WaylandSchoolBlog

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

12/08/2006

Dieffenbach: In a 11/29/2006 editorial, the Metrowest Daily News opposes the use of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds to partially offset the cost of installing an artificial turf field at the Wayland High School stadium. As proposed, the Wayland Boosters is raising $700,000 (donations requested, click here for details), $150,000 will come from CPA funds (totalling over $3M, I think) already put aside from the tax bills of Wayland residents, and $150,000 will come from state matching funds.

The editors' stance is curious in light of the following two statements included in their editorial, on which they solely base their opposition.

MDN: The [CPA's] goal is to expand recreation, not replace funding from other sources in the recreation budget.

...

The CPA was intended to expand community recreation opportunities, not subsidize high school football teams.

No one appears to be arguing the premise that recreation will be expanded once the artificial turf is expanded. The Boosters estimate that current field usage is on the order of 5%, with only selected high school teams being able to use it, and only for games. Even at 5% usage, maintaining the field in only a passable condition is barely doable, and expensive. With artificial turf, usage will increase conservatively to 50%, and perhaps much higher. That clearly constitutes an expansion.

As to the point about replacing funding from other sources, there is no prospect of paying for the conversion with standard tax revenues.

Subsidization of the football team also fails to hold up. The HS football team already uses the field for games, so they will see the least benefit. The real gains will accrue to school sports other than football, soccer, and lacrosse, as well as to youth and adult football, soccer, lacrosse, baseball, and perhaps others.

10/17/2006

Dieffenbach: WVN #187 comments on the blog.

WVN: BLOG LINK REMOVED FROM SITE

For nearly three years, visitors to the School Committee website have seen a prominent invitation on the the home page: "Read our blog." When the School Committee kicked that link off the site on a 3-2 vote, concerns came to light over the interweaving of advocacy with public service.

It's not clear who holds these concerns about the interweaving of advocacy and public service. Clearly, a key responsibility of a school committee is its advocacy for the school system that it oversees.

It is not really "our" blog, but a solo effort by member Jeff Dieffenbach, who defended it as a timely way to distribute information. Dieffenbach's voluminous postings relentlessly attack anybody who disagrees with his positions.

To the charge of relentless, guilty. "Attack," though, comes across as off the mark. The definition of attack at dictionary.com certainly doesn't describe the blog, which responds rather than initiates, and does so in a manner that the Boston Globe chose to describe as "dry." While there may be a time or two when I might more carefully have chosen a less provocative word, any reader of the blog will see that it is overwhelmingly respectful in the point of view that it presents.

Sometimes his comments are trivial (e.g., whether WVN should have identified a volunteer consultant as a parent or a resident).

Trivial, perhaps, but WVN appears to choose its language carefully in opposing school officials and their work. Rather than let these choices go unchecked, I elect to note them.

He can be harsh (he disparaged a selectman as "anti-school").

Nearly two years ago, I wrote the following about a Selectman's opposition to including High School Building Committee information in an appendix to the January 2005 Special Town Meeting warrant:

"From the start, Selectman O'Herlihy has been anti-school with respect to the high school modernization and expansion effort. He has opposed the project at every turn, constantly voting against it, frequently trying to raise obstacles, and never with the suggestion of a responsible alternative. To claim that the HSBC mailer "presents facts in an advocacy manner" is simply a smokescreen on his part. Yes, there are opinions sprinkled throughout the document, but all estimates are clearly denoted as such. The mailer and other HSBC documents were reviewed by Town Counsel to ensure that they met the letter and spirit of the law with respect to the appropriate spending of public funds."

Strongly worded? Perhaps. Could I have chosen milder language? Certainly. But note how WVN fails to present the limited context of my anti-school label.

He has criticized letters in the Town Crier, misrepresented opponents' positions and assailed arguments that were never made. WVN, if only because it has covered the schools more than any other news source, has borne the brunt of the attacks.

Again, what attacks? And as to misrepresentation, as always, I'll let the reader be the judge. I continue to contend that it's misrepresentations to which I'm responding.

On Oct. 11 he disputed Board of Assessors figures, quoted by WVN, on property assessment medians and averages. Those figures show that the tax on the median assessment rose 48 percent in that period and the average rose 47 percent. Dieffenbach asserted as fact, offering no evidence: "A homeowner who did not renovate during that period would have seen an increase over six years of just under 35 percent..."

As I did on October 11, I offered the evidence found in two locations: the Finance Committee's 4-13-2006 Town Crier Guest Column and a 4-19/2006 blog entry.

