McKay to B.F. Brown?

OK, right off the bat, I have a vested interest in this one, with SF Thing 1 at the McKay School for kindergarten, and likely Thing 2 following her in a couple of years. The future of the McKay is important at the SF Mansion.

So, it didn't go unnoticed that School Committee member James Reynolds is talking about moving the McKay School to a renovated B.F. Brown Building.

At the crux, as in the past, is the nearly $1 million the city pays for rent to FSC for the McKay. Holy crap! $1 million! That's outrageous.

Is it?

I don't really know the answer, but I do know it would cost $5 million to renovate B.F. Brown (according to the super), so it might be awhile. But it's a good reminder that rent is out there.

So, is the city getting $1 million out of that rent? Again, I don't know, but consider:

Principal John Early is consider an associate dean at FSC, and the college pays at least part of its salary.

The electricity and heat are paid for.

The daily a.m. and p.m. police details at the parking lot entrance on Rindge Road are FSC.

FSC may handle custodian duties, and they certainly handle building repair and upkeep.

We toured all four elementary schools last spring. Far and away, McKay was in the best shape of all of them. It wasn't the deciding factor for us, but it certainly was a factor after Thing 1 went to school some days at South Street without heat. It was noticeable.

I guess the unknowable is, how much is the city saving on not owning and having to keep up another building? Consider this: According to my math, the city has $10 million in school repair projects on the stimulous wish list. That doesn't count B.F. Brown, which is in there. You can only assume at this point that if the city was running another school building, it would need repairs there, as well.

In some ways, it might not really matter for Thing 1 or Thing 2. They'd stay at McKay, or they'd get a renovated B.F. Brown (in theory). But before there's an overwhelming chorus of "Hey, $1 million in rent? WTF," there should be consideration as to whether or not it's a fair deal to the city. It's easy to get all fired up over the numbers, but is reality different from the dollar signs?

No February Vacation

On Saturday, I saw my parents and made plans to trundle off three of their grandchildren to Maine for a chunk for a February vacation. A few minutes ago, Mrs. Save Fitchburg and I began the long discussion of whether or not the oldest Save Fitchburg spawn will skip school to go.

The crux of the story: The next time a school official tells you they don't teach to the MCAS, don't believe them.

Simply, the school department wants to get teaching time in before the MCAS. So instead of skipping April vacation (three months away, not four weeks), going on Saturdays, or holding out and waiting for a potential DOE waiver, kiddies will go to school February vacation (President's Day withstanding).

What about parents or teachers who have vacation plans? Whether it's an overnight trip to ski country, or a week trip to Disney? They now face a difficult decision just four weeks before their plans are scheduled. Do they ditch the money and go to school, go ahead with plans and ditch school? If there are a lot of skipped classes, will it affect AYP? In many cases, the attendance AYP factor is a narrow pass. Would big skips be a problem? I guess we're going to find out.

School officials point to a survey where 56 percent of staff favored going to school during February break. Somehow, I think a fewer percentage of parents are in favor. I can hear the cranky oldsters hollering "Those whippersnappers need to go to school," and that's a waiver debate for another time. The issue here is the timing, and it stinks.

Since MCAS was instituted, school officials everywhere have gone to great strides to point out that while curriculum covers MCAS subjects, they don't "teach to the MCAS." But this move will be an inconvenience for some, and a major problem for others. To squeeze in four more days of teaching before the MCAS. The decisions facing parents and the vacation plans suddenly either in ruins or wrapped in guilt are other victims of the ice storm.

SF Child: No to Uniforms

And her father agrees, I think.

If you missed it, there's the perennial push for school uniforms in the city's schools. Mayor Lisa Wong was on WEIM 1280 "The Blend" this morning. She was pretty non-committal, even on how the city should even go about getting community feedback.

SF Child 1 is 5, and is all of six days into kindergarten, but I figured I'd ask her what she thought about wearing a white shirt and blue or brown pants or skirts everyday. She crinkled her face and said "nah." Not surprising for a kid who wears a pink shirt everyday and was sporting glittery jeans this morning. So, there's your community feedback.

