Published May 5, 2012 in the Rutland Herald
Support budget in Springfield
I write to remind everyone of the importance of voting to support the school budget on Tuesday, May 8, at Riverside from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Contact the town clerk’s office at 885-2104 to request an absentee ballot if needed.
The path to success for our future generations begins with the parents of Springfield and continues with our schools. Our schools need our support on Tuesday to ensure they are able to provide the classes, instruction, and diversity of opportunities our students require to be successful in life. Our town’s future is inescapably tied to the success of our schools through prospective residents deciding whether to join our community and through our own students who go on to raise families here.
Supporting the schools benefits everyone. It allows the schools to focus on providing services rather than cutting teachers, much needed programs and preventative maintenance. It allows our schools to make personnel decisions based on merit rather than forcing cuts of our least tenured teachers. By supporting our school and with the help of the town, we can draw in businesses and residents and thereby increase our tax base.
For every dollar Springfield residents approve to fund our schools, we receive $2 of outside funding. In the converse, when we cut $1 raised by property taxes, we lose a total of $3 in funding. Under the 2011 budget, $9,282,478 were raised from local property taxes. Of the total proposed budget for next year, we will need to raise $9,261,041 from local property taxes, a decrease of $21,437. Our future cannot afford any more reductions.
Please join me in voting yes to approve the school budget on May 8.
ETHAN McNAUGHTON
Springfield
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Opinion: Support school budget
I write to remind everyone of the importance of voting to support the school budget on Tuesday, May 8, at Riverside from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
---
Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts
Well written Ethan; thank you for putting the numbers in perspective. I hear of more and more middle class families moving out of our town simply because of the school budget issue. In order to retain and recruit great families to Springfield we need to have GREAT schools. It starts with passing out budget and working with the school board and administration to solve our problems.
ReplyDeleteSimply voting no DOES NOT solve problems, it only creates more.
Vote Yes on Tuesday.
Vote NO and send that message that we are tired of being lied to and tired of funding incompetence. When truth and transparency prevail only then should we vote yes for a budget.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting. The school budget for the Dresden School district which comprises Thetford and Hanover is slightly over 23 million. Those are top tier top academic schools. I think that would be enough reason to vote down the budget that we are in the top tier of lowest performing education systems in the entire state with a budget that exceeds Hanover's System. If that doesnt give the voters something to compare and a reason that they should vote NO then nothing will.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Dresden School District serves Norwich, VT and Hanover, NH, not Thetford, VT.
DeleteSecond, are you really comparing Hanover to Springfield? The median household income in Hanover is $90,200, it is $32,900 in Springfield. The median home value in Hanover, NH is $498,00, it is $140,000 in Springfield.
77% of the population over the age of 25 has at least a bachelors degree; 13% of the population in Springfield has a bachelor degree.
I am pretty sure you are not in the 13% of Springfield. It is more expensive and more difficult to raise a child whose parent is a drug addict than it is to raise the child whose parents are doctors.
That plays absolutely no part in the comparison I was making. My point was that we are paying a budget that is in excess of a school system that thrives and exceeds standards. I stand corrected you are right it is Norwich. Nonetheless-yet again the excuse is that it is all the communities fault.
DeleteHere we go passing the blame instead of holding accountable the teachers who don't teach. Any child can learn and thrive. What really has people worried is that if the para's are cut and the "younger" teachers then the REAL issue is that ALL the incompetent teachers that have been driving the system down will actually be held accountable and that worries the majority. Why because that means they are one step closer to the door for their poor performance.
I continue to ask the voters to vote NO. It is time we hold accountable the school board and the administrators. Guess what the board has and was unwilling for years and years to address the problems and abuse. Only now they started to change because they were covering their own butts. Vote no and put the pressure on. Vote NO to say you are NOT paying for the districts legal woe's. And I only laugh at the "I am pretty sure you are not in the 13%" If it makes you feel better to make your small town assumptions please by all means go ahead. However, I think that anger would be better focused at your own lack of control. Watch your paper bud cause you will soon see!
Anonymous 3:24 am, you are directly on point. Springfield is not Norwich by any stretch of the imagination.
