FY10 budget numbers finally settled

For the FY10 fiscal year, Franklin’s net loss of positions will be approximately 12. That should come as welcome news to the community, considering that in February, we faced a budget gap of nearly $3.5 million. At an average of $50,000, that gap represented approximately 70 positions. The gap we faced forced the school department to issue 60 layoff notices in April 2009, and many of the recipients of those letters have received recalls.

We reduced that budget deficit through reductions in expenditures (as shown in the column on the left in the table below). In addition, we received revenues from one-time federal and state resources, including stimulus funds, and school choice revenues (shown in the column on the right).

	FY10 Level Service Original Budget	53,807,773							FY09 Level Funded Budget		50,297,820
LESS									PLUS
Reduction in Expenditures		Amount							Sources of Revenue		Amount
Health Insurance Pemium		(192,000)							State Fiscal Stabilization Funding		219,523
Administrative, etc. Wage Freeze		(124,000)							Federal Stimulus Package		343,091
Additional Health Insurance changes		(200,000)							Circuit Breaker Extraordinary Relief Revenue		426,339
FEA Wage Deferral		(800,000)							School Choice		145,000
Degree Advancement		(150,000)
Attrition		(210,000)
Prepaid Tuition to out of district placements		(200,000)
Positions eliminated		(500,000)
Total Reduction in Expenditures		(2,376,000)							Total Increase in Revenue		1,133,953
Revised Level Service Budget		51,431,773							Increased Level Funded Budget		51,431,773

 

Some have suggested that we “found money” or were “crying wolf” during the budget discussions over the last several months. A careful examination of the data demonstrates otherwise.

Some of the confusion lies with the fact that because of contractual obligations, we had to notify 60 staff members of impending layoffs, even though we knew the number would be smaller.  Our budget gap was approximately $1,500,000 when the layoffs were announced in April.  That is the equivalent of about 30 positions that we expected to lose. We had the pay freeze from the teachers voted in June which saved us $800,000, we prepaid some special-education tuitions which saved us approximately $200,000, we had attrition funds available due to retirements, we had some available revolving account money, and some funds in the degree advancement category which allowed us to cover the gap. We were fortunate in this regard, because that helped us absorb some of the stimulus cuts announced in late June which interfered with our ability to bring everyone back.  

In general, we were able to get to this point through a series of cost savings and budget reductions.   It is great news that we are able to be in this position after perhaps one of the most difficult budget seasons in a long time. I appreciate the patience and perseverance from everyone on the School Committee, administration, and staff. This was truly a team effort and we should all be very proud of the hard work that got us to this point.

But all of this does not bring us back to level service on teaching positions. In fact, the actual layoffs for this year involved 12 positions, and 10 of those were teaching positions.  We started the year with 399 teachers.  Next year, we will have 389.  The positions that we will end up losing will be five physical education/health positions at Franklin High School, the five librarians spread throughout the district, one assistant principal at Franklin high, and the data analyst position (for a total of 12 positions).

In addition, you should consider the following:   we had 443 teachers as of October 1, 2007. The historical numbers going back five years show that we are on a dangerous trend for staffing of our schools.  The table below shows that we are down from a high of 466 teachers in 2006-07.    These staffing cuts have taken place at the same time we have seen increasing enrollments, resulting in larger class iszes.  That’s frankly not good for education, and again, dismisses the “crying wolf” theory.

 
 

School year	# of classroom teachers
2003-04	408
2004-05	459
2005-06	449
2006-07	466
2007-08	443
2008-09	399

 

You can get some additional history on teaching positions in Franklin by looking at this blog post from last year which can be found at: http://franklinschoolcommittee.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/information-on-teachers-in-franklin/.

Message to FEA membership

Several weeks ago, the School Committee requested an opportunity to speak directly with the Franklin Education Association (FEA) membership at its meeting on April 28. We did not get that opportunity.

Through the two video segments below, the Franklin School Committee reaches out directly to the rank and file membership of the education union in this town. In these messages (which total approximately 14 minutes), the School Committee spells out the reasons underlying its request for wage concessions, and the need to maintain collaborative meeting times for principals and teachers. It is also an invitation to engage in further discussions to save teaching jobs and preserve Franklin as a high performing school district.

It is our sincere hope that the members will view this message and reach out to leadership and request that a resolution be forged immediately. As we state in the message, our door is open. We stand ready to talk with you or with your representatives at any time or place.

You can view the videos by clicking on the images below or by clicking on the following links:  Part I,  Part II.

If you have difficulty viewing the message on YouTube, or would prefer to view a text version, please see below:

View this document on Scribd

Refreshing post from Franklin teacher

I saw this post on milforddailynews.com this morning and thought it was worth repeating here. It is said to be from a Franklin teacher. To me, it exemplifies the typical Franklin teacher: hard-working, dedicated, and caring. It also captures empathy for the residents in Franklin, other teachers, the School Committee, and administration. Of the over 400 teachers we have in the system, I believe this to be the prevailing view. I just wish more like this writer had shown up at the union meeting yesterday:

I too often work 10-12 hour days. My car is in the parking lot at the school I teach at often well into the evening. I then bring additional work home with me, that often has me working until close to midnight, not to mention the work that I take home on the weekends. I am in my 10th year of teaching, and it has been like this since day 1, because I am committed to do the best job I can each and every day and to continually evaluate my own teaching and search for ways to better do my job for the children of Franklin. Meanwhile, I am also a single parent to 2 young children that DESERVE and require my attention each morning and evening, and on the weekends. No one goes into teaching deceived into thinking they will have a 6 hour work day and all this vacation time to run off into the sunset!

In addition, I chaperone ski trips and other afterschool events, have given up my vacation to chaperone students on a trip to Washington DC, and make a point to attend events my students and former students are involved in, whether they be athletic, musical or theatric. I spend my summers taking courses in order to maintain my teaching license and better my teaching. I also spend many days in my classroom to be sure it is ready for students in the fall and to begin to implement new ideas.

My guess is that many of you who continually perpetuate and feed the enormous disrespect towards teachers that the community of Franklin has, have never stepped foot in a classroom beyond your own education and have not once bothered to have a real conversation with a teacher. And shame on all of you, because I am sure many of you can think back and remember a teacher that really made an impact on your life or was there for you during a difficult time in your life. I would also bet that those of you with such a dislike for teachers have children who are or were in the Franklin Public Schools and I find it hard to believe that each of those teachers was as you describe us.

I am certainly not trying to pit the private sector against the public sector. I am fully aware of how hard people in the private sector work and how big of a hit they have taken (lay offs and pension reductions to name a few). My own parents continue to work well past when they should have retired, because the economy does not enable them to do so. The work we do each and every day may be different, but one cannot be viewed as less important than the other.

In terms of the wage freeze and conditions, as a member of the FEA and a resident/parent in Franklin, I can tell you that there are 2 very different versions of the events that have transpired out there, and I doubt the truth will ever see the light of day. The other unions in town agreed to a wage freeze with no conditions in return. I (and many of my colleagues) feel that we should do the same. For many of us, of utmost importance is saving the jobs of our colleagues and therefore protecting the high level of education this community has come to expect. I do not believe conditions should be attached to a person’s career/livelihood. Our contract is up for renegotiation next year and now the school committee is aware of the things the union would like to see addressed. The time to address those issues is not now (and I may be shooting myself in the foot for saying these things publicly).