I think I'm also opposed to uniforms, mostly because I think it's going to cost me more, and that's probably true for tons of kids. Many kids wear the same thing out of school that they do in school (I guess for better or worse in some cases), SF Child 1 included. Buying uniforms is only going to add a whole new section to the wardrobe budget that I'd prefer not to have to deal with. Major deal? No. To the point that I'm not even close to particularly charged up on this matter, and if it happens, well, whatever. Yes, I'm a man of my convictions.

Anyway, at least one kindergartner is opposed.

The School Budget

The School Department budget has been a popular spot for folks hollering for cuts. Sometimes it's a general "it's the biggest budget in the city. Cut it." Sometimes it's the wonderful, old "cut the administrators. They aren't needed."

The administrator situation is too convoluted to really get into with any kind of deep understanding. I talked to a very high-ranking DOE official today who is a pal, and some admin positions are state-required at a certain level of student use. My pal, of course, doesn't know all the ins and outs of what positions Fitchburg must have, what it doesn't. Sure, I could call the School Department, but I'm feeling a little lazy today. That said, my phone convo with my buddy is more research than 95 percent of the "cut the administrators" crowd has done. Here's my threshold: Tell me what job isn't needed or state mandated, and why. But the blanket "too many administrators" is as much urban myth as it is fact in my view right now.

Now, as for the money. There's been some talk here recently about minimum spending and things of that naturem but no one (including me) was really sure what the deal is. I said earlier this week that I thought the city was just at its minimum spending. I'm a silly boy. For this fiscal year, the city is $1.1 million under the state's required spending. Here's the link. That number seems to include some non-school budget items (like health insurance), which makes it difficult for me to say off the top of my head if the city is reaching its minimum next year. I'd be willing to bet on "no," and I'd be willing bet big on "if so, not by much."

My point? The city is falling short of state minimum requirements for education money, which is a shame. Or just making it, which is OK, I guess. In either case, it's not a place open for cuts. I'd love to say something like "this is an area where we can discuss the state's not stepping up and helping out," but it already throws $41 million into the pot next year, an overwhelming amount of the operating budget. It's tough to criticize the state on this one.

I know a lot of people out there want to gun for the School Department in times like this, but the blanket statements need to be backed up by facts some times.

And... We're Back

OK, I know there's something about $5 million shortfalls and all that, but honestly, I'm just not up to speed enough to talk about it. Except bad times.

Speaking of bad times, check out this story from P1 in today's Globe. It's about Randolph's school system. I jumped into the story thinking, "Huh, maybe we're not so bad off in Fitchburg." About six paragraphs in, our very own Andre Ravenelle jumps into the story saying, well, we're not so bad off in Fitchburg. Luckily. Thank God.

I'm guessing Ravenelle had a lot more to say than actually got in the Globe, but the system does look good on a couple of fronts. First, we're not Randolph. Second, the department has done a few things (like getting grants) that has kept it slightly ahead of the killer wave.

So, there you go. We're hanging in. For those who want receivership, not good news. For those who want to see some hard work and some solutions -- any solutions -- toward maintaining and fighting and scrapping for the future, good news. For those who think it shouldn't be so hard and that there needs to be some sort of long-term solution to the problems facing cities and towns and the state, bad news, because things aren't going to get better any time soon.

The Problem with Fitchburg Schools

So, a mayoral candidate climbed up onto the stoop of the Save Fitchburg Mansion and knocked on the door last night. I let Mrs. Save Fitchburg take the lead, because I'm going to hear plenty from everyone in the next 26 days.

First, a little background on Mrs. Save Fitchburg: She's been covering local and state government as a reporter since the early 1990s. She knows how things work and what is and isn't a good answer. I know this is shocking to every try to understand, but she's even better than I am.

So, Mrs. Save Fitchburg threw out a rather vague question of "what are going to do for the School Department?" Considering the SF Spawn were desperately trying to get their grubby hands on some campaign handouts, it was obvious this is an important issue at SF Mansion.

Let's just say the answer ... Well, forget pleasantries. The answer stunk. I didn't say anything, but knew the rambling, off-balance, grasping-at-straws answer immediately wasn't resonating with Mrs. Save Fitchburg. The candidate took a big step back in Mrs. SF's eyes, and rightfully so. Not only did his answer leave a lot to be desired, but the campaign aide slowly creeping the truck forward as a way to move the candidate along was noticed and also not appreciated by Mrs. SF (I noticed, too, by the way. Not too slick, right there).

