Support Our Schools

School audit: speak now or hold your peace

Now is your chance to ask questions, share opinions
on scope of HWRSD operational audit

Joint Meeting
Boards of Selectmen, Hamilton and Wenham
THIS Tuesday, June 22, 7 p.m.
Wenham Town Hall

The operational audit process is moving very quickly.

This Tuesday, the joint boards of selectmen will meet to discuss the Request for Proposal for the $90,000, taxpayer-funded audit of our regional school district. This RFP lays out the scope of work for the project – that is, which aspects of the school district will be examined by an independent auditor.

To read a draft of the RFP, click here.

It appears this Tuesday will be the only time before the RFP is issued that citizens can ask questions, make suggestions or share their expertise.

It’s a busy time of year, but please come Tuesday night and offer your input before the RFP is formally issued.

Thanks

SOS Position on Operational Audit

In June of 2009, the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) presented its final report to a Joint Board of Selectman meeting.  That report found that the Hamilton Wenham Regional School district had above average cost compared to the cohort districts in the study.  The BRC found those above average cost were due to:

• A higher number of teachers and aides, resulting in a lower student/teacher ratio – and not the costs of administration, teacher benefits, facilities operation, maintenance or materials.
• The district’s spending on special education, as a percentage of total spending, is at the top of the peer group for the school year analyzed (2007).

Further evaluation of the numbers by a post BRC group and the DESE found similar results.  These results were to be expected given that the community has valued lower class sizes for many years and the school district placed a priority in maintaining lower class sizes. There are also a number of other factors contributing to the situation.

Given their findings the BRC recommend that the two towns and the school district should agree upon and proceed with an RFP for a detailed 3rd Party Review of Instructional Operations at HWRSD to clarify gaps between the district and cohorts. 

On March 8, 2010 a citizens’ petition was filed asking for an amendment to the HWRSD Regional Agreement to require an operational audit of the HWRSD.  We are aware that counsel for the HWRSD School Committee has advised that an audit can not be mandated through the Regional Agreement since the school committee holds the authority to determine spending and it cannot be required to pay for or implement any recommendations of the audit. 

We would urge the Hamilton Board of Selectman to work with the Wenham Board of Selectman, the Regional School Committee, the citizens’ petition supporters, and others supporting an audit to move forward on a third party audit of the district without seeking an amendment to the Regional Agreement.

SOS supports an audit of instructional services as recommended by the BRC in June 2009.   If there are other areas which can cost-effectively be included in the audit, and which are reasonable targets for evaluation, SOS will support an expanded scope.

The audit should be funded by the towns of Hamilton and Wenham and be under the direction of a joint committee of representatives of both towns and the Regional School Committee.  Once this audit is complete, it should be presented to the School Committee for consideration of whether any recommended changes can and should be implemented and whether any additional audits or studies should be undertaken.  The results of the audit should be made publicly available, so voters have an opportunity to understand the results and recommendations of the auditing firm and can seek to influence the School Committee’s decision-making.

With the planned departure of the HWRSD Superintendent at the end of this school year, now is an optimal time to identify areas of change that can benefit the budget and quality of education provided in our schools.

So what did the Blue Ribbon Committee find?

Last year, our towns appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee of citizens to review our schools. The BRC will present its findings and recommendations at a televised Joint Meeting of the Hamilton and Wenham Boards of Selectmen and the School Committee Wednesday, June 17th at 7 p.m. at Wenham Town Hall. Please join us—or watch the presentation on television—to learn about the Committee’s findings.

So what did the BRC find? Briefly, it found there are no more obvious opportunities for significant cost savings in our schools at this time. But it will recommend that the towns hire an educational expert to explore whether efficiencies can be identified in the delivery of instructional services — the only area in which we outspend our peer school districts. The committee also found that our towns’ current system of negotiating the school budget needs improvement.

Attend the meeting—or watch it on TV— to learn more.

Presentation to Town Boards on Wednesday, June 17, 7 P.M., Wenham Town Hall

Have you heard?

Boston Magazine’s School Issue is out which placed HWRHS in the top 25 percent of Boston area schools that “are performing well…while operating efficiently.” Click to view the full set of articles at Boston Magazine
Click to view chart at Boston Magazine Click to download the chart as a spreadsheet

Return here soon for a more in-depth comparison with other schools in our region.

New “Articles” Section

We have created a new section of the website called “Articles“. It will include a number of articles about schools/education as it relates to the Hamilton-Wenham School District. We’re starting off with three articles reprinted from the Boston Globe North edition published last week which deal with the cost of extracurricular fees in our region. There is a link at the top of the page, or you can click this link.

New Report Available

At the request of the Hamilton Board of Selectmen, the Department of Revenue’s Division of Local Services (DLS) has completed a financial management review of the Town of Hamilton. The 30 page report is available at http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dls/mdmstuf/Technical_Assistance/FinMgtRev/Hamilton.pdf (PDF, 166KB)

List Articles Here

This page has the following sub pages.

• The soaring price of suiting up
• Beyond sports, activity fees too
• For private institutions, costs pinch in tough economy
• Sports user fees at high schools north of Boston

On Nov. 4, Election Day, Massachusetts voters won’t just be choosing a new president. We’ll also be asked to decide whether we want to abolish our state income tax.

While the prospect of having extra cash during these tight times is appealing, budget experts tell us the effect of this enormous amount of lost revenue to the state would be felt immediately and significantly in our towns and in our classrooms, to say nothing of its impact on healthcare, roads and bridges, and public safety.

Many SOSers last week attended the education forum sponsored by Sen. Tarr and Rep. Hill, during which Mike Widmer, president of the independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Association, outlined the ways in which Question 1 would derail our towns. (Click here to read Widmer’s recent editorial in The Boston Globe, and click here to read a news article on Question 1 from this Sunday’s New York Times.)

