I Had Informed You Thusly

Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”

I had long since given up my efforts to effect the change needed to improve the quality of education being provided in the Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District.  For as long as Carol Woodbury is at the helm of this district, I knew there was absolutely no hope.  Our school district would continue to fail.  Our taxes would continue to rise.  Fewer students would attend their home district and we would continue to pay disproportionately high out of school sending tuition (sixth highest in the state of Massachusetts again this year, almost $2.2m and beat out only by Springfield, Worcester, Pittsfield, Fitchburg and Greenfield – fine company to keep, eh?).  Taxpayers would continue to be deceived and manipulated.  The School Committee would continue to drink up every lie that Carol Woodbury poured for them.

As long as the current School Committee members continue to show the astounding level of complete ineptitude, incompetence and ignorance that led them to sentence our district to another six years of imprisonment with Carol Woodbury as the Warden – I knew there was no more point in continuing any efforts to shine a light on the dirty little secrets this superintendent has kept.

Woodbury has been hiding situations from the public (and from her own School Committee) for as long as she been on the job here.  Does anyone remember when the former Director of Finance proffered his resignation with several months’ notice, but she kept it a secret during one of the most financially turbulent times in recent history until days before he left?  Does anyone remember the Finance Subcommittee being formed on the QT and outside the purview of the open meeting law?  Does anyone remember the secretive, sudden and undisclosed meeting to offer an unprecedented six-year contract to the superintendent?  Does anyone remember the many political finance law violations committed by this superintendent and acknowledged by the Attorney General?  The list truly goes on and on.

Woodbury has consistently stooped to any level to cover up, deceive, obfuscate or misrepresent any truth which may threaten yet another Prop 2.5 override

What now do we say to the parents of vulnerable young girls who are justifiably concerned that some lecherous, disgusting, immoral and unethical teacher will prey on their child?  I know Woodbury well enough to know that she will meekly hide behind the fact that, in this instance, the victim was 16 and therefore it is considered consensual (are we back in the days when victims are victimized all over again by the perpetrators who say they asked for it or they deserve it?).  Will that comfort the parents of the victim of Mr. Tierney or of other girls who may fall prey to other dishonorable teachers who are, as a matter of policy, openly permitted to take advantage of and abuse their positions of authority with students?

It wouldn’t comfort me.

This superintendent has been protecting teachers who are the most unscrupulous, most abusive and who believe they are above policies, rules and laws since the sad, fateful day that she was hired to protect the best interests of our children.  That Carol Woodbury places her own interests and protecting her own hide well before any modicum of thought about protecting the children in her charge is nothing less than criminal.  There are plenty of great teachers in the district and we are lucky to have them.  But even those teachers, if they dare to speak against Woodbury, are not safe from her lack of scruples.  Unfortunately, it seems that the only teachers she protects are the ones who deserve it the least.  The rest have to bear the burden of being associated with Carol Woodbury and her ilk.

She counts on parents getting so worn down from fighting her that they finally just give up and take their children elsewhere (hence the high out-of-school sending tuition paid to other public schools).  She knows that students are only in the district for a certain number of years and that if she can wear their parents down enough, their children will either leave or graduate out of the district and the parents will not have the fortitude to continue the fight.  She has a very nasty and underhanded group of followers (Support Our Schools, DY Schools are Great, to name a few) who will stop at nothing to shut up the voices of anyone brave enough to stand up against her.  These people have been known to go so far as to reach out to the employers of someone who spoke out about the miserable performance of the district in an effort to impact that person’s livelihood.  They stop at nothing and it is at Carol Woodbury’s bidding.

I know this because I am one of those parents.  I did my research.  I found facts upon which I based my opinions.  And then I spoke out and I spoke out loudly.  I made waves.  I fought the good fight.  I utilized every means available to me to get my findings known to the public – from speaking at school committee meetings and town meetings, to publishing this blog, to having letters to the editor of the Cape Cod Times published, to supporting qualified candidates for the school committee.

I have always said that the truth stands on its own and will, in good time, show to be true north on the compass.

How far does this superintendent have to go in the abuse, neglect, victimization, exploitation and indifference of the children who are unfortunate enough to be in her charge before she is forced to pay for her deceit and injustice?

