Consolidation of school facilities with town DPW

As reported in the Milford Daily News on Sunday, March 16, 2008, there is talk of consolidating the school’s facility department with the town’s Department of Public Works. There is serious disagreement between the Town Council and School Committee on this issue. Nonetheless, we are proceeding with an open mind to see whether the proposal is in the best interest of the both the town as a whole and the school system.

School facilities maintenance is concerned about more than just resource management. It is about providing clean and safe environments for children. It is also about creating a physical setting that is appropriate and adequate for learning. For a comprehensive view of maintenance of school facilities, click here to view the guide produced by School Facilities Maintenance Task Force of the National Forum on Education Statistics and the Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO).

It is important to note that the condition of our school facilities is excellent. We have received praise for facility maintenance during the recent state audit which provided us with a commendation in that area. In addition, during a recent meeting with representatives from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, we received praise for the high quality of building maintenance as reflected in the state review of all of our buildings. It is important, whatever we do, that we maintain that high caliber of performance.

G.L. c. 71, § 68 of the Massachusetts General Laws, provides, among other things, that every town shall provide and maintain a sufficient number of schoolhouses, properly furnished and conveniently situated for the accommodation of all children therein entitled to attend the public schools, and the school committee, unless the town otherwise directs, shall have general charge and superintendence of the schoolhouses, shall keep them in good order, and shall, at the expense of the town, procure a suitable place for the schools if there is no schoolhouse and provide fuel and all other things necessary for the comfort of the pupils. As one court construing this provision has stated: “We think that the employment of janitors and custodians of school buildings is necessary to the effective exercise of the express duties imposed by said § 68. It seems almost impossible to think of the mandate requiring that schools shall be kept in good order and that fuel and all other things necessary for the comfort of the pupils shall be provided, without at the same time thinking of the necessary janitor service that is required for these purposes.” Ring v. Woburn, 311 Mass. 679, 687-688 (1942).

It follows then, that by law, the School Committee has the fiduciary responsibility to provide a clean and safe environment for our children. This is a duty that we do not take lightly. When the concept of consolidation of the school’s facilities department with the town’s Department of Public Works, we immediately moved to investigate the legality and propriety of such a move.

Legally, consolidation of facilities is governed by statute. G.L. c. 71, § 37M provides that any city or town which accepts the provisions of this section may consolidate administrative functions, including but not limited to financial, personnel, and maintenance functions, of the school committee with those of the city or town; provided, however, that such consolidation may occur only upon a majority vote of both the school committee. Without a positive vote by both bodies, consolidation cannot occur.

Looking at the propriety of the move, we look to whether the move will save the town money, increase efficiency, and improve services. On the first point, we have been told by the Town Administrator that there will not be any immediate cost savings. In fact, he has reported that “we may need to spend more money maintaining our facilities to reduce expensive repair costs.” In addition, he reported that: “Over time I would look to add staff to the overall facilities/DPW staff to ensure proper upkeep and maintenance.”

That can be fairly read to suggest that consolidation will cost more money to the town. At a time when the school district is facing the loss of 45 teaching positions, it is difficult to support a proposal that will add personnel in other areas of the town budget.

As to efficiency and increased services, currently the school facilities employees consist of five grounds people and 32 custodians. Last year, we had 40 custodians, but lost eight due to budget reductions. Our custodians maintain over 1,000,000 square feet of school space. The grounds crew maintains the fields and grounds surrounding each of our 10 school buildings. The custodians work two shifts to maintain the buildings. Richard Gaskin is the supervisor of all of the custodians, and Mike D’Angelo oversees all facilities work. Gaskin works from approximately 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. to cover both shifts. This barebones staff has done an incredible job in maintaining our buildings, even in the face of budget cuts.

Custodians serve four masters (supervisors, if you will). Their work is monitored by the teachers whose classrooms they clean, the principals whose buildings they clean and Mr. Gaskin and Mr. D’Angelo who run our facilities. It is difficult to see how moving our custodians from the school to the municipal side of the ledger is going to improve their supervision or their performance, especially in light of our high level of satisfaction in their current performance.

Several years ago, in a pilot program related to consolidation, the school department transferred three trades professionals to the town side of the ledger in order in “increase efficiency.” Instead of more and better service, the school department has received many complaints about the lack of responsiveness to school needs from the trades people. Given this experience, we are obviously skeptical of the efficiency of a consolidation plan, particularly where it is already working well.

In this context, the School Committee has been reluctant to proceed and has requested that a detailed Memorandum of Understanding on Consolidation be prepared, together with an organizational chart outlining the chain of command. In addition, the School Committee has raised a number of questions about how matters such as Principal autonomy, work order processes, building use, supply purchases, and complaint resolution will be handled under the proposed consolidation. There is much to be discussed.

To date, the Town Administrator has prepared two memos in outlining in general terms the proposed consolidation. They can be viewed by clicking the following: March 2007 memo and March 2008 memo. I drafted a memo outlining a number of concerns in January 2008. That memo can be viewed by clicking here.

Steve Sherlock has drafted two very good blog pieces on the consolidation and a potential method for resolving the issue. Both are good reads and I urge you to review them in your consideration of this issue. Mike Dukas has also drafted an insightful op-ed piece on TownCommon.net which provides some additional thoughts and is suggested for further reading.

