WaylandSchoolBlog.moved

You've reached Jeff Dieffenbach's blog, which I use to post, comment on, or respond to Wayland school-related issues. The opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect an official position of the Wayland School Committee.

Wayland School Committee home

current | fy08 jul-dec (no entries) | fy07 jan-jun (no entries) | fy07 jul-dec | fy06 jan-jun | fy06 jul-dec | fy05 jan-jun | fy05 jul-dec | fy04

12/29/2005

Dieffenbach: Readers of John Hilliard's "E-mail eases work, but easy way to break the law" article in the 12/26 MetroWest Daily News might mistakenly come away with the impression that the Wayland School Committee used email contrary to the provisions of the Open Meeting Law.

Hilliard: Careless use of e-mail by local officials discussing town business runs the risk of violating the state Open Meeting Law, according to the Middlesex District Attorney’s office.

Although electronic mail has become an easy and quick way to handle "housekeeping" chores in town government, some officials have banged up against the law when they used the electronic communications to conduct public business in cyberspace.

In Wayland, a recent ruling by the Middlesex District Attorney’s office on a complaint filed by the Daily News included a reminder that Wayland School Committee "members should limit e-mail communications to matters of a purely housekeeping or administrative nature, and should maintain copies of all e-mail communications in a central file."

The newspaper had filed a complaint with the DA’s office seeking access to e-mails related to discussion of Superintendent Gary Burton’s job performance in 2004. The DA ruled such discussions should be public -- and that includes e-mails from committee members.

The District Attorney's email "reminder" was purely pro forma. The DA's ruling found no fault with the committee's use of email, which was for administrative purposes as allowed by the Open Meeting Law. The committee did not use email for the evaluation discussion in question, nor does it use email for discussion in general.

12/15/2005

Dieffenbach: WVN #131 presents the WVN's opinion of the 12/8 High School Building Committee (HSBC) meeting.

WVN: HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE PONDERS NEXT STEPS

Meeting on Dec. 8 for the first time since summer, the High School Building Committee discussed its own credibility and future as it studied an accreditation report calling for physical improvements at Wayland High School.

While perceptions of credibility were certainly part of the meeting's conversation, putting those perceptions front and center skews their significance. The WVN might have mentioned discussion of the HSBC survey, which occupied a fairly prominent position on the meeting's agenda.

If the committee has such low credibility, member Eric Sheffels said, the School Committee should do something about it. Further discussion is planned.

...

A survey mailed to 7,921 voters last summer drew 2,075 responses. The results lack statistical validity since they represent only those who chose to reply. The 26 percent who responded were reasonably representative of Wayland demographics and often strongly opinionated.

Of those who said they voted against the project, 90 percent were critical of the committee. Of those who said they voted yes, nearly the same percentage approved of the committee.

This opinion distorts the answers to the two questions about the building committee. Readers should note that those two questions had by far the highest meaningful "no opinion" responses of the entire survey. It would appear that the committee makeup was not as contentious as the WVN makes it out to be.

Certainly, there were reasons to be concerned about the project, ranging from lack of guaranteed reimbursement to project scope. HSBC credibility was not such a reason for concern, however. The committee's highly qualified members objectively devoted a huge amount of time and expertise to the effort. To date, no one has yet raised a remotely credible concern to the contrary [sentence edited for clarity 12/29/2005].

Some School Committee members have expressed the hope that when reimbursement questions are answered voters might approve the full project. Survey respondents, though, said that size and scope were bigger concerns than reimbursement.

The responses to Question 2 seems to suggest that cost was the biggest concern (2b), followed by reimbursement risk (2a), project cost even with reimbursement (2c), cost to the taxpayer (2d), and only then size and scope (2f).

"People really weren't sold on the idea" of a rebuilt campus, said committee member Dianne Bladon, who directed the survey. She suggested that voters may not have understood the cost of the project. But she acknowledged that voters may have disbelieved estimates issued by the HSBC and the School Committee. When voters rejected a $4.2 million allocation to design the project, there were fresh memories of the Public Safety Building, which came in behind schedule and over budget and was sometimes called the White Elephant.

The Public Safety Building assertion is based on a dubious premise and without any supporting evidence.

The School Committee initially assured voters that the state would share the cost of rebuilding as in the past, even though the reimbursement system had changed. The committee backed away from that position but continued to say that reimbursement was a good possibility, even after the new head of the Massachusetts School Building Authority warned in an interview with WVN that any town undertaking a project at that time should be prepared to shoulder the entire cost.

The WVN is well aware that with the exception of one ambiguously worded sentence in a single letter that elsewhere made clear the lack of an assurance (see the 9/17/2004 blog entry), both the WSC and the HSBC were consistent is asserting that reimbursement was likely but by no means assured.

Despite renovations in the 1990s, which officials billed as good for a generation, the campus doesn't meet current building standards.

Many of those renovations have lasted so far. In other cases, the projections in the early 1990s did not come to pass, although it will be almost a generation by the time that a modernized facility comes on line.

Superintendent Gary Burton estimated that bringing the buildings up to code could cost $12 million.

Actually, the Superintendent reported that during the 2002 High School Feasibility Study, consultants estimated that code compliance would cost on the order of $12M. No current estimates are available or were mentioned.