Stand for Children, the statewide organization that advocates for school kids, is just one of many organizations that oppose Question 1. They’re asking us to do two things right now:

1. Click here to join with other school-minded voters in opposing Question 1 on November 4.
2. Ask our friends and neighbors to vote no as well. Please consider forwarding this email to families with children not yet in the school system, or from other towns in Massachusetts.

Thanks for paying attention to this important issue.

Tracy Mayor
Co-Chair, Lobbying Committee

Upping the ante

Table copied from Boston Globe North article published 8/24/08

Winthrop High School students (from left) Lauren Amaru, Sarah Ford, and Melissa MacNeil adjust stagelights. (MICHAEL DWYER FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE)

By Katheleen Conti
Globe Staff / August 24, 2008

A lot of fun - and power - comes with being part of the high school yearbook committee - the layout, the fonts, the candids, and overseeing memorabilia that will be treasured for a lifetime.

At Winthrop High School, about 30 students usually sign up for yearbook at the start of the school year, said Robin Kostegan, assistant principal and yearbook coordinator.

“When they realize how much work it is and how much it entails, it drops down to 10 or five,” Kostegan said.

This year’s participation rate might be even lower, as hard work is not the only price for working on the yearbook, or at any other afterschool activity. For the first time, Winthrop students will have to pay a fee to participate in nonathletic extracurricular activities.

“What’s going to happen?” Kostegan asked. “I may not have any kids.”

Winthrop is not alone.

A combination of expense increases and less state aid has forced area school district administratorsto impose fees.

For several districts, the trend started with athletics. Now, many charge for everything from drama club to parking.

In most districts, students who meet a low-income classification don’t have to pay a fee, or are eligible for a reduced fee. Administrators said that for the most part, waivers or discounts are available, on a case-by-case basis, to anyone who can prove a financial hardship.

Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, estimated that about 70 percent of the state’s school districts have some form of fee in place. The state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not regulate or track the fees. Parents are or will be paying fees, from sports and activities to parking and buses, and it’s only going to get worse, Koocher said.

“The impact of inflation is not keeping up with the state’s ability to provide revenue,” Koocher said. “Districts are also spending more money on focusing on complying with regulations set up by the state for reporting and testing and paper-filing of reports.”

Underlying concerns from school administrators and fee opponents alike is the creation of a system that could widen the gap between the haves and have-nots, and which may force parents to choose which siblings to fund, administrators said.

And then there is the most common question: Shouldn’t public school be free?

Winthrop is charging high school students a flat $100 fee for an unlimited amount of afterschool nonsports activities.

“We have parents now that are complaining about it: ‘Is there another alternative? I don’t understand why we have to pay for this,’ ” Kostegan said. “I live in the town and my daughter is coming to the high school and I’m going to have to pay. Do I like it? No, but I can’t fault the School Commitee. They had to do it.”

“I go back to the Constitution,” said Haverhill Superintendent Raleigh C. Buchanan. “Education should be free. Thankfully, no one has taken us to court for it. Most importantly, we’re excluding certain groups of kids who probably need the programs more than others.”

Haverhill students pay athletic fees and $25 annually for parking. In Amesbury and Georgetown, students pay a flat fee of $50 for activities.

In Hamilton-Wenham, students are charged the full cost of whatever activity they choose, ranging from $70 to $482, with no family cap.

In Marblehead, high school activity fees range from $90 to $180, and middle school fees range from $100 to $150.

“I enjoy my job, but it’s the most difficult time in my whole career in terms of providing programs for kids,” Buchanan said.

At 7.3 percent, Haverhill’s high school dropout rate is one of the highest in the state, Buchanan said.

Buchanan and his counterparts in other communities should be worried, said Ed Curtin, former Salem superintendent, and most recently an adjunct professor of education at Salem State College. As long as funding is cut and fees increase, “kids won’t participate. They’re going to drop out.”

Salem students pay $25 per activity, with no family cap. Salem’s current superintendent, William Cameron, said no one is happy to pay any fee, and he too blames the state’s funding formula for public schools and its “heavy reliance” on property taxes.

“What you’re seeing is that this is a symptom of the financial distress of public education,” Cameron said. “It’s not an encouragement to students to put fees into place.”

Wakefield High School assistant principal Dennis O’Leary said fees, “a necessary evil,” send a mixed message.

“We tell the kids to get involved in extracurriculars and get everything they can out of Wakefield High School, and on the other hand, you have to pay to do this,” O’Leary said.

“We hate charging the kids to participate. . . . We haven’t experienced a drop in participation, not yet at least.”

The effect of fees on students forced to pick one activity over another is far-reaching, said Ellen Holmes, secretary/treasurer of the association of school committees and School Committee member at the Ashburnham-Westminster Regional School District, which has experienced a full cycle of fees, from their introduction in 1999, to the highest in the nation in 2001, to passing an override that abolished them in 2004, and then reintroducing a partial fee this year due to the economy.

“It’s not just, ‘Oh, they missed a season of sports.’ That wasn’t it, and we learned it the hard way,” Holmes said.

“It had an impact on the classroom because it just got into every aspect of student life. The [high school] principal at the time, when he reported back on the impact, it had a lot to do basically with your sense of self.”

Winthrop High senior Sarah Ford, 17, is involved in the school’s Drama Society, and worries that her three younger siblings, at $100 a pop, may not get to participate in everything they want.

“I want them to try everything because when you’re well-rounded, it’s so much better for you,” Ford said. “It does shape who you are; it changes your whole lifestyle.”

Katheleen Conti can be reached at kconti@globe.com.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

By Kathy McCabe
Globe Staff / August 24, 2008

Private high schools north of Boston are getting a tough lesson in economics.

Costs for fuel and supplies are rising. Enrollments are steady, but more students are also applying for financial assistance to pay hefty tuition bills. St. Mary’s High School in Lynn - where the $6,900 tuition is the least expensive in the region - received a record $800,000 in requests for aid for this school year.