We should agree to the wage freeze so that the teachers can continue doing the excellent work that they do and the school committee and administration can move forward in planning for the 2009-2010 school year.

I continue to have the utmost respect for those who have answered the calling of the teaching profession. The School Committee will continue to strive to make certain that we maintain Franklin as a high performing district. To move student achievement, you need reasonable class sizes, professional development opportunities, and highly qualified staff. It is committed teachers like the poster above that make this possible in our community.

Letter to teacher’s union regarding wage concessions

You may have read in the papers about a letter sent by the School Committee to the teacher’s union regarding wage concessions for next year. A copy of the letter is reproduced below to provide better context for understanding the stories and issues involved.

View this document on Scribd

Franklin will receive $448,381 in additional education funding

As part of his Massachusetts Recovery Plan to secure the state’s economic future, Governor Deval Patrick today announced he will commit $168 million in federal education recovery funds to ensure every district in the Commonwealth reaches so-called foundation spending levels next school year. For Franklin, that means that an additional $448,381 in the school budget. This will reduce our anticipated deficit for FY10 to approximately $2.5 million.

The Governor’s investment will give 166 districts the ability to preserve programs and avoid teacher layoffs at a time when the global economic crisis is forcing communities to increase class sizes, cut positions and make other difficult budget decisions that threaten the quality of education in Massachusetts. The state’s historic education reform law established so-called foundation budgets for communities, setting a minimum funding threshold districts must meet so that students receive a “fair and adequate” education.

“Second graders only get one chance at second grade. Thanks to these federal recovery funds, we can give our students the education they deserve and avoid short changing their future,” said Governor Patrick.

The Governor protected Chapter 70 education funding from cuts in his Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposal, maintaining the current allocation of $3.984 billion. However, due to a historic drop-off in state revenue collections brought on by the recession, level-funding of Chapter 70 still prevented 166 districts from reaching foundation spending levels. If the Governor’s Chapter 70 proposal is approved by the Legislature, dedicating a portion of the state’s estimated $1.88 billion for education programs from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will guarantee foundation-level funding for all districts. To view the districts in line to receive education funding as part of the Governor’s Massachusetts Recovery Plan, click here.

Franklin employees forego FY10 salary increases

On their own volition, 51 school administrators and non-union secretaries volunteered to freeze their salaries and forgo any kind of pay increases. The news was announced at last night’s School Committee meeting.

We have known for some time that FY10 is going to be a very difficult budget season. Several weeks ago, we noted that as a community we would all have to dig deeply to come up with a solution to keep the system intact. We were happy to report last night that we have a group of administrators and non-union staff who came together and voted to freeze their salaries and forego any increases for FY10.

That’s 51 employees who took the initiative, stepped up to the plate, and put on the table a solution which involved personal sacrifice. It is a clear case of leadership by example and it sets the right tone as we continue on this difficult budget journey. Our heartfelt thanks and admiration go out to this fine and dedicated group of educators .

For the complete report from the Milford Daily News, click here.

MCAS history exam scrapped by DOE board

The state Board of Education voted today to delay the start of the 10th-grade MCAS history exam by at least two years because of deep budget cuts and financial constraints.

In an 8-2 vote, the board acknowledged that during such tough fiscal times it could not introduce a new test that might cause school districts to spend tens of thousands of dollars to retrain teachers and revamp curriculum. The test had been scheduled to begin as a pilot program this spring and be administered to high school juniors next year, becoming a graduation requirement for the class of 2012.

Mitchell Chester, commissioner of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, outlined his rationale for delaying the history MCAS in a letter which can be viewed by clicking here. In part, he wrote: “Even at current funding levels, we will have insufficient funds to maintain our current program and transition our pilot history and social science tests to a fully operational assessment program. While our history and social science tests are part of our state education reform program, unlike reading, mathematics, and science and technology/engineering tests, they are not required by the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. If the budget cuts currently projected are realized, there will be additional impacts to the MCAS program, beyond the impact to history and social science assessments.”

To view the Boston Globe report, click here. For the Milford Daily News report, click here.

Financial planning committee issues report in Newton

As we await the report from Franklin’s financial planning committee, one interesting read is today’s Boston Globe story on the presentation delivered by a similar group in Newton. For decades, Newton has enjoyed an enviable reputation for good schools, leafy parks, and close proximity to Boston. But the financial committee told residents that their city is not as great as it used to be. To see the full report in the Boston Globe, click here.

From the perspective of the schools, the committee noted that students in Newton are facing the prospect of underfunded technology, higher fees, and larger class sizes. Like Franklin, Newton’s school system is facing a growing financial gap. To maintain services, the district needs to increase revenue by 5.9 percent a year. The city’s revenue has been growing at about 3.9 percent over the last five years. In its revenue report released in November, the group said Newton’s choices are “more profound than simply increasing revenues or reducing costs. Rather we must consider reductions in the historic scope and scale of municipal and educational services.”

The budget issues facing Franklin and many of the communities throughout Massachusetts bear many similarities. And this story from Newton and the report from its financial planning committee is further evidence that we are not alone. In that respect, we anxiously await the report to the citizens of Franklin.

You can get background information, including the mission and charge surrounding the Newton group, by clicking here.  You can read the complete set of City of Newton reports by clicking here.

Full-day kindergarten facing budget axe in Mass

With the economy in decline, the Boston Globe is reporting that several school districts across Massachusetts are rethinking their plans for full-day kindergarten because of the high fees involved, threatening the state’s recent inroads in making a full day of school available to all 5-year-olds.

Franklin has offered a successful full-day kindergarten program for many years, but with the prospect of $3.5 million in budget cuts for FY10, our community will no doubt also be forced to reconsider the financial viability of the program. For the past several years, the School Committee has been forced to look at all options to reduce its budget. In the last few budget cycles, we have trimmed around the edges. But with no edges left, we must look to the core programs.

According to the Globe report, three-fourths of the state’s public kindergarten students are in full-day classes, compared to roughly a fourth a decade ago. The state has been pushing for more full-day kindergarten classes since it established a grant program for full-day kindergarten in 2000.

Cuts to spending on full-day kindergarten run counter to a growing national view among educators and lawmakers that children need more time in kindergarten to be successful in subsequent years. There is no question that this would be a giant step backwards, but the realities of school financing leave us with few other options.

Over the next several weeks, the School Committee will be discussing all budget cutting efforts and we urge you to stay tuned and participate in the discussions. To read the full Globe report on what is happening outside of Franklin, click here.

Practical wisdom is needed now more than ever

Over the next few months, the School Committee will be called upon to make critical decisions about budget matters for the next fiscal year. In the decision-making process, we set guidelines and highlight priorities to assist us in arriving at a budget number. It is unfortunate that during this process, we often lose sight of the need for practical wisdom, a topic not easily susceptible to numeric calculation.