12/14/2005

Dieffenbach: an article in the December 11, 2005 Boston Globe West "Globe West" section ranked area towns by per capita spending. The Globe used data from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF), which apparently defined per capita spending as FY05 "total budget" divided by population. The origin of the population numbers was not specified, presumably 2000 census numbers.

The MTF ranks Wayland 2nd (to Weston) on per capita spending rank. This ranking is higher than where Wayland typically comes in on more conventional metrics such as average household tax bill, which prompted me to dig into the numbers in more depth.

The table below shows how various towns compare on a number of metrics. The first "Rank" column is per capita spending as calculated by the MTF. I was unable to duplicate these results using Department of Revenue numbers for population and spending. However, the ranking changes only slightly using the DOR numbers: Wayland is 2nd in the Globe ranking compared with 4th in the DOR ranking (the second "Rank" column).

A more common metric for comparing municipal financial performance is average tax bill. Wayland ranks 6th in this category (the third "Rank" column). Another common metric is per pupil expenditure. Of the towns examined by the Globe, Wayland ranks 10th (the fourth "Rank" column).

The Globe’s choice of towns excludes several peer towns against which Wayland usually compares itself: Acton, Boxborough, Brookline, Carlisle, Concord, and Lexington. When these towns are added in to the comparison, Wayland’s rankings are as follows.

Per capita spending (DOR): 5th
Average tax bill: 8th
Per pupil expenditure: 13th

Per Capita Spending versus Other Metrics
Source: Boston Globe, Department of Revenue, Department of Education

Town	Globe Per Capita Spending	Rank	DOR FY04 Pop'n	FY04 Expend	DOR Per Capita Spending	Rank	DOR Avg FY05 Tax Bill	Rank	DOE Per Pupil Expend	Rank
Weston	$5,117	1	11,595	$49,885,245	$4,302	1	$11,767	1	$12,077	2
Wayland	$4,117	2	13,063	$47,162,920	$3,610	4	$7,904	6	$9,944	10
Sherborn	$4,116	3	4,230	$16,320,162	$3,858	2	$9,889	2	$10,796	5
Dover	$3,984	4	5,657	$20,599,168	$3,641	3	$9,004	4	$10,796	5
Sudbury	$3,873	5	17,164	$60,584,783	$3,530	5	$8,101	5	$10,023	8
Southborough	$3,793	6	9,549	$30,477,420	$3,192	7	$6,667	10	$7,912	21
Westborough	$3,647	7	18,737	$60,588,162	$3,234	6	$5,922	14	$8,549	17
Hopkinton	$3,643	8	14,031	$44,611,957	$3,180	8	$6,015	13	$8,176	19
Wellesley	$3,573	9	26,515	$75,124,196	$2,833	11	$7,564	7	$9,802	11
Medfield	$3,446	10	12,397	$36,276,740	$2,926	10	$7,094	8	$6,761	37
Bolton	$3,394	11	4,389	$13,107,939	$2,987	9	$6,516	11	$7,433	28
Newton	$3,305	12	83,802	$222,326,105	$2,653	14	$7,047	9	$11,431	4
Needham	$3,276	13	29,022	$76,562,322	$2,638	15	$5,517	15	$9,004	13
Holliston	$3,138	14	13,919	$38,939,951	$2,798	12	$5,293	16	$7,938	20
Berlin	$3,070	15	2,677	$6,859,199	$2,562	18	$4,519	21	$9,096	12
Lincoln	$3,068	16	8,000	$21,416,805	$2,677	13	$9,730	3	$10,023	8

The chart below shows the average tax bill change from FY00 to FY05 as reported by the Boston Globe (9/18/2005). Wayland ranks 23rd of the 34 towns examined.

The table below shows recent overrides in Wayland peer towns. Based on the total amount, Wayland ranks 7th out of 15 towns; based on the total amount per capita, Wayland ranks 8th.

Peer Town Override History: FY00-FY05
Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue

Town	FY00	FY01	FY02	FY03	FY04	FY05	FY06
Acton	$1,184,920				$3,000,000
Belmont			$3,000,000	$2,400,000
Boxborough					$300,000		$1,025,360
Carlisle	$445,862	$222,487	$558,830	$1,014,300	$189,429	$106,157
Concord			$2,249,222	$1,478,773	$1,532,364	$1,858,160	$1,007,000
Dover					$350,000	$650,000	$900,000
Hopkinton	$1,200,000				$900,000		$600,000
Lexington		$3,440,829			$4,957,000	$4,224,340
Lincoln			$583,000	$300,000	$350,000	$212,000	$490,000
Needham				$17,276,000	$2,459,318
Sherborn		$250,000	$595,000	$345,000	$485,000	$250,000	$493,500
Sudbury		$1,740,946	$1,018,820	$2,999,995			$3,050,000
Wayland				$1,300,000	$850,000		$2,300,000
Wellesley		$750,000	$1,967,821	$2,539,201	$2,895,436		$2,596,851
Weston		$590,000	$500,000				$1,370,000

The chart below shows how cost drivers in general are affecting Wayland's budget specifically. The highest growth rate is for health insurance (22% per year), as measured by Wayland’s 32B cost normalized by the number of certified teachers in the Wayland Public Schools. Next highest is pension cost (16.5%) to the town (actual, not normalized). Utilities (12.5%) are third (actual, not normalized). Fourth is school salary (3.7%), as measured by total school salary for certified teachers divided by the number of certified teachers. Notice that school salary tracked almost exactly with the New England education cost index (data available through 2005). This cost index is an average of the indices for government schools and Northeast employment. The final data set shows that State Aid per student (-0.1%) has remained flat.