After the vote [to remove the blog from the WSC site], in an unusual move, Dieffenbach spoke during the public comment segment.

He called for an end to divisiveness in Wayland but denied that the School Committee had done anything to cause it. He attributed at least some of the blame to WVN and its schools reporter, Tom Sciacca. Though Sciacca is not "anti-school," Dieffenbach said, WVN has published "a string of insults." WVN should "be respectful of this committee," he added.

The full text on which my remarks were based is available here.

The attitude Dieffenbach brings to the blog is suggested in an April 11 email bearing his name that was sent to supporters of the 2006 tax override. "Our town is under attack," he wrote. "Let's not wait until the opposition has won the battle so that we have to win it back." Who does he imagine is attacking the town? Presumably the 45 percent of voters who opposed the override, including three former selectmen. Wayland voters might ask whether he was being respectful of them, whether he was being divisive.

WVN may presume all that wishes, but that does not make their wishing true. No, my "our town is under attack" remark was aimed at a group of no more than a dozen or so individuals in Wayland who use misrepresentation to make up for their lack of anything substantive to say. As I've said publicly, including at one or more of last year's school budget forums, I have complete respect for those who oppose overrides for reasons of affordability. And it's certainly possible to report on the work of town officials without disparaging them, as Molly Upton demonstrates in her contributions to WVN.

Removing the link to the blog distances the School Committee from material that can be criticized as excessively partisan and biased. But questions remain.

1. Though taxpayers can reach the School Committee website through links from the town's official website, WaylandSchoolCommittee.org is a private site owned by Dieffenbach.

The fact that my name is listed by WHOIS as registrar and administrator is irrelevant. Each year, I ask each School Committee member to pay their share of hosting the site. Make no mistake, waylandschoolcommittee.org is the School Committee's web site. Unlike, for instance, deepbrook.com, which is mine alone.

The School Committee acknowledges the site as therefore appropriate for advocacy, but readers may miss the distinction.

This assertion rings hollow. As I said earlier, one of the School Committee's responsibilities is to advocate for the Wayland Public Schools. In fact, in many ways, the WPS site itself (at www.wayland.k12.ma.us) also advocates for the Wayland Public Schools, as well it should. There are two primary reasons that the committee has a separate site: to allow the committee to advocate for overrides (which can't be done using public funds) and for easier posting access that does not compromise the security of the WPS site.

The town in effect privileges a private site that can become a source of, well, divisiveness.

If there's an example of divisiveness on the Wayland School Committee web site, I'm not aware of it (and that includes when the site included the blog). The committee would almost certainly remove such an example were one reasonably pointed out.

2. If the School Committee wants to avoid controversy over advocacy, why does the Committee site still link prominently to WaylandeNews, a private website that endorses positions and candidates and is controlled by political activists?

The Town Crier also endorses positions and candidates. The School Committee links to WaylandeNews because it's a phenomenal and open resource for the school community and the town as a whole. The School Committee used to link to WVN, but the moving of the blog took those links with it.

As for Dieffenbach's demand for greater respect, voters may recall Harry Truman's advice to public servants: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

WVN's position on respect is noted. That I am in my 12th year of public service says all that needs to be said about heat.

10/11/2006

Dieffenbach: WVN #186 chooses to revisit the April 2006 Override. The anti-override group RSVP was wrong then. WVN joins them in error now.

WVN: OVERRIDE OPPONENTS' NUMBERS VINDICATED

When an anti-override group said last spring that property taxes have risen 47 percent on average since 2000, the Finance Committee played a prominent role in trying to discredit the assertion.

The FinCom's chair and vice chair wrote a column for the Town Crier decrying what they called "inaccurate and misleading" figures from Responsible Spending Voters Project.

...

Bear with us for one last statistical point. The median and the average (or mean) are equally valid, though they can result in different snapshots of a collection of numbers. The FinCom believed the median would yield a lower figure.

Finally, in a Sept. 25 memo to the the selectmen the assessors reported their analysis: the six-year increase is virtually identical by median or average.

It turns out that RSVP was not misleading anybody by using state figures. For a house assessed at the fiscal 2006 median of $599,400, taxes increased about 48 percent since fiscal 2000. For a house assessed at the average of $693,259, the increase is about 47 percent.

In a 4-13-2006 Town Crier Guest Column, the Finance Committee Chair and Vice Chair expressed two objections with the faulty RSVP analysis, neither having to do with the percentage increase.

