After being elected in 2003, my first contribution was insisting, together with Sue Sheffler and other colleagues, that the School Committee play a more active role in “reviewing and approving” the School Department budget. The Committee is now much more involved in budgeting and has more information on the budget than we’ve had in the past. I worked with my colleagues to develop a process to examine in depth selected components of the budget. This has led to cost savings and efficiencies.

Together with Suzanne Owayda and former Superintendent Donovan, I served on School Committee’s negotiating team for the last contract and am on the team for the current contract. Because of the way we reached the agreement, there was a lot of bad will following the 2003-04 negotiation, and we have vowed to do better this round. The 2004 agreement increased the number of periods taught by English Language Arts teachers, increased salaries, and reduced the town’s contribution to employee’s health insurance by 50%. The new contract resulted in $500,000 per year in cost savings and made it possible for us to give our teachers raises. I am committed to a much better negotiation process this time. Suzanne Owayda, Superintendent Levenson and I attended a seminar on interest-based bargaining with union leaders, and we’re putting into practice what we learned.

I co-chaired the successful 2005 override with Selectman Diane Mahon and Finance Committee Vice Chair Charlie Foskett. It was an opportunity to work with people from across the spectrum in Arlington to maintain the level of services we enjoy in our Town. The override’s passage sustained programs in our schools, but it did not take away our responsibility to look for ways to run our school district more efficiently. If the override had failed, our schools and children would have suffered enormously. Other town services would have been adversely impacted as well.

Along with most of my colleagues, I advocated for the hiring of Superintendent, Nate Levenson. The leader of the search effort was Suzanne Owayda, who deserves the credit for a broad process that involved many members of the community. I believe the Superintendent has brought new ideas, a focus on academic standards, and better budgeting to our district.

I helped a coalition of parents to draft a uniform food allergy policy that is in place at all nine of our schools.

I worked with parents to rewrite a field trip release form that was unclear and confusing during my first year on the committee (2003).

As chair of the Policies & Procedures subcommittee during my first year, I was involved in rewriting a number of the district’s policies.

Together with my colleagues, I helped design a process to review the District’s progress on the five goals. Giving the Superintendent a merit adjustment or bonus for achieving specific goals is a new approach. We will surely improve it over the next few years, but I think it could have a powerful impact on education in our district.

My biggest disappointment was our inability to convince the state to increase its contribution to education in Arlington and other districts. Our Chapter 70 money (the source of local aid from the state for education) was cut in my first year on the committee from $6 million per year to $4.8 million. We’re up slightly over $5 million this year, but we have a long way to go. We have more students to attend to as well, so our state aid should have increased, not decreased. Our lobbying at the state level through the Massachusetts Association of School Committees and other groups has to become more effective. And, we need leadership in the Governor’s Office that understands local aid.

First, I want to reach an agreement with our teachers that compensates them fairly and creates better relations with our staff. Our teachers tell us they have not felt respected, and we have to change this feeling.

Second, I want to work with our new Superintendent and my colleagues on the School Committee to ensure that the District achieves the five goals we adopted in the fall – Special Education/ELL Reform, articulating essential standards, improved professional development for our faculty, determining what our students need to know to succeed in the 21st century, and a more transparent budget.

Third, I want to continue to look for ways to better deliver services to our students. I do not want to be forced to cut teaching staff and want to keep class sizes reasonable. Fourth, I plan to do more at the state level to increase local aid to public education. Proposition 2 ½ cannot work without a true partnership with the state. We have to receive more Chapter 70 aid to meet the needs of our growing student population.

Finally, I want to work to increase the diversity of our teaching and administrative staff. This benefits all of our students, regardless of their color.

If we don’t make the proposed structural changes, including a reduction in leadership positions, we will be forced to lay off classroom teachers, class sizes will increase, and the quality of teaching and learning will decline. It’s that simple. The proposed budget for FY ’07 shifts $750,000 from administration and operations to teaching and learning in the classrooms. We will watch the effect of the administrative changes carefully. Obviously, if important administrative duties are not being performed well, we may have to consider adding back some positions. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this proposal. My feeling is that we should give the reorganization a try and see if it works.

Yes. The $6 million override was what a coalition of town leaders felt the public would support. A larger override would have been helpful, but it might not have been approved by the voters. The override was part of a five-year fiscal stability plan that limited operating budget growth to 4% per year for five years, limited health insurance increases to 7% per year, and assumed a $800,000 increase per year over four years in state aid. In addition, the town anticipated some growth in revenue from the Symmes development project, an increase in local receipts, and a 4% increase in the Town’s share of Minuteman tuition expenses and enrollment.