It is our sincere hope that both the Town Council and School Committee will work together on this proposal and resolve to do only what is in the best interests of all of the citizens in this community. Reasonable people can disagree, but underneath that, there surely is a plan that can work.

It can’t happen here

That’s the affectionate title of a Sinclair Lewis novel, a semi-satirical political book published in 1935. On the Mothers of Invention album Freak Out!, there is an a cappella song titled “It Can’t Happen Here”, which is about the social and political upheaval of the mid to late 1960s.

Fast forward to 2008, and public education in Massachusetts, and you just need to look at the town of Randolph to shout: “Let’s make sure it doesn’t happen here.” As reported in today’s Boston Globe:

A community once celebrated as having some of the best schools in the state [Randolph] now has schools rated among the worst. Amid an escalating financial crisis in recent years, 68 teachers have been laid off, two elementary schools have closed, and about half the classes at the high school have been cut. There are no more elementary school librarians. Most of the school buses are gone, as are freshmen and junior varsity sports.

To view the full story, click here.

Municipalities all across the Commonwealth have faced steep financial problems for years, and the impact has been felt hard in the public schools. As we review the budget for FY09, we in Franklin are mindful of what is happening throughout the state, and we will do our best to maintain high standards for excellence. But it is difficult to do on a tight budget.

The School Committee has begun budget deliberations for the 2008-2009 school year, which begins July 1. 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.

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 Budget Information Home Page

PowerPoint Overview on Proposed FY09 School Budget

Complete Proposed FY09 Budget by School

Franklin School Committee Web Site

School Commmittee Budget Presentation Videos

Franklin Town Council Web Site

FY09 budget presentation

On February 26, 2008, Superintendent Wayne Ogden presented the proposed FY09 budget to the School Committee. During the presentation, Ogden explained that the school department needs a 6.7 percent budget increase to provide level service, but is slated to receive only 1.5 percent from the town. This includes the loss of about $400,000 in projected revenue from Medicaid. He also noted that Franklin spends about $2,200 less per pupil than the state average.

It’s a particularly grim budget scenario, but the numbers do not come as a surprise. It’s a far cry from the “good to great” path we have been pursuing, but when budget funds get tight in local communities, it results in these no win situations.

Ogden noted that the current state of the budget discussions means that he will have to cut 45 positions next year. At the high school, 15 teaching positions and one administrative job will be eliminated to save $850,000. The three middle schools are expected to make $660,000 worth of cuts by eliminating 12.5 instructional positions and by reducing supply expenditures and extracurricular stipends. At the elementary school level, 15 positions are slated to be cut to save $675,000.

In past years, the school department was able to cut supplies and other things that stayed away from the classroom. But those things are so low that the only cuts we could make at this point were to personnel, which represents 80 percent of our budget.

The Superintendent’s budget also calls for $174,178 in savings in instructional services and $231,679 in pupil personnel services. He has also proposed increasing pay-to-ride bus fees by $100, from $225 to $325, and eliminating the late bus, which would save a total of $417,000.

All of the budget documents and presentation materials can be viewed by clicking here.

For those of you who missed the meeting, the presentation can be viewed online. It is broken up into multiple parts and each section of video is under 10 minutes long. To view the presentation, click on any of the subject matter links below:

• Part I: Statistical information on Franklin school budget

• Part II: Budget Drivers

• Part III: Proposed Reductions

• Part IV: Impact of Reductions

The Milford Daily News report on the presentation can be viewed by clicking here. The Boston Globe report on the meeting can be viewed by clicking here.

Tough times ahead …. again

It’s like a broken record. Year after year, town officials clamor about rising fixed costs – salary increases, health insurance, pension expenses, and utilities. And people are told repeatedly that there are funding gaps to close. This year is no different and, in fact, it is shaping up to be the worse budget season yet. As usual, the scenarios are not pretty. Based on preliminary estimates, it will cost the Franklin School Department more than $4.1 million to maintain the current level of school services in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

However, town officials are projecting that only $600,000 to $800,000 in new revenue will be available to the schools. That leaves a $3.3 million funding gap that will not be easy to close without what Superintendent Wayne Ogden calls “seriously painful cuts,” particularly to teaching staff who comprise 90% of our annual budget.

How did we get to $800,000 you ask? If you look at the budget documents prepared by the Town Administrator, the picture becomes a little clearer. You can view the TA’s documents by clicking here. The projections show that Franklin will receive $2,248,286 in additional Chapter 70 aid, thanks to the tireless efforts of our State Representative James Vallee. There is $1,727,323 in new revenue from the tax levy, which brings the total to approximately $4 million in new revenue to the town. That’s the plus side. On the minus side, the projections reveal that local receipts (excise taxes, et al) are down by $718,387, and last year the town took $1,000,000 from stabilization and $260,000 from overlay (which, we are told, will not be available in FY09). In addition to these figures, the last page of the documents include a list of other rising expenses such as debt, pension increases, Tri-County increases, etc. which total an additional $949,297 in reductions. So if you take those figures out of the mix, it’s down to about $1,000,000 in gross revenues available to the town.

The Milford Daily News published an editorial in its February 17, 2008 issue entitled Cities, towns need help. In it, the paper recognized the budget issues and factors underlying these woes:

The financial outlook for cities and towns is worse than it’s been in a long time, and there’s no relief in sight….