1. RSVP cited a $790 tax increase on the average home. While the median and average may be equally valid in that they are both mathematically correct, using the median better represents the impact (half of homeowners having a larger increase, half having a smaller increase) in a single number. The two metrics are not equally valid. By this reasoning, RSVP could have cited the maximum tax increase as equally valid.

2. RSVP's calculation of a $790 tax increase on the average home was in error; the actual increase on the average home was $652 (the increase on the median home was $535).

Elsewhere, the two Finance Committee writers and this blog pointed out a third error: the 47% (or 48%) increase itself. That increase included growth from new homes and renovations. A homeowner who did not renovate during the period would have seen an increase over six years of just under 35% (far less than 47/48%), or a bit more than 4% per year.

WVN concludes by equating RSVP's errors to an imagined (negative) politicking on the part of the Finance Committee.

RSVP's campaign materials were not entirely free of error. And the FinCom's arguments weren't always above politics. For example, Riley attacked RSVP for saying that town finances were out of control. Riley said that Wayland enjoys the highest Moody's bond rating. That is true but largely irrelevant. Moody's assesses the likelihood that a town will pay its debts; it doesn't judge how much money is spent or what it is spent on. RSVP wasn't suggesting that the town might default.

The two Finance Committee members raised far more than the Moody's bond rating as evidence that town finances are in fact not out of control. The entire guest column is available here --decide for yourself whether or not the Finance Committee's arguments "weren't above politics." In my opinion, they simply responded to erroneous information that RSVP was unwilling to correct despite repeated requests.

09/20/2006

Dieffenbach: The latest effort from the Wayland Voters Network continues its disrespect of the Wayland School Committee while making numerous errors: WVN #182

WVN: HIGH SCHOOL BAND-AIDS

Superintendent Gary Burton hired Dick Amster of Turner Construction, who had previously helped the High School Building Committee develop the high school rebuilding proposal rejected by voters last year, to examine the condition of the high school buildings and recommend short-term fixes. Amster is being paid $5,000 out of the $50,000 appropriated at the spring Town Meeting for these repairs.

School officials have now concluded that, as last year's project critics predicted, new state School Building Assistance regulations will not be available on schedule and that Wayland may not receive anything in the first year's funding allocations.

"Critics" were not alone in acknowledging that there were no guarantees with respect to time--school officials also made this point. The regulations delay pushes everyone back, and doesn't necessarily disadvantage Wayland.

LONG-RANGE PLANNING

Management consultant and Wayland parent Steve Goldstein is a principal in a firm specializing in helping corporations do strategic planning. After observing the School Committee's floundering attempts to do long range planning at their annual "off-site" meeting in June (held in the Public Safety Building), he volunteered to lead an effort to do some serious strategic planning for the Wayland school system.

It's not clear how it's relevant to describe Steve Goldstein as a parent as opposed to a resident. WVN has not in the past been in the practice of indicating viewpoints from non-parents. Describing the committee's June 2006 initial long range planning discussion as "floundering" is both insulting and incorrect. That meeting was intended to do nothing more than begin the conversation, an objective that it accomplished with the assistance of an agenda to which it stuck. The fact that a conversation under "brainstorming rules" covered multiple topics and allowed for digressions is far from "floundering."

Moreover, Mr. Goldstein had been involved in the committee's process prior to the June meeting. He helped develop the agenda in advance and was at the meeting at the invitation of the committee to assist it with its planning process. He did not, as WVN implies, "rescue" the committee.

Had WVN simply asked a few questions of the committee, it could have avoided this error. For some reason, however, WVN avoids talking with school officials or others directly involved.

He [Mr. Goldstein] made his first presentation at the Aug. 28 meeting. Asked for more "focus, clarity, and brevity", he came back the following week with a revised proposal which met with general approval from the committee.

Goldstein's initial proposal, couched in abstract business school terminology suitable for senior corporate executives, seemed to overwhelm the School Committee.

Mr. Goldstein's presentation crisply captured issues facing the district and presented them in plain language that, if anything, leaned towards educational terminology (see the next excerpt from the WVN). The committee was hardly "overwhelmed" by the presentation, but rather took time to absorb, ask questions about, and consider the information.

It remains a mystery why WVN persists with wording that is insulting and disrespectful. School officials around work extremely hard in successfully continuing Wayland�s tradition of educational excellence. They do so in the face of strong financial constraints, most of which are partially or fully beyond their control. They do so with integrity and respect. For those efforts, they and the town deserve far better than the treatment that they get from the WVN.

