Your Arlington, your views

The following was written by Andrew O’Brien of Arlington, who was a candidate for state representative this winter. His comments are posted with his permission. He submitted them to YourArlington after he missed the deadline to get his letter to The Advocate for its March 27 edition. He wrote that he believes the current School Committee debate is overly focused on rebuilding school buildings and the character of the candidates. Scarcely little has been mentioned about the importance of curriculum, he says. Anyone seeking to present another view about a different candidate is welcome to do so.

At this time within the School Committee, I believe it is critical that we have someone with Leba Heigham’s qualifications and experience serving on the committee. Everyday new discoveries are being made in brain science and human development. Promising new research suggests that we can improve a student’s ability to concentrate and process information. Some researchers are making claims that we can change student attitude and behavior. Medical researchers claim that when children with dyslexia, ADHD, and Asperger’s establish certain new brain pathways, many of their symptoms disappear. Entrepreneurial education companies are all too willing to push products based on this research.

But because something works in a research lab does not mean the same results will play out in the classroom. I was a student during Arlington’s 1970s failed experiment with open-classroom education. While some students benefited from this program many of us fell behind academically.

Leba is very familiar with the latest educational theories and is a math curriculum expert. Because she has been a teacher she understands the challenges and the learning curve teachers face when adopting new texts, curriculum, and methodology. If elected, Leba would use this knowledge to advise the school committee on curriculum issues. Right now school curriculum is catching up with the latest research. While curriculum catches up with research we need to be careful not to adopt the wrong programs. Because the state and federal government threatens to base school aid on performance standards, adopting the wrong program will not only hurt students academically but it could be costly for taxpayers. I believe Leba will help us strike the balance that is needed to keep the Arlington schools advancing but at the same time prevent us from adopting unproven hype-driven, wasteful programs. I believe that a vote for Leba is a vote for putting qualified individuals on the School Committee during a most challenging time.

The following was written by Josh Lobel and posted to the Think of Our Kids list on March 18. It is republished with his permission. Some reference in his remarks are to recent posts to that list:

Some interesting things to think about in these discussions.

Fees: *************
First, a fact to put the fees in perspective. The FY09 budget includes these fees (among others not directly from families — grand total is $3,710,000 — see fiscal 2009 budget information):

Full Day K $577K (+76K vs FY08)
Athletic Fees $158K (+7K vs FY08)
Instrumental Music $71.7K (+3K vs FY08)
Bishop Bus $16K (-2K vs FY08)
Extra Curr Fee $40K (same as FY08)

That totals $862,000. This is all for services over and above the system’s obligation to provide. Many of these things are for services we had when we were in school, or even things that might have been much less costly to families 5-10 years ago. Because there is not enough money from other sources of revenue (state, fed, grants, arlington), either these fees are necessary, or these activities will cease.

Fundraising ****************
Several years ago, when there was a significant shortfall (about $1 million), the Arlington Schools Foundation raised $260K to fund reading teachers for the year. This was an exception to their mission statement, which is to not add to the operational budget — but rather to aid long term strategic initiatives and development. It is possible to raise significant sums — but 862K/year is probably beyond reach.

Rose and Barbara’s suggestions about thinking about quality education and what it costs, and how we pay for it as a society are great. They need to be addressed and worked on.

Saving money **************
Linda’s suggestions for saving money are great. I get that she isn’t wild about the administration, but I’m guessing the water cooler and air conditioner has been there for a long time, and that double-sided printing could be of value throughout the system. Likewise energy savings.

We have saved money over the last few years. Our school administration hired a procurement person last year, who I believe found ways to save 4 times their salary. I’m sure there are other places to save, but I would guess much of the low hanging fruit has been picked.

Long range options of developing special ed programs in house (saving transportation costs and keeping kids in the community, when appropriate) are in the works.

Perhaps we can save more money on regionalizing some services (transportation has been mentioned, but maybe curriculum development, special ed programs, data analysis, professional development, etc. could be done with larger groups across districts). Maybe we have some larger class sizes coupled with a larger technology/distance learning component in the higher grades. Maybe every science course at the high school doesn’t need a 2nd lab hour. Maybe we eliminate some teachers by increasing work study, or leveraging some university or community
programs. No Child Left Behind mandates professionals will deliver classes that count against time on learning, but maybe the community has to kick in in all of the non-professional areas. Most of these options for non-professional volunteering would save money by taking away the
job of people in the system — custodians, clerical staff, crossing guards. These have not been popular choices either. Temporarily closing an elementary school would also save some money, and preserve our staff. Also unpopular discussion. However, all of these ideas should be discussed now for next year’s budget, and if there are immediate savings opportunities, perhaps they could be initiated within this year.