12/10/2005

Dieffenbach: In WVN #130, the Wayland Voters Network continues to inject its subtle and misleading spin.

They lead off with the following.

WVN: The School Committee complied with the Finance Committee's request to produce a budget that wouldn't require a tax override, then called the result "dismantling" the schools.

The insertion of the word "then" creates the impression that the School Committee reversed course on its own initiative. Setting aside the reality that there is nothing wrong with changing direction should conditions warrant, in this case, there wasn't even a changing of direction.

The following would be a truer representation of the committee's meeting.
The School Committee complied with the Finance Committee's request to produce a budget that wouldn't require a tax override, warning the Finance Committee that the result would "dismantle" the schools.

SCHOOL COMMITTEE FACING OVERRIDE DECISION

FISCAL YEAR 07 BUDGET- Recent weeks have been consumed by the School Committee's attempt to meet the Fincom's requirement for a "no-override" budget option, which requires a 4% cut from the current year budget.

While the WVN is technically correct that a no override budget option for FY07 requires a 4% cut relative to the FY06 budget, that comparison is less valid than the comparison between a no override FY07 budget and what the town is contractually obligated to pay in FY07 (not FY06). Rapidly rising increases in health insurance, pension, and utility costs, coupled with the negotiated salary increase that is part of the lowest 3-year settlement in the 35 years for which the town has records, means that the town is facing an 8% reduction from a level service FY07 in order to avoid an override.

Having now gone beyond the committee's "worst case" budget scenario choices, at least for the moment, School Committee member Barbara Fletcher said at the Dec. 5 committee meeting she hoped they could come up with a more positive process going forward. But there seemed to be little agreement among the members as to what that process should be.

Member Louis Jurist suggested that the committee might give some monetary guidelines to the administrators. "We're supposed to set the policies and priorities, not just be reactive," he said.

But Chair Jeff Dieffenbach said that they shouldn't bias educational program planning by choosing a dollar amount first. Member Heather Pineault also asked whether they should have a conversation about priorities and mission before Superintendent Gary Burton invested too much time in the next round of the process. Fletcher supported her, saying they should come up with a statement of philosophical underpinnings. But Dieffenbach resisted, and Burton said that the principals are already working on their budget submittals, which he will combine, edit, and present to the committee.

What the WVN fails to note, for some inexplicable reason, is that the discussion that they characterize above did not reflect "little agreement," but rather an open and honest conversation that led to a consensus. The WVN's account offers a reader no evidence of that consensus.

The paragraph that the WVN forgot to include might read as follows.

At the end of the discussion, the committee reached a consensus. While they chose not to provide the administration with a specific budget maximum, they did prepare a statement of philosophical underpinnings to overlay on the committee's budget guidelines. That statement included the following elements.

Preserve the current program, appropriately balancing academics and extracurricular activities.

Apply cost savings and fee increases, the latter including lunches, busing, and extracurricular activities.

Increase class sizes up to our policy, with allowance for redistricting, exceeding the policy where the increase is merited by the savings without having a dramatic impact on the quality of education.

Consider Choice, the program that allows a district to receive students and funding from other districts.

The WVN's omission of this important result is, to put it mildly, curious.

CAPITAL BUDGET- The capital budget next year will have three major elements: technology (about $200K), routine building maintenance (another $200K), and major repairs to the Happy Hollow roof and windows. The latter is "easily a $1 million project", said Burton, though some may be deferred beyond next year. Some work will also need to be done at the high school. They have not been putting money into the high school, hoping it would be replaced, but now "We have to make the assumption that we'll be there for another five to seven years," he said.

A more accurate representation of the items above would have been "four major elements: technology (about $200K), routine building maintenance (another $200K), major repairs to the Happy Hollow roof (about $700k), and maintenance at the high school (amount TBD) to address issues cited by the NEASC accreditation review committee.

The science modulars approved by the town last April should finally be available for full use by the first of the year.

"Finally" is unnecessary. The administration has been working diligently with the modular classroom vendor and the installation contractors to bring the space online as quickly as possible.

12/04/2005

Dieffenbach: The latest effort from the Wayland Voter's Network, WVN #127, starts off in two novel ways.

WVN is delighted to note that the Town Crier this week includes significant coverage of this School Committee meeting and the school budget process, in keeping with the school budget's primary importance in determining both the quality of life and the cost of living in Wayland.

Athough a lack of coverage by the Town Crier on school matters has not been apparent, on this unexpected note, the committee is no doubt in agreement with the WVN.

Again meeting before a large crowd largely composed of concerned Happy Hollow parents, the School Committee struggled like a hooked fish before finally deciding to eliminate closing Happy Hollow from consideration next year.

artist:
Jen Gagne

It's unfortunate to see the WVN mock the Open Meeting Law, which requires that committees meet in public sessions to discuss matter such as budgeting. Perhaps the result would be cleaner if committees were able to meet in private to arrive at a final and polished public statement. Instead, in the interest of open government, committees must struggle like thoughtful public officials with difficult decisions. The budget process may be messy to watch at times, but the result is better for it.

