jackiedoherty.org

On Easter evening, we sat in horrible traffic on 128 heading home from Peabody. We were probably 20 miles north of the Mass Turnpike, yet we suffered from the state’s attempt to save money by limiting holiday toll workers. I also mourned the loss of lights on the Zakim Bridge to save money—albeit a cosmetic rather than critical expense. And last week, I listened to cafeteria workers and their supporters tell the Lowell School Committee about the “unfairness” of possibly losing their jobs. Believe me, I felt their pain. It’s unfair that the schools must cut between $5 and $10 million, and it’s unfair that the city may face even deeper cuts. It’s unfair that people are losing their homes and jobs. And it is unfair that the Senate’s proposed budget cuts even further than the House or Governor into human service programs that impact the neediest in our state. Yet, no one wants more taxes, and who can blame them? The reality is we are in a global economic crisis, and budgets must be tightened at all levels. Yet, there are some cuts that are simply too shortsighted and too deep to make sense, and that’s where the case for additional revenue must be made. No matter how you look at it, increasing taxes is nasty business, especially these days. But whether it’s the Governor’s gas and candy tax, the House sales tax, or another revenue-building scheme (such as closing corporate communication loopholes and municipal relief options), something must be done. We cannot sustain the level of cuts the Senate is currently proposing without severe impacts to our collective quality of life in the Commonwealth—not only because it will harm those most vulnerable, but because the losses will be far-reaching, long-lasting and in the end, more costly to recover. (The impact on youth program cuts alone—from gutting the Shannon Grant, DPH, and jobs for kids—will be felt for years in terms of increased crime and gang violence, more dropouts, drug abuse, and other related, costly ills.) As unpopular as it is, I stand for increased revenues along with smart belt tightening and sensible, much-needed reforms. Without it, there will be a lot more outrage and pain, and the road to recovery that much harder to find.

Adults know you won’t get far without a high school diploma. Dropouts earn less, have poorer healthcare, and are more likely to end up in prison, on public assistance, or worse. Yet every year, too many kids quit school. According to the DESE, overall 11% of LHS students dropped out of school in 2008; that number jumps to 19% for Latinos and 22% for special education students. I attended a policy discussion today, sponsored by the Rennie Center, to hear opposing views about whether making kids stay in school until age 18 will reduce dropout rates.

On May 15, the state’s Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission will make recommendations on the compulsory school age as well as other issues. Massachusetts is one of 23 states that allows students to drop out at age 16 (19 states mandate attendance until 18 years; and 8 states mandate until 17). According to the policy brief presented today, there is no evidence that raising the age will reduce the dropout rate or that keeping it at 16 helps. What did become clear to me, however, is that allowing kids to quit at 16 sets a low expectation and sends the wrong message. (It’s not an option for my children. Who would want it for their teen?) Then again, if the youngster is failing and miserable, what good is another two years of forced schooling? Those who favor raising the age limit, see it as a tool that will only be effective if coupled with strong supports and services to engage youth in their education—including early identification and intervention, and alternative programs. But that is the crux of the issue: In this fiscal climate, how can we force disengaged students to stay in school longer when schools don’t have the resources to meet their needs now? Despite data identifying at-risk students based on attendance, grades and behavior—information districts know—most schools struggle with how to provide additional supports to those students given the time, staffing, and revenue limits they face. And that doesn’t even touch on the issue of disinterest and disconnect many of these students feel. The Commission’s recommendations will be interesting, but equally important is who will pay for them.

Since there’s obviously not much state revenue for next year’s budget, it’s a perfect time for our legislators to focus on reforms around a number of laws that impact our quality of life here in the Commonwealth. Lately, a lot of media coverage has been given to pension reform, which makes sense given the litany of abuses we’ve heard about. Another reform, perhaps not as visible in the media, but certainly of interest to the Lowell Police and members of the City Manager’s Anti-Gang Task Force (to which I belong) is the issue of laws that limit people from carrying dangerous weapons. State Senator Steve Panagiotakos has proposed legislation to expand an existing statute, a change many in law enforcement have been asking for since 1985. The current statute, MGL Chapter 269 section 10(b), reads like a laundry list of weapons; but without definition or inclusion of many of the newer, different kinds of disguised knives and machetes being found on the streets these days, it offers limited recourse for police. Coincidentally, the Lowell City Council is reviewing plans to add an ordinance to the city’s laws around this issue in response to handmade weapons such as golf clubs with blades, knives disguised as pens, and a variety of other weapons that have been confiscated by police. The ordinance would allow Lowell Police to arrest and fine someone caught carrying these weapons within city limits. With the added teeth of an expanded state law on this issue, perpetrators would also be subject to more punitive measures including incarceration. Given the likelihood of cuts to public safety budgets, the trend towards increased crime during difficult economic times, and the advent of warmer weather—public safety officials need all the help they can get, and soon!