Costs for health care, energy and other municipal expenses are rising and difficult to control. A weak economy has slowed the new development that feeds local coffers. More and more communities are bumping against the limits on property tax hikes built into Proposition 2 1/2.

Last year, Franklin was fortunate to avoid many cuts by passing its first override. In addition, in the past few years, the School Committee has avoided further cuts by generating additional revenues through the adoption of school choice, and the imposition of bus, athletic, building use, and activity fees. We have also relied on generous increases in State aid and support from Parent Communication Councils (PCCs) and booster organizations. Currently, we are introducing programs for advertising on athletic fields and an Ednets website that will provide additional funding sources. Among some of the other solutions is a proposal from State Senator Scott Brown to distribute approximately $450 million in lottery revenues to Massachusetts communities. For Franklin, this would be an additional $1,480,044 in revenues for FY09. Senator Brown’s proposal is outlined here.

As an interesting side note, if you would like to see how Franklin compares with other communities in Massachusetts, Gordon Jamieson and Christopher R. Wren, two Arlington residents, have compared 2002 and proposed 2009 local aid for the 351 municipalities in the Commonwealth.  They have overlaid their results on a Google map. You can view their work by clicking here.

Last month, the Masschusetts Taxpayers Foundation issued a report on the state of finances in the Commonwealth which can be viewed by clicking here.  MTF’s 37th annual analysis indicates that there are a variety of factors placing ever greater pressure on the finances of most cities and towns with little relief in sight.

Finally, there is a discussion of this topic on Towncommon.net which you can view by clicking here.

No matter how you look at it, we are in for yet another bumpy ride. The School Committee will be discussing the budget scenarios beginning on February 26. We urge you to tune in and follow the progress of the budget discussions that will impact your school system.

Property tax study

An interesting report from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy was published recently. Entitled The Property Tax-School Funding Dilemma, the study includes a comprehensive review of recent research on both the property tax and school funding, and summarizes case studies of seven states—California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, and Texas, the majority of them heavily reliant on property tax revenues to fund schools. Among these states Massachusetts ranks the highest and California the lowest, according to the respective property tax relief and school funding principles presented in the report.

The bottom line from the study warns that lawmakers shouldn’t wildly cut taxes across the board, if you want to have good schools. Here are some more tidbits about the study from the abtract:

Property taxation and school funding are closely linked in the United States, with nearly half of all property tax revenue used for public elementary and secondary education. There is an active policy debate across the country regarding the degree to which public schools should be funded with property tax dollars. Some policy makers and analysts call for reduced reliance on property taxation and increased reliance on state funding; others claim that the property tax is a critical ingredient in effective local government. School funding is no less controversial, and nearly every state has dealt with school funding litigation and court mandates at least once over the last several decades.

States experiencing taxpayer revolts among homeowners are tempted to reduce reliance on the property tax to fund schools. But a more targeted approach can provide property tax relief and also improve state funding for public education, according to this new report by Daphne A. Kenyon, a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute. “Those who have tried to reduce property taxes and improve school performance at the same time have not met with much success,” according to Kenyon.

One objective of the report is to provide information helpful to state policy makers and others who are grappling with the twin challenges of court mandates regarding school funding and constituent pressure to lower property taxes. Another objective is to correct some common misconceptions through a critical analysis of nine myths regarding school funding litigation, property tax characteristics, and the state role in funding education.

While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, the report recommends addressing property taxes and school funding separately.

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy conducts research and policy evaluations, holds conferences, provides education and training, supports demonstration projects, and publishes books and reports on policy issues relating to land. The Institute seeks to improve the quality of public debate and decisions in the use, regulation, and taxation of land by integrating theory and practice, and providing a nonpartisan forum for the discussion of related issues.

School budgets strained

Inflation and operating costs have far outpaced state spending on education, putting intense financial pressure on a broad spectrum of school districts across the state, according to a preliminary report released yesterday.

The report, by the Massachusetts Department of Education, found that while healthcare, salaries, and special education program costs have escalated sharply, state funding has remained stagnant since 2003. As a result, cities and towns have had to shoulder a greater portion of the burden, raising property taxes and instituting fees for once-standard services, such as bus transportation and athletics, in order to make ends meet.

The increased costs also mean that school districts are spending a smaller percentage of their budgets on student instruction and salaries for teachers, guidance counselors, and other employees who have direct contact with students, according to the report. On average, districts spent just 51 percent of their budgets on instruction, a decrease of 6 percentage points since 2002.

For more information on this state report, read the full article in the Boston Globe by clicking here.  To view the full report, click here.   You can view the acting Commissioner’s PowerPoint presentation on the report by clicking here.

There is a discussion of this report going on at Franklin’s Towncommon.net.  To view and/or participate in that discussion, click here.

Governor’s budget announcement

Governor Deval Patrick announced today that his budget for Fiscal Year 2009 will include a $368 million increase in education funding, including a record level of school aid to cities and towns and significant increases in Universal Pre-K, full day Kindergarten and Extended Learning Time programs.

“Our budget will reflect the priority our administration places on providing Massachusetts students with the top quality education opportunities they deserve,” said Governor Patrick. “While the Commonwealth faces tough fiscal challenges in the year ahead, we cannot afford not to invest in strategies that work to help students excel. We are making tough choices necessary to make this targeted investment.”