This meeting was to choose what the committee considered the lesser of three evil budget cut options to meet the Fincom's request for a budget option that would avoid the need for an override next year.

...

However, all plans under consideration stay within the existing maximum class size guidelines, though classes grow higher than the "preferred size".

All three of the plans have elements that might drive a few or even many classes over the class size guidelines. For instance, eliminating even a single position in a single cluster at a single grade level at the middle school would most likely move three classes over the guideline. The option that the committee grudgingly chose to submit removes 5 teachers at the Middle School. If all 5 are subject matter teachers, then as many as 15 classes might grow beyond the guideline.

Superintendent Gary Burton, as in previous meetings, delivered a sales pitch clearly aimed at the observers and the Waycam camera telling the committee what it already believed: that the problems are not the schools' fault but result from external circumstances. Therefore, he concluded, the schools really shouldn't have to cut.

This is an unfair criticism. The large audience included many residents who are not regular attendees at committee meetings. Moreover, there are an unknown number of residents who watch taped broadcasts of the meetings on the WayCAM cable channel [edited for clarity 12/29/2005]. As a result, the superintendent is placed in the difficult position of having to choose one of two approaches: making statements that may be well known to the committee for the benefit of the audience, or omitting such statements to improve the meeting pace at the expense of the audience. The WVN would seem to be suggesting that he erred in favor of the audience of Wayland residents.

As an indication of the extremes of emotion at stake, as the large group of observers were leaving the Large Hearing Room one young woman angrily, loudly, and at some length verbally attacked an elderly citizen who had made a comment earlier questioning the metrics of excellence for the schools. She told him he should just shut up and vote for overrides so her kids could get an excellent education.

If such an event took place as described, it is of course unfortunate and unacceptable. The young woman in question characterizes the event differently, however. All committees are wise to adopt the Town Moderator's Town Meeting rules of decorum, and all residents are wise to abide by them.

It is interesting to note that the WVN made no comment of the "metrics of excellence" in question, as the question caused considerable discussion and had been asked at the committee's 11/17 budget hearing. Specifically, it was a request to list "celebrities/famous people" who are Wayland High School graduates. The schools do not keep such a list, of course, nor should they. In fact, such a list would be an insult to all students who work hard to graduate and contribute to society.

12/03/2005

Dieffenbach: In a letter in the 11/23/2005 Town Crier, a Brook Trail Road resident questions Wayland's having the second highest teacher salary in the state.

Brook Trail Road resident: Comparable school systems in the region including Acton-Boxborough, Lincoln-Sudbury, Belmont, Lexington, Newton and others have been able to achieve similar success with average teachers' salaries at $5,000 to $10,000 less than Wayland. This data would indicate that having the highest salaries does not have a direct correlation with better results.

There is no disagreement with the statement that the schools listed are all successful. Whether or not they are exactly equally successful is impossible to measure, of course, but let's say for the sake of argument that they are. What teachers are paid is not the best financial metric to apply. A better metric is per pupil expenditure. Below is a ranking of the 2003-2004 per pupil expenditures for the towns that the writer lists, plus several that might fit the definition of "others."

Weston: $12,196
Dover-Sherborn: $11,893
Lincoln-Sudbury: $11,591
Newton: $11,431
Brookline: $11,107
Concord-Carlisle: $11,059
Wayland: $9,944
Lexington: $9,686
Needham: $9,004
Acton-Boxborough: $8,722
Belmont: $7,828

Note that comparing regional high schools with full K-12 districts isn't exactly equivalent. Adjusting for those differences does not appreciably change Wayland's position in the rankings, however. In short, what Wayland spends on education is by no means out of proportion.

The writer continues:

A $5,000 reduction in the average teacher salary would have over a $1 million impact in the budget. This represents an overall 8 percent reduction in teachers' compensation. This is a significant number, but not as significant as a 10 to 20 percent reduction in staff recommended in some of the current budget options.

Asking each teacher to take a salary reduction of $5,000 so that a Wayland household might save on the order of one tenth of that, $500, works out mathematically. Given that the average teacher's household income is less than that of the average Wayland household, and given that the impact on that lower household is ten times that of the higher household, this approach is at least arguably inequitable.

The writer concludes:

A Town Center project may not have solved the budget crisis in 2006 just like a new union contract didn't cause a budget crisis in 2004. But we need leaders who have the vision and foresight to understand the economic impact of critical decisions for the future of our town and our children.

Continuing to rubberstamp budget overrides is not the solution. Better management and planning will allow us to have the town that we want with better fiscal responsibility.

With respect to vision, it would be interesting to know the writer's thoughts on the future of Wayland. One reasonable vision is a quality of life (education, public safety, community, ...) that continues to make Wayland an attractive place to live, as manifested by continually growing property values. To be sure, spending too much will make Wayland unattractive. At the same time, however, so will spending too little. The job for Wayland's leaders is to help the town define the balance point inbetween. Supported by common sense and many studies linking real estate values with school spending, it is fair contend that cutting 8% from the school (and municipal) budgets is not in the "balance" zone.