Along those lines, I was drawn to a video on this topic which deserves your review and consideration. In this 20 minute talk, Barry Schwartz makes a passionate call for practical wisdom as an antidote to a society gone mad with bureaucracy. He argues powerfully that rules often fail us, incentives often backfire, and practical, everyday wisdom will help rebuild our world.

In his remarks, Schwartz reminds us that kindness, care, and empathy are essential human interactions which are not part of the job descriptions, but are essential parts of every job. He also notes that it is difficult to teach these concepts in standards-based curricula, and that we must rely on the judgment of our teachers to deliver the messages of moral skill and moral will. He further goes on to remind us that you don’t need to be brilliant to be wise, but you must have that combination of moral will and moral skill in order to possess the practical wisdom which is necessary for success.

I urge everyone to take a peek at this video and give consideration to the big picture elements of our education system. The video can also be used as a helpful set of guiding principles for what is important to maintain in our education programs.

Governor’s cuts will spare schools

Both the Boston Globe and Lowell Sun are reporting that Gov. Deval Patrick will tell municipal leaders tomorrow morning that he will spare schools from massive budget cuts this year as he moves to close a $1.1 billion budget hole.

The governor, who plans to announce cuts to this year’s budget by next Wednesday (January 28, 2009), has decided to leave Chapter 70 aid to public schools intact, according to an administration source briefed on the speech.

Patrick will speak in Boston tomorrow morning at the annual Massachusetts Municipal Association breakfast, where aides say he will discuss various opportunities for local and state government to form partnerships.

The administration source declined to elaborate on where the cuts will come, and how deep other areas of local aid, such as lottery assistance, will be impacted.  It is also difficult to understand how these cuts will not impact education at the local level.  Most communities (Franklin included) maintain one pot of funds for all municipal needs.  Telling communities that education will be spared is inaccurate under that scenario.

For the Boston Globe report, click here. For the Lowell Sun report, click here.

You can review the text and/or video of the Governor’s remarks by clicking here.

Readiness report issued by state commission

On New Year’s eve, the Readiness Finance Commission presented a report to Governor Deval Patrick outlining an alleged combination of cost savings, school district restructuring, education reform strategies and potential new investments to help achieve the Governor’s Readiness Project. As you may recall, in June of 2008, Governor Patrick assembled the Readiness Finance Commission and charged it with presenting a variety of alternative means to achieve sustainable education funding for current needs and the sequenced investments necessary for a ten-year Readiness Project implementation plan.

The plan as presented by the Commission can be viewed by clicking here. A list and links to all of the other Readiness Project reports issued to date can be viewed by clicking here.

The goals and intent of the project are lofty, but some of the conclusions must be met with skepticism. The finance report focuses first on cost savings, presenting strategies for reducing employee health insurance and retiree benefit costs, maximizing Federal reimbursements to offset special education costs and promoting greater efficiency through regionalization and procurement and energy reform. Recognizing that cost savings and efficiencies alone will not be sufficient for full implementation of the Readiness Project reform strategies, many Commission members acknowledged that new investment would be required to fund current and future education reforms. In this context, many Commission members called for a balanced, multi-pronged approach requiring cost-cutting and efficiency strategies along with educational reform and revenue measures.

Initial reports on the Commission’s declarations point out that the assumptions of cost savings are noble but overstated. Also, as Glenn Koocher, the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, noted: “It reflects a real lack of knowledge about what it’s like to be in a community that supports its schools and the real lack of respect for parent empowerment and civic engagement that is the Achilles Heel of national education reformers.”

With regard to supposed enhanced revenues, it is important to point out that on the day before this report was issued, the Governor announced that he was preparing for up to $1 billion in additional mid-year budget cuts, raising the specter of possible reductions in local aid to municipalities and additional layoffs of state employees. This left many of us wondering how these expensive and well-intentioned projects can be pursued in the context of these other budget cutting measures.

We all support the notion that we must provide a public education system that more fully educates all students. Indeed, we have been working at this for many years. The problem is that we have educational theoreticians who produce reports, issue unfunded mandates, and forget that they are not elected lawmakers. Those of us who deal regularly with the real people they seek to control know that there are difficult tasks ahead, but we need collaboration and resources rather than dictates.

We must remember that all the policy recommendations outlined in the Readiness reports are just words on paper until the real policy makers – the state legislature – takes it all up anew. Until then, these reports will remain as untested theories, leaving those of us who are in the trenches to figure out how to manage our educational systems at the local level in the face of further budget cutting proclamations.

Advertising pilot program begins at FHS

The Franklin School Committee has approved a pilot project of advertising in the Franklin High School Field House. The Pilot will operate according to the guidelines below, approved by the School Committee at their October 28, 2008 meeting.

Any individual or business interested in taking part in this pilot should contact the Franklin High School Athletic Department at 508-541-2100 X3040 or e-mail Brad Sidwell for further details.

• The duration of the pilot will be from Nov. 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009;
• The Subcommittee will monitor and evaluate the performance of the pilot and make further recommendations at the School Committee’s May 12, 2009 meeting;
• Any revenue from the pilot must be fully accounted for and deposited in the Franklin School Department’s revolving account for athletics, with such proceeds being used to offset the cost of the district’s athletic programs subject to the consideration and vote of the Franklin School Committee;
• Advertisements placed within the Field House should be executed based on the following specifications;
  • Each will be 4′ x 6′ banner-style ads on vinyl;
  • Each banner must be navy blue with white lettering;
  • The advertising content on each banner must be printed or placed at least six (6) inches from any edge of the banner;
  • Each banner may display a company or organization logo, no larger than 1′ x 1′, in any color;
  • Each banner must have six eye grommets (4 corners, top middle, bottom middle);
  • The promotion of any product related to alcohol, tobacco and illegal substances will be prohibited;
  • Advertising content that is determined to be vulgar, profane or sexually explicit will be prohibited;
  • Advertising content with language or graphics interpreted as being of a harassing or prejudicial nature to any individual or group will be prohibited;
  • The content of a banner must be approved by the Superintendent of Schools or his/her designee, the Franklin High School principal and the chair of the Franklin School Committee before it can be displayed; and,
  • Any advertising content interpreted as being contrary to these guidelines by the Superintendent of Schools, the principal of Franklin High School and the chair of the Franklin School Committee will be prohibited.

   

• The location of each banner placement will occur at the discretion of the Athletic Director and Franklin High School Principal;
• Each advertiser will be responsible for procuring banners that adhere to the aforementioned specifications;
• The Franklin Public Schools will be responsible for hanging/affixing each banner in accordance with applicable safety regulations;
• The cost for displaying one banner will be set at $480.00 per year; with each year designated as the 12-month period from December 1 to November 30;
• A minimum three-month advertising commitment will be required;
• For advertisers who choose to display a banner for less than the one-year period, the cost will be pro-rated at $40 per month;
• Should the Franklin School Committee decide to discontinue the program after the six-month pilot, refunds will be made to advertisers for any excess funds paid, and,
• No single advertiser will be allowed to purchase more than two banners each year.