The Administration’s budget provides $3.9 billion to cities and towns through Chapter 70 state aid, a $223 million increase over FY08 that will result in additional funding for every school district in the Commonwealth.

The Governor’s FY09 proposal to be filed later this month will also include a $51 million expansion for high priority programs including universal pre-K, Kindergarten Expansion Grants and Extended Learning Time Grants.

The budget also includes $43.2 million to transition an estimated 440 half-day kindergarten programs to full day. This $8 million expansion brings the Commonwealth significantly closer to universal full-day kindergarten. Currently, there are 1,050 half-day kindergarten programs statewide.

The education-related items included in the Governor’s FY09 budget proposal were informed by the ongoing work of the Readiness Project, a 200-member group of education, business and community leaders established by the Governor last summer to develop a comprehensive 10-year plan to reform the state’s education system. That plan is expected to be completed this spring.

The Governor’s entire budget will be filed later this month.

Brick School Task Force to report

The Brick School Task Force will present its report to the School Committee on Tuesday, January 8, 2008. The group, which has been working diligently since July, has produced a four inch thick binder full of information and data on the school and issues presented by the charge.

The Task Force has worked hard over the past six months and the members all contributed a great deal of time and resources to this effort. I don’t think I can begin to describe how grateful we are for the energy, enthusiasm, passion, and commitment demonstrated by the members. We all knew at the outset that serving on this Task Force would be difficult at best. There was one underlying goal, and that was to make our education system the best for our youth. The work involved some polarizing issues, and the group had to work through some of these differences to provide objective information which will be helpful to the School Committee in its future decision-making.

The chair of the Task Force, Sue Rohrbach, sent a note to the group’s members last week, thanking them for their hard work and perseverance. In the note, she observed:

I wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for all your hard work and dedication to the Brick School Task Force. Most importantly, thank you for volunteering your most precious commodity, your time. I am sure that your families will be glad to hear that our work is complete, so that they can enjoy you being at home, rather than at a meeting.

At the beginning of our journey, I asked all of you to keep track of the hours you put into this effort. I am sure at this point they are too numerous to count. Only a couple more hours left.

The Task Force report is available on line and can be read by clicking here.

High cost of special education

Throughout Massachusetts public schools are cutting classes and staff, and raising athletic and transportation fees. Team Five Investigates’ Rhondella Richardson reported on September 27, 2007 that some school officials believe cuts will keep coming because of the skyrocketing cost of special education.

The Team 5 report includes a close look at special education services, their purpose, and funding sources.  In addition, you can find additional resources for information and reports.  You can view the complete report by clicking here.

In Franklin, nearly 10 percent of the school budget is used to provide special education services.  By law, each school district must provide “a free and appropriate education for special needs students in the least restrictive environment.”  This law — known as IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act) came into effect in 1975.  When Congress passed the law, it promised to fund 40% of the associated costs.  In reality, however, Franklin receives around 10% reimbursement for special education costs. 

We have done a good job in past years balancing the needs of all students, but the system is constantly tested by rising costs.  While the per pupil expenditure statewide for regular education students has increased by 88 percent, special education costs have risen by 156 percent in the same time frame.  As an example, this week, the Franklin Public Schools were notified that one of its vendors was increasing its tuition by $44,000 per student per year, bringing the total cost to $192,000 annually per student.

The question on special education is not whether we should provide the services.  We have a moral obligation to do so, and it is the right thing to do for these children and their families.  The question is, however, who should pay.  Currently, the burden is left to municipalities like Franklin, and that taxes our limited resources.  The only way to meet these budget needs is through property tax overrides — an unpopular choice.

There are potential solutions, however.  First, we can demand that Congress increase the funding as promised back in 1975.  Second, we can request that the state fund special education transportation.  Currently, the state provides no help in that area.  And third, we can attempt to keep more special education students in district by expanding program offerings.  Franklin has been successful in this third area, but we need more support from the federal and state government.

Look for more information in the newspaper, television, and future School Committee meetings.  This is a topic certain to receive more attention.

Strength of the property tax

Though it has a lot of detractors, the property tax remains one of the best ways for citizens to participate in democracy. In a recent op-ed piece for the Boston Globe, authors Joan Youngman and Andrew Reschovsky, fellows at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, noted that the strength of the property tax is that citizens can view just how their tax dollars are spent by looking at local budgets. As they noted in the article:

We get the bill, and compare it with the local services we receive. If the comparison is unfavorable, we are motivated to restrict local spending and support local candidates who agree with that view. Linking additional local spending to local taxes is an important source of fiscal discipline.

By contrast, few taxpayers have any idea of the amount they spend annually on sales taxes. Even income taxes that are withheld from paychecks are less visible than bills that must be paid in one or two large installments every year. The transparency of the property tax allows taxpayers to be engaged and to evaluate the performance of their local government to make independent decisions on the mix of taxes and services they prefer.

In Franklin, citizen’s can view the annual town budget simply by showing up at Town Hall and asking for a copy. They can participate in the budget hearings at the Town Council, Finance Committee, and School Committee meetings which take place each spring. The town’s Annual Report, which is published each November, gives line item detail of all income and expenditures. Through these processes, it is truly the citizens who make the calls, either through participation in hearings or by electing representatives in local government. On those years when the local government seeks to increase property taxes beyond 2 ½ percent, citizens participate directly through override elections.