Anyway, all this got me to thinking: Why isn't the school system in play this election?

I think part of it is that most voters are concentrated on the financial situation. Fair enough. But I can't believe the only two-kid family in the city lives at SF Mansion. There's one across the SF street, in fact, but their kids to private school. I don't know their motivation, but that might be a damning indictment on the city's schools.

Add to the importance young families put on education the $44 million price tag that the School Department wears. If you're so worried about finances, shouldn't there be some acknowledgement of the department that makes up half the city budget?

In his Pride oped last week, Ted DeSalvatore didn't mention the city schools (outside of cleaning up behind B.F. Brown). In his Pride oped this week (sneak peek everyone!) Tom Donnelly doesn't mention the city's schools. On her website, under the issues front page, there is no mention of schools by Lisa Wong. In short, the candidates are giving the issue the cold shoulder, and no one is taking any leadership on the issue.

Part of it is that it's not on most voters' radar screen, but the candidate who knocked on the door last night should have had a better answer prepared. Isn't there a "what questions might we get asked and what should the answer be" session or two involved in a campaign? And to not even mention the school system in 800-word opeds and issue web pages is just neglectful.

Honestly, I'm not sure the candidates know much at all about the city schools. Based on a quote from DeSalvatore earlier this year, he admitted as much. Based on last night's conversation, I think one more candidate fits that category. Considering the money involved and the importance of schools in the city, it's just sad the lack of knowledge about the school system.

If a candidate or a campaign is reading this, here's a helpful hint: This issue will come up next Friday. It will also be a question or two in some form during at least one of the debates. If you come knocking on the door at SF Mansion, it will likely come up there, too. You've been notified. Please have a good answer. Despite what you might think, the schools are important and in play this fall.

Police Union Calls for Raises

The president of the Fitchburg Police Union, Ron L’Ecuyer, sent a letter to city councilors today calling on the council to not eliminated union raises from the budget. L'Ecuyer says the union has made financial concessions in its last two contracts, and it's not right for the council to consider rolling back the raises. The council has said it will reconsider all negotiated raises if a final contract has not been signed as it tries to reduce the budget. For more, including the entirely of L'Ecuyer's letter, visit the Fitchburg Pride website.

Also, coming on the website in the next hour or so: A story on lowering dropout rates at Fitchburg High. A Department of Education report released today shows the rate has dropped by almost one-third at FHS in the last two years. Find out why in the story coming later today.

Nearly 30 teachers may be lost

Supt. Andre Ravenelle said tonight that 28.2 teaching positions will have to be cut -- along with a series of other cuts -- to make the $44.1 million school budget work for next year. Read more from Ravenelle right now at the Fitchburg Pride website.

Mylott Sets Number for School Budget

Mayor Dan Mylott, in a Fitchburg Pride online exclusive, says he recommends the school budget should be $44.6 million for next year. That's a $500,000 increase from this year, but is less than the $1.2 million increase in state education aid for next year. Mylott says there are a number of factors that eliminates that increase in Chapter 70 funding. Read more at the Fitchburg Pride website.

Out of Touch on Preschool

The Fitchburg Pride has a story in tomorrow's paper on the proposal to add a daily fee for attending preschool. It's ground that has been covered here, but Mayor Dan Mylott's input yesterday (after being asked about it by ace Pride reporter Karen Mann) is infurating, and probably insulting to a lot of people.

From the Pride:

“Preschool is not mandated by the state. It is a service the city tries to provide, but it costs money to put this service forward,” said Mylott.
He thinks $8 a day is an appropriate fee.
“What is being proposed is a small portion of the cost. It is not just a preschool, it is a day-care service as well,” said Mylott.

Where to start?

First, a disclaimer: I have a kid in the program. Part of the attraction of the program is that it's free. No doubt. However, there are a lot of other benefits: At top of the list is the fact that the teachers are certified education professionals, which isn't the case at all daycare/preschools. Abby's teacher, Katy Finn, is absolutely fantastic. Second, it's in a "real" school setting, in a big building with other grades, a cafeteria, a gym, which helps get her used to being in a school. Third, it's a SPED program, which helps subtly teach Abby that while kids are different, they're all the same (or some life lesson like that). All in all, it's been a great program for her.

