[Since the passage of the tax limitation measure Proposition 2 1/2 in 1980, there have been many appeals from the school to the towns taxpayers for an override, so that L-S might be adequately funded. This article not only serves as a good example of these override appeals, but also provides a compelling portrait of the school - Bill Schechter]
John Ritchie, Superintendent/ Principal
From The Sudbury Town Crier, March 1, 2007
We've come to that time--not an easy one--when I need to discuss the issue of a proposition 2 1/2 override as it relates to Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School. I always approach this task with a great deal of trepidation, because it feels uncomfortable being a salesman for something that I don't have to pay for, not being a resident of Lincoln or Sudbury. (I simply get to pay elsewhere.) I do believe, though, that it is a crucial part of my professional responsibility to express clearly what the consequences and effects of both an override, and non-override, budget would be at L-S.
I think that Fincom Chair Bob Jacobson has done a fine job dispassionately explaining the factors that have created the sorts of structural deficits communities across the Commonwealth are dealing with. Sudbury's problem is exacerbated, clearly, by the fact that there is such a disproportionately high number of school-aged children in this town, making it, in some sense, a victim of its own success. The costs of educating a household full of children certainly exceed the revenues generated by that same household. When some predictable portion of the the children in the household will have special needs that need to be attended to, the costs increase even more. Combine these increasing costs with the effective decrease in state aid in recent years, along with such things as health care costs and utility costs (which don't stop at two and a half per cent), and it is easy to see that it is not simply "contractual obligations" that necessitate an override in order to maintain services.
I should announce my prejudices at the outset: I happen to think that L-S, as an organization, is an extraordinarily (and unfortunately) rare example of excellence in a world filled with semi-broken institutions. It is a place that works. It is a place that is flexible, reasonable, intelligent, and creative; it is a school staffed by very, very bright and committed professionals, who love their jobs, and love the students they teach; and this love is reflected back to them and us by students, for students, truly, know how special L-S is. It is, quite simply, the most highly-functioning and wise institution I've ever been associated with. It pains me to think about having to compromise, significantly, the kinds of excellence we are committed to delivering here. Our students deserve it, and it allows them to be excellent themselves--which they really are--in a whole variety of ways.
We at L-S have been very mindful of the strains that communities have been under, year after year. Indeed, we have been in a reducing and trimming mode for the past five years. Our class sizes now are far higher than they were at that time, and teachers are responsible for 15-20% more students than they were then. The caseloads for Guidance Counselors and Special Education teachers have begun to exceed the guidelines that are contractually agreed upon, to say nothing of professionally responsible. In the last four years, we have lost a full Administrative position, which has meant a significant increase in the amount of work we have to do to keep up with teacher supervision and evaluation, building management, planning, and responding to our constituents, both of the teenaged and adult varieties. I could write an entirely separate essay about the fact that schools in general, and this one in particular, have been asked to play an ever-increasing role in serving students and families, as other institutions have faded from the landscape. We do so willingly, and energetically. But it is hard (and sacred) work, and there is more and more of it each year. If there were elements that I or we could see that were superfluous, redundant, unnecessary to our mission, we would have already eliminated them
Shrill doomsaying isn't my style, so let's just go with the facts. If an override does not pass, we will have to make reductions equal to $706,000 at L-S in next year's budget. These would be reductions \from our current level of services, and much of it would have to come from personnel, as nearly 80% of our budget is devoted to salaries. $706,000 is roughly the equivalent of fifteen teaching positions. It would be impossible to cut that many positions without having truly unmanageable--unimaginable-- class sizes. We would therefore eliminate something on the order of six professional (teaching/counseling/administrative) positions, for around $300,000, and then cut very deeply into Athletics, equipment, activities, instructional budgets, aides, computer maintenance, and make reductions in a whole assortment of other areas. Just as one example, and to provide a sense of scale, the reductions necessary in the Athletic budget in this scenario would be the equivalent of losing all 9th grade sports. The majority of classes in the academic areas would have more than twenty six students in them, and many would have upwards of forty students. Counselors, Clinical Counselors, Special Education teachers would have caseloads too large to manage effectively and safely.
As I said, I think this is an amazing school, and an efficient one as well. I think that the public needs to know that this is not a school where the faculty is compensated at an unusually high rate. Quite the contrary. A study that was performed for the Finance Committee two years ago revealed that L-S teachers were next to last in the comparison of compensation packages in comparable communities. I only mention this to address any perceptions, or mis-perceptions, that L-S teachers are paid more than their counterparts in other towns. They aren't. Nor are SPS teachers, who ranked last in the same study.
To end where I began, the discomfort I feel at having to argue for more money, or be a prophet of
doom, is very real. But it is a discomfort far exceeded by the fears I have about what will happen at L-S without an override. I'm not given to crying wolf a lot--it never works--but without an override, the reductions will be deep, and felt everywhere; and the loss of services, people, programming, opportunities, and oversight will be profound and obvious. We're not talking about a little belttightening. We've already done that. We're talking about a seriously depleted educational landscape. In one way or another, we'll all pay for that.
