(1/7/09 - note from Marianne - the fact is that the content of the post below - that there was no quartz dust IS INCORRECT.  If this post had been a tree falling in a forest, I would have merely deleted it once I found the correct information.  Given the circumstances of the letter to the editor, I will leave the post here and you can read it and reach your own conclusions.)
Holly Horrigan, writing the Needham Times on December 4 about why she believes no children should be on the Newman site during any constructions says:

“Even the limited construction at Newman over the summer resulted in elevated levels of quartz dust.”

In her letter, she has just shared that quartz dust (really any fine dust frankly) is a “known carcinogen.”

However, her statement about elevated levels at the end of the summer does not come from any project documentation.  There were levels of elevated dust at the time of the ventilation breach during the prior school year.  Not after the summer work.

Seems pretty straight forward, right? An older teacher, at the top of the pay scale, retires and a new teacher is hired at a lower cost on the scale. In the first year, there are some cost savings. In subsequent years, however, the salary increase for the younger teacher is greater, percentage wise, than it was for the senior teacher.

This is because the senior teacher had maxed out the salary scale and was receiving a cost of living increase, only, each year. The younger teacher, will receive a cost of living adjustment (COLA) AND a “step” increase - think of it as a promotion. Therefore, the total percentage increase is greater.

I would also observe that, in Needham, our biggest wave of retirements are past and those savings have already been realized.

There’s another good, but challenging, thing about younger teachers. They get married, and they have children. Then, they take Family Medical Leave. Depending on how long they are out on leave (and how much leave they have saved up), we then pay their salary AND the salary of their long-term substitute. That’s life. It all adds up to the salaries that the district pays, and it’s another reason why costs continue to head up.

Education is one of those great social compacts. While our children are in school, none of us are paying for their ride. It takes years. Let’s look at the numbers (and keep this very simple for example’s sake.)

We’ll use the numbers from the 2007 Needham Public Schools Performance report.

The key numbers are:

Per Pupil Expenditure: $11,291

Average Tax Bill: $6,377

About 60% of the Town’s costs are for schools, so we will allocate $6,377 X 60% as a family’s payment toward school costs: $3,826.20

For the purposes of this example, the average family has two children. (I believe that average family with children has more than two children in Needham, but that would only make the example more dramatic.)

Again, for simplicity’s sake — figure two children for thirteen years (K-12) is a cost of :

2 X $11291 X 13 = $293,556

(We’ve ignored all the details like cost of money and inflation.) So, $293,556 is the cost to educate that family’s children from kindergarten through high school graduation.

Next, let’s look at the school taxes that family will pay during the 13 years that those children are in school:

13 X $3,826.20 = $49,740.60

Hmm… bit of a deficit there.

Cost: $293,556

Payment: $49,740.60

Deficit: ( $243,815.40)

How many more years will it take to pay off the remaining $243,815.40 that the town has already invested in this family’s children?

$243,815.40 / 3,826.20 = 63.7 years

If you, like me, didn’t have children until you were 30, and they entered school 5 years later, that means that I’ve finished paying for them when I’m 111.7 years old. I think I have a ways to go…That probably means that most citizens in town are in the same boat - you just think you finished paying a long time ago!
That’s what I mean by social compact - we all pay to educate the children that are our future. And it’s a big investment. We need to do it well.

OK - just call me defensive! But, it’s budget time again, and I think we need to get the word out as much as possible. I’m planning to try and blog something pretty frequently as we go through the budget cycle. It’s not pretty. This year will be all about just making it through.

The Globe today has the story about 83 cities and towns losing state aid compared in the Joint budget as compared to the Governor’s budget which came out just a few weeks ago. The difference in the numbers is the result, of course, of different approaches to how the dollars are allocated.

A year ago, the legislature spent a significant amount of time coming up with a revised approach to allocating Chapter 70 funds. They also pledged to work toward funding a 17.5% “foundation floor” for education in each community. So, Needham saw an increase in State aid last year to put us on the path of reaching the floor over 5 years. There was another increase this year in the Patrick budget. At this moment, I believe that the Joint budget allocates what looks like an additional $144K to Needham (at least in Chapter 70 funds) beyond the Governor’s budget. I don’t know if there have been offsets in State aid in other categories - so the net increase may be a different number. If this holds, Needham would see an increase of $757K over FY07 in Chapter 70 funds.
Wellesley was in an odd position this year. They had actually fallen completely off the track, and so they had been prioritized by the Governor for more aid. When that additional aid was calculated, it was done on the basis of getting those towns to the foundation floor over three years rather than five. It looks like the Joint budget puts them back on the five year track. Still, even with the Joint number, their Chapter 70 aid would b e up $850K over FY07.
I will update as I learn more today.

p.s. - Thanks to Greg Casey in Senator Brown’s office for the quick heads up when the Joint budget passed last evening!