Budget night *************
I think Ron’s testiness about Susan’s comments was that the school committee, on budget night, can’t directly address the long term fixes. Budget night is or should be the culmination of months of work. By that night, they make choices about either raising fees (that’s the only real way to increase their immediate revenue) or cut services. So unless we are willing to take the painful step to sacrifice programs for the long-term hope that we get them funded, we’re in a bind.

Full Day Kindergarten **************
It may not be so easy or desirable to give every school a 1/2 day program You would certainly need a full class of students who want that option to avoid the problem of the kids who just don’t come back after lunch and miss half of the program. I believe the full day program is beneficial to a majority of kids, but why not take a survey of current kindergarten parents and present them with an alternative of a separate, 1/2 day program that is complete unto itself, and see how many would prefer that. If that’s the way the pendulum is swinging, or if there are enough students in certain schools to make it happen, why not explore it. It might be necessary to pool students from several schools into one class like this.

Funding Education ***********
It’s much too common in public discourse to talk about having our state legislators give us our share, or eliminate fraud and waste. This might work in the long run, but even then, maybe not. The real answers involve much more complexity. If we increase education funding, we decrease funding for something else — maybe mental health, or physical infrastructure or public safety.

Personally, I hope there is another ballot initiative to eliminate the income tax. If there is, we need to work incredibly hard to defeat it soundly. That will help deliver a msg to Beacon Hill that instead of talking about Casinos and lowering the income tax, perhaps they can think about increasing it, and maybe even create tiered levels. That would be a much fairer way to fund our schools.

As a parent of two children in the schools, I don’t relish the thought of losing a single service. I would prefer to have everyone who is able to pay a modest fee to help support their children’s education — spread the load universally — but this is not legal, and many feel that this
approach undercuts the idea of public education. Since the universal fee is not allowed, I prefer to think of the huge fee for pre-K as allocated across the 6 years of elementary school (and largely middle school), where there aren’t many fees. I balance it against the ~$8,000/year the school is spending for each student, and against the $20K you might pay at a private school.

The role of our republican governors in all of this was to sell to the commonwealth the idea that we spend too much on government, and that taxes could and should be lowered. That helped create the expectation that we are not getting our money’s worth.

And of course, I agree completely with Rose, that one of the biggest sources of our problems is the war in Iraq. It’s saps our resources, and diminishes our stance in the world. But even if there was not a war, this country is not committed to printing money for education in the same way it prints money for a war. That takes a mindset shift that recognizes that the US doesn’t automatically get to be the greatest nation — we have to work for it. And if you think we will continue our place in the world just because we are so much cleverer and deep thinking than other cultures around the world, I fear that a a huge surprise is in the works.

The following was written by Grace Tinsley, an Arlington High School senior.

Walking outside the Unitarian Universalist Church at Mass. Ave. and Pleasant in Arlington Center on a Saturday in February, you would never realize what was happening. Some teenagers walked through the church doors, but nothing about them looked out of the ordinary. Once inside the church, not much appeared to be “normal.”

The men were dressed in skirts, dresses and anything frilly, while the girls were wearing baggy shirts and men’s jeans. The whole scene was hilarious. It started out with everyone inside changing into their drag outfits and introducing themselves to new faces — since the GSA is extremely open to new members. The purpose of this event was to bring its members closer together and invite new affiliates in a fun, bonding, Saturday-night experience. Members and chaperones brought food, drinks and a karaoke machine to tie it all together.

Arlington High School junior James Wallis was the announcer for most of the singing performers and brought a wonderful spark to the whole event. Eva Leah Cirker-Stark, another junior, was another strong member who looked stunning in her blue-stripped button down shirt, tie, and men’s blue jeans.

All types of music were played and performed. There was everything from metal to the Spice Girls performed by Miranda Forman, Emily Allen, Rebecca Brown and Claire Weinberg.

