My View

This is the article I submitted to the Cape Cod Times this morning for the “My View” section.  Whether or not it is published remains to be seen, but the message is on point.

President Lincoln said, “You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”

Election season is upon us again and, in Yarmouth, I’m afraid that may well mean that neighbors will begin lobbing nasty condemnations at one another over differences of opinion about our school district.

I honestly believe that we all must want the same thing.  Surely, we want a great school district with well-rounded opportunities for every child.  Such a district would offer great academics, sports, music and other outlets for our children; would enhance property values for the taxpayers; would provide an inspiring workplace for teachers; would be a source of school pride for students and would provide parents with a sense of relief.  For what more could anyone ask?

The problem appears to be a difference in opinion about how to achieve such a goal.  One side espouses that such a bucolic situation already exists; the other side sees facts which absolutely prove this not to be so.  The latter is chastised for being “negative” when they point to the facts of declining enrollment (a cost of $4 million of our tax dollars this year alone!) and worsening performance indicators (lowest MCAS scores of Cape schools, lower than state average matriculation rate to colleges, etc.) – to name a few.

Those who wish to see the areas of deficiency in our district acknowledged and addressed by those in a position to do something about them are summarily dismissed as “negative” and as “naysayers”.  It is a fact that the district’s deficiencies are unequivocally driving our top achieving students to other schools.

This distraction tactic is unproductive, damaging and naive.

D-Y Schools have some wonderful things to offer our students (sports and music, for instance) and there is much for which to be proud.  I implore parents to imagine what it would be like to know that our children are attending schools where they are getting the best well-rounded education offered on the Cape, or at the very least, an education that can readily compete with the best there is to offer.  What would that do for our future, for our children, for our property values?  How can anyone in good conscience deny THAT is a goal for which we should be proud to strive?

The problems our district face are not with the children (we are told that lower-income families’ children simply cannot perform), they are not with the teachers (who are mostly dedicated people who care for our children and are doing their best within the parameters set for them by an inept administration), they are not with the parents (who want the best education possible for their children – even if it means getting them to better districts), and they are not with the taxpayers (who want accountability and credibility).  The problems in our district exist because the leadership refuses to acknowledge, admit and set forth a plan to fix the areas of deficiency.  So much time is spent redacting data, editing facts and putting a spin on the truth that no one in a leadership position puts effort into fixing what is broken.  So the downward trends continue and hurt EVERYONE involved: the children, parents, schools, taxpayers.

Calling voters negative who wish to see the deficiencies addressed, ignoring the problems, and simply repeating that everything is wonderful will not, does not make it so.  We must be resolution-oriented, not blind to the challenges we face.

The current course of action is failing our children and our common goal.  We must put the children of Yarmouth and Dennis first.  It is time for measurable changes to address our district’s deficiencies – not more of the same.

Big Brother

I received an interesting call today (and timely too, I might add).  On August 8, 2011, I forwarded a lengthy and detailed complaint to the Attorney General’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance.  That complaint (AG and OCPF letter) prompted a six-month investigation by an attorney in the Attorney General’s Office and she called me today to inform me of the outcome of her investigation.

I was told that she has spoken to the players involved with the groups named in the complaint, as well as to the Superintendent and other named district employees, candidates and others regarding their violations of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts campaign and political finance laws and regulations.  She felt that although there were clearly violations, much of the evidence I was able to gather and provide was just short of being sufficient to take action against those involved.  She did however state that they have all been put on notice that such actions would not be tolerated and any further evidence would be acted upon.

During the last election, it was very disturbing to see the lengths to which the Superintendent would go to push through the override and her preferred school committee candidates.  It became ever more clear to me that she believes herself to be untouchable and above the law.  She shrouds herself behind a couple of misguided groups of people who do her bidding, utilizing public resources to feed and support their position and impact what is intended to be an impartial and fair election.  Shame on you, Carol Woodbury.  I know you know better.  I just don’t think you care.

Suffice it to say that I am one taxpayer who does care and who is well-versed enough in these matters to take you and your sad, ignorant group of followers to task.  You may cry “sour grapes” at me.  It will not change the facts.  And the Attorney General’s Office of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts agrees.

Another election is coming and, no doubt, another budget override will be sought (how else can this district afford to pay the over $4 million in school sending tuition to our neighboring districts AND maintain staffing at status quo?) and, this year, I can at least hope that those groups who protect the Superintendent and do her bidding understand the consequences of not registering as PACs, Ballot Committees or Charitable Organizations and consequently, not filing any of the requisite tax forms with the IRS and with the state.

It’s probably far too much for me to hope that our devious and [nothing if not] resourceful Superintendent now understands that in towns as small as Dennis and Yarmouth, she cannot get away with the misappropriation of public resources to further her own personal political interests.