The executive summary read, in part, that many people were motivated to see a plan for the district that would "renew its direction, advance its educational and operational performance, and increase support for its goals and actions." It went on to say that "Desired outcomes from a strategic plan include the articulation of long term educational and financial needs, establishment of long term priorities and spending plans, actions to address major challenges and opportunities having long lasting effects on the schools and its stakeholders, and the delineation of and approaches to pursue meaningful educational, operational, and financial improvements." It continued, "Desired outcomes from a strategic planning process include the means to maintain continuity during periods of change, an ability to meet challenges and realize opportunities before they become urgent, and broad-based stakeholder engagement in and support for the Wayland Public Schools and its role in the community."

"Abstract business school terminology?"

Goldstein's second try, which met with a more positive reaction from the committee, had many fewer words and shorter sentences:

Again, WVN elects to go with the insult: "fewer words and shorter sentences."

As another issue, Goldstein proposed to address long-range curriculum goals in this process. Member Bob Gordon objected that curriculum issues should be left entirely to the administration. However, in at least one recent instance, the Committee overrode Burton's decision to reduce the science offerings at the high school, after objections during public comment.

WVN is wrong on several counts. First, Mr. Gordon did not suggest that there is no role for the committee in curriculum decisions. Second, the question at hand (the restoration of science offerings) was a budget decision, not a curriculum decision. And third, the decision was made following a request by High School Principal Charlie Ruopp regarding the importance of the positions. The fact that a resident echoed those sentiments during public comment is not the same as the implication in this case that the public comment initiated the decision.

Some elementary school parents have been critical of the long-standing deficiencies in the elementary science and math programs, which were only addressed this year with the addition of a new math/science coordinator.

WVN fails to understand that curriculum changes are not made overnight. Members of the committee have also been critical of the math curriculum. Several years ago, the administration kicked off a process to audit the math curriculum and recommend a direction forward. The hiring of the math/science coordinator this summer and the introduction of a new curriculum this fall represents the fruits of the several year process.

08/11/2006

[Edited 2006-10-03] Dieffenbach: WVN #178 comments on enrollment and its implications on staffing levels:

WVN: Increased enrollment at the kindergarten level will require the hiring of two additional kindergarten teachers next year. A half science teacher will also be added at the high school, as a result of public comment (by this observer) objecting to the administration's original plan to restrict access to science classes next year. Money will be moved from currently undefined areas elsewhere in the budget to cover these personnel additions.

While the observer in question is correct that he made a brief comment in support of science teaching at the high school, the decision to add the position was by no means "as a result of" those comments. Rather, the administration had been lobbying for the position for some time, and the committee agreed.

On another topic:

Director of Student Services (Special Education head) Doris Goldthwaite plans to retire in two years, joining an exodus of school administrators in recent years including the assistant superintendent, High School principal, Middle School principal, and some elementary school principals.

"Exodus" has a negative connotation without foundation. While there is clearly significant turnover occurring in a short span of time, that turnover coincides with administrators moving on to higher positions or retiring on their "natural" schedule.

07/09/2006

Dieffenbach: WVN #173 recaps the 2006 override vote from the perspective of what proponent and opponent organizations spent on their respective campaigns.

WVN: After outspending opponents nearly 4 to 1 to champion the recent property tax override, the Save Our Services group seems to be planning something like a permanent campaign.

WVN readers could not be faulted for inferring an ongoing SOS override campaign of some sort. In fact (and with no override on the horizon), a careful read of WVN #173 reveals something altogether different.

Since the election it has pressed for increased state aid to schools (along with many others in this and other towns).

SOS should be lauded for its efforts in this area.

Recent activities and required financial disclosures lend support to accusations of "class warfare," blur the lines between various activist groups and increase the likelihood of avoiding campaign expenditure disclosures. Further divisiveness in Wayland could be a likely result.

It's not clear who, if anyone, is making accusations of "class warfare," how they might be defining "class," or what evidence they cite to support these accusations.

"Divisiveness" merits consideration in its own right. On matters such as what level of services a town should provide, reasonable people may disagree. Does that disagreement in and of itself constitute divisiveness? Arguably, no. Does disagreement coupled with disrespect, disingenuity, or even outright dishonesty define divisiveness? Perhaps. WVN's unsupported charging of SOS with "avoiding campaign expenditure disclosures" is divisive, and wrong.

The largest contribution to RSVP was $270. ... SOS received eight donations of $1,000 each. ... Donors of more than $200 are required to disclose occupation and employer. RSVP donors in that category are listed as self-employed or retired.

Listed employers of SOS donors include ...