DeleteIf people are truly worried about the younger teachers (who are often the new teachers to the district)being cut and the schools being left with the older teachers, then vote YES. When the school board has to reduce staff for budgetary reasons it is called a Reduction in Force and their hands are tied in determining which teachers to let go. In RIF situations the teachers with the least amount of time in the district are let go or have their positions reduced. It doesn't matter the quality of the teacher or if a teacher has more teaching experience in other Vermont schools or in schools in other states. All that matters is who has seniority in the Springfield district. This situation is happening right now in one of the schools. The quality of the teacher and their overall teaching experience does not matter. Vote YES and then hold the administration accountable for honestly evaluating teachers' performance and making staffing changes that way instead of being forced to lose quality teachers just because they happen to be low man on the totem pole.
ReplyDeleteBy voting no you will ensure that the teachers who have been in the district longer will remain in the district while the newer teachers will lose their jobs. If citizens want a say in retaining quality teachers then voting no is the opposite way to achieve this.
Absolutely correct. Well said.
DeleteEXACTLY..what we want is for the system to be forced to look at those teachers who have tenure and have been in the system who are not making the grade and are not adaquately teaching. It is unfortunate that the younger newer teachers may face RIF's but to straighten out a system as dire as this one you have to look at the problem.
ReplyDeleteToo many times parents have been brushed off and told they were a troublemaker and ignored. The board doesn't care nor have they ever. It is the same crap different day. Too many times the community have been told, you are not smart enough, or have enough education or the street you live on is bad so therefore you are not deserving of attention or time or effort, let alone worthy of being protected under the law. What happened? We have had a situation where children were being abused. It isn't isolated. We had a teacher at the high school who was inappropriate with a student. Did the board or the super fix it? NO..the state had to take care of it. Residents are tired of being held to the self appointed 1% in Springfield who think they are above the law or because they have a family name or history in Springfield that they can do and say whatever.
For once the residents are showing they are stronger than the 1% and they are saying that with a vote of NO!! Please know that the board can reverse its decision on the Super and keep him. Where will you be then voters when you have been tricked and lied to? Come out strong and proud and cast that NO VOTE! With that we can then rebuild a stronger system but the groundwork has to be layed to do it. SUPPORT NO ON TUESDAY you are not the minority anymore.
This isn't going to happen, voting No is simply going to make things worse.
DeleteA bad budget is like a bad marriage: easy to get into, difficult to live with, and filled with expensive surprises. Voters should not be stampeded into a dangerous budget, just to pass a budget. Readers may be surprised to see me describe the budget as "dangerous". Let me explain.
ReplyDeleteMost people in Springfield are aware of the turmoil that has been visited upon the District by persons accusing the District of misusing an isolation room at Elm Hill School. It is widely rumored among Town employees that the uproar was generated by persons outraged by the dismissal of a School District employee who was accused of insulting/threatening a minority student. Without an adult witness, the employee had no corroboration of his denial of the offense, and was dismissed. His family and friends were outraged. Some have turned the tactic around on the District, which has cowered before those who accuse it of violating pertinent rules and law.
With 14 paraprofessionals removed from classrooms, 14 teachers will be left without an adult witness to events in their classrooms. The District can expect more employees will be facing accusations which will be very difficult to disprove, without two adults in each classroom. Springfield's administrators may soon be adding a new term to their educationalese glossary: "litigious learning environment".
Who is going to fund the legal expenses the District is almost certain to face when unprotected teachers are accused of violations? Who will pay the District's legal fees when a teacher without a paraprofessional in the classroom is sued, and the teacher countersues the District for discrimination, discrimination which put the teacher's career at risk? If some teachers have paraprofessionals, why not all? Has the School Board forgotten Murphy's law?
After the school budget proposal was defeated in March, the School Board was informed they had shot themselves in the foot by proposing to dismiss paraprofessionals and other very necessary support staff, while making not one reduction in Central Office costs. It appears that the Board has simply reloaded and has aimed at it's feet again.