“That’s significantly higher than last year,” said Ray Bastarache, head of the 575-student school. “We do the best we can, but we can’t give what we don’t have.”

The Governor’s Academy in Byfield - whose $41,300 bill for tuition, room, and board is the costliest in the region - had only a 2 percent increase in financial aid requests. But the 370-student school is able to offer financial help to just 25 percent of the student body, admissions director Peter Bidstrup said.

“We’re not need-blind, and very few schools are,” he said. “For a school of our size, to meet the full financial needs of the students who apply we’d have to double or triple our financial [aid pool] and that’s just not feasible.”

The demand for financial help has forced independent and Catholic high schools across the region to sharpen their pencils to control costs.

Tuition increases have been limited, in part to help maintain enrollment in a shaky economy. Spending has been prioritized, prompting some schools to delay capital repairs or cut staff. They have also had to scramble for new scholarship dollars to meet soaring demand for tuition assistance.

Bishop Fenwick High School in Peabody gave out 35 percent more in financial aid for this school year than last year.

“We raised more funds specifically for financial aid,” said Bruce Gordon, finance director at the 610-student Catholic school. “We understand that some of our families can’t afford the tuition, but really do want to send their kids.”

At Waring School in Beverly, a small grade 6-12 school where tuition costs $23,337 this year, requests for financial aid are up 17 percent over last year, admissions director Dorothy Wang said.

“It’s very difficult now for families,” Wang said. “Many would love to send their children here, but then they think about the economy, and some really have to ponder and decide whether this is the route to go.”

St. John’s Preparatory School in Danvers and Malden Catholic High School - all-male, private Catholic schools run by the Xaverian Brothers - have strong enrollments. St. John’s had 1,200 applications for this year’s freshman class of 328 students, for example. Malden Catholic will have 676 students this year, an increase of about 20 students, many of them from Korea. Strong enrollment shows that private education can weather economic hardship, administrators said.

“When parents and families are making spending decisions, education isn’t seen as a luxury item,” said Ed Hardiman, principal at St. John’s. “It’s seen as a priority.”

Said Brother Thomas Puccio, interim headmaster at Malden Catholic, “I think people do recognize their son’s education is a great long-term investment.”

Neither school would disclose the amount of financial aid requests, or totals awarded. At St. John’s last year, the median package was $6,900, Hardiman said. “We try to make the Prep as accessible to as many families as possible,” he said. “We recognize we’re in an economic downturn.”

Malden Catholic awards financial aid to 61 percent of its students, Puccio said. The school, which will charge $9,850 for tuition this year, also tries to keep increases minimal. “We try to keep tuition down to below $10,000,” he said. “I guess it’s a little bit of a psychological thing. . . . Families today face many pressures.”

Pope John XXIII High School in Everett is aggressively pursuing new sources of financial aid. The 315-student school, which opened 40 years ago, does not have a large enough alumni base, said Kathleen Donovan, school president.

“Our graduates aren’t old enough yet to be in a position to help us,” said Donovan, a retired Arlington public schools superintendent. “They’re just putting their own children into colleges. It will take us a little while.”

St. Mary’s High School in Lynn - which opened a $20 million academic wing three years ago - is also targeting alumni donors. The school held a reception at last week’s Red Sox-Orioles game at Camden Yards in Baltimore for about 30 graduates living there. “We have very generous benefactors,” said Bastarache, a retired Lynn public schools administrator. “But we need to increase our donor base. . . . We want to provide as much [financial aid] to our neediest families as we can.” Toni Sloan, a single mother of three from Lynn, is paying her first tuition to St. Mary’s High School. Her daughter, Devaney, has transferred for sophomore year from Lynn English High School. “That school was too big and overwhelming for her,” said Sloan, 44. “I thought a smaller school would make her focus more on college.”

Sloan, who runs a home-based day-care, couldn’t afford the $6,900 tuition bill, plus books and fees. Her parents are helping pay tuition, she said. “Thank God for grandparents,” said Sloan, 44. “I couldn’t do it on my own. It’s scary for me to be doing this.”

Devaney, an honors student and cheerleader, is worth the investment, her mother said.

“It’s a pretty penny,” Sloan said. “But I believe it will be worth every cent.”

Kathy McCabe can be reached at kmccabe@globe.com.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

The Hamilton-Wenham High School football team works out. The school’s $969 student fee to play football is the highest in the region. (Jim Davis/Globe Staff)

By Rich Fahey
Globe Correspondent /August 24, 2008

Hamilton-Wenham football games will cost close to $100 a pop this fall.That’s not for seats on the 50-yard line, but what players who suit up for the Generals pay to play: a $969 user fee, the highest for football in communities north of Boston.

Sports isn’t funded as part of the school budget. A combination of athletic fees, private fund-raising, and gate receipts provides 100 percent of the money, and athletic director Don Doucette has become a master at stretching the dollars.

“You’re going to see a lot more of this in the future,” said Doucette. “I’ll be a featured speaker out there some day, telling people how to do this and what to avoid.”

The original fee to play football at Hamilton-Wenham was about $1,400, but that was reduced to $969 by fund-raising and projected gate receipts.

Of the 32 public high schools in the area, 23 have sports user fees. Most are hefty, with some parents on the hook for more than $1,500 a year.

While most school districts have waivers in place for those unable to pay, some districts have no cap on the cost to families with multiple athletes. At Pentucket Regional in West Newbury, which also draws students from Groveland and Merrimac, it is estimated that it will cost $850 to play hockey this winter, with other sports ranging from $200 and $400. A family with two or more athletes - especially two hockey players - could be hit with a tab for thousands of dollars.

Doucette said participation in some sports such as hockey, field hockey, and softball have taken the hardest hit at Hamilton-Wenham. The hockey programs have been “farmed out” - the boys play for Salem High while girls can play for the team at Masconomet Regional in Topsfield. Hamilton-Wenham also shares a gymnastics team with Manchester Essex Regional High School.