The key to all this is the "day care" part. The morning session for 3-year-olds runs from 9 to 11:30. The afternoon for 4-year-olds is 12:30 to 3. I don't think many parents would consider 2.5 hours (less when you consider leaving after drop-off and coming back for pick-up) "day care." It's an out-of-touch statement that is insulting to parents, who break down mostly into two groups: Parents of SPED children who are looking to help their kids, and parents like us who want to get their kids in a good, safe, healthy preschool program. There might be a few who look at it as free babysitting for a couple of hours a day, but I think they're few and far between, and probably a little off the mark, considering the hassle of drop-off/pick-up and the short school day.

So, consider a whole group of parents ticked at the mayor for questioning the education hopes and goals for their children.

Now, the teachers.

They are "real" teachers. They are trained, certified, educators. They're teachers, just like everyone else in the school system. And in our experience, they're damn good. It belittles them to insinuate they're glorified babysitters. Considering the current union situation, you can only guess that this won't go over well.

Finally, and maybe more importantly, this shines a light on Mylott's overall ignorance of the education system in the city. When, in his mind, does "day care" end and school begins? Kindergarten? First grade? High school? College? Post-grad? He's right, the state doesn't mandate preschool, but it's encouraging school systems to add preschool programs. Fitchburg should be lauded for having a quality preschool program, the mayor shouldn't be dumping on it.

Remember, this is the mayor who sat quietly throughout last year's budget discussion, and then unilaterally whacked $1 million out of the school budget. At the same time, he lowered education funding from the city's budget by $100,000 last year before it was sniffed out and finally rectified somewhat. In short, you can question the guy's understanding of eduction at this point, and have a nice laundry list to back you up.

Adding a fee to preschool opens up a precedent for a slippery slope to adding fees for other basic education services, and that alone makes it a difficult proposition to endorse. As the education community begins to realize the importance of early education and encourages its growth, Mylott still doesn't understand what it's all about. As the guy who is the chair of the School Committee by being mayor, that's not particularly good news.

Chief Cronin is on the right track

What do we want for the long term - to live in a city with police on every corner, or to live in a city where kids are educated, stimulated, encouraged and too busy to engage in the activities that lead to habitual crime?

This writer's personal experience of living briefly in a Central American country under a feared military dictator, with "La Guardia" on every street corner, recalls the confidence of one's personal physical safety from street crime being more than offset by the anxiety of being watched and potentially targeted. There are many people in our community who can share similar experiences.

Contrast that to an upbringing where school was an integral part of social and community life along with the Three Rs. Kids were so busy with after school activities as an extension of classes - drama, sports, music, art, civic organizations for teens - that other than the occasional Friday or Saturday night "cruising" the local dairy bar, they had little time to get into trouble.

Almost every cultural or ethical philosophy or religious group has as part of their foundation a version of the tenet "Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it."

If all of our kids are not our top priority now, many of them will become our worst problem later.

We need

• Clean, well maintained school buildings
  
• Proper meals for every student regardless of family income - sell bananas, apples, milk and bottled water throughout the school day and get all vending machines out of the schools
  
• Better equipped schools - buy books, not guns; buy computers, not police cars
  
• Qualified teachers certified in their subjects, paid at a competitive level, commensurate with equally trained and experienced police officers and firefighters
  
• Fully funded athletic, art, and music programs as part of the curriculum. We must educate the whole student, body and mind, including the "right brain." Encourage creativity.

Communities with great schools and interested parents have little need for a huge police force.

We must set long term priorities now for short term budgets.

We have a choice:

• Underpaid, underqualified, transient teachers putting in their time with unstimulated, unmotivated, underchallenged students in unpleasant, unclean, unsafe classrooms - resulting in an ever increasing need for developing a paramilitary police force and more and more jails and prisons, or
  
• Professional teachers competitively compensated, who are teaching nourished, involved students in clean, safe classrooms; students who graduate prepared to continue their educations in an academic or vocational environment; tomorrow's leaders who are too busy with their lives and futures to become involved with anti-social behavior.
  

We can spend it on our schools and kids now, or on police and prisons later.