 

The Policy Subcommittee of the Franklin School Committee shall give its full consideration to the creation of a policy for advertising on and within Franklin Public School property that would give community and regional businesses and organizations the opportunity to respectfully and tastefully promote themselves and the mission of the Franklin Public Schools and/or its academic or athletic programs.

You can view the Milford Daily News report on the program by clicking here.

Thoughts on the school funding conundrum

Several weeks ago, Paul Schlictman a colleague from and Past President of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, distributed an e-mail which spoke to what is happening in communities throughout Massachusetts. It highlighted the problems associated with continuous budget cuts, which conflict with our need to provide a sound education. He gave me his permission to publish it here:

At this point in time, we are coming to an understanding of the economic high-stakes tied to a quality education. The jobs that required lots of heart but little education are gone, and our national economic survival is tied to ensuring that all our children receive a quality education. Combined with a national sense of urgency, we have made considerable progress in learning how to improve our schools, and how to deliver an education that will prepare our children for the economy of the future. We now have some amazing technology that serves as both a tool for differentiating instruction, as well as the platform for most of the work that will be done in a digital age.

Meanwhile, what are we doing? Managing cuts and imposing fees to prevent further deterioration of the status quo. While the rest of the world is passing us by, we are sitting at the side of the road placing patches atop previous patches of the baloney-skin tires that we can’t afford to upgrade.

Can we place a fee on the Fi, the Fo, or the Fum? Our daily search for enough duct tape to keep things running is a day we don’t talk about improving curriculum, instruction, and student achievement. Every layoff cycle is a blow to the recruitment and retention of quality teachers. We fail to provide the level of support for teachers (professional development, coaching, supervision and evaluation) that is necessary to foster growth in professional practice. My iPhone has more computing power than some of the 20th century antiques sitting in our classrooms.

Proposition 2.5 frames the question, shall we raise taxes? There can be no more disadvantageous question to ask, as the question does not tie taxes to services or value received. There are many states in which school budgets are tied to local referendums; in New York state the school budget is voted with the following question (this referendum question is from Bay Shore, Long Island): “Shall the proposed budget of the Board of Education of the Bay Shore Union Free School District, Bay Shore, New York for the fiscal year of 2007-2008 totaling $124,453,656 be adopted, and shall such sum be raised by taxation on the taxable property of said district, less the sum received from the public monies?” (To see the actual ballot, click here).

To provide some context, here’s a little description of the district from their website: “The Bay Shore School District sets high expectations for both students and staff. Five elementary schools, a middle school and a high school provide a caring, creative learning environment for the 5,842 students who attend each day. Our mission remains to provide opportunities for all our students to learn, to grow and to achieve their maximum potential. We encourage and enjoy the strong commitment of the families living within our school district to help us reach our goals.” (To view the website, click here).

Bay Shore is a fairly typical Long Island district, and it has a relatively strong commercial tax base (shopping malls along Sunrise Highway). In New York, school districts are independent of towns, and often cross town lines (or encompass only a portion of a town). The Bay Shore district is located inside the Town of Islip (population 322,782 – 2000 Census), and there are 12 school districts either partially or totally located in the town (Four of these school districts contain parts of two or more towns.)

Here’s what happens when the budget is adopted. Once the bottom line is voted, the district waits for the perpetually late state aid number. Once the state aid and other revenue is determined, the remainder is sent out as a line item on the town tax bill. In the case of Bay Shore, they received $34.9 million (28%) in state aid and raised $79 million (64%) from the property tax. If the local aid numbers come in higher, the property tax goes down. If the local aid numbers come in lower, the property tax goes up. The bottom line budget number is set by the referendum; the school board and the community (through the referendum process) determines how much is spent, and the state legislature (through the local aid formula) determines how much will be raised through the property tax.

Massachusetts has one of the most disadvantageous funding structures for public education. Unless we find some way to secure adequate funding for public schools, we will be spending our time thinking up new and better fees. Perhaps we will go back to the old days when parents were required to provide enough wood for the classroom stove in order to heat the classroom.

Problems with Proposition 2½ highlighted in national report

On May 21, 2008, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report, “Hidden Consequences: Lessons from Massachusetts for States Considering a Property Tax Cap.” With New York’s Commission on Property Tax Relief planning to recommend that the state impose a rigid cap on property taxes for education based on Massachusetts’ Proposition 2 ½, the report from the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities describes the problems the law has created in Massachusetts.

“Across Massachusetts, a number of communities have been forced to lay off teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public employees; close fire stations; shut libraries, senior centers, and recreation centers or sharply reduce their hours; and scale back public school programs.  One town even turned off its street lights to save money,” said Iris Lav, the Center’s deputy director and co-author of the report.

According to the report, Proposition 2 ½, which limits the growth in communities’ property tax revenue for all services including education to 2.5 percent a year, has:

• Arbitrarily constrained local revenues without considering the actual cost of providing services.  “The fundamental problem with property tax caps is that they don’t make public services any less expensive,” said Lav.  ”Costs like employee health insurance and special education are largely beyond localities’ control, and they’re rising much faster than the cap allows.  Nor does the cap hold down the cost of heating buildings and operating school buses when oil prices are skyrocketing.”  When these things occur, as they have in Massachusetts, other services have to be cut to fit total expenditures under the cap.
  
• Made local governments heavily dependent on state aid.  In the early years after Proposition 2 ½’s adoption in 1980, large infusions of state aid prevented major loss of local services.  But state aid dropped dramatically in the recessions and state fiscal crises of the early 1990s and the early 2000s.  (Aid plunged by 33 percent after adjustment for inflation between 1989 and 1992, for example.)  This forced budget cuts in localities throughout the state — especially in low- and moderate income communities, which are the most dependent on state aid.
  
• Exacerbated disparities between wealthier communities and poorer ones in access to quality local services.  To maintain valued services, voters in higher-income communities have approved more overrides of Proposition 2 ½’s revenue growth limit than poorer communities have, and the overrides have been for larger amounts.  This increases the likelihood that an individual’s access to public services such as a decent education would be determined by her wealth and the community she lives in.
  
• Resulted in cuts to valued services rather than simply calling forth greater efficiency from local governments.  Proponents argued that Proposition 2 ½ would make government more efficient and would not entail major service cuts.  But the evidence suggests that the “savings” achieved under the law have come primarily through a decline in key local services, not through sweeping new efficiencies. 
  

“Having led a municipality for eight years under Proposition 2 ½, I have seen first-hand that the law does not permit adequate funding of core local responsibilities such as public safety and education.” said Northampton, Massachusetts Mayor Mary Clare Higgins.

The complete Center’s report is available at http://www.cbpp.org/5-21-08sfp.htm.

We are not alone

From time to time, School Committee members share information regarding topics that effect our districts. There was a recent discussion regarding the funding challenges we are all experiencing. I thought I would share one of those emails:

I am not going to get into a prolonged argument here, but suffice to say
that Local officials and citizens in North Reading have made a massive
effort over the last few years to rein in spending and to push for more
local aid. Where has that left us — still 13th or 14th from the bottom in
per pupil spending in the state. We have gone for an override two straight
years and have lost. We have elementary school libraries and computer labs
that are closed two or three days per week. Also this year, we close our
elementary and middle schools two hours early each Wednesday in order to
give our teachers the required prep time that they lost when we eliminated
or cut music, art, physical education and other courses. In addition, we
had to cut the physical education class option for high school juniors and
seniors and we have numerous classes with more than 30 students.