There have been other bumps and bruises under the new system.

“There were three programs last winter that struggled to fill out their rosters, and I don’t know what will happen with them this year,” said Doucette.

Private fund-raising has become vital to keeping many school sport programs afloat. Athletic fees at Gloucester High School skyrocketed 116 percent for the coming school year in what the School Committee said was part of a continuing effort to make the program self-supporting.

Under the guidelines set recently by the committee, the fees for most sports at Gloucester High - including baseball, basketball, football, golf, gymnastics, lacrosse, field hockey, softball, and tennis - would rise from $140 last year to $302 this year. Cross-country and track would go from $95 to $205, and ice hockey, last year the most expensive sport at $195 per season, would jump to $475.

The Gloucester Fishermen Athletic Association has stepped in with donations to keep the fees from skyrocketing further.

Richard Wilson, copresident of the fishermen’s association along with former School Committee chairman Jonathan Pope, has taken a can-do attitude when it comes to keeping the sports programs at Gloucester High as affordable as possible.

The association, founded in 2006, is a nonprofit dedicated to raising funds to support all athletic programs and facilities in the schools and the city. The group is in the middle of a membership drive aimed at enlisting 1,000 people at $50 each, with the goal of making a $50,000 donation to defray athletic fees for the upcoming school year.

“We can be the solution,” said Wilson. “We can make the program self-funding using entrepreneurial means.”

The association’s first Save Our Sports night generated $70,000, but the second only $30,000.

So the group has embarked on other ways to raise revenues, including selling signs at the high school playing venues, which will generate between $15,000 and $20,000 a year. It also is working in conjunction with the city to see if student-athletes can perform community service work to help pay off athletic fees.

“Our goal is to make sure that no student who wants to play a sport can’t play that sport because of the athletic fee,” said Wilson. “That’s the first goal.”

Private fund-raising is also helping lower costs in Winthrop, where a $1.55 million Proposition 2 1/2 override failed in June. High school athletes were facing a fee of $450 per sport, $200 more than last year.

A $50,000 gift from the Viking Pride Foundation will lower fees to $350 per sport, with a cap of $1,575 for families with two or more children who play multiple sports.

Al Petrilli, in making the contribution to the Winthrop School Committee, warned that Viking Pride can’t support the school athletic program on its own. “We cannot fix the problem,” he told school board members. “We continue to be a very large Band-Aid on a wound that continues to bleed.”

Vincent Crossman, another member of Viking Pride, said he knows fees are already affecting participation. “Students don’t want to pay big money to sit on the bench, he said. “And kids who are freshmen aren’t going to spend the money to try something new if they’re not sure they’re going to like it.”

Winthrop’s neighbors - Lynn, Everett, Revere, Chelsea, and Malden - have managed to keep athletic programs fee-free, for now.
Click to view table showing sports user fees at high schools north of Boston.

Rich Fahey can be reached at faheywrite@yahoo.com.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

The SOS committee recorded three informational videos. The link below each video takes you to Google Video where you can view it directly.

Part 1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8358892751808657626&hl=en

Part 2

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8517635635323486900&hl=en

Part 3

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8823769767680107623&hl=en

Table of Contents (Direct Links to Articles):

Overrides, Real Estate Values, and How Our Schools Compare

An Article by Tom Rogers, published in the Hamilton Wenham Chronicle 4/30/2009

Paying To Play

Articles from the Boston Globe North, published 8/24/2008

• Beyond sports, activity fees too
• For private institutions, costs pinch in tough economy\
• Sports user fees at high schools north of Boston
• The soaring price of suiting up

Question #1

(Includes list of articles about Question #1)

Quick View:

Overrides, Real Estate Values, and How Our Schools Compare

An Article by Tom Rogers, published in the Hamilton Wenham Chronicle 4/30/2009

This time of year we are deluged with all sorts of information as we approach town meetings. For those that can handle a little more, I’ve assembled some data from credible sources.

This article includes:

Real Estate Stats for Hamilton and Wenham

Boston Magazine’s March issue focused on the Best Places to Live 2009. They took a look at changes over time in median single-family home and condo prices for 155 cities, towns, and neighborhoods in and around Boston. Data was provided by the Warren Group. I’ve taken the data from their online spreadsheet (see http://tinyurl.com/ddtysn).

Hamilton continues to show more strength than most towns surveyed, while Wenham is in the middle of the pack. In summary: [Click for more]

How Our Schools Compare – from “The Best Public High Schools”

Boston Magazine’s September 2008 ranked 141 public high schools in eastern MA. I’ve taken their data (see http://tinyurl.com/697shq) and filtered it in a number of ways (see tabs at bottom) so you can see how HWRSD compares. View this spreadsheet at http://tinyurl.com/dhjmw4. [Click for more]

The Number of Teaching Positions Eliminated

I’ve been the unofficial keeper of the number of FTE’s (Full Time Equivalent positions) eliminated since the school budget came under fire in FY2002. You can view the spreadsheet at http://tinyurl.com/d4mley.

Layoff History:

The layoffs started with our FY2002 budget, where we laid off 7 positions; in 2003 we lost another 7.2 FTE’s..

Things started to heat up for FY2004 when it was announced that we would have to layoff 63 teaching positions. This was the year that we had two attempted overrides which failed; Hamilton voted no, while Wenham voted yes. Faced with prospect of significant layoffs, a grass roots campaign called Support Our Students (SOS) came together and raised $214,780. This allowed the district to hire back 4.40 teaching positions. [Click for more]

Paying To Play

Articles from the Boston Globe North, published 8/24/2008

The soaring price of suiting up

The Hamilton-Wenham High School football team works out. The school’s $969 student fee to play football is the highest in the region. (Jim Davis/Globe Staff)

By Rich Fahey
Globe Correspondent / August 24, 2008

Hamilton-Wenham football games will cost close to $100 a pop this fall.That’s not for seats on the 50-yard line, but what players who suit up for the Generals pay to play: a $969 user fee, the highest for football in communities north of Boston.