11/20/2005

Dieffenbach: Wayland faces a difficult budget situation. The School Committee has completed the second of what will likely be three discussions and public comment periods centered on how to submit a school budget requested by the Finance Committee to avoid the need for an operational override. After a brief outline of the steps that have gotten us to this point and the steps that will likely follow (see also the committee's 11/17 Town Crier guest column), I will try to answer questions posed by the public at the 11/14 and 11/21 School Committee meetings.

October 2005: School Committee (WSC) receives Finance Committee guidelines for fiscal year 2006-2007 (FY07)

Continue level services from fiscal year 2005-2006 (FY06)
Cut 8% from the level services FY06 budget

November 2005: Superintendent Burton presents level service amount and -8% options
November 2005: WSC selects -8% option for submission to Finance Committee
November 2005: Administrators begin creating desired building-level budgets
December 2005: Superintendent compiles single desired budget
January 2006: WSC receives Superintendent's budget and begins budget work sessions
February 2006: WSC finalizes budget that it will recommend to the Finance Committee and the town

Range between 0% and -8% cuts; to the greatest extent possible, protect educational program

February 2006: Finance Committee recommends overall budget
February/March 2006: Board of Selectment decide size of override (if any) to place on ballot
April 2006: WSC Budget Hearing
April 2006: Town votes on budget at polls (if override approved) and Annual Town Meeting

11/14 Public Questions

Q: How do offsets work?

A: Offset are monies raised by the schools outside of the appropriation at Town Meeting. For instance, the Town Meeting approved an FY06 appropriation of about $27.4 million in April of 2005. In addition to that amount, the schools planned to raise an additional $500,000 in FY06 through a combination of fees, drawing down revolving accounts, and other items.

Q: Are there any special education cuts in the -8% cut options that the WSC is looking at?

A: No. Special education spending is driven in large part by law.

Q: If the schools were to close one elementary school and reconfigure to a K-2 program at the second elementary school and 3-5 at the third elementary school, would the start and end times for the two remaining elementary schools be staggered to help parents with pickup and dropoff logistics?

A: No decision has been made at this point.

Q: If fees for athletics and extracurricular activities are raised, how will those who cannot afford the increases participate.

A: As in the past, some "scholarship" money would be available to help families who have difficulty affording school fees.

Q: How many administrators are there in Wayland?

A: 14. The superintendent, the assistant superintendent, the business manager, the director of student services, the director of technology, the Wayland School and Community Programs director (fee-supported), the METCO director (fee-supported), 5 building principals, and 2 building vice-principals.

11/21 Public Questions
With an eye on the clock, I floated the idea of curtailing public comment following the committee's continued discussion of the Finance Committee guideline submission. My fellow committee members and the audience quickly convinced me that the public comment period was needed, as was born out by a number of excellent questions.

Q: Over the last five years, the school budget has increased by 32% while the enrollment climbed by only 1% during that same period. Why?

A: The FY06 school budget appropriation was $27.4 million, up 32% from $20.8 million in FY01. Enrollment in FY06 was 2,916, up 1% from 2,888 in FY 01. There are several reasons why the budget growth exceeded the enrollment growth.

First, each of those years saw a contractually negotiated compensation increase for teachers and other school employees. The combination of salary, steps (additional years of service), and lane changes (advanced degrees) probably averaged about 5% over each of those five years. Compounded, that amounts to almost 28%.

Second, as enrollments rose much faster than 1% in the Middle School and High School, new teachers were added. At the same time, enrollment drops at the elementary school were not sufficient to correspondingly reduce staff at the lower level. The net result was an educational staff of 363 in FY01 compared with 411 in FY06 (up 13%).

Third, non-personnel costs such as materials, utilities, and transportation go up with (or in some cases greater than) inflation. Note that this analysis excludes any consideration of SPED increases (legally obligated) over the period in question.

On September 18, 2005, the Boston Globe printed an article showing the average Wayland tax bill increasing by 34% from FY00 to FY05. Compare that amount to peer towns Dover (45%), Hopkinton (42%), Lincoln (30%), Needham (36%), Newton (33%), Sherborn (43%), Sudbury (35%), Wellesley (49%), and Weston (46%) to see that Wayland's increase has been at the low end of the spectrum.

Q: Is anyone looking at private fundraising to bridge the budget gap?

A: Already, well-organized and motivated private groups raise on the order of $500,000 on an annual basis. Given that these funds are generally less certain than tax revenues, it is the philosophy of most School Committees, including Wayland, not to expend privately raised monies on recurring costs such as teaching positions. That said, the committee is deeply appreciative of private fundraising and strongly encourages increased fundraising to the extent practical.

Q: The school budget has increased $6.5 million over the last five years. Where has the money gone?

A: As outlined above, reasonable increases in personnel and non-personnel costs have consumed the additional funds.

Q: What is the committee's intention with respect to selling school-owned land?

A: The sale of land is one focus of the FY07 Ad Hoc Budget Advisory Committee (FY07AHBAC), whose work in progress can be followed on the Board of Selectment web page. The schools have two properties: on on Alpine Road at the north end of town, and one on Orchard Lane a bit farther south. The sale of land would generate one-time proceeds, which the Finance Committee has indicated would more likely be used to restore Free Cash levels than to plug an operating deficit. The School Committee is certainly open to the idea of selling land outright or swapping it for town-owned land nearer the center of town that might make for a better future school site.