First off, I don’t think there has been a time in recent history when a governor has made so many visits to Lowell to talk to the people. (I don’t remember Mitt Romney ever doing it.) Today, I was proud to see Governor Patrick here again, surrounded by questioning citizens amid our beautiful, historic Pollard Memorial Library. He had an agenda of course: Patrick was here to pitch his plan to reform the state’s transportation system and raise the gas tax by 19 cents. I list reform first because the Governor was quite clear that he would not support raising revenues for transportation without reform—specifically: the pension system, which he called “too rich for the times;” the six individual agencies that must be integrated into one to coordinate planning and implementation of statewide transportation strategies; and the funds to take steps toward reversing decades of “neglect and shortsighted decisions” that have got us into this mess. 

As usual, I was struck by his sincerity, intelligence, and willingness to hear people out. And since it was Lowell, you can be sure there were many folks with opinions, ideas, and comments to share. (For a more thorough review, check LiL because Lynne was there with questions and a recording device, and I’m sure she’ll be posting too.) In answer to my question about why not do reform first, Patrick said reform is not enough to cover the debt as well as the needed repairs for roads and bridges. “Reform is first,” he said. “We have to do it. But we can’t do what we need to do with reform alone.” He also said that he was open to other ideas and varying combinations of his plan, adding he has “not dug in at 19 cents,” but that was the “most we could do within reason.” As tough as times are, I can’t help but feel hopeful with leadership that’s willing to take it to the people–that is one of the many blessings of a democratic government. Thank you Governor Patrick, and please visit Lowell again soon.

I was listening to WCAP while running errands yesterday and happened to catch an interview with Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Naturally, the discussion centered on the economy, and in particular, the governor’s alleged plan to raise the gas tax 29 cents, making it the highest in the nation. (Turns out, the governor is still in the planning stages on that issue, with his tax hike anywhere from five cents to 29 cents—the former number not even close to being the highest in the nation.) Today’s Globe reports: “The gas tax in Massachusetts is 23.5 cents per gallon, which has not been substantially increased since 1991. A 29-cent increase would bring the state’s tax to 52.5 cents per gallon. New York currently has the nation’s highest state gas tax, at 41.3 cents per gallon.”

During the interview, Widmer said that some gas tax would be acceptable if it was tied specifically to improving roads and coupled with reform of the state’s transportation agencies. He also went on to explain the difference between his foundation and Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT), probably most familiar to readers in the form of Barbara Anderson and her many columns. Widmer noted that while CLT strongly supported Question 1 on last year’s ballot—you know the one to eliminate the state income tax—the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a research-based think tank, determined the proposal would be devastating to the delivery of services and require a steep rise in property taxes. As someone concerned with quality of life issues and services that impact our community’s health, such as education, I think it’s important to stay informed about an organization that has both credibility and objectivity on its side.

I read with great interest yesterday’s article in the Lowell Sun regarding newly elected State Representative Jim Arciero’s bill to end a decades-old perk that enables legislators with 20+ years of service to increase their pensions substantially if they are fired or not re-elected. According to the Sun article: “Depending on their salaries and time of service, the perk allows officials with more than 20 years on the job to begin collecting “superannuation” pensions immediately, along with life-time health insurance.” The article goes on to list a series of gluttonous beneficiaries of the perk that defies belief: such as Mike Lewis, former director of the Big Dig, raising his pension base by one million dollars to $2.47 million, or Representative Christopher Hodgkins more than quadrupling his pension. That Arciero, who served for years as a staff member for State Senator Steve Panagiotakos, has introduced this important reform legislation less than two months into his first term is impressive. If he can get the support he needs from his colleagues, even better. Aside from the stunning realization that boosting pensions this way has gone on since 1950, how could anyone NOT support putting an end to such a blatant abuse of taxpayers’ money? Let’s keep our eyes on this one to see if there truly is any hope of self-reform under the Commonwealth’s Golden Dome.

While it’s no surprise that a certain editor of our local paper has gone on a recycled rant against the Lowell School Committee (many of today’s accusations are retakes from ad nauseam tirades last summer), the simplistic, unbalanced, and inaccurate nature of the attacks never fail to amaze me. On point: There absolutely needs to be reform at all levels of government spending—the process is painfully slow and wrought with obstacles, many of which are completely out of the school committee’s control. It is, however, false that no progress has been made or that the Lowell School Committee, in particular, is to blame. Lowell school salaries are within range of other districts as well as its benefits, which mirror (or in some cases, fall below) the city’s compensation package. In the real world, most folks get that effective hiring requires market-level compensation. While blaming the board is easy and fits nicely with this editor’s agenda for an appointed school committee, it does little to accurately inform readers or to help achieve what should be our shared goal of continuing to improve the quality of public education despite diminishing resources.

Accuracy has never been at the top of this editor’s priorities, and that alone would be tragedy enough if it weren’t so distracting from the real challenges the schools face, or the reality of how critical it is to our economic survival that all students receive a quality education. The reality is that government today is faced with fiscal challenges that will require substantial cuts to services for all residents, with particular devastation to those most in need. The reality is that as unemployment, homelessness and poverty increase, so does domestic violence, drug and alcohol addiction, and families in crisis—factors that directly impact a child’s readiness to learn. The reality is that reform is desperately needed to control spiraling costs in health insurance, special education, and sick leave buyback, but many obstacles exist well beyond the scope of a local school board. Our future depends on our ability to continue to improve our public schools, despite the fiscal crisis, and to do that we need creative solutions, a new approach to complex issues, and all levels of government working together. Given that reality: simpleminded blame is not only misleading, it’s downright harmful.