In this way, the property tax is sound and represents an investment by the community for the community. These tax dollars go to fund local services such as police, fire, education and roads, among others. Debate about these expenditures is often robust, which demonstrates that the property tax works the way it is intended.

The property tax is not perfect, and results in some inequities. But it stands up well to the alternatives.

As Youngman and Reschovsky point out: “No one likes paying taxes, but as long as we value the New England tradition of local control over public services, we should appreciate the inherent strengths of our system. With the property tax, the citizenry has its hands on the steering wheel.”

To view the full article, click here.

Economy thrives but schools go begging

David D’Allesandro has a beef with corporate America. D’Allesandro is a guest columnist for the Boston Globe and a former CEO of John Hancock Financial Services. On September 3, 2007, he wrote an op-ed piece for the Globe about how schools go begging while the economy thrives. As he noted:

As a capitalist, I believe in free markets, reasonable tax rates, competition, high compensation for performance and I am all for businesses being incredibly successful. But there is something disturbing – really disturbing – that while Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson recently said, “This is far and away the strongest global economy I’ve seen in my business lifetime,” our public school systems are suffering beyond comprehension.

While the economy appears to be booming, schools do not appear to be reaping the benefits. Many school districts throughout the Commonwealth are being forced to cut services and programs, increase and add fees for things such as sports and bus transportation, and reduce staffing. The National Education Association reports that we are facing a potential nationwide teacher shortage with more than a million teachers retiring in the near future and the need for more than 2 million teachers in the next decade. The NEA also reports that 50 percent of new teachers leave within five years. Among the reasons for this turnover is inadequate pay compared to other professions with the same training requirements.

Earlier this year, the citizens of Franklin had to turn to a proposition 2 ½ override in order to maintain basic services. This followed a five year cycle of budget cutting and curtailed services for municipal and school budgets. In this same timeframe, Goldman Sachs recently stated in US News and World Report that the period 2003-2008 will have been one of the most powerful periods of economic growth globally since accurate data has been collectible for much of the world.

As D’Allesandro observed, we need some of these global profits to trickle down to local budgets. As he stated, “If we are going to be globally competitive and continue to attain record profits in this ever-evolving competitive globalization, that same corporate America has to “cough up” and take more financial responsibility for our greatest asset: our children and their education.”

To view the full article, click here.

The Brick School and the budget

As you know, last year was a very difficult year for the school system relative to budget matters. We are certainly pleased that the community gave overwhelming support to the override which enabled us to maintain a high level of educational programming. Nonetheless, we did face some difficult choices and unfortunately, ended up losing some people, programs and materials. We continue to be amazed at how well we adapt and how well this district performs in spite of these adversities.

As we consider last year’s budget, one area of concern and misperception that surfaced was the School Committee’s acceptance of a targeted gift to keep the Brick School open for an additional year. That decision generated a lot of controversy and is deserving of some clarification.

The Brick School certainly possesses many historical qualities. Indeed, it is listed on the Federal Register of Historic Buildings, and is purported to be the oldest, continuously operating, one room brick school in America. It has served as a kindergarten classroom in the Davis Thayer district for many years.

However, when the budget for the 2007-08 school year was proposed, that facility was not included because of the necessity of budget cuts amounting to several million dollars. Even with the override dollars, the School Committee was not able to provide funds for its continued operation at the expense of other program needs.

The Brick School Association, a private entity, proposed funding the operational expenses for that facility to maintain it as part of the Franklin school system. In fact, that group was able to raise — with the generous aid of Garelick Farms who donated $18,000 — $27,000 to fund all of the operational expenses for the building for one year.

The School Committee voted to accept that targeted gift for one year. By accepting these funds, the Brick School remained in operation, and the Committee was afforded an opportunity to make a full and reasoned study of the impact of targeted gifts in the future. In fact, a task force was formed to study the Brick School in particular, and the viability of future funding for its operation. At the same time, the School Committee’s Policy Subcommittee will be preparing language for a new policy on acceptance of targeted gifts.

In these tough financial times, it is necessary for us, along with School Committees throughout Massachusetts, to review and consider any and all opportunities which allow us to remain a high performing school district. We will continue to explore options which enhance our system.

It is important that you know that no school budget dollars or programs were compromised in any way in order to fund the operation of the Brick School. For the 2007-08 school year, that facility is operating solely on private funding. The Committee is in the process of drawing lines for future acceptance of gifts, so that we can supplement our offerings without compromising our educational mission and vision.

The School Committee remains committed to moving the district from good to great, and we will continue to push for funding, programs and facilities that serve the best interests of all our students. We thank you for your continued support and understanding.

Brick School Task Force Charge

In July, the School Committee appointed a Brick School Task Force to examine a number of issues related to the continued operation of that facility. The School Committee will take the information provided by the Task Force into consideration when setting the budget for the next fiscal year (FY09 which runs from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009).