Thanks to great cooperation this year between various town boards, we will
be able to restore a full school week, every week, at our elementary and
middle schools, as well as some of the courses that were cut this year.
However, we still will have no physical education for juniors and seniors,
still only have ONE certified librarian in our entire school system, and
still not be able to open our computer labs

Last week in North Reading we had the misfortune of approving a $100 increase in athletic fees. Now, a student will pay $400 for the first sport and $100 each for the second and third. The family max is now $1,100. Thankfully, we could keep our busing fee at the bargain rate of $250 per student and our even bigger bargain student extracurricular fee at only $125. And, the big bonus with the extracurricular fee is that the $125 covers as many activities in which the student wishes to participate.

There has been much discussion of late as to the cause of our financial challenges. Is the crux of the problem due to mismangement of funds, inefficient use of revenue, i.e. new fire station, senior center, not being able to live within our budget, etc.? Could we continue to work hard and make sure we are spending every dollar in the most efficient way? Absolutely, but every organization aspires to the same goal. The point of my sharing this email with you is to say that we are not alone. There are many cities and towns facing similar problems to our own, if not worse. My question is, if we are all facing the same problem…..are we all not being financially responsible?

Information on teachers in Franklin

There has been much talk about the loss of 43.5 teachers in Franklin should the override fail to pass on June 10. There are suggestions that the School Committee is just using “scare tactics” and that the cuts are not real. This piece is intended to clear up some of the misconceptions

Today, we employ a total of 507 teachers. If you look at the Massachusetts Department of Education (DOE) website, it lists 443 teachers as of October 1, 2007. Why the discrepancy? When the DOE talks teachers they mean only classroom teachers. When the School Committee refers to teachers in its budget materials, we mean all people in the FEA bargaining group, which includes guidance counselors, school psychologists, speech pathologists, ELL teachers and so forth. So when you look at DOE data, please keep that difference in mind.

For the past two budget cycles, the School Committee has had to make reductions in teaching staff in order to meet costs not funded with budget appropriations from the town. Prior to that, the School Committee steadily reduced spending on other services and imposed and increased fees for busing, athletics, and student activities, to name a few. The savings generated from these decisions have been poured directly into the classroom, to recruit and retain top quality teachers, support a strong curriculum and to maintain appropriate class sizes. The result has been stellar academic performance, to the point where our students have gained acceptances at the top universities and colleges in the nation. Compared to dozens and dozens of other districts, Franklin academically outperforms those who spend much more per pupil. We have cut around the edges to protect our core.

This year, however, there are no edges left. Without substantial additional revenue, we must and we will make budget reductions mostly in personnel, because we have exhausted all other areas for significant cuts. What this means is the loss of approximately 43.5 teaching positions – 16 at Franklin high, 12.5 at the middle school level, and 15 at the elementary level. If the layoffs go through, it is a step back of some magnitude.

Last fiscal year, we also had to reduce the number of teachers by 23 even though we had a successful override vote. Some have suggested that we never made these cuts, but we did, and you can refer back to the DOE data for proof. In FY07, we had 466 classroom teachers, and this year we have 443 classroom teachers. To find these figures on the DOE website, you can take the following steps and navigate the site, or simply click on the hyperlinks below:

Start by selecting School/District Profiles on the DOE Main Page.

• Under School/District Data Reports in the upper left corner, select Teacher Data.
• The report displayed is the 2006-2007 Teacher Data Report.
  • Scroll down to Franklin and you’ll see that the total number of teachers is 466.
  • Click on Franklin and you’ll be presented with a report entitled “Franklin – Enrollment/Indicators.“
    • The last section of this table has Teacher Data 2007-2008 and indicates that the total number of teachers is 443 as of October 1, 2007.

If you would like to see the numbers for previous years, you can do that from the Teachers Data page, by clicking on any of the hyperlinks at the top of the page. The data goes back to the 03-04 school year. You will see that the number of classroom teachers in Franklin is as follows:

School year	# of classroom teachers
2003-04	408
2004-05	459
2005-06	449
2006-07	466
2007-08	443

During that same time period, enrollment in the Franklin schools has increased by approximately 500 students. If the override is unsuccessful, that number of classroom teachers is expected to dip below 400 for the 2008-09 school year, which means we will have less teachers than we had in 2003, but 500 more students.

On June 10, the Franklin community will have the opportunity to express its opinion about whether these proposed school cuts are acceptable.

Some have asked why we don’t just freeze teacher salaries in light of these difficult economic times? While it may seem easy to “freeze” salaries, there are many reasons why that is not a good idea and would adversely affect the school system. To begin, it is our goal to attract and retain high-quality teachers in our system.  Indeed, our superintendent is the co-author of a book entitled “The Skillful Leader: Confronting Mediocre Teaching.”  In that regard, he knows quite well what it takes to get us the best staffing.  Salary freezes would run counter to our goals.

Part of attracting and retaining quality staff is the pay scale.  Indeed, there are many communities throughout Massachusetts that offer more attractive salaries and benefits than Franklin.  We are in competition with these other communities.  Last year, we lost some high-quality teachers because of budget issues and the prospect of layoffs.  Many current teachers have applied for jobs outside of Franklin because they perceive a lack of community support.  There are many communities out there that will take our talent in a heartbeat. That will continue to occur if we are unable to meet the budgetary needs.

Last year, the teachers agreed to salary increases of 2%, 2%, and 2.5% for the years 2007-2010. That follows a three-year agreement where their increases were 1.5%, 2.5% and 3%. At least over the last six years, the teachers union has worked well with us in trying to strike a balance, and in this context, it would be unwise to ask teachers to freeze salaries. Moreover, as a community, we want to continue on the path of good to great. And we want to keep and retain the best and brightest in front of our students. We can’t do that unless we offer competitive salaries, benefits, and conditions.

Twenty-five years ago, Americans awoke to a forceful little report that changed public education. It is fruitful to revisit this report, as we consider the choices that face the citizens of Franklin with an override vote.  The Nation at Risk report found poor academic performance at nearly every level of the American education system. It warned that “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”  One of the five goals that stemmed from the report was for districts to provide better teacher training, and salaries should be “professionally competitive.  In 25 years, the Franklin School system has made tremendous progress on this recommendation. The result has been stellar academic performance, to the point where our students have gained acceptances at the top universities and colleges in the nation. Making this change, among others has required an infusion of money.  You can read more about this report by clicking here.

The bottom line is that Franklin’s budget problems stem from the fact that we have an artificially low tax rate and it is going to take a few overrides in order to bring us back to where we should be.  The state has bailed us out over the last 10 years through Chapter 70 aid, and now that that is running dry, it is time for the community to step up to the plate.  From last year to this year, we will see an increase in Chapter 70 funds of approximately 9%.  Those funds make up more than 50% of the school budget for the town of Franklin.  We are seeking a total budget increase of approximately 6.6%.  If you factor in the Chapter 70 aid, the amount we need from the town is actually less than 6.6%.  In this context, I think it would be inappropriate to ask teachers to freeze their salaries when the community will not match even approach what the state is doing relative to increased funding.