Q: Are budget materials public?

A: Yes. School budgets for prior fiscal years have been mailed to all Wayland residents. Some current information is posted online on the Wayland Public Schools web site

Q: The Superintendent mentioned a different budget process compared with prior years. Why?

A: For the most part, the budget process outlined above has been standard for a number of years. This year, because of the size of the budget gap, the Finance Committee asked town boards and committees to prepare both a level and -8% budget by the end of November. The -8% budget has caused the schools to do a deeper budget examination earlier in the process. As soon as the level and -8% budgets are submitted to the Finance Committee, the School Committee will return its attention to building and recommending a budget for FY07.

Q: Why have the schools put together two -8% options designed to rile up the community rather than focusing on good scenarios that won't affect services?

A: The two -8% options presented to the School Committee by the Superintendent are emphatically NOT designed to "rile up the community." Rather, after hundreds of hours, they are the administration's best thinking as to how to implement what will clearly be unpleasant cuts. In an already lean budget that is 85%+ personnel, it is simply impossible to make cuts of on the order of $2.5 million that result in a good scenario. Many comments at the two most recent meetings have been along the lines of, "think creatively/outside the box." While the extensive expertise and experience of our administrators leads us to believe that all practical options have been considered, the committee welcomes specific suggestions from the public on how best to achieve cost savings without harming the quality of the education that we deliver.

Q: If the plan to close one elementary school means that the other two elementary schools would be full, does that mean that enrollment growth in the next few years might force the third school to be reopened?

A: Yes, that is one risk of closing an elementary school. Should that option be pursued (and it is far too early to tell if that option will be necessary), the schools would certainly work to make sure that the closed school is maintained such that its value is not degraded. This maintenance would help to speed reopening if necessary.

11/21/2005

Dieffenbach: The WVN again trains its unique journalistic style on the schools: WVN #125

WVN: SCHOOL OFFICIALS THREATEN DRASTIC CUTS

At the Nov. 14 School Committee meeting a visibly upset
Superintendent Gary Burton presented his response to the
Finance Committee's request for budget cuts that would allow
the town to avoid a massive override next year.

"Threaten." "Drastic." "Visibly upset." "Massive." Apparently, the WVN remains unable to restrain itself as it interjects editorial bias into what it claims is unbiased news reporting.

School officials did not threaten drastic cuts. In fact, quite the opposite. The Finance Committee, as part of an effort to understand the implications of not pursuing an override for FY2007, asked the schools to prepare a plan for arriving at -8% cuts in a worst case scenario. While agreeing to submit a response to the Finance Committee, the School Committee stated that it would not ultimately recommend cuts on that order.

As to the Superintendent's appearance, the audience in a packed School Committee room and later on the delayed cable broadcast instead saw the calm and professional delivery of a decidedly unpleasant message. He gave a reasoned reminder of the quality education that Wayland delivers as a preamble to his thoughtful outlining of two painful options that the committee hopes to avoid. "Visibly upset?" Nothing could be further from the truth.

11/21/2005

Dieffenbach: It is not clear why the Wayland Voters Network continues to shed objectivity when talking about the schools: WVN #123

WVN: DELAYED OPENING POLICY- As a result of the furor created by Burton's widely reported and admitted mistake in opening Wayland schools after a blizzard last year, and a subsequent teachers' petition which forced recognition of the difficulty that Metco students (and presumably non-resident teachers) have in reaching town in poor weather, the delayed opening policy has been revised. It now provides for a 90 minute delay rather than a 60 minute delay when a delayed opening is announced.

Wayland residents will recall the heavy snowfall that ended on Sunday, January 23rd. By late afternoon on Sunday, the roads were clear and the sun was out. In keeping with Wayland's long-standing tradition of keeping New England schools open during New England winters, Superintendent Gary Burton opted not to close school on Monday, January 24.

There was no "furor," nor was there the "wide" reporting of an "admitted mistake." Instead, in hindsight, the Superintendent commented that were the situation to repeat itself, he would pay closer attention to the conditions in Boston and probably close school. The admirable teacher petition did not "force recognition," but rather added input to a process that resulted in a policy change. Despite the WVN's negative connotations in what might otherwise be a news item, the series of events constituted a normal and well-handled example of how to learn from experience and improve decision-making.

09-15-2005

Dieffenbach: WVN #108 comments on the School Committee's 2003-2004 superintendent evaluation process and the Middlesex District Attorney's investigation of that process.

WVN: When reporter Hilliard attempted to ask questions regarding this decision [not to release individual committee member comments] during the final public comment period before executive session, member Bob Gordon and then Dieffenbach objected to the questions and insisted that Hilliard wait until after the executive session (of unknown duration) to ask them in a one-on-one interview.

It has long been the committee's practice not to spend the public's valuable time (to say nothing of our administrator's time) responding to the press during our public meetings, when a simple one-on-one conversation after the fact will suffice. For my part, I have always made myself readily available to answer questions from Mr. Hilliard and others.