It is curious that WVN chooses to list 9 $200+ SOS donors by company or individual name, yet does not do the same for the $200+ donor(s) to RSVP.

After election day, some WVN readers wrote that the campaign represented "class warfare," employed scare tactics and lowered the level of local politics. (These weren't the only opinions, of course. At the other extreme, some readers said that those who are dissatisfied with the way Wayland is run should find another place to live.)

WVN elects not to mention any viewpoints in between. For instance, SOS ran a positive and informative campaign in support of the override. WVN fails to say how that campaign represented class warfare or employed scare tactics. SOS consistently made the point that the town would not be well-served by the cut in services that would have been necessary had Wayland voters not approved the override. No shred of evidence suggests that this position was anything other than the truth.

This blog routinely addresses the "level of local politics" in Wayland. Those unhappy with that level would do well to look elsewhere than at SOS or the many public officials who supported the override and town services.

As to what WVN readers are saying in general, it's hard for the interested person to know. Unlike the Wayland Town Crier and Wayland eNews, WVN has not provided an open forum in which the public can comment on the various opinions that WVN distributes. Having written WVN numerous times to correct errors while rarely seeing a response in print, it's easy to imagine that the readers who do continue to write may not represent a cross-section of the community.

[MetroWest Daily News reporter Katie] Liesener's article [Neighbor Wars] notes Wayland's rapidly changing demographics. Nearly one-third of Wayland residents arrived between 1995 and 2000, according to latest available figures.

Neighboring towns Weston and Sudbury have near-identical turnover. One-third in five years amounts to an annual turnover of roughly 6% (less if new homes are factored in). This equates to an average stay in Wayland of 16 years.

Potentially more significant than the SOS advantage in campaign spending [is] the prospect of remaining active rather than dissolving as the RSVP ballot question group did. ... On March 10 OCPF Director Michael J. Sullivan wrote to SOS Co-Chair Lisa Valone in response to her emailed questions. ... An issues group that doesn't solicit funds to promote or oppose a ballot question needn't form a ballot question committee, he said. But, he added, if it spends money from its general treasury on such a campaign the money must be reported.

"What happens if a ballot question committee and an issues group, Waylanders for Smart Growth ('Waylanders') want to produce and distribute a joint marketing piece," Sullivan was asked. He replied that Waylanders could pay up to half the cost without a disclosure to the town clerk. Below is an example that could be instructive.

Waylanders for Smart Growth may not sound familiar, and has virtually no public profile, but some may recall the name in a full-page ad in the Wayland Town Crier advocating the town center zoning that was approved at a May 3 special Town meeting. At the bottom was the note: "Sponsored by Waylanders for Smart Growth and OneWayland. Paid for by [name/address]." ... Newspapers generally don't print political ads without disclosing who paid for them. In this case all the public learned is who wrote the check.

The point of WVN's narrative is not at all clear. Their final statement, however, contradicts their own characterization of the ad in question. Town Crier readers learned not only who paid for the ad, but also who sponsored it: Waylanders for Smart Growth and OneWayland.

The recent financial disclosures indicate that SOS is already working with one group, WaylandeNews. SOS expenditures include three monthly payments for "eNews update fee." ... Though eNews claims to be even-handed, it evidently accepts money from one side of a political campaign.

A conversation with one of the Wayland eNews editors refutes this statement. SOS made no payments to Wayland eNews, which does not accept financial contributions. WVN may have mistaken SOS eNews for Wayland eNews--the two are unrelated.

Attention now focuses on avoiding yet another override next year. The state Legislature's impending decision on school aid is crucial. Recent indications are that municipalities will receive more than they did last year but still less than in 2002. In any case, it will be largely up to Wayland to solve its fiscal problems.

Forty-five percent of a large turnout cast a vote of no confidence in April when they opposed the tax override. Some of those voters said they don't oppose taxes but want the town to show that it can [set] priorities and exercise fiscal restraint. Do elected and appointed officials take that plurality seriously?

Elected and appointed officials take seriously the minority (not plurality) of voters who opposed the override. In countless public forums, officials from the Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee, and the School Committee made it quite clear that they would do everything possible to avoid an operaing override for at least the next two years.

Given how carefully town officials did in fact "set priorities and exercise fiscal restraint," it's curious that some "pro tax" but anti-override voters would cite those reasons for their "no" vote. More likely, those voters simply didn't agree with the priorities set and fiscal restraint exercised. It's one thing to disagree with town officials. It's quite another to suggest that those town officials were negligent in carrying out their responsibilities. Such a charge is, well, divisive.