A few replies to Rene's emails: > The state gives Framingham $1100 per district student in chapter 70 > funding. At least, it did last year. It removes $9000 per student from our > chapter 70 funding for each charter school student.
This purported disparity is irrelevent; it's only purpose is to create the illusion of a huge inequity. Analogy: Suppose Mom gives $5 allowance a week to each of her children, Sally and Bob. Also suppose Mom pays $45 a week for Sally's skating lessons, and Dad pays $45 a week for Bob's piano lessons. Oh my! Sally is getting 10 times as much money from Mom as Bob gets! What a horrible inequity! I have a question for people who use this Chapter 70 funding argument. Suppose the State were to restore the full Chapter 70 funding to the Town, and also to establish a law firmly requiring the Town to fund the Charter School at $9,000 per student (or whatever the number is). Would that make this whole Charter School issue go away? Would the funding now be fairer? > Apparently the concept of economy of scale applies to everything except > schools. Removing 200 students does not save the town $1.6 million in > teacher salaries, building maintenance, insurance costs, etc. That's correct, but it doesn't save $0, either, which is the number that anti-Charter advocates use when making their arguments. Though at some point removing a certain number of students enables a building to be closed, for big additional savings. So it depends on your accounting practices and assumptions. There may very well be a valid argument to make that the amount of the Charter School funding is excessive. The situation is complicated by many factors. But if the funding is excessive, the problem is *nowhere near* the level suggested by anti-Charter folks. And certainly not to the level of extreme measures like lawsuits. Regardless, I think the State should, at a minimum, reimburse Charter School towns for the incremental amount it takes to operate a separate school which is outside of the established system, over the cost of operating another separate school within the established system. > Frankly, I think we could get a lot further dealing with _everything_ if > people stopped insisting that moving $1.8 million off the cherry sheet has > no effect on the town budget, and then we moved on to look at the whole > picture. I don't recall seeing anyone make this claim. Who are the people who are saying this? The only way that it has no effect is if the State reimbursement kicks in. Of course the FCCS has an effect on the Town/School budgets! Every school has a direct effect on these budgets! If you add a school, it costs more money. If you close a school, you save money. But let's look at the whole picture. The financial impact of the FCCS budget is less than 1% of the whole town budget, even with zero State reimbursement. So how much scrutiny is the Charter School getting, and how much scrutiny is the other $160,000,000+ going to get? Why not dig into the 99% that you do have control over, instead of harping on the 1% that you don't have much control over? > Education is driven by funding. I wouldn't object to the charter school in > the community if its funding mechanism didn't hurt the 8500 other students > in our schools system. As the parents of the 300+ Juniper Hill parents how > they feel about it. Or the parents whose Sage programs have been cut, or > whose children are in larger classes. > > And it could get worse. > > There is, quite honestly, a moral decision here. I have no problem with > people seeking better opportunities for their children. But I do have a > problem with it when it means that other people's children are hurt in the > process. To me, that violates a basic social compact. The issue I have with this statement is that *every* school takes money away from other students! This quality is not unique to the FCCS. Closing any school, whether the Charter School, or Juniper, or Stapleton, or whatever, would enable consolidation and substantial money to be freed up (even if no teachers are laid off), which could then be used to benefit other students. And what about those students who play sports? Or who are in SPED, or Resiliency for Life, to name a few? The parents of those children are making decisions that similarly "hurt" the quality of education for other children. But this is something that we accept, and maybe lobby the State for more money. That's fine. But we don't villify the parents. It is surprising to me that some of the same people who argued that the tax hike for the override (which I voted for) was justified in order to fund keeping Stapleton open, are now arguing that spending extra money to operate the Charter School is morally wrong, even to the extent of starting lawsuits. I would be happy to speak with anyone about this over the phone. -Alan Mandel, Precinct 2 (no relation) (508) 877-1877 To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body "unsubscribe frambors" (the subject is ignored).
