Do you find it interesting that some people in our Gateway towns are now talking about petitions, referendums, and official requests to reorganize the district—including withdrawing from Gateway altogether—just as these same towns are considering, or actually taking, legal action to prevent Worthington from doing the same thing? Do you also find it interesting that these individuals and groups are acting in a manner that is not proscribed by either the Regional Agreement or State Law regarding the appropriate and legal channels to reorganize or withdraw from the district? Do you believe it’s a little strange that these individuals and groups are not comprised of people with students in the district and that some of these individuals have never sent their children to public schools?
Perhaps the biggest concern that I have, especially given Gateway’s efforts to be transparent and provide facts from verified sources, is that these efforts to ‘transform’ the district do not seem to have any research into the protocols, procedures, or actual costs of the very items they seem to be supporting. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps people are just trying to open a discussion and research effort to gather facts, weigh the evidence, and provide potential alternatives to save money (because, to my knowledge, none of these proposals have discussed the quality of education in the district, only the financial impact on the towns).
Another major concern I have is that the towns, all signatories to a legal and binding regional agreement, are ignoring that agreement by essentially superseding the school committee, which is the only legal decision-making body for a regional school district. Again, giving these folks the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they’re looking for support to ask the school committee to consider alternatives to the present configuration of the district, are less concerned about the cost to the towns and more concerned about the quality of education, have left parents and students out of the process due to an oversight, and have chosen to move forward in haste due to the crush of time before town meetings.
As I’ve indicated in previous columns and during meetings, I believe it may be beneficial to take a realistic look at the district (or even education in general) including exploring the potential benefits and drawbacks to towns considering leaving the district. This, after all, is what Worthington did over the course of several years. People are forgetting, however, that Worthington’s withdrawal was never based on saving money, but rather on opening an elementary school in their town and providing additional educational opportunities for their children. Over the course of their process, the increased costs of leaving the district have always been part of their discussion and, without even considering the legal costs and other liabilities that Worthington and the district will either negotiate or settle in court, the reality is that the cost to Worthington is hundreds of thousands of dollars more to form their own district rather than staying in the Gateway District. When the other financial obligations are factored in, that cost will increase substantially.
The reality is that the reason, according to state legislators, they allowed Worthington to withdraw from the district was based solely upon educational opportunities as evidenced by that town’s increased costs of moving in this direction. Do you really believe that the individuals and groups (who include, according to recent articles in local newspapers, elected officials in Blandford, Huntington and Russell) now advocating for potential withdrawal from the district have, as their sole purpose, the ideal of paying more in order to increase student opportunities?
The actual budget document will be out very soon and will have significant information about Gateway that shows that Gateway is about average compared to other, similar districts. Our per pupil expenditures, in total and by DESE budget categories, are well within the norms showing that we’ve maintained educational services without driving the costs beyond the average for similar schools. You’ll also be able to clearly see that the overall budget has not grown substantially in over a decade and the reality that much of the change in individual town assessments is due to the state’s formula for determining foundation (required) spending. For example, both Blandford and Huntington’s increase in minimum spending is up over 7.5% and this will not be lowered no matter what happens to the budget. Despite a reduction in state aid for education and the Worthington withdrawal, the fact is that total assessments are up approximately 13% from FY’10, and that the actual percentage of each town’s budget spent on education (both Gateway and Vocational combined) actually decreased from the 2009-10 school year to 2013-14, with an average decrease of over 5%.
Does this year’s increase of just over million dollars in assessments potentially hurt some towns? Absolutely, but not for every town: early numbers have Middlefield’s assessment up $16,393 and Montgomery up $12,171. Would we have this problem if the school district’s assessments overall had increased 3% per year (2.5% under proposition 2 ½ plus limited new growth)? The answer is no: at that increase, the actual assessment for FY’16 would be $492,639 more than the district is actually requesting (and even at just a 2.5% increase per year, the towns would be paying nearly $200,000 more than currently requested). To discuss finances is certainly valid; to point fingers or to destroy 50 years of history without considering the facts seems less valid and somewhat unfair.
It is my hope that we can begin to work together in gathering factual knowledge and including parents, staff and students in a more collaborative fashion as this discussion continues.
