STEM (Part 2)

School Picture Day?

In addition to concerns about the way the STEM concept is being "sold" to parents & taxpayers (see Part 1), I have a few more specific thoughts after watching much of last week's School Committee meeting.

Safety -- The loudest recurring theme coming out of this meeting seemed to be the safety of the incoming 7th & 8th graders.  Ironically, it seems many folks are less concerned about adult strangers off the street wandering around the pool area than they are about allowing 12 year-olds in the same building with 17 year-olds.  To hear some parents talk, you would swear that SHS is marketing hash pipes and maternity clothes with the Blue Knights logo.  We do need to hear a the plan for limiting interaction between the 7th & 8th graders and the "general population" -- but it's probably not a deal breaker for me.

STEM (Part 1)

From the Sandwich Enterprise: "In response to the concerns expressed by many parents, Superintendent C. Richard Canfield announced that he has utilized "left-over" FY '12 maintenance funds to purchase 450 Big Plastic Bubbles to protect 7th & 8th graders if they move to the High School next year.  As their contribution to the transition effort, the combined PTA's of the Wing, Forestdale, and Oakridge Schools purchased 448 "My Child is Gifted & Talented" bumper stickers to be affixed to the plastic bubbles.  It is unknown which 2 of the new bubbles would NOT be receiving a "Gifted & Talented" sticker -- although a spokesperson for the Wing PTA assured reporters that none of the "non-G&T" students attended The Wing."

(OK, that wasn't really in The Emptyprize, but given their typical loose grasp on reality...)

Parents' Expectation Letter

I've seen a dramatic increase in letters from teachers this year requiring parents to sign off and acknowledge each teachers expectations for students behavior/performance, etc.

As my children have prohibited me from returning said letters to each teacher with my own list of "expectations" attached, I am going to attach it here.

Dear Teacher,

Thank you for your recent letter outlining the expectations you have of my child, and (presumably) myself.

I assure you, my child will be expected to behave in your classroom, and complete his/her assignments on time and in an appropriate manner.  My child is also expected to treat you, your colleagues,  and his/her classmates with appropriate respect at all times.

If you ever find that not to be the case, please let me know and his/her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.  I do not make excuses for my child's behavior or performance.

In return, as a parent and taxpayer, I expect the following of you and the School Administration:

• You will use classroom time to teach.  I have no problem helping with homework.  But, I do not expect to be teaching original material at night.  I have been on the Earth for a half century (OMG!) and I spent 17 years in School, but unless we're talking Finance, Accounting, Computer Science, or Business Management, I will probably not teach your subject as well as you do.

Legalus Pissing Contestus

My Latin is rusty, but I believe the above phrase describes exactly what we are now witnessing in the case of Johnson vs. Sandwich School Committee, Marshall, Crossman, Kangas and Linehan.

While most of the general public has moved on to iPads, STEM, and other pressing issues (soccer, Pop Warner, and North Face jackets), the Johnson case continues to wind its way slowly through the justice system.  The most recent report is that the "Discovery" phase of the case is expected to run through March 15 of next year.  So far, the State Appeals Court & the State Supreme Court have "discovered" that there was a valid contract and that nobody made a proper effort to void it.  

I'm not sure what's left ..... other than running up the legal bills and continuing to delay accepting responsibility for the "real" decision -- who wants to be in the room when its time to approve a settlement?  

Without talking to anybody, if I was a fly on the wall, this is what I bet i would hear:

From the School Committee:  "We have no money.  She's a Town employee, the BOS needs to fund a settlement."

From the BOS:   "The School Committee caused this when they didn't bother going to court to void the contract.  We warned them they were being irresponsible, but they did it anyway.  We know that two of the four culprits aren't on the Committee anymore -- but, Screw them!"

From FinCom: "The Schools would have had the money to settle this lawsuit if they hadn't gone on their year-end shopping spree.  We like the Superintendent, but he left his Committee hanging in the breeze with their pants down on this issue.  The Committee should have discussed year-end spending including a litigation reserve -- not just allow this hot potato to get dumped back on the Town."

From Kangas:  "We need to stop kids from leaving the District, regardless of what it costs ... What?  That wasn't what you asked? Oh, What was the question again?"

From Crossman:  "We were thinking about maybe having a meeting to talk about forming a subcommittee to maybe have a fundraiser for the pool maybe, um, someday ......."

From 93% of the Electorate:  "When does soccer practice start?"

The Blind Leading the ...

There was in interesting (but relatively benign) article in the CCT about recent School Spending.  The humorous part of the article was the reference to the School Committee's "Finance Sub-committee".  If you watch the meeting tape, it was one of the two "Finance Sub-committee" members that announced on-camera that "if anybody had questions, the School Business Manager could answer them".  

(Past School Committees have purposely NOT formed Finance Sub Committees because it was widely felt that EVERY School Committee Member is responsible for understanding the budget -- as well as the payment requests they are required to review and approve each week.  Financial oversight of public funds was always considered an obligation of every member.  The idea that this responsibility has been delegated to the two people with probably the least amount of financial experience of anybody on the Committee  is even more unsettling.)

"Legal" vs "Right" (By Bob Guerin)

I think we can all agree that investing in our schools is important.

But, we must also agree that Town and taxpayer resources are not limitless. Anyone on this blog prepared to argue that taxes are too low and we should raise them?


If we are to invest in our schools then we taxpayers and parents need to understand how much money we have and where money is going, right? Seems pretty basic.


Isn’t this debate really a question about why the Administration left the School Committee and public out of some major spending decisions?


Why not have held public hearings in front of the cameras, explaining that a surplus existed, identifying new spending priorities and justifying the changes to the town meeting authorized budget, seeking public comment and input and then executing the spending plan?


Wouldn’t THAT have been transparent? Wouldn’t that have been participatory? Wouldn’t that have been the right thing to do? That’s certainly how the process worked when the schools bought the PC labs and the teacher’s laptops, authorized money for fields, added sports programs, created new staffing positions, and on and on.