Moreover, we want to keep and retain the best and brightest in front of our students.  We can’t do that unless we offer competitive salaries, benefits, and conditions.

Last year, when speaking about the budget, we noted that Franklin was below the state average in 9 of 11 categories of education spending. The only areas where we outspent other Massachusetts communities were in classroom teachers and instructional materials. The new data has emerged, and this year Franklin has slipped further. With the continued education cuts, Franklin now spends over $2,000 less than the state average per pupil and is now below the state average in 10 of 11 categories. With the loss of 43.5 teachers (if the override fails), Franklin is sure to dip below on all 11 categories next year.

Finally, you may have heard that notices went out to 47 teachers last week (see Milford Daily News article by clicking here). That is true. In addition to those RIF notices, we have received notice that some teachers will be retiring or taking leaves of absence, some teachers have been dismissed for performance reasons, and some have resigned. In total, there are 78 teachers that will not be returning to Franklin’s schools if the override is unsuccessful, taking into account RIF’s, retirements, performance based issues, leaves of absence, resignations, etc. That number will probably increase. Of those 78, we will replace about 33 of those positions without an override (for a net loss of 45 positions, including the administrative losses).

Need for override in 2008 was predicted last year

Town Administrator Jeff Nutting predicted last year at the April 11, 2007 Town Council meeting that Franklin would need a $3 million override in 2008 in addition to the $2.7 million voted in 2007.  During the budget hearings, and in response to questions from Councilor Joe McGann, Nutting stated that because of the town’s low tax rate, an additional override would be necessary for the FY09 budget.

The 2 1/2 minute video below captures the discussion at the Town Council meeting, and states quite clearly that Franklin residents would need the additional override.  As Nutting stated, our tax base is too low and we have been “living on the Chapter 70 gravy train” for too long, so adjustments are necessary.  Simply click on the video below to see for yourself.

Here is the portion of the minutes from that April 11, 2007 meeting on that topic (you can view the actual minutes by clicking here; see page 7):

MOTION by Feeley to give the Town Administrator direction to find other revenue within the municipal budget. SECOND by Bartlett. DISCUSSION: Councilor McGann asked what a $2,700,000 override would cost the individual taxpayer. Mr. Nutting answered that it would be about $236 based on a home value of $437,000. McGann asked what the Town would do next year. Mr. Nutting answered that there would be another 6% to 8% increase in the budget and $3,000,000 more would be needed. The Town would face the same issue next year. McGann suggested that the Town would be looking for another override next year. Mr. Nutting said that Franklin’s tax base had to go up to maintain the current level of service. McGann said he felt the public should know they will be facing another override next year.

Override page

As you know, the Town of Franklin will be voting on an override on June 10, 2008 at the Franklin High School field house. The question will ask the voters to approve an additional $2,800,000 in real estate and personal property taxes to be used towards the town’s operating budget in FY09.  Without the override funds, the School Committee and Supt. Ogden would need to impose several million dollars in cuts, including:

• 15 teaching positions at elementary level
  
• 12.5 teaching positions at middle school
  
• 17 teaching positions at FHS
  
• A $100 increase in the pay-to-ride bus fee hike, and
  
• The end of late bus service for students who need to stay after school for academic, clubs and extracurricular programs.
  

We are happy that the Franklin community members will have the opportunity on June 10 to express their opinion about whether they want to see the proposed school cuts.  The override vote will allow them to express their views about their willingness to maintain and invest in the educational quality that has long been a hallmark of Franklin’s schools.

To aid in helping voters make an informed choice, we have created an override page which you can view by clicking here. This page is offered as a resource for information on the override, the date and location of forums on the topic, and links to documents and videos.

Nation at Risk: 25 years since the report

Twenty-five years ago this week, Americans awoke to a forceful little report that changed public education. It is fruitful to revisit this report, as we consider the choices that face the citizens of Franklin with an override vote.

On April 26, 1983, in a White House ceremony, Ronald Reagan took possession of “A Nation at Risk.” The product of nearly two years’ work by a blue-ribbon commission, it found poor academic performance at nearly every level. It warned that “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.” The complete report can be viewed by clicking here.

In its most alarming text, the report noted the following:

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.

The report kick-started decades of tough talk about public schools and reforms. In Massachusetts, it led to the McDuffy and Hancock decisions from the Supreme Judicial Court, education reform, and the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). At the conclusion of its McDuffy decision, the court set out broad guidelines regarding the nature of the duty to educate. The court stated that:

[a]n educated child must possess ‘at least the seven following capabilities: (i) sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization; (ii) sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and political systems to enable students to make informed choices; (iii) sufficient understanding of governmental processes to enable the student to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation; (iv) sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and physical wellness; (v) sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural and historical heritage; (vi) sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic or vocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life work intelligently; and (vii) sufficient level of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics or in the job market.’

McDuffy v. Sec’y of the Executive Office of Educ., 415 Mass. at 618-19, 615 N.E.2d at 554 (quoting Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 212 (Ky. 1989)).

On the federal level, it culminated in 2002’s No Child Left Behind, the Bush administration law that pushes schools to improve students’ basic skills or face ever-tougher sanctions.

The Nation at Risk report made five key recommendations: 1) High school graduates should master four years of English, three of math, science and social studies and one-half year of computer science; 2) Schools should adopt “more rigorous and measurable standards” and expectations; 3) Schools should “strongly consider” seven-hour days and a 200- to 220-day year; 4) Better teacher training; salaries should be “professionally competitive.”; and 5) Citizens “should hold educators and elected officials responsible” for leadership and fiscal support to drive reform.

In 25 years, the Franklin School system has made tremendous progress on all recommendations except for the school calendar. The result has been stellar academic performance, to the point where our students have gained acceptances at the top universities and colleges in the nation. Making these changes has required an infusion of money. The state has contributed as a funding source, and presently pays more than 50 percent of the Franklin school budget. But state resources are beginning to dry up, and we must turn to the local community for funding to continue our progress.

Without additional revenue from an override, the School Committee must make budget reductions mostly in personnel, because it has exhausted all other areas for significant cuts. What this means is the loss of approximately 43.5 teaching positions – 16 at Franklin high, 12.5 at the middle school level, and 15 at the elementary level. This will erode the Franklin School system and undo the significant progress that has been made in the last 25 years. The discussion on the override question should center on whether our community finds these cuts acceptable, or whether they are willing to pay more for the critical services they expect and deserve.

The authors of the Nation at Risk report understood that a high level of shared education is essential to a free, democratic society and to the fostering of a common culture, especially in a country that prides itself on pluralism and individual freedom. They went on to say that for our country to function, citizens must be able to reach some common understandings on complex issues, often on short notice and on the basis of conflicting or incomplete evidence. Education helps form these common understandings, a point Thomas Jefferson made long ago in his justly famous dictum:

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

As you consider what to do over the next few weeks relative to the override question, please keep in mind the warnings we received 25 years ago. And keep in mind that we have seen dramatic changes in the world in those 25 years. This heightens our duty and responsibility to make certain that our children receive a rich education that will enable them to compete on the world stage.