UPDATE: (April 6)  At this point, I can confirm that Needham’s Chapter 70 number is up from the Governor’s Budget as stated above.  We also know that the Town’s Additional Assistance and Lottery Aid numbers are consistent with the Governor’s budget.  Dave Davison, the Town Finance Director, is waiting until all categories of State aid are in and all assessments from the State are received before this additional revenue is a done deal.  But, I think that we are cautiously optimistic right now.

The Suicide Prevention Coalition Report is out and the task force has reported to the Selectmen and the School Committee. You can find the complete report and recommendations online here. Thank you to the task force for all their hard work over the last year to bring us to this point.

There are a number of initiatives and training that the task force is starting to roll out, but there is one concrete way that each of us can participate. They’ve asked folks to read Darkness Visible and participate in one of the community conversations about the book and the issues it raises around depression. Here’s the flyer with the first dates and times. I’ll be reading. I hope you will be too.

In nearly every School Committee meeting, there is usually some little fact that strikes me. A couple of weeks ago, during our Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) update, we learned that three years ago, over 80% of the teachers in the system had been through the SEL professional development class. So, we stopped offering the course. Now, only 43% of the teachers have been through the class. Since we absolutely believe that practicing the techniques from this class lead to a group of children who are settled and ready to learn, we’ll be offering the course once more.

Then, last night, in our professional development update came a reminder of this fact: since 2003, we’ve added 10.6 teachers to our headcount. (We’ve actually hired way more teachers than that due to retirements and turnover, but the net increase is 10.6 teachers.) That’s an interesting number when you consider that over the same four years, we’ve enrolled about 400 more students in the district. Since we have been adding the teachers in the classrooms, that just shows you how much we have cannibalized elementary language, the arts, media, and PE in order to be able to add the classroom teachers. 400 students should equate to 18-20 classroom teachers PLUS additional teachers for the “specials”. Just another example of how the budget gets squeezed over time.

Mr Grossman wrote a letter to the editor today that prompted one of those wondering moments. He wrote, “In 2006, Needham had no high school graduates attending any of the 10 top tier colleges, it no longer wants its high school honor roll published and its superintendent and high school principal appear to want a “feel good” scholastic experience rather than one that stresses the importance of academic achievement…” Really?

There are many lists of top colleges. Mr. Grossman didn’t say which one he was thinking of. Just looking at the often referenced USNews lists for top universities and colleges, Needham High’s Class of 2006 has done just fine. Students are going to UPenn, Dartmouth, Columbia, UChicago, Williams, Swarthmore, Carleton, Bowdoin, Davidson, and Wesleyan. Of course, these “top” schools are not everyone’s cup of tea. There are many terrific options that Needham students choose to attend.

For a complete list of all the colleges last year’s senior class are attending, please check here. We’re quite proud of all our graduates. And, they know that we will continue to have high expectations for academic achievement for future classes.

P.S. We have some current seniors accepted at Harvard and MIT and many other wonderful schools.

A couple of folks have proposed using the Webster Street Building on the High School, currently scheduled to be knocked down in January 2008, to relieve some of our space needs. It’s a bit problematic because there would clearly be issues with our contractor for the HS and, potentially, with our MSBA reimbursement. But it’s problematic for other reasons also.

First, why is that wing scheduled to be knocked down? Frankly, it doesn’t work all that well. You may remember the many-year-HVAC project that was contemplated before a decision was made to rebuild the High School? A couple of weeks ago when it was cold, the temperature in that wing varied considerably. I understand that it was frequently in the 40’s when the day began. Try learning in that! (We’ve seen evidence that the heating systems in the building stay patched together for the most part…but stresses like the severe cold snaps have caused problems this year.) So, obviously, if we were to keep the building, we would need to make provisions for fixing the heat or tying it in to the new system at the High School. Then, we’ll trigger the need for ADA compliance in that building. Then we have to consider the penalties from the current contractor and  jeopardizing our money from the MSBA for reimbursement on the HS project.