Nearing the end of the performances, Ms. Holt, the head of the GSA, took the stage and announced the contestants for the drag fashion show. Everyone who wanted to participate got a chance to strut his or her stuff in front of the whole crowd of laughing teenagers and chaperones.

Once everyone had the chance to show off “what they got,” the audience members voted on who had the best costume. The winner was Arlington High School alum, William “Bear” Smith, who came back for the weekend from Wheaton College, was wearing a black dress with a black shawl and flats. He topped off his whole get-up with red lipstick.

The evening ended at 10 o’clock with a warming group singalong to the Monty Python tune “I’m a lumberjack, and I’m OK, I sleep all night and I work all day.”

By State Rep. Will Brownsberger

Last week, the vast majority of the House, including many Republicans, voted to approve a Life Sciences Bill that contemplates the spending of $1 billion over 10 years to enhance the life sciences industry in Massachusetts.

The Governor had sought general legislation of this type and the Committee on Economic Development had spent many months crafting a specific and complex bill supporting the Governor’s objectives.

The Committee did some very careful work and the bill is responsive to concerns that all of us share — how to keep the Masschusetts economy vibrant with good jobs in the face of automation and international competition, and how to support the advancement of the basic life sciences as the federal government pours our national treasure elsewhere. I voted for the bill.

But I think that the bill raises two deep strategic questions:

The first is about the role of government in supporting private development. The major components of the bill are as follows:

* A little under $400 million for life sciences related public sector infrastructure. Over half of that infrastructure is in the form of buildings and equipment in the University of Massachusetts. We have a Nobel Prize winning life sciences researcher at U.Mass. and much of this investment will build capacity around his leadership. Additionally the bill will support site improvements for industrial sites, like highway and sewer. There are a couple of major earmarks, but most of the site money will be allocated over the next ten years by the executive branch.
* Roughly $200 million in education and research investments supporting life sciences, including work force training grants, equipment for vocational and technical schools, a graduate and post-doctoral fellowship program for life sciences scholars, and support for a K12 teaching initiative for science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
* A little under $100 million for two new investment funds to support life sciences companies — one will make small startup grants, under $250,000, and the other will make bridge loans to facilitate growth for companies that are a little further along. Both funds are set up as revolving — the grants will be made in return for small equity investments that may pay off over time.
* $250 million in tax credits for life sciences companies that make a substantial commitment to growing jobs in Massachusetts.

All of the grant programs, and even the tax credit program, are set up under a new structure of oversight that it is designed to bring very qualified people to make the awards. The specific criteria for grants and credits are very stringent and designed to assure a return to the public on the investments.

It is hard enough for government to regulate the spending of money for familiar purposes like education, health care and public safety. And I generally believe that government should stick to what it knows well and let the private sector do what it does best.

But that those involved in drafting the bill seem to recognize and share these concerns about the scope of governmental competence. The oversight structures created within the bill are as good as they can be. Given the oversight, and given the vacuum being created by the waning of federal leadership, and given the fact that many other states and countries are working very hard to attract life sciences businesses which are presently a valuable part of our economy, I swallowed my concerns.

The other major question that the bill raises is one of expectations. The life sciences are a very finite and elite sector, currently only a tiny fraction of our labor force. It seems unrealistic to expect that the life sciences or other emerging technology industries will ever employ a broad segment of our work force. All of these industries are very integrated globally, and to the extent fabrication jobs are created for those beyond the scientific elite, they will go to the cheapest place they can be done, which is unlikely to be Massachusetts. Certainly, the spinoff activity that the labs generate does help many in the labor force, but this is hard to quantify.

Most of our effort in education improvement today is designed to bring students to a level of basic proficiency. Basic high school proficiency — or even proficiency plus some college — does not position our students to enter life sciences development roles. We need to look at how to identify and inspire the kids that might succeed in those roles.

And we need to consider strategies that will create more good permanent jobs for people without the most advanced and specialized skills. Green jobs — low and medium skill jobs involved in energy conservation and adaptation to climate change — are one promising direction, but we need to do much more if we are to restore the economic security that so many families feel that they have lost.

For more on these issues, see my education discussion group, accessible through www.willbrownsberger.com. As always, I appreciate feedback. My e-mail is willbrownsberger@gmail.com and my cell phone is 617-771-8274.

Will Brownsberger
State Representative, (617) 771-8274 (cell)
Visit www.willbrownsberger.com for news.