As part of its work, the Task Force was asked to attempt to reconcile the differences expressed in statements for keeping the facility open versus closing it, and to make recommendations to the School Committee. Accordingly, the Task Force was charged with addressing the following issues and is expected to issue a written report on or before Tuesday, December 18, 2007:

1. Determine of the Brick School is, in fact, the oldest continuously operating one room brick school in America? How was that determined? There is a school house in NH that claims to be 12 years older than the Red Brick School (See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5316645&ft=1&f=517860)
2. What are the administrative issues related to a standalone classroom (i.e. library time, specials, nurse, etc.).
3. Address equity and accessibility issues related to continued operation of this facility.
4. Address safety issues related to the building
5. Address finances and report on how the building may be funded in the future (i.e. public and/or private grants, private donations). Identify sources of funding and the likelihood of availability in years to come.
6. Address other potential uses for building instead of as a classroom (i.e., museum, gathering spot, etc.). In addition, explore whether, as opposed to just taking students from the Davis Thayer population, we opened the enrollment to anyone in town through a lottery.

Committee looks at advertising on fields

The School Committee is considering a proposal to place advertising on the fences surrounding the football field at Franklin High School. This is a pilot program to gauge the feasibility and appropriateness of advertising as a revenue stream for the school budget.

Under the proposal, 3 foot by 6 foot banners would be placed along the fences on the perimeter of the football field. As proposed, the advertising would generate approximately $21,000 in annual revenue.

Last year, the School Committee formed an Advertising Advisory Committee to look at proposals and make recommendations to the School Committee. Brad Sidwell, Franklin’s athletic director and architect for the idea, presented the proposal at the August 14, 2007 School Committee meeting. He indicated that the idea was one of the first discussed by the advisory group and received a great deal of support. It also received the support of the School Committee as a way of helping ease the burden of athletic fees on students and parents. For the newspaper report on the School Committee meeting, click here.

Sidewell also outlined the proposal for NECN news. For a look at the NECN video, click here. In it you also hear from Franklin parent Barbara Brunelli and a psychologist from Children’s Hospital.

The proposal is expected to receive further review at the August 28, 2007 meting of the School Committee.

Stoneham cuts high school athletics

Budget woes continue to haunt Massachusetts communities.  In Stoneham, a failed override attempt has led to the complete elimination of high school athletics and music programs at elementary and middle school levels.  To view the Boston Globe report, click here.

All 54 coaching positions, the athletic director’s job, and elementary and middle school arts and music programs were eliminated last week by the Stoneham School Committee.  Winthrop made the same move in 2004, but boosters restored the program through donations, user fees, and gate receipts.

Like many communities, Stoneham has already endured a series of town and school cuts in recent years, as health insurance, utilities, special education bills and other mandated costs have risen faster than the tax increases allowed under the Proposition 2 1/2 limit. In each of the last two years, the Board of Selectmen imposed a $160-per-household trash collection fee to raise revenue. But the trash fee proved unpopular, and officials pledged to eliminate it if voters passed the $3 million override.  That override failed Tuesday by 237 votes. Statewide, an estimated 33 communities have rejected overrides in the spring.

Stoneham officials have explained the situation on BlueMassGroup.com which can be viewed by clicking here.

Day of financial reckoning

Today’s Boston Globe contained a very disconcerting op-ed piece entitled The Days of Financial Reckoning. It talked about communities throughout Massachusetts struggling to make ends meet in the face of higher costs. As the piece reported, taxpayers in municipalities throughout Massachusetts have faced higher property taxes and increased fees combined with diminished public services and deferred investments in infrastructure. As the authors noted, “Faced with this zero-sum game, the politics of local government has turned increasingly sour.”

This certainly rings true in Franklin. We were forced to pass a $2.7 million override, and at the same time had to diminish public services. We need to continue working together with state and local officials to ease the tax burden, reverse this trend, and save our vital services.

The authors did indicate, however, that there is reason to hope that this gloomy picture may improve. The authors cite a report entitled Communities at Risk which analyzed nearly all of the Massachusetts communities and how they are struggling. You can view the report by clicking here. They also cite proposals by Governor Deval Patrick to help municipal governments find other revenue options aside from property taxes.

Also to be considered in this discussion is the idea that some communities have been forced to resort to not only fees, but private fundraising for public education. In Franklin, we recently saw that only with donations from Garelick Farms and the Brick School Association of 100% of the costs could we keep our one room school house open for another year. The School Committee will be studying the effects of private funding for public resources over the next several months and developing policy on the issue.

Over in Northbridge, a group of parents is organizing to borrow $110,000 to donate to the schools to keep programs running. For more details and the Globe report on this effort, you can click here.  “It’s a risky precedent that we’re setting here when we move from a public education system to an adopt-a-classroom education system for the private sector,” Franklin School Committee’s Ed Cafasso said at our last meeting.

In accepting the funds for the Brick School, the School Committee stipulated that a task force be set up to study the future of the Brick School and the Policy Subcommittee will study the effect of targeted contributions.  In doing so, they were reminded by Superintendent Wayne Ogden that these “are not the only targeted gifts. We already accept targeted gifts for other purposes. So, this is not about the Brick School Association, per se. It’s about a whole practice of how we receive monies from outside sources to run things.”  Indeed, these methods of using private money point to an alarming trend and deserve serious and detailed review.

A student perspective on the override

April Crehan is a Franklin High School sophomore. She is the editor of the Franklin High School newspaper, “The Panther Pause,” and an active member of the Franklin High literary magazine, “Mirage.” She has earned first-place in the National Junior Classical League creative writing contest and a Certificate of Distinction in the National Language Arts Competition.

Every other week, she will write about local issues from a student’s perspective, running in the Classroom section of The Milford Daily News.