Last night, the Lowell School Committee supported my motion requesting “the Superintendent prepare two budget proposals: one for a level-funded budget and one with a ten-percent reduction in state funding.” Although there was discussion regarding the timing and details of the proposals, especially since cuts this deep will require layoffs and there was concern regarding employee morale, the majority consensus was that we need a plan—the sooner the better—to deal with the current fiscal crisis. According to State Senator Steve Panagiotakos’ presentation, reported here last week, a level-funded budget is the best-case scenario—requiring $4 million less for Lowell schools with as much as $10 million in reductions a possibility. I’ve watched the district cut programs and staff since 2002, before I even got on the committee, and I don’t see how we’re going to make cuts this deep without seriously impacting the quality of education our children receive. It is going to require new approaches, thinking outside the box, and a reassessment of priorities, both in terms of the district and its funding sources. Each year, health insurance, utilities and compensation costs have risen—outpacing revenues—but the challenges we face and the children’s need for a high-quality education have not diminished. As the state faces its own fiscal crisis, there is some hope that Lowell will top the list for additional funds through the governor’s Readiness Project. Massachusetts Secretary of Education Paul Reville visited Lowell schools on Monday, and told us he was impressed, particularly by the district’s partnerships with UML and MCC, and the investment of community stakeholders. Supt. Scott, Chancellor Meehan, and MCC President Cowan pitched their “Pre-K to 16 Pathways” plan to him as our version of the governor’s project, with hope that when funding is available, the state will look to Lowell as one of its first pilot sites.

There is also hope that the federal government will offer some relief. As the creators of No Child Left Behind, national legislation that left the funding behind, the federal government has a responsibility to fund its mandates, as well as a moral and practical imperative to ensure educational excellence nationally. It appears the new administration gets the intimate connection between an educated populace and economic stability. According to an article in yesterday’s New York Times, President-Elect Obama has pledged $10 billion for early-childhood education, representing ”the largest new federal initiative for young children since Head Start began in 1965.” His platform also supports “new federal financing for states.” Many of his supporters are expecting him to deliver on his campaign promise to make education a priority even after federal bailouts for Wall Street bonuses and automakers’ incompetency: After all, economic revival is not possible without skilled employees.

Last night, a packed room of area school and municipal leaders gathered at Middlesex Community College to hear from State Senator Steve Panagiotakos regarding K-12 state funding, as well as from Jeff Wulfson, deputy commissioner of the department of education. As expected, the news was not encouraging: The senator affirmed recent media reports that cities and towns could see a 10% reduction in state funding for next year. According to the senator, the best-case scenario would be level funding for schools. In Lowell, where the state provides more than 85% of the costs of educating our children, a level-funded budget for FY10 would require cuts of about $4 million. The notion of having to cut more, up to 10% from the budget or about $14 million, is disturbing since cuts that deep would absolutely impact the quality of education our children receive. (Last year, the Varnum Elementary School was closed to save $1 million, and with that savings came a ripple of disruptions still felt today as staff and students were distributed throughout the district.)

As part of his remarks, Senator Panagiotakos provided a presentation (link available soon, watch for future post) where he noted some interesting historical data, such as the fact that state spending from FY00 to FY09 increased an average of 3.2% annually. He also discussed Chapter 70, which refers to the Mass. General Law requiring the state to support public schools, as well as the role of the foundation budget, established in 1993, that sets an education funding minimum. And despite today’s headlines touting Massachusetts as the highest-ranking state in math and science, and one of the top scorers in an international exam ranking students from four-dozen countries, the future for funding the Commonwealth’s schools is bleak. According to the senator, some relief may come in the form of federal funding, the state’s willingness to reduce unfunded educational mandates, and re-examination of Governor Patrick’s revenue-generating ideas. More on all this later. 

If you saw Wednesday’s Lowell School Committee meeting (top issues: sex ed and special ed—watch for later post on this), you may have noticed my absence. I am currently at the Mass. Assoc. of School Committees (MASC) joint conference with the Mass. Assoc. of School Superintendents (MASS) in Hyannis. As the representative from the Lowell School Committee, I presented an amendment to the MASC delegation, which represents members from 99% of the 391 school districts across the state. The amendment, which passed resoundingly, involves special education student assignments and could save Lowell about a half million dollars in out-of-district tuition if made law. Now that the amendment has passed MASC, it will become part of four resolutions the association will bring forward to the state legislature. Although the other resolutions make sense and are important, they all require additional funding from the state. The Lowell proposal will NOT cost the state additional money, but will give local districts that must pay the bill, a say in where our children are educated when taken into DSS care.  (Currently school systems do not have a voice in determining if a student can remain in a public day school when placed in a residential facility by the Department of Children and Family Services, which burdens the district with paying private day school tuition and is disruptive, as well as limiting to the children involved.) As we all face difficult economic times, it is vital that the state repeal regulations that add unnecessary costs to local districts, particularly those with questionable benefits to students. This is a step in that direction.