Proposed bill will help seniors with tax overrides

On Thursday, February 28, 2008, House lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill (111 YEAS to 34 NAYS) which would permit a municipality in Massachusetts to create an exemption for low and moderate income seniors when it places a Prop 2 ½ override on the ballot. The bill would give our local Town Council the option of giving lower-income seniors a tax break if voters adopt an override. The tax exemption would apply to homeowners 65 or older with a family income of $60,000 or less, provided that their real estate taxes exceed 10 percent of their total income. To read the full text of the bill, now known as House Bill No. 4534, click here.

The bill is now pending with the State Senate. It was referred to the committee on Senate Ethics and Rules. Franklin has two senators who can be contacted on this matter: Karen Spilka and Scott Brown. Senator Spilka happens to be a member of the Senate Ethics and Rules Committee. In order to ensure passage before the start of the next fiscal year, contact your State Senators, and urge them to support this measure.

Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said the group backs the measure. According to an MMA press release, the law, if enacted, it would be the seventh law passed since 2004 to ease property tax burden for the elderly, veterans and other eligible local taxpayers. The MMA also noted that the increasing dependence on the property tax to pay for municipal and school services has been a growing concern for state and local officials statewide over the past several years. The new abatement legislation would provide another option to target tax relief to needy taxpayers.

WBUR did an interesting story on the proposed bill which can be viewed by clicking here. The story covers the plight of seniors faced with the impact of an override, and the benefits of this legislation.

For those on fixed incomes in Franklin, who no longer have children in the school system, we believe that this legislation offering property tax relief to seniors is vital to easing the burden of a tax increase resulting from an override.

Override statement to Town Council

Below is the text of the statement delivered at the Town Council meeting on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, in support of an override question:

The School Committee unanimously supports an override for the FY09 budget. As we see it, an override is the only way to maintain our school system as a high-performing district.

Our community rightfully has high expectations for performance in our schools. We are committed to meeting these expectations, and in that regard, we have presented a level service budget to meet the educational needs of our students.

The members of the school committee are homeowners, taxpayers and parents, just like you. We understand that these are difficult economic times.

But we also know, as you do, that the success of our children in the economy of the future depends hugely on the education that the Franklin schools deliver to them today, and each and every day. It is our responsibility as a community to deliver the best possible education to the 6,200 children in our schools.

For those on fixed incomes in Franklin, who no longer have children in the school system, we believe that state legislation offering property tax relief to seniors is vital to easing the burden of a tax increase resulting from an override.

We believe the Franklin community should have the opportunity to express its opinion about whether they want to see the proposed school cuts, or an override. An override will allow them to express their views about their willingness to maintain and invest in the educational quality that has long been a hallmark of Franklin’s schools.

For seven years, the school committee has steadily reduced spending on services and imposed and increased fees for busing, athletics, and student activities, to name a few. The savings generated from these decisions have been poured directly into the classroom, to recruit and retain top quality teachers, support a strong curriculum and to maintain appropriate class sizes.

The result has been stellar academic performance, to the point where our students have gained acceptances at the top universities and colleges in the nation. Compared to dozens and dozens of other districts, Franklin academically outperforms those who spend much more per pupil. We have cut around the edges to protect our core.

This year, however, there are no edges left. Without substantial additional revenue, we must and we will make budget reductions mostly in personnel, because we have exhausted all other areas for significant cuts. What this means is the loss of approximately 43.5 teaching positions – 16 at Franklin high, 12.5 at the middle school level, and 15 at the elementary level.

We have done a lot of creative things to generate revenue, but there’s only so far we can go with the proposed budget increase of $800,000 to the school department. The discussion on the override question should center on whether our community finds these cuts acceptable, or whether they are willing to pay more for the critical services they expect and deserve.

During last year’s budget discussion, we observed that Franklin was below the state average in 9 of 11 categories of education spending — including administration. The only areas where we outspent other Massachusetts communities were in classroom teachers and instructional materials. The latest data, however, shows that this year Franklin has slipped further. We now spend below the average on instructional materials.

Franklin spends $2,200 less than the state average per pupil. We are now below the state average in 10 of 11 categories. With the loss of 45 teachers, Franklin is sure to dip below on all 11 categories next year.

The School Committee does not believe Franklin is a below average community. Therefore, the budget we have proposed is designed to maintain educational quality and class size.

We believe it is worthy of your support. And we thank you for your support in prior years. Thank you.

Compelling budget letter from Franklin teacher

The School Committee received a compelling letter today on the current state of the budget. With the author’s permission, I am posting it below:

Dear Franklin Citizen,

Last year, the citizens of Franklin voted for a tax override to provide additional funding for the public schools. It was a historic victory for townsfolk that believe Franklin should provide an exceptional public education and vital community services. I was never more proud to call this town my home.

The public schools are once again under attack; but unlike last year, an override does not appear to be option. Apparently, town leaders do not rate education as a top priority in the community structure. It is obvious that citizens who value a first quality public education need to be more vocal and proactive. You should demand that education be a top priority of this town. No other town system affects more people, influences the perception of this town as a desirable place to live, and favorably or adversely affects the future of thousands of children and teens.

A recent article in the Franklin Gazette noted that many parents are “curious” about the significance of more school cuts. Unfortunately, curiosity does not make change. The voice which chooses not to put education first and which thinks class size does not matter should not be the loudest voice. If you think education is the most important variable that will influence our future society, it is time to demand the same thinking of town leaders.

From time to time, teachers are on the receiving end of ridicule. Summers off! Out by 3:00! Glorified babysitting! In spite of these comments, we persist. For many of us, teaching is not just a job. Working nights, weekends, and during vacations is not uncommon. We do this for the sake of satisfying professional responsibilities, improving our craft and enriching our students. Meanwhile, the emotional demands of dealing with educational politics, diverse learning styles, wide ranging aptitudes, and a myriad of personalities take a toll. It is not surprising that national statistics suggest nearly 45% give up in the first five years despite the benefits. I am one of many teachers proud to go above and beyond. I am rewarded by the notion that my participation makes a difference. I love to teach, but it is increasingly difficult to be enthusiastic about teaching in a town that does not make education a top priority. I am sure that I am not alone. Other veteran teachers, like myself, are feeling frustrated and disillusioned. When will our town leaders understand the cumulative effects of their educational shortchanging?

Sadly, the real victims are the children. They get one crack at each grade level. For starters, larger classes change the dynamics of classroom management and curriculum delivery. One-on-one attention and small group instruction become unrealistic goals. Special projects and activities are likely impractical to implement. It would not be surprising to see student achievement drop. Consider the following: These children, our children, will be faced with odds that no generation before them has faced. The United States is no longer the sole economic power, and the world has changed more in the past decade than in any other period in history. Too much is at stake. Our children need more than a good education. They need at least a great education. The leaders of this town have their priorities in the wrong place. They should be leading the call to give Franklin’s children an unparalleled education.

