wednesday, April 4	9 a.m.	Davis Thayer PCC	Paula, Sue
Wednesday, April 4	2:10 p.m.	Horace Mann faculty	Sue
Wednesday, April 4	6:30 p.m.	Sullivan PCC	Jeff, Paula
Wednesday, April 4	7 p.m.	Music Boosters	Cora
Wednesday, April 4	7 p.m.	Town Council (budget discussion postponed to Wednesday, April 11 at 7 p.m.)	Full School Committee
Thursday, April 5	10 a.m.	Cable show	Jeff & Sue
Tuesday, April 10	8:45 a.m.	Jefferson PCC	Jeff, Roberta,
Wednesday, April 11	2:10 p.m.	Remington faculty	Paula
Friday, April 13	9 a.m.	Keller PCC	Paula
Friday, April 13	10 a.m.	Kennedy PCC at town Hall training room	Cora
Tuesday, April 24	9 a.m.	Joint PCC at Oak Street	Roberta, Cora
Tuesday, May 1	7 p.m.	Open forum sponsored by Joint PCC at Horace Mann Auditorium (inviting School Committee, Town Council, and members of the public)	Full School Committee

Teacher’s tough grading upheld in Louisiana

Tough graders got a lift this week, when a jury found in favor of a teacher who refused to change the D’s and F’s she doled out to her students. In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the West Feliciana Parish school system must pay more than $1.4 million to an English teacher who was suspended and demoted after refusing to change the low grades she gave to 70 percent of her students, a federal jury has found. The jury of four men and five women deliberated almost four hours before finding that the school board, superintendent and the principal at West Feliciana High School had harassed Paula Payne, violated her First Amendment rights and retaliated against her.

School system administrators said they never asked her to change any grades. The Superintendent said the teacher was suspended for five days in November 2004 because she refused to meet with administrators unless a Louisiana Education Association representative was there.

Until she resigned in 2005, the teacher (whose last name happened to be “Payne”) taught English at the school in St. Francisville, where students called her class the “House of Payne.” In the first six weeks of the fall 2004 semester, court documents show, she gave 70 percent of the school’s 180 sophomores a ‘D’ or an ‘F’ in English II. The low scores conflicted with those same students’ grades in other subjects as well as English grades for freshmen, juniors and seniors.

Payne now teaches English to inmates at Dixon Correctional Center.