Dr. David Hopson
Superintendent’s Corner
I thank those town officials and members of the public who attended last week’s public hearing on the 2012-2013 Gateway Budget. I hope that everyone appreciated the information provided by administrators in the areas of special education, grants, curriculum and instruction, technology, finance and maintenance, as well as hearing about changes at the K-12 level by building principals. As expressed in earlier Superintendent’s Corners, the information related to the budget, the budget process, and the reasoning behind many of the decisions can all be found online at www.grsd.org (>Information >Budget >2012-2013 Budget Documents). I’ve also posted questions, and the corresponding answers, from Russell’s finance committee chair online.
It was not unexpected that those towns with increases in school assessments had the most comments to make and desired a lower budget to decrease assessments. As I pointed out in my presentation (also on the website), those towns with increases have an increased percentage of their students attending Gateway, coupled with an increase in minimum contributions required by the state funding formula; these increases are not simply a result of lower state educational aid or changes in the budget. In fact, in Montgomery’s case, their actual assessment increase for the entire budget is less than that mandated by the state for just the minimum contribution. I will point out that the overall assessments are up by 2.5 percent over this year, but only two towns (Montgomery and Russell) have assessments that are higher than they were in the 2008-2009 school year.
I was also publicly castigated for not spending enough time writing letters to state and federal officials urging them to be cognizant of the difficulties local communities are facing due to decreases in educational aid from the state and federal government. While I agree that it’s important to work with legislators, and have worked diligently throughout the years to instigate letter-writing campaigns focused specifically on regional school transportation reimbursement, I have found from working with lobbyists while on state and national boards, that a letter from a single superintendent—no matter how well written—has little impact on final policy and funding decisions. I do, however, work with regional and state organizations to lobby legislators for increased funding, the elimination of unfunded mandates, and a reduction in the regulations that stifle educational and financial creativity in the schools. In my many years of working with legislative bodies, I have found that the power of these organizations far surpasses that of any single individual.
I also feel obligated to point out that in the overall scheme of funding, Gateway doesn’t qualify for additional state or federal funding for many reasons. Under the auspices of poverty, the district and our towns are not considered high need (we actually have to partner with other districts to qualify for need-based grants). We don’t qualify for additional funding due to low student performance (look at the additional funding given to level four districts such as Holyoke and Springfield) because our students performance has actually increased compared to the state student performance levels. We don’t qualify for Race to the Top funding as we elected not to be a RTTT district because the cost was greater than the financial benefit. It’s also hard to argue for additional funding to be taken from the state’s rainy day funds, or to increase the federal government’s deficits, while some of our towns have significant amounts of money in stabilization, reserve, and free cash accounts. In fact, at an earlier Gateway Legislative Forum, one of our state senators asked why the state should take money from state reserves when, as a whole, Massachusetts’ towns had significantly more money in their reserves that were not being used.
I believe the district has done much over the years to insulate the towns from significant increases in assessments and that it will be difficult to further reduce the district’s budget without major, negative impacts on student learning and opportunities. The final choice however rests with the school committee and with voters at our towns’ annual town meetings. If they are unable to reach a satisfactory compromise, the decision will go to the State Commissioner of Education.
I also stand ready to ask Gateway’s legislators to come for another Legislative Forum but require a commitment from town officials to participate. As with the Budget Public Hearing, it’s disheartening to see so few town participants when we’ve spent so much time and effort setting up a meeting with multiple legislators. If we are to coordinate such an event, and to make an impact, we need all seven towns represented by multiple officials throughout each town’s government rather than just a few towns represented by only one or two officials. Together, and working with state organizations for various positions, we may be able to influence decisions that will impact the district and our towns.