On May 16, 2007, she wrote about how the override has sparked student concern. It’s a moving piece, and provides insight from the students who will be affected by the vote. You can read it by clicking here. As Ms. Crehan noted in her article:

On May 22, students’ anxiety will come to an end. While they sit in stuffy classrooms, learning trigonometry and reading Shakespeare, voters will be swarming, or at least trickling, into the booths. Right outside their windows, in their very own field house, these voters will decide the futures of those disenfranchised Franklin High students.

Other students at FHS have also taken action. They have taken a high tech approach by creating a website with over 450 members who have shared information and ideas about the vote. Their work was captured by the Milford Daily News in a story that ran on Sunday, May 13, 2007. Click here to read that article. You can view their Facebook page by clicking here.

 

 

Myths v. Realities

With Franklin’s override vote coming up on May 22, many of you are undoubtedly speaking to neighbors and friends about the important issues at stake. Municipal finance is not an easy topic to discuss in the best of times. When the Town faces a serious situation with real consequences, the discussion can be confusing and emotional.

The following “Myths” and “Realities” should help keep the dialogue constructive and fact based, providing the knowledge you need to feel more comfortable discussing the override with your fellow citizens.

MYTH: The Town and the Schools don’t have a long-term plan.

REALITY: Both the town and the schools use long-term plans to make budget decisions. On the municipal side for example, the Town has a specific multi-year plan for capital improvements to roads, sewers, water lines, public buildings, etc. The schools have done long-term studies to track future enrollment, so we are trying to focus more resources at the high school while reducing the number of elementary teachers. The school system has a strategic plan, which is scheduled to be updated next year, and has developed a long-term budget plan that calls for bringing per pupil spending in line with the state average.

MYTH: The Town and the Schools don’t have any fiscal discipline.

REALITY: For almost a decade now, the tax burden on the homeowners of Franklin has never increased to support the Town’s revenue needs. Year after year, the Town and the Schools have managed inflationary costs and increasing service needs with the exact same share of property tax revenue. That is the definition of fiscal discipline.

Year after year, both the town and the schools have publicly debated and approved budgets that do not keep pace with rising costs or service needs. In order to avoid dismantling the services people expect, they have used generous state aid and money from rainy day/surplus funds to close the gap. And, they have gone to the citizens of Franklin to ask for additional tax revenue.

The facts are clear: The taxpayers’ share of the cost of operating municipal and school services in Franklin has literally never increased. Every proposal for override to help the operating budget has been shot down. The proportion of the Town budget that comes from property taxes has never changed, despite the fact that inflation and government mandates have increased costs dramatically each year. And yet we have been able maintain core services to residents. That’s the definition of fiscal discipline.

By any objective expert analysis, the amount of money the town spends – on both municipal services and school services – is well below state averages for communities of similar size, for communities with similar infrastructure, and for communities with similar per capita income. And yet our quality of life has remained relatively strong. That’s the definition of fiscal discipline.

MYTH: The Town and the Schools are not doing anything to address ongoing budget problems.

REALITY: Public employee health and pension costs represent the number one budget buster facing Franklin. These costs increase each year at a rate that far outstrips revenue. Town and school officials have been looking for ways to reduce these costs by working with the state Legislature, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, and other groups.

The Town Administrator has lobbied for many years to alter certain elements of Proposition 2½ so that towns like Franklin have more flexibility, while the School Superintendent has lobbied for a more realistic state funding formula when it comes to meeting special education mandates.

MYTH: The Town and the Schools have negotiated sweetheart deals with all the public employee unions.

REALITY: There is no evidence to support that claim.

In fact, on the school side, only one union contract has been negotiated and approved in the last three years. Three-dozen school custodians recently negotiated a three-year contract with a total pay increase of slightly over 7% (less than 2.5% a year). The custodians’ entire pay raise was wiped out in the first year of their contract because of increases in the cost of their health insurance. And, 20% of the school custodians will soon lose their jobs without an override.

Contract negotiations with all other school employees unions are either on hold, stalled or headed toward mediation.

It’s true that employee costs drive a huge percentage of the Town and School budgets — that is the precise financial problem facing local, state and federal governments. Out-of-control employee healthcare and pension costs make nationwide headlines every week, including in the May 13 Boston Sunday Globe.

MYTH: The schools have laid off teachers as a scare tactic to get more people to support the override.

REALITY: Teachers in Franklin are being laid off for non-budget and budgetary reasons.

Every year at around this time, some teachers are let go based on their performance. These decisions usually don’t get media attention, but they happen annually.

Other teachers are being let go for budgetary reasons because the school budget faces a $4 million shortfall. Given that Franklin residents have never approved an override, it is only prudent to give teachers fair warning that their jobs are likely to be eliminated when the new fiscal year begins on July 1. Keep in mind that the months of April and May are prime time for teachers seeking jobs and for schools seeking to hire teachers. If teachers who are laid off from Franklin have sufficient time to find jobs elsewhere, the town will not have to pay their unemployment benefits. Delaying pink slips until late May or early June could wind up costing Franklin taxpayers more money.

The exact number of teachers who are being laid off by grade level, as well as the number of teaching positions that would be restored if the override passes, can be found online at: www.franklin.k12.ma.us/co/supt/budget/Final08Budget.pdf.

MYTH: The Town should have done more to plan for a revenue shortfall.