Sports isn’t funded as part of the school budget. A combination of athletic fees, private fund-raising, and gate receipts provides 100 percent of the money, and athletic director Don Doucette has become a master at stretching the dollars.

“You’re going to see a lot more of this in the future,” said Doucette. “I’ll be a featured speaker out there some day, telling people how to do this and what to avoid.”

The original fee to play football at Hamilton-Wenham was about $1,400, but that was reduced to $969 by fund-raising and projected gate receipts.

Of the 32 public high schools in the area, 23 have sports user fees. Most are hefty, with some parents on the hook for more than $1,500 a year.

Click to read the full article, and to leave a comment. See also - Upping the ante - Sports user fees at high schools north of Boston.

Rich Fahey can be reached at faheywrite@yahoo.com.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

For private institutions, costs pinch in tough economy

By Kathy McCabe
Globe Staff / August 24, 2008

Private high schools north of Boston are getting a tough lesson in economics.

Costs for fuel and supplies are rising. Enrollments are steady, but more students are also applying for financial assistance to pay hefty tuition bills. St. Mary’s High School in Lynn - where the $6,900 tuition is the least expensive in the region - received a record $800,000 in requests for aid for this school year.

“That’s significantly higher than last year,” said Ray Bastarache, head of the 575-student school. “We do the best we can, but we can’t give what we don’t have.”

The Governor’s Academy in Byfield - whose $41,300 bill for tuition, room, and board is the costliest in the region - had only a 2 percent increase in financial aid requests. But the 370-student school is able to offer financial help to just 25 percent of the student body, admissions director Peter Bidstrup said.

“We’re not need-blind, and very few schools are,” he said. “For a school of our size, to meet the full financial needs of the students who apply we’d have to double or triple our financial [aid pool] and that’s just not feasible.”

The demand for financial help has forced independent and Catholic high schools across the region to sharpen their pencils to control costs.

Click to read the full article, and to leave a comment

Kathy McCabe can be reached at kmccabe@globe.com.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Cash-strapped schools are passing on rising costs to students, in fees for everything from athletics to afterschool clubs to parking

Winthrop High School students (from left) Lauren Amaru, Sarah Ford, and Melissa MacNeil adjust stagelights. (MICHAEL DWYER FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE)

By Katheleen Conti
Globe Staff / August 24, 2008

A lot of fun - and power - comes with being part of the high school yearbook committee - the layout, the fonts, the candids, and overseeing memorabilia that will be treasured for a lifetime.

At Winthrop High School, about 30 students usually sign up for yearbook at the start of the school year, said Robin Kostegan, assistant principal and yearbook coordinator.

“When they realize how much work it is and how much it entails, it drops down to 10 or five,” Kostegan said.

This year’s participation rate might be even lower, as hard work is not the only price for working on the yearbook, or at any other afterschool activity. For the first time, Winthrop students will have to pay a fee to participate in nonathletic extracurricular activities.

“What’s going to happen?” Kostegan asked. “I may not have any kids.”

Winthrop is not alone.

A combination of expense increases and less state aid has forced area school district administratorsto impose fees.

For several districts, the trend started with athletics. Now, many charge for everything from drama club to parking. Click to read the full article, and to leave a comment

Katheleen Conti can be reached at kconti@globe.com.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Question #1

On Nov. 4, Election Day, Massachusetts voters won’t just be choosing a new president. We’ll also be asked to decide whether we want to abolish our state income tax.

While the prospect of having extra cash during these tight times is appealing, budget experts tell us the effect of this enormous amount of lost revenue to the state would be felt immediately and significantly in our towns and in our classrooms, to say nothing of its impact on healthcare, roads and bridges, and public safety. [Click to view whole article

This page has the following sub pages.

• Question #1
• Paying To Play

1. To Avoid Redistricting 45 Elementary School Students from Cutler and Winthrop.

If the override fails, 45 students will be redistricted from Cutler and Winthrop in grades 2-5.

2. To Keep Our Language Arts Support Programs in the Elementary Schools.

If the override fails, the language arts support programs in the elementary school will be virtually eliminated, putting our most vulnerable readers and struggling readers at risk.

3. To Keep the Team Structure at the Middle School.

If the override fails, the team structure at the Middle School will be completely eliminated, and our middle school students will be expected to function on a high-school like schedule.

4. To Enable the High School to Begin Addressing Accreditation Issues.

In 2007, the New England Association of Schools & Colleges reviewed our high school and identified eighteen items of concern. The NEASC letter is important for two reasons: (1) it is an objective, third party, assessment of our school quality; and (2) accreditation is a symbol to the world of the status of our school system. The High School is working with NEASC to prioritize the specific actions they expect us to take, and the FY 2009 budget incorporates the first level of required steps.

5. To Save Programs and Teachers At the High School.

If the override fails, the District will cut 47 academic sections and 9.2 teachers, including English, math, science, physical education and foreign language teachers. Most high school students will not be fully scheduled. They will spend more time in study halls rather than the classroom.

6. To Allow Our High School Senior’s to Maintain a Competitive Advantage when Applying to Colleges.
7. To Keep our Staff Cuts Below 100.

If the override fails, the District will cut 26.9 more full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions, for a grand total of 102 FTEs since 2002.

8. To Stop the Growth in Class Size.

Our class size already exceeds district policy, which is based on bench-marked best practices. If the override fails, class size will increase to as many as 25 students a class in the elementary school and to as many as 30 students a class in the middle school. At the high school, there will be as many as 40 students in some classes!

9. To Maintain our Property Values.

There is a strong correlation between a well-regarded school district and high property values. For many of us, we moved to Hamilton and Wenham for the schools, and our homes are our biggest asset.

10. For the Children
    

    For the over 2097 children who need you to provide them with a quality education.