Most of the 14 paraprofessionals and other staff members who are to be dismissed under the present school budget proposal live and pay taxes taxes in Springfield. They also vote in Springfield. So do many of their relatives and friends. The last budget proposal was defeated by just 16 voters. The next vote will likely defeat the present budget proposal for the same reason the last was defeated, by an even wider margin. Should that happen, will the School Board rethink its strategy and reconsider its decision to cut paraprofessionals? Probably not. I expect a third budget will be proposed, with even more paraprofessional cuts proposed.
I urge the public to attend the next School Board meeting and speak up. Demand that proposals to eliminate 14 paraprofessionals and other support staff be voided, and emphasize that you will vote "no" on school budget proposals until the eliminated para and support staff positions are reinstated. Our students need fully staffed classrooms and every classroom hour we pay for. If the intent of the public is to use the school system as bait to attract new residents to our community, it must make certain teaching staff and students are given top priority in our budget decisions.
What Mr. Coughlin has failed to tell people is that his wife is one of the paras losing her job! So this is all self-interest.
DeleteHa, Ha, Ha....
DeleteTHANK YOU Anon @ 5:31. I figured while reading Coughlin's post that he MUST have an agenda.
Christopher 'AGENDA' Coughlin.
AKA 'Save my wife's job!'
My wife works as a one-on-one paraprofessional at Elm Hill School. Her job is presently not at risk because she is paid from an account which is not dependent upon the passage of the school budget. She also has very high seniority.
DeleteI do have an agenda. It is to focus Springfield on the need to provide Springfield students excellent teachers and paraprofessionals, to best prepare them to be well educated citizens, able and motivated to contribute to the society and country in which they live.
I am not clear what you are proposing Christopher, any threatened "no" vote will simply put more staff at risk and worsen the situation. Otherwise, your points are valid.
DeleteAt the last School Board meeting, Dr. Perotti made a presentation on the need to focus the Springfield School District on teaching reading, writing and math as the District's core curriculum. He proposed sending students home early every Wednesday during the next school year, so teaching staff could attend seminars to prepare them to implement the new educational strategy.
ReplyDeleteIt is likely the seminars will be designed and presented by Maura Hart, Dr. Perotti's wife, a District employee who is a candidate for an ED.D.. (Her three page resume is online. Her credentials are impressive, however, though generally well written, incredibly the resume contains errors in English on the first page.)
It costs $16.00 per student for every hour of classroom time in Springfield. There are 1400 students in the District. At six hours of lost classroom time per student each month, Dr. Perotti's proposal will result in over a million dollars in lost classroom time during the school year. Does it take a year of weekly seminars to instruct teaching staff to expect all students to read, write, and do math at grade level in all subject areas? Is Dr. Perotti's sacrifice of classroom time not intended to enable his wife to complete her doctorate in education at the District's expense? How will the loss of classroom time affect students' performance on educational tests? I cannot believe that eliminating 14 instructional positions and significantly reducing classroom time is going to improve our students' educations, or their educational test scores.
Agreed. One English error is enough. This training is superfluous, when it means students losing classroom time. "New Educational Strategy?" The Common Core is truly just based on classical education, the type of teaching and learning the district is moving away from, and that the teachers "with tenure" already understand. The district knew about the Common Core Standards, just like everyone in the state and country did. When restructuring was going on at the high school, why wasn't the Common Core addressed and added into teacher training, instead of some other, very expensive program I've heard about. I say vote YES for the budget, but stay active and vigilant in asking for positive change in our district. No one has "tenure" that can't be touched. Teachers and administrators can be let go if they are formally observed and can not improve. Even with signed contracts principals can be let go if they aren't doing their job properly. No one is untouchable.
DeleteYou mean to tell me that teaching reading, writing, and math is a new concept and board certified teachers need special.training in this new concept. Boy have I been out of touch. I thought the core subjects in all education was reading writing and math.
DeleteWhat a revolutionary concept proposed by Perotti: focus on reading, writing, and arithmetic???
DeleteWhy is this all on Perotti? We have other administrators AND a Curriculum Director.
