In the News: March 27, 2008
Here’s a round up of some of this morning’s news:
Update: I missed this story in my haste this morning:
SAD 35 superintendent recommends cutting 3 special-ed teachers
Foster’s Daily Democrat
Three special education teaching positions in School Administrative District 35 would be cut under Superintendent Jeff Bearden’s latest budget proposal, which he presented to the School Board Wednesday night.
S. Berwick back in business
After being closed for business since Monday night, town offices will be fully open and functioning this morning. The Town Council appointed a deputy treasurer and deputy tax collector at an emergency Town Council…
Ex-manager doesn’t plan to sue town
South Berwick council chips away at $1.4m needing to be cut…
Foster’s Daily Democrat
During a budget workshop Tuesday night, the Town Council cut a few thousand dollars here, a few thousand there — but nowhere near the $1.4 million needed…
Chase through Somersworth, South Berwick ends in two arrests
Foster’s Daily Democrat
A car chase that started in Somersworth, wove through downtown South Berwick, and ended just outside the center of town resulted in the arrests of two residents. …
Should recreation spaces go smoke free in South Berwick?
Foster’s Daily Democrat
The South Berwick Tobacco-Free Recreation Task Force will hold a meeting Mon., April 14 at p.m. to discuss a resolution that would make outdoor recreation spaces in town tobacco-free…
South Berwick to advertise for new director of Public Works; But …
Foster’s Daily Democrat
Help wanted: Public Works director for the town of
Tags: news
March 27th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Hmmmm…….The council seems to be having a bit of a problem getting the budget under the LD1 guidelines. Maybe Mr. Grossman wasn’t as far off base as he is being made out to be??????
March 27th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Only getting one side of the story.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Regarding the article, “South Berwick council chips away at $1.4m needing to be cut from budget,” there’s a reason foot traffic is down in town hall; it’s the influx of emails. People don’t have to take time off from their jobs to get to town hall to get questions answered with email. So reducing town hall hours seems reasonable on the face of it, until you realize that the purpose of the “potential Town Hall floating staffer” was to help out with the influx of email. Now they want to cut both hours and the floating staffer. Now it doesn’t make sense.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
If there’s one point a lot of people on this blog seem to agree on, it’s that South Berwick’s current budget shortfall is the result of a complex array of many factors—from national/international issues to state and local economics, as well as school funding.
Compared to the $1.4m in cuts that we now face, the buyout package for the town manager, whatever the figure turns out to be, is tiny by comparison. One of South Berwick’s municipal accounts, called the “undesignated surplus” I think, apparently dropped from about $1 million to a very small fraction under Mr. Grossman. Some of that spending surely was warranted, but some also paid for the many attorneys and consultants he hired for special projects.
There is no reason for either side of the manager controversy to crow about the present budget challenge. Nobody said making the cuts would be easy—the council warned about them just as Mr. Grossman did. It seems that the budget process would have been more manageable if he had prepared the figures the council needed as they requested back in December. In any case, it’s all our problem now.
Whether it’s reduced dump hours, shorter town office hours, the inability to hire good personnel like the proposed floating staffer, or other sacrifices, we are probably going to have to face them for a while.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
gr8scott-you said that foot traffic is down at town hall.because of e-mail and on-line services right? well then do you agree because of this technology that we dont need a library? what’s your thought’s.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Tim,
It’s unfair to compare a library with town hall in terms of digital-age service. You can’t email the library to read a book. As far as technology has gone, nothing will substitute the ability to have three, four or five reference books out in front of me on the table. The computer, while able to do this, is cumbersome for such a task. However, that was not my original point. The point was that there is faulty logic in cutting back hours and personnel at town hall because there’s less foot traffic but the same (or more) amount of business that needs to be conducted by other means.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
With regard to the Superintendent’s proposal to cut (3) Special Ed teachers, it is important that the public understand something about some statistics provided in the article:
While it is true that there are 71 fewer “special needs” children in the district than there were two years ago, that number includes all students that are identified as having any kind of special need (remedial reading, math, accomodations for ADHD, etc.) While those needs need to be addressed, many are able to be assisted on a consultative basis, without extensive one-on-one direction and assistance. Students with autism can require quite a bit more than that. While the total number of students receiving Special Education services has gone down, the number of children with autism has not gone down, it has gone up. While many children receiving services will at some point be discharged from Special Education services, students with autism will likely always need to be receiving services. Statistically speaking, our district will likely see an increase in the number of children with autism (1 in 150 children born today will likely have some form of autism).
Children with autism can make monumental strides toward being productive, contributing (dare I say tax-paying) members of the community if provided the right support early and consistantly.
By cutting these positions out of Special Education, the day to day consistancy that this subset of Special Ed students require to function and thrive is very likely to suffer.
I encourage everyone to contact their School Board members and urge them to recommend not cutting these positions.