What will we lose if the Override Fails?

On March 31 the School Committee voted the budget for FY’09. The $1,889,589 Override (Hamilton’s share is $1,288,322 and Wenham’s share is $601,267) simply preserves level services — meaning the services the Districted provided last year. With a few small and necessary exceptions, it does not rebuild any programs that we have lost during the past several years of budget cuts.

The effect of a failed override has serious consequences:

• 26.9 Full time equivalent (FTE) teaching positions will be cut, for a grand total of 103.9 FTEs since 2002. This has included secretaries, administrators, custodians, and nurses, although the majority have been teachers.
• Class size—which already exceeds our school district’s policy—will grow at every level. Class size will increase to as many as 25 students a class in the elementary school, 28-30 students a class in the middle school. At the high school, class size will increase by 6 to 8 students in most A1, Honors and AP classes. Some classes at the high school will approach 40 students.
• 45 elementary school students from Cutler and Winthrop will be redistricted:
  • 13 students in Grade 2 will move from Winthrop to Buker and Cutler
  • 9 students in Grade 3 will move from Cutler to Buker and Winthrop
  • 14 students in Grade 4 will move from Winthrop to Buker and Cutler
  • 9 students in Grade 5 will move from Cutler to Buker and Winthrop
• The Language Arts support program in the elementary school will be virtually eliminated, putting our youngest readers and struggling readers at risk.
• The Middle School team structure will be eliminated entirely. Why are Middle School Teams important? According to the National Middle School Association’s Report of the Task Force of Education of Young Adolescents, Middle School teams:
  • Increase learning as measured by test scores
  • Offer emotional guidance during turbulent adolescent years
  • Make students less likely to fail, academically and socially
• The High School will not be able to address the first level of NEASC citations, putting the high school at risk for further citations and a “warning” status in its accreditation process. 47 academic sections will be cut, and the majority of students will not be fully scheduled. English, math, science, PE, and foreign language teachers will be cut, a total of 9.2 teachers.

FY 09 Budget Information

FY 09 SC Approved Budget, March 31, 2008
FY 09 SC Approved Override, March 31, 2008
FY 09 Article 2 and Override Summary, March 31, 2008
FY 09 Elementary Redistricting Slide, March 31, 2008
FY 09 Approved Budget Summary Brief, March 31, 2008
SC Forum: January 24, 2008 - FY 09 Level Services Budget & Strategic Plan Recommendations

What will this override cost?

The override will cost less than a daily cup of coffee. The tax impact is the same in both towns this year.

In Hamilton and Wenham: The owner of a median priced home would pay $393 a year, which translates to $32.75 a month or $1.07 a day.

Coffee at Dunkin Donuts: A small regular coffee costs $1.50.

Download this as a Word Document

Why is it so difficult to live within 2 ½% annual budget increase?
How does the District respond to increasing costs?
Can’t we reopen the teacher contract to negotiate a lower cost of living?
Have there been any administrative staff reductions?
To what extent does School Choice impact the District’s budget?
Isn’t the risk of accreditation for our High School just hype?

Why is it so difficult to live within 2 1/2% annual budget increase?

As reflected in Table below the majority of District costs are increasing at rates well in excess of the 2 1/2% that is allowed under the levy limit. Notably, this is indicative of the fact that the bulk of the District’s expenses are not discretionary. State and federal mandates for special education, negotiated union contracts for most of the workforce and the inflationary impact of energy costs are all outside the direct control of the Leadership Team, Administration, and the School Committee.

How does the District respond to increasing costs?

In the area of special education the District has been and continues to develop in-district service delivery models for more of our SPED students and as a result is decreasing costs by sending fewer students out of district. In FY08 the implementation of a K-1 program for severely disabled students and a freshman alternative program saved the District $251,294. We anticipate similar savings from the Intensive Reading/Writing program that we will implement in FY09.

In relation to energy costs the District maintains the state’s minimum standards for heat controls, conducts regular HVAC maintenance, and implements the State’s energy savings initiatives. Additionally, the District shares services with the two towns for grounds and maintenance, technology and IT services, and also shares maintenance services with Wenham for two buses owned by the District. Lastly, the District participates in a collaborative purchase program for oil deliveries with the City of Gloucester and the Town of Topsfield.

Can’t we reopen the teacher contract to negotiate a lower cost of living?

The district bargained in good faith with its employees and as such our contract is a binding three year agreement that we spent substantial time negotiating. Notable as well is the fact that at an average of $55,954 our teacher salaries are below the statewide average of $58,231 and average when compared to peer districts.

When negotiating a contract the School Committee, as with all the costs of school services, analyzes the needs of our District within the context of our budget situation. One of those needs is the ability to recruit and maintain good teachers. One of the reasons HWRSD provides a high-quality education is the quality of its staff members. Education research confirms that the quality and preparation of the teaching staff is directly tied to educational outcomes.

Additionally, the District has a 60%-40% cost share for health insurance for teachers (as well as all employees) which is one of the lowest for school district and municipalities in the Commonwealth. Additionally, in the last three years, all collective bargaining units voluntarily increased their out-of-pocket co-payments and prescription costs and changed the health insurance carrier to save $240K in costs. Lastly, the District does not pay into the teacher retirement program; teachers contribute to this system which is supported by state revenue. The HWRSD does contribute to a retirement system for non-teaching staff.

Have there been any administrative staff reductions?

Yes there have. The three elementary principals along with elementary secretaries now have eleven month contracts down from twelve months. In addition, this year’s budget contains a .5 clerical reduction at the middle school level. Due to increasing mandated reporting requirements further staff reduction in this area could subject the district to additional citations which may jeopardize funding. Remember that administrative staff salaries are a small percentage of the overall budget compared to instructional salaries which account for almost half the budget. The District cannot significantly cut costs without cutting teachers. Decisions about which positions would be cut involves a balancing of the need to keep class sizes from growing too large with the need for the significant support provided to the students and to the classroom teacher by other staff members (including nurses, guidance counselors, teaching assistants). The services provided by all of our staff members are integral to the quality of the educational services we provide.