DeleteMr. Coughlin- You are a bit misinformed. It doesn't matter who brought charges against the district what you haven't been informed fully is that it WAS NOT just one family that made complaints about abuse and those complaints were substantiated by the Vermont Department of Education. Read the article and statement by VTDOE in the Eagle Times.
ReplyDeleteTenure?
ReplyDeleteSome of the best teachers in our district are the teachers who have been there the longest. The day Mrs. Fog and Mr. Janiszyn retire, will be a dark day in our school system. What about Mr. Paul? He was a wonderful, dedicated teacher.
Who are these wonderful, new young teachers? Would you like a first year doctor, or the one with the most experience?
Simply the best doctor, new or experienced. We have a mix in our district and no one "group" should be targeted. Mr. Janiszyn, Mrs. Fog, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Green, Mrs. Assermelly, Mrs. Dexter, Mrs. Carter, Mr. Neronski, and the rest hopefully inspire the new teachers to reach the same level of teaching they model. Parents who have had children go through this district know who these great teachers are. I just wish we could get dedicated administration without an agenda, and committed to this community (they could live in it, maybe? That would be nice) like those great teachers.
DeleteYou have your opinion and I respect that. Tenure is not a good thing in my opinion. I will add also that not all teachers in our district are bad. We have some very good teachers. I disagree with at least one on your list but you are correct we do have some good teachers. We also have bad apples that because of tenure hide within the system and you will find that in most systems.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the world around us has changed and being able to teach is not all that counts. You have to be able to connect with the students, to connect the material with the language the kids actually understand which younger teachers have the ability to do. So far as the doctor comment..yes I would feel completely comfortable with a new doctor because they would know the newest techniques and the most current expanses in medicine. Because you have been in a job a long time doesn't mean you have been good at it or that you are proven in your field. The education system is one of the worst in the world. Why is that?
But tenure does not exist. If a teacher of any age or experience is observed and evaluated, s/he can lose his or her job.
DeleteWho should decide which teachers are good, and which ones should go? I agree good teachers connect with the students, but then wouldn't the kids then decide who can stay and who should lose their job?
DeleteAnother pathetic "opinion" piece by Mr. "Money Grows on Trees" McNaughton, who quickly discredits himself by using the terms "tenured" and "merit" in the same sentence. As we have all learned from years of observing our public schools, neither term begets the other! Rather, they have become mutually exclusive as a result of the intractable forces of the teachers unions.
ReplyDeleteFor Mr. McNaughton, who purposefully and conspicuously avoids any references to the "meritorious" academic accomplishments of Springfield's schools, money is no object and lack of fidelity in the budgetary numbers is no problem. As with most takers in a society, the crusade is about taking more, not about doing more with what has already been given. McNaughton, like most progressives, only has eyes for acquiring more and more of others’ resources because that is the “socially responsible” ideal. The devil, which is always in the details, is to be ignored because it exposes the chronic lack of results being obtained by the school system.
He quickly resorts to the progressive ploy that it’s okay to spend and spend and spend, because much of what we’re spending is “outside funding”. Wow, that sure makes it sound like a good thing to do. Did Springfield just hit the lottery? This naïve gentleman would have us believe that because the money isn’t “ours”, it doesn’t matter how much of it we spend or what it gets spent on – we just need to allow our schools to party like it’s 1999! Well, we are a nation nearly $16 TRILLION in DEBT, a state over $6 BILLION in DEBT, and a town that is breaking the backs of many of its taxpaying citizens. No problem, right Ethan? Let’s continue to run up the debt because “Our town’s future is inescapably tied to the success of our schools through prospective residents…” yada, yada, yada. Again, it’s the Pollyanna pitch that, if we stick our heads in the sand and ignore the reality that Springfield’s schools continue to underperform despite the abundant resources already provided them, and we all just give a little more and a little more, Springfield will emerge as its former self – that bright shining town on the river that many of us enjoyed as children. And thus, the childish argument that McNaughton tries to make.
Springfield’s government is broken. Springfield’s schools are broken. And Springfield’s taxpayers are broke. NO MORE NONSENSE. INSOLVENCY IS UPON US. VOTE NO ON A BUDGET THAT FAILS TO SUFFICIENTLY ECONOMIZE AND ACCOUNT FOR ITS EXPENDITURES IN RECESSIONARY/DEPRESSIONARY TIMES.