Unfortunately, the five-year plan has not gotten off to a good start. Health insurance rates are increasing at 13% this year, state aid is somewhat less than we anticipated and is not on target to meet the four-year projection, Minuteman Tech expenses are up 9% instead of 4%, the Symmes project is delayed, and grant revenue will likely decrease. We knew all along that even if this optimistic scenario came to pass, the School Committee and the Board of Selectmen would need to look for ways to manage their budgets better. While we are certainly better off with the override than without it, the School Department has no choice but to continue to look closely at our spending.

Instead of a 4% operating increase, the schools can increase spending by 3.03%. Grants from the federal and state government are down, and other revenue is lower than expected. So, instead of the $1.4 million increase we had hoped for (4% plus grant and other revenue), we are only able to increase spending by a little over $1,000,000 from last year. When cost of living and step increases for our staff are factored in, we have no choice but to look creatively at our budget.

We can start by passing the budget proposed by Superintendent Levenson on March 28th. The Committee has had significant input into the budget. We passed a number of directives, including the leadership reduction, which guided the Superintendent’s budget draft. If we approve the reduction in leadership positions (a net savings of $450,000) and shift grant spending to programs that fulfill the district’s mission, we can add personnel to our English Language Learner (ELL), Special Education, Reading, Math support, English Language Arts support, faculty professional development, and health and counseling programs. These programs will actually be better supported. Of course, we must evaluate the impact of the shift in spending from leadership positions to direct support work. Is the staff being evaluated and coached? Are we meeting the goals?

When we built the budget this year, we decided where it was important to put additional resources. These areas included:

• English Language Learners (3.0 additional full-time positions) to serve young people who have not been receiving the services they deserve in our district
  
• Special Education (1.5 additional full-time staff); Reading, particularly in grades K-3 (7.0 specialized reading teachers in place of less-trained reading aides)
  
• English Language Arts and Math support (6.7 positions -- mostly for remediation)
  
• Health, Wellness & Counseling (5.6 additional counselors)

Then, we looked to see if we could shift money from one part of the budget to another. Where could we save money? We decided to eliminate 8.25 administrative positions in the district, giving us a net savings of $543,447. We then required (as a result of a contract that Suzanne Owayda and I negotiated) English Language Arts teachers to teach the same number of courses as other teachers at the high school and middle school, for a net savings of $250,000. Finally, we added a fee for the Bishop Bus ($15,000), and found a way to save $73,000 in the crossing guard budget. These savings allowed us to shift resources to direct services for our kids, particularly the most vulnerable in our district. 1 out of every 6 kids in Arlington does not read at grade level by third grade, meaning they are struggling in school and have a 50% chance of being in special education for the rest of their time with us. Our Special Education has been one of the worst in the state. If we don't follow through on the cuts mentioned above, we can't help the most vulnerable kids in our district. I believe I was elected in 2003 to advocate for those children.

Under the proposed budget, we will have the same number of traffic supervisors we have this year next year – 30. They may be deployed differently based on an analysis of traffic and walking patterns by the Transportation Advisory Committee and the Police Department. We have been able to find $73,000 in the crossing guard department because guards currently work 90 minutes (45 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the afternoon) but are paid for two hours of work. The Chief of Police and Sue Sheffler chaired a committee that concluded that there are few if any children to cross 20 minutes after school closes. The committee said if the School Committee wanted to save money, we could reduce the time the guards work in the afternoon. We decided they would work the same 45 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the afternoon, and be paid for 1 hour and 15 minutes of work at $20.05 per hour. I believe this is the kind of due diligence and budget examination that taxpayers expect from a School Committee.

If we don't make the $73,000 reduction, we will reduce the number of new staff we would like to hire either in reading, math/language support, counseling, or special education—all services for the most vulnerable in our district. I will listen to debate on March 28th and continue to listen to parents and others on this issue, but my inclination is to vote for the reduction in the traffic supervisor budget. I think it's the right thing to do. Kids' safety will not be sacrificed, and as a matter of principle, employees should be paid for the hours they work. Most importantly, funds will be available to help our most vulnerable children.

I am pleased to be in a contested race and like both of my opponents. I bring professional educational experience from other venues to the School Committee, and I have three years of proven experience on the Committee. In the next three years, we will be forced to make some difficult choices, and experienced, thoughtful leadership is needed on the Arlington School Committee.