And what of the School Committee member who is related to the perpetrator of what any decent citizen will consider to be a crime? The law may consider it consensual, and if this were between a nineteen-year-old boy and this sixteen-year-old student, we’d all probably agree. But when a teacher of any age takes advantage of his student and doesn’t have the sense God gave a billy-goat to stop from crossing this line, it may not be punishable by law but it certainly should not have been rewarded with protection and pay and more opportunity. Are we to believe that School Committee Member Tierney knew nothing of his family member’s situation? It seems reasonable to assume that he and Woodbury were in cahoots in this cover-up.

To the School Committee members who adamantly support this horrible woman, I again say, “Shame on you.  Shame.  On.  You.”  You’d better hope none of your children or grandchildren are destined to do time under Warden Woodbury.  How well do you all sleep at night knowing what you’ve done to the taxpayers of Dennis and Yarmouth?

To parents in these two towns, I implore you to find a way to place your beloved children in better care than leaving them at the doorstep of an abuser who cares no more for their well-being than Woodbury does for the truth.

To the parents of the victim of this particular incident, I’m profoundly sorry that you were so egregiously failed by a teacher, administrators, a superintendent, a long-unneeded union, elected officials and an environment of corruption which not only tolerates such atrocities but celebrates them with smug satisfaction.

Carol Woodbury has been reaping the profit of her over-inflated salary for the last decade and she will undoubtedly retire reaping the benefit of her undeserved and excessive pension for the rest of her life.  Next to the infliction of pain and unwarranted shame she has exacted on the parents of Mr. Tierney’s victim – this is perhaps the biggest injustice of all.

To Carol Woodbury, since you know that your feeble-minded school committee members do not have the backbone, the fortitude, the gumption to publicly admit that they have wronged the communities who elected them to serve, is there any hope that you will dig deep – or perhaps as is a more feasible option, look outside of yourself to someone with scruples and ethics to role model, and resign?  Is it too much to hope that you have finally sated your bottomless hunger for the destruction and deterioration of the fiber of education and the well-being of the children in Dennis and Yarmouth?

Those were rhetorical questions.  I know the answers and maintain appropriately low expectations.

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.

 

We all deserve better

The School Committee, in all of its interminable intelligence, has signed an employment contract with Superintendent Carol Woodbury for – not the requisite three years – but for SIX more years.

It’s like a death sentence for this district.

We’ve already had six years of Carol Woodbury and, as a result, our district has shown a remarkable decline in measurable performance indicators and a mass exodus of students to other school districts and charter schools.  We are paying over $3 million in tuition to those schools.  Her supporters (naive and misinformed, though they are) would have us believe that parents are pulling their children out of this district because of the budget controversy each year.  Parents do not  go to the extra expense and inconvenience of transporting their kids to neighboring [better] schools because of budget controversies.  If they still live in Dennis or Yarmouth, they will still be dealing with budget controversies each year, whether or not their child[ren] attend school here!

And when will any of them acknowledge the irrefutable fact that we would have no budget controversy if we weren’t losing $3 million in school choice and sending tuition?  When will any of the supporters on the School Committee acknowledge the facts that our graduation rate is worse, our attendance rates are worse, our matriculation rate to colleges are lower and nearly every other measurable indicator is sub-par in our district?  These are the reasons parents choose other schools over ours.  Plain and simple.

The incompetence of the School Committee members who agreed to Carol Woodbury’s six-year contract is second only to their arrogance.  And it is not lost on those of us who really do care about the educational product being provided to our children that this was done just a couple of weeks before the voters could yet again speak loudly at the polls by electing new members who may actually respect the will of the voters.  It is not lost on us that, by electing to grant a six-year contract, they are thumbing their nose at the voters for – not just this upcoming election – but for many elections to come.

Who do these people think they are?  Judge and jury, apparently.  And they have sentenced our children to death by a thousand paper cuts in so doing.  Again, shame on them.  This School Committee continuously proves that they are small-minded, petty, short-sighted, egotistical and largely ignorant of the cancer which is growing (and being fed by them) from the top of this district.  The proverbial fish rots from the head, folks.  Plug in!

Let me put this a little differently.  The voters of our towns have consistently spoken loudly at the polls that they have no confidence in the leadership of this district by voting against every override, electing new members to the School Committee and they have voted with their feet by leaving the district.  In essence, the voters are saying that they are not interested in investing any more money, time, energy or effort into the current leadership of this district.  The voters are not satisfied with the product being provided by this leadership.  It’s not that complicated, but the School Committee members (those that voted in favor of a six-year contract anyway) don’t seem to get it.