One observer described Dieffenbach's demeanor as "having a chip on his shoulder."

Actually, it was a parrot.

One objection that has been raised with respect to a public evaluation process is that when an evaluation is not presented in its entirety, the partial presentation may not provide a fair view [edited for clarity 12/29/2005]. Here's how the WVN describes the content of the 2003-2004 evaluation.

In contrast to the 2005 evaluation, the 2004 evaluation contains some mild criticisms. For example, the document notes that negotiations over a change in nursing coverage "started later and took longer than was desirable." Further on, when discussing curriculum matters, the document states "you might periodically challenge (which is not to say overturn) your traditional and conservative approach to education." Further on, when discussing the middle school renovation project and the lingering problem with the heating system, it says, "The fact that a fix has not been arrived at leaves a small stain on an otherwise exceptional project." (Note: over a year later, the problem is still not resolved.)

With regard to budgets, the document says:

"Two budget areas where we would have liked more prompt information/action were the $480K "giveback" discovered at the end of last year, and the near-term High School space needs discussion. In both cases, it seemed to us as if we had to push harder than we should have to see the areas addressed. On short notice, Joy Buhler did a nice job of compiling information on modular science classrooms; with a bit more advance preparation, though, her work would not have had to be on short notice."

On the whole, however, the 2004 evaluation is highly laudatory, collegial, and even admiring, and concludes with the following:

"Gary, on the occasion of your ten years of service in Wayland, it continues to be a pleasure working with you. That we have identified areas for improvement is not a criticism but a blue print. You advocate for our children and our town with a passion and a sense of humor that serves us all well."

By word count, the above "summary" of the superintendent's evaluation is more than two-thirds of the "areas for improvement" variety. Yet, a look back at the full evaluation shows that significantly less than 10% of it is constructive criticism. As predicted, the WVN skews our superintendent's excellent service to the town.

09/03/2005

Dieffenbach: Two pieces in the 1 September 2005 Town Crier comment on the School Committee's 2004 superintendent evaluation process: an article and an editorial. Each merits a response.

First, a brief background. In 2004, the Wayland School Committee evaluated Superintendent Gary Burton based on a process advised by the school's attorney. The chair asked each member separately for his or her input. The chair then drafted an evaluation that was discussed in executive session. The chair created the final evaluation and delivered it to the superintendent. At the time, the committee knew that this process put it in the gray area between two laws: the Open Meeting Law (OML), which the Middlesex District Attorney interprets to require such evaluations to be conducted in public, and the Public Records Law overseen by the Secretary of State, which states that personnel files are not public records. In fact, school committee evaluations in any town in Massachusetts are in this same gray area.

Article: [In a letter to Wayland Town Counsel Mark Lanza, Middlesex Assistant District Attorney Bethany] Stevens wrote that the Open Meeting Law requires discussions of a public official's job performance to be conducted in an open hearing.

Actually, what the OML says is that discussions of "professional competence" must be held in open meetings. The OML says nothing about "job performance." The difference may merely be one of semantics, of course.

Stevens noted that the Open Meeting Law is not undermined by the "more general protection" of the state Public Records Law.

This is the Middlesex District Attorney's opinion. A judge has not ruled on whether this opinion is in fact correct.

Editorial: We were glad the School Committee changed its course earlier this year and voted 3-2 to release Burton's 2005 evaluation, but sincerely disappointed the two votes against the public discussion were School Committee Chairman Jeff Dieffenbach and Vice Chairman Bob Gordon, along with Burton himself arguing against it.

It is worth noting that the two votes against open session discussion of the superintendent's evaluation were not votes in favor of an executive session evaluation, but rather in favor of having the chair create the evaluation document without committee discussion.

Hopefully the other three members of the committee - Barbara Fletcher, Louis Jurist and Heather Pineault - will continue to change the committee's attitude about keeping its business as open and transparent as possible.

All five members of the School Committee believe in and respect most or all of the Open Meeting Law, the ambiguity surrounding superintendent evaluations notwithstanding.

The committee was also taken to task for how it went into executive session on June 21, 2004, stating, "Although it is permissible to convene for more than one purpose, each purpose must be publicly stated, and once convened, only matters related to those stated purposes may be discussed."

The DA was correct that that the language regarding entry into executive session as recorded in the committee's minutes was not technically correct. The committee will strive to improve its practice in that regard.

Why the committee would go to such great lengths to keep the evaluation hidden is baffling. When a public official is paid roughly $150,000 in tax money, you'd like to have the right to overhear what the committee thinks of the job the person is doing, and weigh in with your comments if so desired.

It is surprising to hear that the Town Crier is baffled. In a conversation with members of the Town Crier's editorial staff just a few months ago, I explained the primary reason for wanting to keep the evaluation hidden. Quite simply, an evaluation is almost certain to be more candid--and therefore more useful in moving the school system forward--if it does not have to be done in public. The editorial staff may not agree with this reason, just as a majority of the committee did not agree, but the rationale is hardly baffling.

In the upcoming 9/8 issue of the Town Crier, look for a letter outlining the committee's thoughts and actions on this matter in more detail.

07/25/2005

Dieffenbach: The proposed Wayland Town Center Project has both financial and enrollment implications for the Wayland Public Schools. In WVN #10o, the Wayland Voters Network makes mention of a newly formed group called "Wayland CARD (Citizens Against Reckless Development)."