And maybe, just maybe, some of the parents who blindly followed these groups under the false pretense that they were “supporting their schools” but wound up being manipulated into acting as the groups’ political mechanism (which is the definition of a Political Action Committee or a Ballot Committee, by the way) will think twice about getting involved in some of the illegal functions and activities which took place last year.

Because Big Brother is watching.

Dead District Walking

I haven’t been publishing any posts to this blog for a while, but I haven’t disappeared – much, I’m sure, to the dismay of our illustrious School Committee and our fine Superintendent [sarcasm intended].  But I’m not so big a person that I can readily walk away from a golden opportunity to scream, “I told you so!” to the aforementioned individuals and their minions.

To what, specifically, do I refer?  See my earlier post of April 28, 2011, entitled “We All Deserve Better.”

Now that this school year is in full swing, the disturbing and disappointing numbers are coming in.  Our district has lost even more students this year (charter and choice), which will cost the taxpayers some $600,000 more than last year in out-of-district choice and charter tuition.

We will not win any awards for our MCAS performance in the state, but we may be in the running for the district paying the highest amount in out-of-school sending tuition.  Last year we came in sixth in the state.  This year we have climbed to fifth.  Never let it be said that we aren’t “racing to the top” of some list in this state.  It would be nice if it weren’t for being the worst at something.

Yet again, Carol Woodbury put her own twisted spin on the MCAS scores, and blamed it all on our “churn rate” (that’s a new one – another “Carolism” perhaps?) and all the low-income families in Yarmouth and Dennis.  Because let’s face it, if we’ve heard it from her once, we’ve heard it from her a thousand times, poor families have under-performing children who are not capable of learning.

In 2011, the DESE shows 139 students having elected to attend charter schools at a tuition cost of approximately $1.39 million.  Then Sturgis opened a temporary expansion facility and that number climbed dramatically this year to 197 students at a tuition cost of approximately $2.26 million.  The number of students wait-listed for next year at Sturgis is 79 students and Sturgis expects to expand further by next year.  A conservative projection for next year is another, say, 50 students more than this year (let’s round the total number off to 250).  Using this year’s per pupil tuition amount of $11,486 means that we might expect to pay as much as (or more than) $2.87 million per year in charter tuition!

The School Committee thumbed their noses at the taxpayers by signing a six-year contract [death sentence] with Carol Woodbury.  So, let’s take a look at the consequences of that decision.  If we average the trend over the last five years and project the trend – until 2017 (through Woodbury’s contract) – in enrollment numbers, here’s what we can expect:

2008: 171 choice students @ $1.63 million

2009: 222 choice students @ $1.43 million

2010: 257 choice students @ $1.6 million

2011: 306 choice students @ $1.92 million

2012: 324 choice students @ $2.04 million

Five years of numbers average out to an increase of 37 students per year choosing other schools for an average increase of $234,950 per year (the average per pupil tuition cost over the past five years is approximately $6,350).  This is only an average per year, so the number may likely be higher each year given the very obvious trend and the impact that trend will have on parents electing to place their children in better districts [districts which are not dying on the vine].  That factor and the reality that Harwich is opening a new high school next year will definitely make have profound impact beyond what I’m projecting below.

2013: 361 choice students @ $2.29 million (add approximation of charter tuition of $2.87 for a total of $5.16 million)

2014: 398 choice students @ $2.53 million (add approximation of charter tuition of $2.87 for a total of $5.4 million)

2015: 435 choice students @ $2.73 million (add approximation of charter tuition of $2.87 for a total of $5.6 million)

2016: 472 choice students @ 3 million (add approximation of charter tuition of $2.87 for a total of $5.87 million)

2017: 509 choice students @ $3.23 million (add approximation of charter tuition of $2.87 for a total of $6.1 million)

Is it possible to change these numbers and turn this trend around?  Sure.  Is it probable, or even likely, if those in positions to do so refuse to acknowledge there is a worsening trend?  Absolutely not.

During the election in May of 2011, the Superintendent and her band of merry minions flooded the media and preached at every public microphone that the DY district is phenomenal, great and wonderful and that the very best plan of action is to stay the current course.  They believe this to be so true that they made a loud and clear statement to the taxpayers by signing Woodbury in for another six years – unprecedented.

Well, my fellow taxpayers, the above is the staid course/plan/trend to which they have committed our school district.

Carol Woodbury has assured that if any facilities are closed, the staff of those facilities will be absorbed into the other schools.  As our student numbers decline, our staff numbers stay reasonably stagnant.  She cut the librarians last year, added some reading teachers and is suggesting that we add back the librarians next year!

If Dennis splits from Yarmouth and develops their own K-8 district, what would we have to offer them to take Carol Woodbury with them?  I’m sorry Dennis, you are my neighbor and I am very fond of you, but oh, how I’d love throw that particular baby out with the bath water.  Our two towns are condemned to death.  Dead district walking.  Walking the last mile.  Resident of the condemned cell.

Dennis, take our Superintendent.  Please.