Perhaps Chief Cronin hasn't expressed his prevention efforts exactly this way, but I dare say his intention of early intervention of at-risk groups is a step in the right direction.

We need to apply the concept of prevention and early intervention to the whole of the city, not just a few high profile neighborhoods, and we need to extend diversion and prevention programs to every student, every family, of every ethnic, social and economic level.

As we citizens encourage our elected officials to develop a long term plan for Fitchburg, we must insist that that long term financial plan include investing in our most valuable resource - our children.

We hold tomorrow in our hands.

Shalom

Some More School Aid

In a unique move, the House and Senate have agreed to local aid funding levels for next year. Fitchburg would receive more education aid under the plan. To read more, check out the Fitchburg Pride website.

Two for Tuesday

Two things:

Just days after saying he was close to having a recommendation for city treasure, Mayor Dan Mylott said he needed a few more weeks. In the grand scheme of things it's not a huge deal -- there hasn't been an outcry for a new treasurer -- but why would Mylott say he's days away from an annoucement and then quickly reverse himself? Either something unforeseen happened, or he just said something he shouldn't have. Not the end of the world, but worth noting.

More importantly, this situation with the teachers' union is getting interesting -- and a bit testy. The union has been doing standouts for a month now at School Committee and City Council meetings, and it didn't go over well last night when committee member James Connors called the appearance a "show."

The union has been without a contract for a year, and is all but working to contract and saying it's being disrespected.

As a long-time sports fan, I kind of have an automatic shutoff when someone looking for a raise brings up respect. Remember Mo Vaughn? Even more so for me, remember Jody Reed? A middling second baseman who said the Red Sox were disrespecting him with a $2 million offer (and that was 15 years ago). Ugh.

Anyway, the union now feels disrespected. It may have a point, it has been a year and all, but the disrespected tag is a tough one to swallow in most circumstances. The School Committee says it doesn't have any money. They say they've hammered out a lot of details, but don't have the money to work everything out. Truth, or negotiating stance?

A mediator has been involved in the talks, but based on the union's stance, you have to figure not a lot of progress has been made in the negotiations.

I'm guessing, based on this past weekend's SF conversation (see the 100-plus comments in the post below to get the whole, lengthy, but interesting discussion), there's not a lot of support for the union in these parts. To summarize: The idea of cutting 10 percent out of the city's budget is a good idea. Or, no it isn't. It seemed most people were in the "good idea" camp, so I'm guessing there's minimal support around here for a raise as the School Committee it has no money for teachers. Thoughts?

Take Me to the Pilot

In a move that surprise no one, the state Board of Education today voted to make the Academy School a pilot school.

The designation gives the school -- one of four to be given pilot status today -- some flexibility in day length, staffing, and other areas. The move is in response to the school's struggles in recent years. Local officials endorsed the change earlier this year, and the state gave the final go-ahead today.

Hopefully the pilot program, which has been successful in Boston, can be a success here. And if it is, hopefully the lessons learned can be used in the rest of the city's schools.

$8 a Day

School Supt. Andrew Ravenelle floated an idea at last night's School Committee meeting that hits Save Fitchburg directly, a fee of about $8 per day for preschool.

We've got one in the preschool program, and love it. The teacher is great, the program is solid, and it's free. At about $8 per day, we figure it would cost about $1,500 per year. Obviously, that's not a lot for preschool, but we're spoiled by the current $0 we pay now (special education students, and free breakfast and lunch program students would not pay the fee).

If Mrs. Save Fitchburg and I were told last fall the program costs $1,500 a year, I don't think we would have batted an eye. Going from nothing to $1,500 is something of an annoyance, but not one that is going to cause massive outrage or rioting on Save Fitchburg Road.

It would, however, set something of a disturbing precedent -- adding a fee to basic education. Yes, this is a setting different from the typical classroom. The preschool program is, essentially, a special-education program that has slots for "regular" students. But in the end, my kid is getting a basic preschool program that in some small way I already pay for (by the way, thanks everyone for paying for it, too).

It's a precedent in that it begins to open the door to more fees for other programs. How about fees for frog dissections, chemistry experiments and Internet fees for computer classes? It's a slippery slope, and one the School Department needs to be aware of as it moves forward. Adding a fee to the preschool program isn't an absurd idea, but it might loosen things up for more fees in the future.