Additionally, I encourage everyone to contact their US Senators and Congress people. Urge them to support legislation that would increase funding for Special Education. Congress mandated in 1975 that the Federal Government would fund 40% of the average cost to educate special needs children. The Feds have never done better than 14%.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
No. We spend far too much on public education as it is. I’m tired of footing the bill for public ed when I also pay tuition at private school for my children where the teachers make FAR less than their public school counterparts. I support the cuts, and think more should be cut. Much more. Unless the teachers’ union starts rallying around the idea of vouchers……. No. That’ll never happen.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Ladyjane,
Sending your children to private school is a personal choice; I’m not knocking it. I, myself attended an exceptional prep school in the late 70s (money was tight then as well). That didn’t preclude my parents from supporting the public schools. They understood then, as I do now, that supporting the local public school system is an investment in the community.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Yes, sending my children to private school is a choice - I never said it wasn’t. Your parents supported the public school (as we all do) because we have NO choice, so I’m not sure of your point. I simply want vouchers, and I’m tired of taxes being raised so we can support our ‘children’ when most of the extra monies seem to go to administration, and not into the classrooms. If the funds raised went to buying new musical instruments, or art supplies, or books, great. But when it goes to support the already bloated bureaucracy, I want to opt out.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:22 am
You are entitled to your opinion.
Its hould inteest you to know that our district has the 15th lowest per=pupil cost in the state, but our students continue to excel. That means that we are doing more with a lot less.
I would encourage you to attend school board meetings, ask questions, and maybe stop by one of our schools to witness the goings on. You might be surprised as to how efficiently the distric schools are run.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Additionally, although my parents had no choice but to pay school taxes, they were glad to do it. As I said, supporting the schools with our tax dollars is an investment in the community.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I have visited our schools, and have even substituted- which is why my children are in private school. While I understand our schools are good, they are not a good fit for our family - the noise level, the busy work, the commercial posters and junk that adorn the walls, the bells all make me wonder how children can even concentrate. I know several teachers in SAD35 and they are fine, talented people with great families. I am happy that people are proud of SAD35, it is great for our town. However, no education is right for every child or every family. I have talked to school board members and discussed inflammatory mailings that have been sent regarding the proposed school district mergers. I’ve given up discussing the budget with them. I am not uninvolved. My father was a public school teacher for most of his life, I have a degree in education, and for several years homeschooled my children. We value education. I am not naive, nor do I believe your opinion is the only right opinion. Like I said, we can agree to disagree. Unlike your parents (but definitely like MY parents) I resent paying higher and higher taxes for a bureaucracy run by a large union that supports philosophies I disagree with. Give me vouchers. I support the cuts to the school budget.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:42 am
That was my post, from Anonymous. I forgot ask, what would you support cutting from the budget to bring the cost down for the taxpayers, since you don’t want these three positions cut?
March 28th, 2008 at 8:21 am
The Superintendent’s proposal includes the hiring of a professional librarian for the district. Although I think this would be a great asset, I would consider it to be an expensive luxury item. Likewise, an additoinal teacher for the gifted & talented program is part of the proposal, and although that would be nice, it is a luxury. The cuts to Special Ed would have the greated impact on the Autism program. For these children, having autism-focused teachers make learning and functioning a reality. For these students, its their life.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Paying to send children to a private school in my opinion is not too far from paying extra for “organic” foods. You have made the choice for what is in your opinion a more quality education. I would like you to show me how BA teachers and administration make less money than public schools. BA brings in excess of $1,000,000 for 600 +/- students. The proposed budget for SAD 35 is around $1,900,000 for 2600 +/- students. I may not have gone to BA but I can do that math.
You are not going to get vouchers from any town unless that town does not have a school of its own. SAD 35 is an excellent district, that has been shown time and time again. I am not saying it is perfect and I agree that administration takes too much of the pie. I too support certain cuts to the school budget. However giving you vouchers because you choose not to use the school in the district in which you live would only worsen the school district and our towns problems.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:47 am
In your opinion, vouchers are bad. I get it. Many others have a different opinion. I am among that group. Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree. And I’m not sure about BA and their salaries, etc. I have no first-hand knowledge about that school or its budget, or its quality of education. You’d probably have to run that by someone who’s children attend BA, or someone who teaches there. And yes, it would be interesting to see where their money is spent. There are several private schools in this area that offer starting salaries far below SAD 35’s, however, and it is one those my children attend.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am
JD, The proposed budget INCREASE for sad 35 is 1.9 million.
The actual budget for 2007 is in excess of 24 million.
This includes transportation, nutrition, education, administration etc…
Check out this link to the state dept of education site.
http://www.maine.gov/education/data/budget/2007/ed248b07.htm
Per this page on the site,
The per student cost for SAD 35 for 2007 is $7,210.12.
http://www.maine.gov/education/data/ppcosts/2006/ppc06.htm
March 28th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
You are correct Dave. I should have looked a little deeper before I spoke.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
JD,
It took me awhile to find those sites.
They don’t make it easy to find the specifics.
I went to the SAD 35 web site looking for the budget.
It just says that is has been posted.