Let’s say the board of directors of ABC Widget Company hires a new CEO.  Under that CEO, the financial reports begin to show that sales of widgets take a dramatic downward turn and profits begin to diminish.  Customer complaints about the widgets increase every year under the CEO’s leadership and faculty and staff begin to show evidence of deteriorating morale.  Meanwhile, other competing widget companies begin to show such a dramatic increase in sales that they must open new branches and expand their production in order to keep up with the demand.  The board of directors of ABC Widget Company go back to the bank and to its investors year after year, asking for more money – but the bank and the investors continue to tell the board that they see no credible evidence of value and/or return on their investment and they refuse to increase their investment or lend more money to ABC Widget Company.  The CEO of ABC Widget Company refuses to acknowledge or is incapable of recognizing that the source of declining profits is the poor quality of the widget being produced and the board of directors does not hold the CEO accountable.

This is the definition of incompetence – at every level.  And this is exactly what has happened in our school district.  The saddest thing about it is that we are not manufacturing and selling poor quality widgets, we are sacrificing our children’s education.

Any parent who chooses to support this failing leadership should look into the mirror with shame.  Blindly following the path this district is on is not only neglectful, but downright immoral.  What will it take to make the blind followers demand more for our children?

We all deserve more and it is time we demand it.

A Petition for a Vote of No Confidence

A Petition for a vote of no confidence in Superintendent Carol Woodbury has been delivered to the School Committee Chairman with 272 signatures.

I know I have no confidence in her ability to turn this district around and take the reigns of the runaway train that is driving our students away in droves to other better performing schools.  Do you?

I believe that this district is at a crossroads and it is time for our elected officials to take a stance.  The facts are irrefutable and they prove that the performance of this district and the educational product being provided has plummeted in the six years Carol Woodbury has been Superintendent.

Anyone who chooses to support her and advocate for “more of the same” is choosing to fail.  The time for change is now and we need leaders who have the courage and fortitude to put our children and their education first.  If this School Committee commends the Superintendent for her performance and rubber stamps another contract renewal – then we simply MUST elect new School Committee members.

There is no shame in recognizing a problem and taking steps to resolve it.  There is great shame in hiding in denial.

The winds of change . . .

Who says a leopard can’t change its spots?  Well, I’m not sure I’d go quite so far as to say that our leopard has changed its spots, but perhaps those spots are fading a bit.

Woodbury review will be televised

Superintendent Carol Woodbury’s evaluation is being conducted on Wednesday, March 30th at 6:30pm at the Station Avenue Elementary School and it will be televised.

There are no shortage of voters who have called for more transparency and more accountability on the part of the School Committee and of our Superintendent and it appears that they are paying heed to that call.

As the truth about our school district’s performance and the problems plaguing it become more and more evident as the facts are exposed, heretofore advocates of the Superintendent must begin to question their support.

“Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.”  Maria Robinson

It has also been said, “Life is change.  Growth is optional.  Choose wisely.”

I applaud those who are willing to pull themselves out of the positions they have previously dug themselves in deep to defend, in order to effect the change necessary to improve.

Another Discreet Review

The Superintendent’s annual review is being held on March 30 at 6:30pm.  Although her review seems to be held on a variety of dates each year from July in 2006, to August in 2007, to May in 2008 and 2009, to April in 2010 – this year it is being held at the end of March.

Well, that should make it very convenient for the general public to have an opportunity to be present for the subject of her job performance, shouldn’t it?  [Yes, that’s sarcasm you detect.]

But wait!  There’s more!

My favorite thing about the Superintendent’s annual evaluation is that, for this very important meeting, it is moved to a little room in the high school.  This meeting is held in the administration room (the conference room, in essence) at DY High School.  Guess what?  There are no cameras in that room and very little room, if any, for the general public.  In fact, I question whether or not this is in violation of the Open Meeting Law.  When asked why it is held in the DY administration room, I was told “because it always has been, right along.”

That’s a good reason.  [Yep.  Sarcasm again.]

Come on, School Committee, have you no courage at all?  No, don’t answer that.  I already know the answer.  You would prefer to continue to see our school district plummet into obscurity under this Superintendent’s reign than take a stand for the change our children deserve.

Shame on all of you.