WVN: Wayland Citizens Against Reckless Development, calling itself a grassroots organization, is calling attention to potentially huge traffic problems, asking "Are you ready for 19,000 more cars a day?" See www.WaylandCARD.blogspot.com.

CARD, and by extension, the WVN, present a number that sounds large without any context. In separate articles on Sunday 7/25, both the Boston Globe and the Middlesex Daily News saw fit to provide that context.

The following comparison of three possible uses of the land--empty, as an office park, and as a town center--is instructive.

	Empty Space	Office Park	Town Center
Use	open space	commercial (office)	commercial (retail/office)/ residential
Building square footage	0 sf	405,000 sf	550,000 sf
Weekday morning traffic increase	0%	+26%	+19%
Weekday evening traffic increase	0%	+23%	+23%
Saturday peak traffic increase	0%	+19%	+33%

One conclusion that may be drawn from the table above is that any revenue generating use of the current "Raytheon" property will have an impact on traffic. In the two cases considered, the impact is roughly comparable. One potential benefit to the Town Center project is that it might be linked to developer-funded improvements to the Route 27/20 intersection, whereas an office park use might not.

A number of open questions remain regarding the proposed Town Center project: traffic, revenue versus other uses, impact on other town services. It is important that these questions be answered in a helpful context.

07/15/2005

Dieffenbach: WVN #99 presents the Wayland Voters Network take on the School Committee's evaluation of Superintendent Gary Burton.

WVN - SC 6/22: SUPERINTENDENT EVALUATED IN OPEN MEETING

Moving on to the main agenda item of Burton's current year evaluation, Dieffenbach said he did not hear support for discussing the evaluation in executive session. "Can we take that off the table?" he asked, to general agreement from the group. This left the choice between discussing the evaluation in open session or having Dieffenbach discuss it privately with Burton.

...

Member Heather Pineault moved to discuss the evaluation in open meeting. Member Barbara Fletcher seconded the motion.

Jurist said, "Like it or not, the intent of the Open Meeting Law is that this be public."

Dieffenbach countered that "it is the DA's interpretation," and spoke for the viability of the other option. Member Bob Gordon also argued for keeping the proceeding secret, ...

Neither I nor Bob Gordon argued for keeping the proceeding secret. Rather, we preferred the legal process used by many school committees to evaluate their superintendents: a single member (often the chair) collects separate input from the members and consolidates that input into an evaluation that he or she delivers to the superintendent. Because no meeting is held to discuss the evaluation, and because the Public Records Law explicitly keeps private personnel files, any evaluation under this method would therefore correctly remain private. In fact, any committee that chose to release such an evaluation to the public would be in violation of the law.

Later in the newsletter, the WVN excerpted parts of the superintendent's evaluation and added editorial comments.

With respect to the 2005-2006 budget, the committee writes: "As we learned at this past Annual Town Meeting, voters may be interested in additional detail regarding our capital needs. We ask that you plan to provide such detail for future meetings." (One of the "capital needs" not specifically listed in the warrant for April's Town Meeting or in the School Budget booklet was a new car for the superintendent.)

Regarding the Annual Town Meeting Warrant, inclusion or exclusion of particular items is not the decision of the School Committee. The WVN is in error regarding the School Budget Booklet, which did include "passenger vehicle" in the capital items section.

Burton is praised for the Literacy Initiative in the elementary schools and encouraged to proceed with the analogous math program. He is congratulated for successful contract negotiations and "general personnel-related strengths." (No mention is made of generally high teacher salaries - third highest average salary in the state, according to the 7/3/05 Boston Globe, after Boston and Shawsheen Valley - nor of any parent or teacher dissatisfaction such as that expressed by parents and by non-resident teachers forced to travel to Wayland through the aftermath of last January's blizzard when Burton opened schools.)

The School Committee makes no secret of its philosophy of paying well to attract and retain top quality teachers. While average salaries may be 3rd highest, Wayland's per pupil expenditure ranking is 7th (behind peer and neighboring communities that include Weston, Newton, Brookline, Concord, Framingham, and Dover) in the context of a per capita income ranking of 5th. More to the point, however, is the fact that teacher salaries are negotiated by the School Committee, not the Superintendent, and therefore not a logical component of a superintendent evaluation.

Parent or teacher dissatisfaction (or, for that matter, satisfaction) with specific decisions has not been part of the Superintendent's evaluation during my tenure on the board. In the case of the January snowstorm highlighted by the WVN, the School Committee chair agreed with the Superintendent's decision based on the information that was available at that time. Based on information that emerged over the days that followed, the School Committee changed its school cancellation policy to explicitly list access to school as an item to consider when making the open/closed decision. (No mention is made of this policy change in the WVN's newsletter.)

Under the heading "Last Year's Evaluation," the document includes the following note: "On a more tactical note, we ask that you reinstate the collecting of parent email addresses along with the other contact information that is recorded each fall. This is needed again next year." (Why email addresses will be needed again next year is not explained.)

Email addresses provide a mechanism to communicate with parents in the event of a school emergency.

To read more about thoughts on the superintendent evaluation process, click here.