Friday, March 07, 2008

Profiting from Five Year olds?

Having attended School Committee and Selectmen meetings in recent weeks listening to the recommendations of the Financial Plan Task Force I must express some amazement at how enthusiastic and robust the town’s support for athletics remains. With a recommendation from the FPTF to consider self-funding high school athletics, coaches, parents and even a student or two spoke out against such an abomination.

Too bad these folks were so quiet when the School Committee and School Department were forced to cut teachers, library aides, textbooks, maintenance budgets, and so much more over the last six years. Where were so many of these residents when education was being cut in town?

The town is facing a major budget deficit for FY2009 alone, $5.3 million. The town will not receive any one- time monies from a middle school reimbursement, no teacher salary deferrals on the horizon, no discernable way to magically forge a balanced budget. There are two ways to close that gap. Either raise taxes or cut spending. Or both.

Looking at the budget, I had some questions about the logic and philosophy employed and I asked Scott Consaul and Mike Sitar about their positions, particularly their stands to preserve athletics in the high school . We recently learned that the town pays $475,000 for high school athletics. In order to self-fund athletics, some athletes would face exorbitant fees. Hockey players would have to pay $1300, and still buy much of their own equipment. As it stands, students pay a $100 athletics/activity fee per sport or co-curricular activity such as Drama or National Honor Society.

So, if we only charge $100 per sport, how do we justify charging $4000 for full day kindergarten?

I asked Consaul this question because I really thought I was missing something. I was told that full day kindergarten is a service the school department identified that parents want. True and they have made that service available only to those parents that can afford it. One argument I’ve heard is that many parents that opt for the full day option have paid between $10,000 to $15,000 for daycare up until kindergarten, so the $4000 option is a significant savings. Consaul even told me that the program is self- funding. Well, ok.

If it’s acceptable to make full day kindergarten self-funding at $4000 a pop, how can we only charge $100 per sport? Turning the school department’s argument on its head, most athletes playing varsity or junior varsity sports have been playing that sport for years. In many cases, parents are already paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for their children to play through the town or in club leagues. So, by the School Committee’s own reasoning, $1300 for hockey would still be a bargain.

In response, Consaul told me that he sees athletics as part of the high school curriculum.

But participation in athletics is not a requirement for graduation, so its really not part of the curriculum, despite the obvious benefits athletics provides.

“For many students, athletics is a cost effective way to keep them engaged in school, to keep them out of trouble,” said Consaul.

Half a million dollar cost effective? I’m not so sure I buy that explanation.

But what he said next is absolutely right.

“Whether athletics, music, art, extra-curricular or co-curricular activities, all make a well-rounded student. If we try to make any of the programs self-funding our students would suffer as a result.”

Apparently, self-funded full day kindergarten is acceptable suffering. Those parents that cannot afford it will find that their children are behind in first grade. Full day kindergarten is not half a day of curriculum and half a day of babysitting. It’s twice the amount of time to cover the same amount of material.

I’ve talked to kindergarten teachers in town and third grade teachers, whose current students were the experimental crop of kindergarteners that lost their mid-day bus to save half a million dollars. I’ve had teachers volunteer to me that the choppy kindergarten program is having lasting effects on our kids. To protest that full day kindergarten provides no advantage over two and a half days a week negates the entire purpose of offering full day kindergarten. It MUST have an advantage. Why else would parents pay $4000 for it?

I asked Mike Sitar, a vocal and strong proponent of athletics, how he responds to parents concerned that the schools have effectively cut reading drastically at the elementary level while only charging $100 athletic/activity fee.

The schools have cut reading specialists that aid struggling readers in early grades. The schools have cut librarians and library aides so much that kids take out library books once or twice a month. There are no spelling programs in the elementary schools anymore either; instead, teachers make their own word lists. The entire reading program at the elementary level is so old it’s out of print, though funding is in the new budget to buy a new series. And now the School Department wants to hire MCAS support positions to replace laid off reading specialists? That does not make sense to me. If we teach our children to read well, for meaning and with accuracy, won’t the MCAS abilities come on their own? Perhaps not, but no amount of MCAS support will teach a struggling reader how to read.

Sitar told me that he believes the town must provide an overall education for a child, of which athletics is a part. He did acknowledge there are some problems with the system.
I understand Sitar’s point, but I don’t accept it. Yes Tewksbury must provide a well rounded education and yes, athletics is a big part of that, but the first thing we must do is ensure that academics at all levels of education are sound, that we are not neglecting the needs of our youngest in order for older students to act in plays, throw footballs, and design yearbooks.

When I went to school all our activities were paid for by the town. I started numerous organizations at my large high school, some which flourish today. Athletics were something entire towns rallied around, especially high school basketball tournaments. In fact, we were not allowed to raise money outside school.

But times are different now. Costs have risen exponentially. Tewksbury needs answers.

Sitar also expressed a need to keep athletics in order to prevent more students from leaving the schools. Good students, he said. I’ve heard this argument before too. We have to keep athletics in order to keep kids in town, and particularly to lower our increasing obligation to the Shawsheen Tech. But we still have athletics and we are already losing students to the Tech and private schools. So, students aren’t leaving because we have athletics. Students are leaving because they do not feel they can get the academics and programs they need here in town.

If we make athletics and activities self-funding, will applications increase to the tech? Probably, but I do not see anything to stem the already increasing tide of students wanting out. If we work to improve our academic offerings, a rich selection of courses, more Advanced Placement courses, and even a few technical courses, we might be surprised at the results.

I amnot advocating the entire self-funding of athletics and activities but I do question where our priorities are as a town. We must be responsible stewards of the revenue we have to spend and the way in which we need to spend it. I cannot see how, failing an override, the school department can justify keeping athletics so inexpensive when we’re charging so much for kindergarten and cutting so much from elementary education.

I propose that the schools partially fund athletics and activities based on a sliding scale. Create two or three tiers of activities, the most expensive, like hockey or band in a higher bracket than soccer and National Honor Society. Instead of $1300 in self funding, a family could pay $650. A lower bracket might charge $100. Families may also be able to create a mix of activities for one higher fee, such as $1500 for unlimited activities, paid monthly. These numbers are simply placeholders, but in this way we can still offer athletics and activities, still at a reduced rate compared to town and club requirements for some sports, without further damaging academic programs.

The School Committee has a tough task ahead of them and I don’t envy them their decisions. We all must speak up about what we want our town and schools to look like. We all need to engage in the process with these departments because we are not out of the woods yet.