There are better ways to spend our money

An excerpt from an article in The Washington Post on Monday:

“The value of measuring effectiveness is clear when you compare teachers to members of other professions – farmers, engineers, computer programmers, even athletes. These professionals are more advanced than their predecessors – because they have clear indicators of excellence, their success depends on performance and they eagerly learn from the best.

The same advances haven’t been made in teaching because we haven’t built a system to measure and promote excellence. Instead, we have poured money into proxies, things we hoped would have an impact on student achievement. The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It’s reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that’s not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement.

Another standard feature of school budgets is a bump in pay for advanced degrees. Such raises have almost no impact on achievement, but every year they cost $15 billion that would help students more if spent in other ways.

Perhaps the most expensive assumption embedded in school budgets – and one of the most unchallenged – is the view that reducing class size is the best way to improve student achievement. This belief has driven school budget increases for more than 50 years. U.S. schools have almost twice as many teachers per student as they did in 1960, yet achievement is roughly the same.”

And yet, our School Committee continues to demand that we keep our class sizes unreasonably small.  The Superintendent likes to say that some of the outflow of our students to other districts is due to the other districts having smaller class sizes.  This simply isn’t true (and there is nothing surprising about the Superintendent making inaccurate representations of the truth).

DY has a 12 to 1 student/teacher ratio.

Nauset has a 12.6 to 1 student/teacher ratio.

Barnstable has a 13.9 to 1 student/teacher ratio.

Only Harwich (of the school districts to whom we lose most of our students) is the only district with a [barely] smaller student/teacher ratio at 11.7 to 1.

See the full article at How Teacher Development Could Revolutionize Our Schools

It just does not make sense to continue to throw good money after bad when the real problems are never being addressed by the current leadership in our towns.  This Superintendent and the School Committee will apparently not be happy until they have bankrupted our towns, destroyed our property values beyond recognition and left us with public education that isn’t worthy of our pets, let alone our children.

 

Graduation Rates

It will be interesting to see what spin the Superintendent puts on the article which was published in the Cape Cod Times yesterday regarding the high graduation rates of vocational schools and schools which offer vocational classes.  I’m sure, somehow, it will be tied to the budget and the need for more money.  After all, more money is the Superintendent’s answer to every problem.  The entire country is grappling with the unsustainable drain from enormous public school budgets and it is finally coming to the forefront that continuing to throw more money at the problem is not the answer.

The chart published with the article in the Times showed exactly what I have been saying for the past year.  Dennis-Yarmouth performs worse in the majority of categories of measurable performance indicators when compared to every other school on the Cape and Islands.  It’s not remotely surprising to me (and, in fact, I have published just such data in previous posts on this blog) that DY has the lowest graduation rate in any category (be it four-year graduations or any other category).

Yet, we are expected to believe that (a) this is not really the case because data lies/misrepresents the truth/isn’t accurate; (b) this is only because Dennis and Yarmouth are totally unlike every other town on the Cape because we have more under-performing subgroups (English Language Learners, free and reduced lunch kids, etc.); or (c) it is because our towns won’t agree to spend enough money.

Enough is enough, Mrs. Woodbury!  You refuse to address the problem or even admit that our district has a problem.

(A) Data does not lie.  The information presented is derived the same for every school so they show accurate comparisons.  (B) Every town has English Language Learners and with high unemployment rates everywhere, free and reduced lunch kids are everywhere.  But more to the point, I simply do not accept that children who qualify for free or reduced lunch are not capable of performing adequately!  (C) There is absolutely no correlation between the amount of money spent per student to the measurable performance indicators.

Since the current School Committee obviously chooses to put blinders on and doesn’t have the fortitude to hold the Superintendent accountable for the performance of the district in her charge, then the voters in our towns must elect responsible new members to the Committee who will have to courage to take the actions necessary to pull our district out of the bottom of nearly every single category of performance.

I have heard that a former School Committee member intends to run for one of the vacant seats this spring and her election would be nothing less than a leap into the past and would, in effect, be the kiss of death for this district.  Not only is she a very close, personal friend to the Superintendent – which is a conflict of interest of monumental proportions – but the last thing this district needs is another School Committee member who will guzzle from the Superintendent’s Kool-Aid of conformity!

The time for change is now.