Last summer, Franklin was identified as a top ten town to raise a family according to Family Circle Magazine. It was a proud moment for everyone associated with the community. Less than one year later, Franklin’s Town Council and Administrator are preparing to take steps to erode that reputation. If you are curious, concerned or angry about the underfunding of our schools, make your feelings known. Organize yourself with others and stand up for the children of Franklin. The next Town Council meeting is April 16th.

Mark Goguen
4th Grade Teacher
Jefferson School

Deep cuts loom across state

The budget woes facing Franklin are similar to those being faced throughout Massachusetts. As reported in today’s Boston Globe:

Across Massachusetts, cities and towns face the prospect of deep cuts in what appears to be the grimmest fiscal year since 2003. Local revenue and state aid can’t keep up with such rapidly rising expenses as employee health insurance, heating oil, and even street paving. School costs, like special education requirements, are sapping local budgets. And now beleaguered residents are seeing home values dip even as taxes continue to rise.

To view the full story, click here.

The Franklin School Committee started its budget deliberations for the 2008-2009 school year in February 2008. At that time we noted that in order for the Franklin schools to offer the same services as we are providing to your children this year, the school budget must increase by approximately $4.1 million. The Town Administrator is currently proposing to increase school revenues by $800,000. If this proposed increase is approved by the Town Council, the Franklin schools would need to reduce their budget by approximately $3.3 million.

For the past several years in Franklin, the school budget has been pared down significantly, and we have seen a reduction of services combined with implementation of and increases to fees for busing, athletics, and student activities, to name a few. This year, we must make the budget reductions mostly in personnel, because we have exhausted all other areas for cuts. What this means is the loss of approximately 45 teaching positions – 16 at Franklin High, 12.5 at the middle school level, and 15 at the elementary level.

More details on the FY09 budget can be found by clicking here. Moreover, you can view the complete FY09 budget presentation, including videos from the February 26, 2008 meeting, by clicking here.

As the Globe article noted:

The last statewide budget crisis occurred five years ago, when Mitt Romney slashed local aid to address a deficit in one of his first official acts as governor. At that point, communities had had a decade to recover from the previous recession and reap the benefits of a booming late-1990s economy. But now the communities’ budgets haven’t caught up to where they were before the last crisis. State aid had increased somewhat in the last few years, but the 351 cities and towns combined this year still receive $566 million less from the state than they did in fiscal 2002, adjusting for inflation, said Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association.

What this means for Franklin is that we will continue to erode education spending. Last year, when speaking about the budget, we noted that Franklin was below the state average in 9 of 11 categories of education spending. The only areas where we outspent other Massachusetts communities were in classroom teachers and instructional materials. The new data has emerged, and this year Franklin has slipped further. With the continued education cuts, Franklin now spends over $2,000 less than the state average per pupil and is now below the state average in 10 of 11 categories. With the loss of 45 teachers, Franklin is sure to dip below on all 11 categories next year. The complete table of 11 categories is included below. You can view the data in more detail at the Massachusetts Department of Education website by clicking here. 

FY07 Preliminary Expenditures Per Pupil by Function, All Funds – Summary

 

			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 = 6,125.8
Out-of-District FTE Average Membership = 421.0
Total FTE Average Membership = 6,546.8
Administration			1,230,122		1,238		1,231,360	1.96	201.01	404.82
Instructional Leadership			2,733,466		209,918		2,943,384	4.69	480.49	771.27
Classroom and Specialist Teachers			27,946,282		957,863		28,904,145	46.01	4,718.43	4,514.80
Other Teaching Services			2,568,393		650,011		3,218,404	5.12	525.39	817.20
Professional Development			549,119		4,500		553,619	0.88	90.37	226.31
Instructional Materials, Equipment and Technology			1,028,546		133,479		1,162,025	1.85	189.69	357.33
Guidance, Counseling and Testing			1,302,622		0		1,302,622	2.07	212.65	327.78
Pupil Services			1,979,736		3,302,297		5,282,033	8.41	862.26	1,079.52
Operations and Maintenance			5,586,165		128,094		5,714,259	9.10	932.82	1,016.53
Insurance, Retirement Programs and Other			5,153,230		408,622		5,561,852	8.85	907.94	1,922.23
Payments To Out-Of-District Schools			6,290,828		650,135		6,940,963	11.05	16,486.85	19,419.49
TOTAL EXPENDITURES			56,368,509		6,446,157		62,814,666	100.00	9,594.71	11,864.91
percentage of overall spending from the general fund					89.7 %

 We want to ensure that all residents of Franklin are informed on the current status of the Fiscal Year 2009 budget and the potential impact of budget decisions on the services provided to the town’s public school students. Listed below are several links that will provide you with specific, online information regarding the budget. We hope you will use these sources to stay informed as budget discussions continue. As always, members of the School Committee are happy to answer any questions you may have.

School Committee Budget Blogs

Superintendent’s Budget Page

Budget PowerPoint for FY09

Complete FY09 budget

Budget Presentation Videos

School Committee Website

School Committee Documents Page

Point of reckoning

MassINC has just released a sobering report on trends for the Massachusetts state budget. The full report can be viewed by clicking here. The report is summarized as follows:

The Massachusetts state budget has reached a point of reckoning. First and foremost, a stubborn structural imbalance threatens the state’s ability to manage or grow current programs and services. Spending increases are outpacing revenue growth, with health care voraciously consuming a more generous slice of the fiscal pie.

This imbalance is exacerbated by volatility in revenue growth. Recent history reveals an over-reliance on the capital gains tax for more than half of the state’s new tax receipts. In other words, simply maintaining current programs hinges on a revenue source that reacts in concert with Wall Street’s boom and bust cycles.

This brief, outlines 20 years of Massachusetts budget history – at its core, a series of choices that reflect the state’s collective values and priorities. There have been clear winners and losers. Most notably, health care has emerged as the state’s top funding priority and a vigorous reform movement within K-12 education resulted in dramatic increases in spending since 1993. On the other hand, state support for public higher education and local aid was significantly cut back.

Two trends add a sense of urgency to this discussion: The nation is teetering on the brink of recession. As a result, Massachusetts is likely to experience a dramatic drop in capital gains tax revenue – a drop that could coincide with increased health care spending.

While Massachusetts is similar to other states in facing these pressures, the Bay State is also different because of its demographic trends. Unlike other states, Massachusetts is unable to rely on increased tax revenue from new workers and new businesses as a way to grow out of a recession.

This history begs further discussion on the function and role of government. There are two obvious approaches to achieving structural balance: cut spending or raise taxes. Both have their perils. Which will work at this fiscal and economic moment?

The policy brief’s key findings, and the research behind it, are meant to jump start a statewide discussion that answers these questions. MassINC offers several recommendations to get the process moving.

Founded in 1996, the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth – known as MassINC – is an independent, nonpartisan research and educational institute. MassINC brings together diverse perspectives – including those held by conservatives and liberals, business and labor, advocates and policy makers – to focus on the challenge of achieving the American Dream in Massachusetts.