REALITY: Town and school officials have known for many years that our property tax revenues would not keep pace with our needs or our growth. You can go back into the archives of the Finance Committee, the Town Administrator, the Town Council and the School Committee – starting almost a decade ago – and see frequent warnings on the topic, especially during budget discussions.

Our budget issues have been an annual topic of debate for nearly a decade now, which is why there have been override votes every few years and why we have spent less on town and school services than we knew we should each year.

MYTH: The schools have never tried to reduce spending.

REALITY: Annual growth in the school budget has been driven almost entirely by the need to keep pace with basic inflationary costs, to honor increasing special education mandates, and to maintain reasonable class sizes. In the past 20 years, the number of students in the Franklin public schools has grown from 3,143 to 6,152 – an increase of 96%.

For many years, the School Committee has reduced spending in non-core categories, and then redirected the savings toward the classroom and instructional staff needed to maintain reasonable class sizes in the face of student enrollment increases.

More costs also have been shifted onto the backs of parents through increased users fees, supply expenses and transportation costs. Generous parents and boosters have dug deep into their own pockets to help subsidize a variety of educational and athletic offerings in Franklin.

You can see a sample list of how the schools have handled the town’s revenue squeeze online at www.franklin.k12.ma.us/co/supt/budget/Cuts02-05.pdf

Our ability to maintain reasonable class sizes is the number one reason that the Franklin public schools have been a high-performing district, despite spending far less on our schools compared to the state average and to other Massachusetts communities with similar student enrollment.

MYTH: The fact that all these new buildings are going up, like the new fire station and the new senior center, must mean that the Town has the money it needs.

REALITY: The Town sells bonds to borrow the money it needs to pay for public buildings, recreational facilities and other big-ticket capital items, just as most homeowners take out a mortgage to pay for their homes. A small amount of property tax revenues and water/sewer fees is used to pay off this long-term debt, amounting to about 3% of Franklin’s annual budget.

The Town cannot borrow money to pay for its operating budget, like municipal services or the schools. Most homeowners do not take out a loan to pay their monthly bills. m

Budget documents and info available

Some links that may be of interest to you relative to the May 22 override vote include the following:

• The School Superintendent’s Budget Information Page: http://www.franklin.ma.us/auto/schools/FPS/super1/FY06Budget/default.htm.
• Data on Franklin Schooling Spending: http://franklinschoolcommittee.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/franklin-under-state-average-in-9-of-11-spending-categories/
• Stephen Whalen’s Analysis of Franklin’s Property Tax Burden: http://franklinschoolcommittee.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/analysis-of-tax-burden-rebuts-myth-of-high-taxes-in-franklin/ and http://www.franklin.ma.us/auto/town/fincom1/proptax/default.htm.
• Stephen Sherlock’s School Budget Blog Entries: http://steves2cents.blogspot.com/.
• Boston.com’s Override Central: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/overridecentral/
• The Override Facebook of Franklin High Students (registration required): http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2265200218
• The Town Administrator has put together a memorandum answering typical citizen questions about the May 22 vote which you can view by clicking here. He has also set up a TA’s budget page at http://www.franklin.ma.us/auto/town/admin/fy08budget/default.htm.
• Info on the override particulars is available from the Town Clerk’s office at http://www.franklin.ma.us/auto/upload/town/clerk/NEWSAD%20only.pdf.

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 some of the meetings 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 7	7 p.m.	FHS PCC at Franklin High School	Sue, Jeff
May 8	7 p.m.	School Committee meeting	Full School Committee
May 9	7:30 p.m.	Newcomer’s Club at K of C in Franklin	Ed, Cora
May 10	9 a.m.7 p.m.	Senior CenterECDC PCC meeting	Roberta, Jeff, Sue
May 12	9 a.m.	Neighborhood presentation on A Street	Jeff, Roberta
May 15	7 p.m.	Neighborhood presentation on King Philip Road	Jeff
May 16	7:30 p.m.	Neighborhood presentation on Bridle Path	Sue, Cora, Roberta
May 17	6 p.m.	Rotary Club	Jeff, Ed
May 20	6:30 p.m.	Neighborhood presentation on Hancock Road	Jeff
May 21	7 p.m.	Neighborhood presentation on Oakland Parkway	Jeff, Cora

Nobel laureate a big advocate in Shrewsbury

The Town of Shrewsbury had a very powerful advocate for its override attempt. In the week before the vote, Nobel laureate and Shrewsbury resident Craig Mello used an invitation from the selectmen to speak at their meeting and gracefully reminded the board of the need to balance progress and preservation and to advocate for a tax override. As reported in the Shrewsbury Chronicle, he handed each selectman a copy of “Collapse,” by Jerry Diamond, which he said, “describes the horse race we’re all in,” and included personal comments from him on the back.

His comments echo many of the concerns facing the residents of Franklin. Standing before the board, he told selectmen the reason for the gift was to inspire them to consider “the race among the development of now, the innovative technologies that are going to solve our problems, and the limited resources on which we’re dependent. No one knows how it’s going to end.

One future reality, however, is certain, he later said: “If we don’t invest in the schools, I hate to say it – we better invest in police.”

Despite this powerful message and support, Shrewsbury’s override vote on May 1 was unsuccessful. For the full story on the Shrewsbury vote, click here. For info on overrides in other communities, click here.

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.