Except, Ethan is right about the future prosperity of our town is dependent upon our schools. The private sector is at ebbtide, the machine shops have cut and run and the replacement jobs have not been at union scale -- the only way out of this downward spiral is to give the kids the best education we can. And we have to realize that the schools by law have become the major social service provider in a community which for a variety of reasons unrelated to the schools has been swamped by poverty stricken families who either cannot afford to provide the academically enriched environment necessary for students to excel, or simply neglect to do so. As a result the teachers and administration are swimming against a strong undertow, but it is a struggle we should all be willing to support because it is our best hope. Springfield is in a more severe economic depression than the rest of the State, in large part that is because we held onto the delusion that the mills were coming back and that somehow non-union jobs were going to pay at the same rate as union jobs when they did come back -- so we kept saying tighten your belts and somehow things will magically get better. Now is not the time to be bashing the schools, now is the time to be encouraging them to experiment with programs that will reach all the kids at all of the economic levels. It is a time to push for a strong post-secondary presence in this community which we do not presently enjoy and haven't since the vision for the Dean Center died. In sum we need more progressive vision, not more conservative austerity.
DeleteBlah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....A bunch of hot wind blowhards LOL
DeleteIf "progressive vision" equates to more spending and higher taxes, then you might as well go ahead and nail the coffin shut on Springfield now. For all those with "progressive vision", please submit your generous contributions in the form of checks of cash to the Springfield School System. We all know that won't happen, because "progressive vision" depends on robbing "the other guy" for the resources that are to be squandered by the central planners in perpetuation of their mediocre results - which are then used to justify the taking of even more resources from others; and the vicious cycle continues until the entire scheme collapses.
DeleteThe "progressives", who are intent on acquiring and spending others' money for their good ideas, would have us all believe that state-of-the-art, impeccable schools would have the world rushing to our doorsteps, yet exactly the opposite is true. Despite having wonderful schools for years and years, Springfield has experienced vast shrinkage both economically and demographically. Therefore, schools do not attract, nor do higher and higher taxes.
The undeniable facts are now the progressives' inconvenient truths, which they continue to try and avoid or at least obfuscate at all costs.
All that is important to progressives is “money as a measure!” More money equates to more "attempted" good. Actual results are immaterial. Their intent is good, therefore their expenditures of any amount of money on the intent is good. Don't hold them to have to account for lack of results.
The jig is up for the Springfield School System, as more and more of the bled to death taxpayers are now understanding that the progressives' assurances and lies continue to yield no measureable improvements in the effectiveness of Springfield Schools.
VOTE NO.
DEMAND FOR THE LINE ITEM BUDGET TO BE PUBLISHED FOR ALL TO SEE. TOGETHER, WE'LL FIND PLENTY TO TRIM AND STILL PROVIDE VERY RESPECTABLE EDUCATION TO THE CHILDREN OF SPRINGFIELD - WITH THE TEST SCORES TO PROVE IT.
VOTE NO.
Right on Right on. Vote no. Stop with the irresponsible spending.
DeleteIf any "no" voters would like to be interviewed for a story in tomorrow's Rutland Herald please contact me ASAP.
ReplyDeleteChristian Avard
christian.avard@rutlandherald.com
Christian, why dont you want to hear from any of us that are voting yes?
DeleteYes, why? Let's print an article the day of the vote sensationalizing the few people who are being offensive, negative, and incorrect on here. The budget line items are printed and on a table at the school board meetings when budget is being discussed. You actually have to get off your computer and go to the meetings. Christian, I hope you write a fair and balanced piece.
DeleteBravo Christian. If you want to perform a true journalistic service to the community of Springfield, then publish the line item budget - the one that everybody seems convinced is actually available a the school board meetings but no one in the school system has the courage to distribute beyond those walls. It's too late to do so for tomorrow's vote, but it still needs to be published so the average voter can be awed by the huge volume of incidentals and non-essentials that are contained therein.
Delete