To what extent does School Choice impact the District’s budget?

The admission of school choice students has a positive effect on the budget because it represents a source of revenue ($581,566 for FY09) at a negligible marginal cost to the District. Direct costs attributable to choice students are instructional materials of approximately $190 annually per student.

The admission of choice students does not require the District to add classes or teachers and does not prevent it from making reductions that would be dictated by a declining student population at a given grade level; rather, choice students allow the District to use available capacity and receive additional revenue.

By law, each year the School Committee reviews and votes on school choice participation to ensure that it continues to make sense for the District. The SC must vote which grades will have choice and what number of students can be admitted. The district can not select specific students for the school choice applications to attend school in HW; it can only select the a number of students it can accommodate annually.

Isn’t the risk of accreditation for our High School just hype?

Maintaining NEASC (New England Association of Schools and Colleges) accreditation is required for the High School’s diplomas to be recognized by colleges and universities. One of NEASC’s overarching requirements is that the HWRSD have a consistent and reliable source of funding to support the school’s educational programs and services, and its facility. The fact that last May the towns passed an override which was $956,097 short of the amount needed to maintain level services for FY 2008 is indicative of non-compliance and has put the District under additional scrutiny. Should this year’s $1.889 million override not pass, with the resulting reductions to programs and staff NEASC could respond with a warning which precedes probationary status and ultimately loss of accreditation. Any of these developments will adversely affect our seniors who apply to colleges and universities. Currently there are 10 schools in the state that are on probation mostly due to funding issues.

Click to download this page (Word Document)

What is driving the 21% increase in Special Education (SPED) costs?

• The increase of $1,116,517 has three integral components: (1) positions and services added for individual education plans and Department of Education compliance ($387,022), (2) grade 4-5-6 intensive reading and writing program ($255,700), and (3) program and service increases for current special education students from FY 08 to FY 09 ($473,795).

 

• Special education teachers and teaching assistants are being added to achieve and/or maintain compliance ($387,022) and to develop cost-saving programs that are less expensive that out-of-district tuition and transportation ($255,700). If the intensive reading/writing program was not being implemented, the District anticipates a minimum of 5 additional out-of-district placements and related transportation costs totaling approximately $2,231,470 instead of $1,956,470. In addition two in-house programs implemented in FY 08 (primary intensive special needs and high school alternative program) will continue to grow and realize savings totaling approximately $650,599.

The number of students requiring special education services is increasing every year.

• FY 07 = 347 students; FY 08 = 353 students, FY 09 = 372 students (projected)
• The percentage of students requiring special education services in HW are:
  • FY 07 = 13.7%;
  • FY 08 = 15.6%
  • and projected for FY 09 is 16.9% - an increase of 1.3% over FY 08.

Out-of-district program tuition and transportation expenses are increasing.

• Out of district placements have increased as follows: FY 07 - 29 students; FY 08 - 32 students; and projected for FY 09 - 36 students.
• Costs are rising due to parent requests for out-of-district placements as well as parent unilateral placements which result in litigation and/or costly legal settlements
• In Massachusetts the cumulative increase for out-of-district transportation costs from 1995 -2005 was 106% versus 66.9% for regular transportation for the same years.

Why are there more and more students requiring SPED services?

• More children are surviving due to medical intervention
• The number of children diagnosed with autism has increased exponentially, with a national average of 1:150. The number of Hamilton-Wenham students with autism is triple the national average at the elementary level, and double at the middle school level. Students with autism frequently require extensive services in communication, social pragmatics, motor skill development, and behavioral therapies.
• The number of children with moderate to severe disabilities in early intervention programs and preschool in MA increased by 197% from 1992-2006
• The number of children in early intervention for Hamilton-Wenham has tripled since 2001.
• In an effort to address this need, the District has implemented a specialized program for preschool and kindergarten children with intensive needs. A total of eight children will receive services in the program as of September 2008. While this program is responsible for increased costs, these students’ programs would cost at least $293,000 more in 08-09 if the same students were been placed out of district.
• The Department of Education audits special education and civil rights compliance through a Coordinated Program Review every 6 years. The results of our review were released in August 2007 and required the District to reach compliance in 24 program areas within one calendar year. This represents $387,022 in increased staffing to address compliance in several of those areas.

Are our SPED administrative costs too high?

• The district employs one special education administrator and a part-time (2 days per week) out-of-district and preschool coordinator which is typical for a school district of our size.

Are students being classified as special needs excessively and/or unnecessarily?

• The District follows a very specific and regulated process for determining eligibility and only those who meet the requirements are provided services. HW’s SPED placements are comparable to other school districts in our area (see chart below).

How do our SPED and out of district placements compare to other districts?

Prepared 4/10/08

Support our Schools (SOS) is a registered political action committee (PAC).  Donations are tracked and reported in accordance to the governing regulations.

All members and officers of SOS are community volunteers and receive no compensation for their activities.  All funds raised are used to further the purpose of SOS.

Funds are used to: develop and produce mailings;  postage; to support this web site; to pay for e-mail blasts; and to meet other operational expenditures.

Donations are needed and are greatly appreciated.  There is no tax deduction for donations made to SOS as we are not a non profit, but rather a political action committee.

Please send donations to:

Support Our Schools Override Committee
PO Box 2445
Hamilton, MA 01982
Treasurer: Martha Driscoll

(If you have questions, please send an e-mail to info@hwsos.org)

Dear Friends~

Many of you have asked for answers to the tough questions you and your neighbors pose on public school funding and spending. Over the next few weeks, we will be addressing a variety of misconceptions (“myths”) related to the financing and costs of our public schools. We hope you find this helpful and will share this information with others.