Personally, I hate the thought of asking the taxpayers for more money again - but fixing the school so that it could be used for the long term doesn’t come for free.

But let’s ignore that for the moment and consider, from an educational perspective, the merits of the proposal. (I’ve had this conversation with the writer.) The recent proposal was for a 7-12 grade school where grades 7 & 8 got added to the High School in the Webster Street wing.

This would create a school with 2400 - 2600 students on that site. Yikes! Most of us are advocating for smaller schools. This is certainly counter to any research. Where the additional staff to serve the additional 850-900 students would park is another good question.

As the writer suggests, there is a movement now - it’s the post K-8 movement - to introduce 7-12 High Schools. These are being introduced in urban areas where academic achievement is low. The reasoning is that the younger children in those areas need to be more exposed to why academic achievement is important. This configuration is also being introduced in schools of about 500 students.

In Needham, academic achievement is not the issue. In fact, I think a bigger consideration for the community may be whether we want to introduce even younger children to the academic stress koolaid at the high school.

And I haven’t even addressed whether the academic and co-curricular program for those students can fit in the space available. In my opinion, it doesn’t. There would be less room than those students currently have at Pollard.

The other part of the proposal was to turn Pollard (and all the elementary schools) into K-6 schools. There are a number of space challenges with making all the elementary schools K-6. The bigger question is - do we want another 700-800 student elementary school? Again, research suggests that ideally, elementary schools would be in the 300-400 student range. Would we consciously adopt a strategy today that is diametrically opposed to that?

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that Needham, with the socioeconomic advantage we enjoy, can make almost anything work. The question is - is this the best option we have? I think we can do better. Staying the course on High Rock is a better option for the students of Needham.

There has been a lot of discussion about a Companion Override for the High Rock school incremental operating costs. As of right now, the decision is to NOT put the companion on the ballot - but to inform voters about the upcoming costs (approximately $1Million — but it could be a bit more depending on what happens in the intervening budget years between now and when the funds are needed.)

Seems like a common sense idea, no? You open a new building - you need to pay for heat, electricity, custodians, buses, incremental staff, etc… In the FY08 budget, all the operating costs that the town has been paying for High Rock - which has been operating most recently for the library and then paid for by the KASE program this year - have been absorbed by other items in the budget and are zero-ed out. So, the Town will need money to open the building.

No town in the commonwealth has ever offered a companion override years in advance. This doesn’t make it right or wrong. It just says that frugal residents of Massachusetts have tended to look at each budget year, understand what the needs of their community are, and make the choices, based on the current revenue situation, about what they wish to pay for. There are actually some things that can shift with the Town’s revenue over the next couple of years. Depending on what happens, we may not need to ask the voters for as much money as we might today.

Also, looking at some of the items folks were recommending for the companion override was a bit unnerving to me. When we build an annual budget, and ask for an override, we really do think carefully about what to include in that override. Do we need it or not? In that tradition, this year’s override meets that screen. And, there was pressure from other boards in town (as there always is) to make the override request as small as possible…preferably ZERO in the view of a number of folks. But - there seemed to be a different philosophy with the companion. You think you might need it? Throw it in there! At a few meetings, it felt like a free for all with what was suggested for the companion.

The message was confusing - if the Schools ask for an override the year prior to our need and we’re clear about what’s required, then there is pressure to reduce the request. But, if we ask two full budget years before the need, then we have a pass for anything goes!

Not the Needham tradition.

And I’m sure that voters wouldn’t understand that the game plan had just been switched on them.

The compromise that has been worked out with the Selectmen, School Committee and Finance Committee suggests that we are willing to ask the Town for the needed incremental funds in the Fall prior to the budget year discussions. That brings us to November 2008. This seems rational. We should have a better understanding of what will be happening with the CC&F friendly 40B development and any potential meals tax revenues *** (if the Town goes down that route.) It will give the School Committee some time to settle some major transportation questions that will impact the schools’ costs to open the buildings. (We’ve included the presumed higher costs in our forecast, but costs could be lower.)

So, the costs currently identified have been published. You can find them here. And, when we know what incremental tax revenues need to be raised from the Town to support the building, we will ask for them.

*** PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT advocating that Needham implement a meals tax. I have decidedly mixed feelings about that right now. It really seems like another way that the State can pass the buck off to local residents to tell them to solve their own problems. Just like letting us vote to raise our own local property taxes. The communities that can, do. The communities that can’t, don’t. And their problems get worse. There’s got to be a better way.