To the Editor:
As a retired educator whose career was spent in public education, I understand the necessity for some level of fluidity in a school system budget. Needs arise and change as the year progresses, so the school committee, acting in concert with administration, is there to review, to manage and to approve school budget expenditures.
They meet regularly throughout the year in that capacity, not annually as the voters do.
With all due respect to those who understand otherwise, the votes at town meeting are to confirm or deny various warrant articles related to the school budget. Those votes in no way determine the details of exactly how the money allotted is spent. That is why we have elected the members of the school committee to represent us. They must take the time to examine the budget carefully and to understand the changing needs of the school as the year progresses and to respond as needed.
In this case, the “F” on the Jefferson Village School report card obviously sent a message that needed consideration. As an educator and parent, I understand the need for the children to develop in areas that are not purely academic. They need to have the opportunity to recognize and develop talents in areas of music, art and athletics.
Yet, I believe that most would agree that when the math and reading skills of a significant number of students are below grade expectations, those areas must be the points of focus for the elected members of our school committee.
It is also notable that when the budget was significantly cut in the spring of 2013, it was an administrative decision to cut specials, rather than cutting other areas of the budget; that was their choice. The taxpayers, recognizing the high per-pupil expenditures of the town school budget, made a statement by supporting the large cut in the requested budget, and the administration made the decision as to where the cuts would be made.
We do not elect the administration; we elect the school committee to protect the interests of the children and the interests of the taxpayers. Perhaps the time has come to look at other towns, such as Hope, where the per-pupil cost is for regular instruction is just over half that of Jefferson, but they received an “A” on their report card. How do they do it?
The school budget has many areas to be considered; perhaps it is time to look at building maintenance costs or other expenditures unrelated to the hiring of teachers. Could our plowing needs be met by our maintenance staff, rather than being contracted out? The budget line for mowing and fertilizing the playing fields is $18,000…is there any potential for cost-cutting there?
Could we give the parents the responsibility for getting their children to Lincoln Academy, as many towns do, sharing rides with parents who have some flexibility in their schedules? We have a half-empty school to maintain and heat; could we rent space to people who want to provide adult education classes?
In addition, as the teacher’s contract is now being negotiated, perhaps there are areas where our educators, acting in the best interests of the children, could relinquish some costly benefits. In the private sector, individuals often pay 50 percent or more of their medical insurance costs. In Jefferson, employees who do not need medical coverage are paid not to have it (referred to as “cash-in-lieu-of”); isn’t this a potential cost saving area of the budget?
I don’t know the answers to all these questions; I am only suggesting we examine all possibilities.
In the meantime, as we ponder possible areas of adjustment in the Jefferson school budget, it is encouraging to know the school committee is taking their responsibilities seriously. The future of our students is at stake here and suggestions as to how to make things better can come from everyone in the town.
Let’s look around ourselves and get creative.