ANOTHER Open Letter to the DY School Committee

This blog started because of an open letter I published to the School Committee on another blog, so I’m not surprised that I again find the need to be heard by way of another open letter to the School Committee.  You see, unless one is willing to “toe the line” of conformity at School Committee meetings, the constituents who elect our School Committee members are not allowed to be heard.  The School Committee continues to show a blatant disregard for the will of the voters and when the voters attend meetings (and the School Committee members continue to complain that no concerned citizens get involved!) and begin to make comments that oppose the “business as usual” approach (and how is THAT working for this district?), they are shut down before they are permitted to voice them.

I certainly understand the need for orderly and organized, productive committee meetings.  However, if last night’s meeting was a show of order, then we’re all in deeper trouble than the voters can imagine!  The Chairman is completely incapable or entirely unwilling to take control of meetings and adhere to Par Law.  The first item on the agenda was the public comment period (only if the public wished to make comments that the School Committee and the Superintendent wished to hear), and yet, the meeting opened NOT with a public comment period but with some clarifications on recent changes to the budget and another presentation by the Superintendent explaining how wonderfully the district is performing.

And so, I will again publish what I wished to say as a voting member of the public regarding the budget at the public budget hearing here:

We have yet another proposed budget which shows an increase in staff numbers for fewer students.  And the increased staff is not the only cost directly related to the district’s poor performance.  The cost in tuition for charter and school choice goes up – and has gone up dramatically – each and every year for the past six years.  Even if it is true that two private schools opened in 2005 (as Gerry Bastian pointed out) – I am not addressing the number of students who leave our district to attend private schools.  I am speaking to those who choose charter and other public schools.  This is lost revenue.

Now, this district has the dubious honor of qualifying as Level 3.  That means we are the only district on the Cape which has at least one school in the bottom 20% of schools in the state.  This is not something of which to be proud and it is costing us money.

We lose over half of our out-of-school sending students at the high school level.  Parents pull their kids out of school at the high school level for one primary reason and that is performance.  That’s not to say that the majority of elementary school students aren’t leaving due to the district’s performance issues – but no one knows because no real effort has ever been made to find out why they leave.

Every high school that I spoke to on the Cape and Wareham agreed that when you see such a dramatically disproportionate percentage of students leaving one district at the high school level, one has to assume it is performance-related.

The Superintendent herself said that “if you build it, they will come.”  She is right.  When Harwich opens their new high school, we will lose even more high school students.  Next year, Sturgis is opening a temporary facility and plans to open a permanent facility in the near future.  We will lose significantly more high school students then.  These are mostly high achieving students, without question.

Our vacancy rate (the fixed cost of maintaining facilities for empty seats) has and will continue to increase and, as long as we keep losing our highest achieving students to other better schools, our measurable performance indicators will continue to decline.

This district is fighting a losing battle if it stays the current course and this School Committee has an obligation to the voting public to take courageous action to turn things around.

Over the past six years, under the current Superintendent’s leadership, the district has steady declining revenues and steadily increasing expenses.  This is not sustainable. Our district reached a critical level several years ago and today – it is beyond critical – it is terminal.

Hiring more teachers to teach our teachers how to teach is NOT the answer.  This district has the highest number of highly qualified teachers on the Cape.  There is already a cost for their professional development throughout each year.  If it isn’t working, then we need to discover why it is sufficient for other districts (many of which have far less highly qualified teachers), but our teachers don’t know how to apply what they learn in a classroom.  “Teaching” is a verb – and isn’t it all about the act and ability to apply knowledge in a classroom?  The reality is that our teachers are not failing our students.  It is this School Committee, this Superintendent and this administration that is failing our students.

No matter how the data is spun, the irrefutable fact is that we are losing students at an alarming rate, many of which are our highest achieving students, and we have been for the past six years.  This means that we have more and more empty seats every year, we pay more and more in out-of-school sending tuition, so we have less and less revenue to pay higher expenses.  It’s not rocket science and it is NOT complicated.

We are swimming upstream and the current we are swimming against is getting stronger.  We can NOT continue “business as usual.”  I implore this School Committee to stop rubber-stamping budget increases without addressing the real and tangible issues which are costing our towns not only more money but our children’s education.  You can no longer bury your collective heads in the sand and continue to believe that everything is lollipops and rainbows.

It is time for a call to action.  It is time for new leadership and a new direction.  Until that happens, Yarmouth voters will not approve a property tax increase while we see our real estate value decrease due to an under-achieving school district which is draining the resources from other necessary and important town services like fire and police.