Myths:

1. If the School District really tried, they could get more money from the State.
2. Our towns have passed overrides for the past 7 years. The School District must be doing something wrong if the schools don’t have enough money.
3. Our towns are not controlling costs as well as other districts.
4. Our teachers’ salaries are too high.
5. Our special education costs are too high.
6. Our administrative costs are too high.
7. Our school district spends more per pupil than other districts.
8. Our schools are run like private schools.
9. Our taxes are already too high in Massachusetts.
10. The funding issues in our schools only affect families with children in our schools.

Reality:
While we need more money and are working hard to get it, the State is not going to send more money to Hamilton Wenham without major changes in policy and those changes are not likely to happen anytime soon. In response to financial pressures beginning in 2002, Massachusetts dramatically cut funding to public education. By FY 2004, Massachusetts ranked 41st (among the 10 lowest in the country) in terms of the share of public education revenue provided by the state. Because there is insufficient state money to go around, the state currently caps its contributions to “wealthy” towns (determined based on property values and income), such as Hamilton and Wenham, at 17.5% of a model budget. Actual spending is higher than the model budget, so under current state policy, Hamilton and Wenham have to pay more than 85% of actual school costs.Source: Massachusetts, Budget and Policy Center, Facts at A Glance—Funding Public School Education in Massachusetts, April 2006.

Return to top

Myth #2:
Our towns have passed overrides for the past 7 years. The School District must be doing something wrong if the schools don’t have enough money. (Published 3/13/08)

Reality:
Our towns are caught in a state-wide cycle where the gap between the cost of simply maintaining services in public schools and the money available to fund schools is growing. Several factors are driving that gap. First, our fixed expenses, such as utilities, pensions, taxes and insurance, are increasing at a faster rate than available school funding. (Utilities expenses alone are expected to increase 13.7% in 2009.) Other costs, including costs for special education and teachers’ salaries, are also increasing. (As we’ll explain in later myth busters, both these costs are in line with state averages.) At the same time, the state’s contribution to our budget has decreased dramatically in the past five years - leaving our towns to fund this increasing gap on their own.

Source: Massachusetts Department of Education, Preliminary Report on Current Fiscal Conditions in Massachusetts School Districts, January 2008.

Return to top

Myth #3:
Our towns are not controlling costs as well as other districts. (Published 3/17/08)

Reality:
Our regional school district is experiencing the same fiscal pressures as other suburban school districts. In the 1980s, school budget cuts disproportionately affected poorer urban districts. However, “today’s fiscal pressures appear to affect a much broader range of districts, including many middle-class communities that have traditionally taken great pride in the quality of their school systems.” - Massachusetts Department of Education’s Preliminary Report on Current Fiscal Conditions in Massachusetts School Districts, January 2008. The district has taken many measures in response to these fiscal pressures, including planning a Grade 4, 5 and 6 intensive reading program to keep special needs students in the district in future years. The district has been forced to make deep reductions to personnel and programs for five consecutive years — cutting 20 staff members last year alone and over 75 full time equivalent positions since 2002. We now need to make up for years of chronic under-funding.

Return to top

Myth #4:
Our teachers’ salaries are too high. (Published 3/20/08)

Reality: Actual teacher salaries in our school district are in line with state averages. In 2007 the average teacher salary in the HWRSD was $55,954, less than the statewide average of $58,231. - MA Department of Education. In fact, average teacher salaries have grown more slowly than inflation and teacher salaries are shrinking as a share of total school spending. - January 2008, Massachusetts Department of Education’s Preliminary Report on Current Fiscal Conditions in Massachusetts School Districts.

Return to top

Myth #5:
Our special education costs are too high. (Published 3/24/08)

Reality: Our school district has the same percentage of special education students as the rest of the state—16.9%. However, the chronic under-funding of our schools has left our towns without the resources to develop some necessary in-district programs for our special needs students. Therefore, while most of our special needs students are educated within our district, we have been forced to send some special needs students out of the district. In 2007, our per-student payments for these outplacements were $43,731, in comparison to $19,451 average statewide. -MA Department of Education. To save on special education costs in the future, the district is planning a Grade 4, 5 and 6 intensive reading program to keep special needs students in the district in future years. We need a school budget that allows us to develop important in-district special needs programs, such as this program.

Return to top

Myth #6: Our administrative costs are too high.

Reality:Our administrative costs per pupil are in line with state averages, a commendable accomplishment given the small size of our district and the lack of economies of scale. In FY 2007, we spent $424 per pupil per year, compared to a state per-pupil average of $405. - MA Department of Education.

Return to top

Myth #7:
Our school district spends more per pupil than other districts.

Reality:Our school district spending per pupil is in line with the statewide average. In 2006, we were slightly below state average spending per pupil ($10,921 vs. $11,219 statewide). In 2007, we were slightly above state average ($12,100 vs. $11,819 statewide). In a small district, year-to-year changes in student demographics have a big impact on spending—especially in the area of special education. - MA Department of Education.

Return to top

Myth #8:
Our schools are run like private schools.

Reality: Our schools are not run like private schools. Average spending for private school day students is $17,225 and private schools achieve a median ration of 1 teacher for every 8.5 students. - National Association of Independent Schools, Member Schools Facts at a Glance. In fact, at private schools on the North Shore, fees average $25,342 (view private high school costs in our area). By contrast, our district spends $12,100 per student - Massachusetts Department of Education. And unlike private schools, our classrooms are often overcrowded. For example, we already have an average of 29 children in the most populated classes at the high school.

Return to top

Myth #9:
Our taxes are already too high in Massachusetts.

Reality: The Massachusetts tax burden is actually below the national average. Massachusetts state and local taxes average approximately 10.6% of income, below the national average of 11.0% and ranking Massachusetts only 28th nationally. - The Tax Foundation, 2001 L Street, N.W., Suite 1050, Washington, D.C. 20036 (2007). State taxes in Massachusetts, as a share of personal income, fell considerably from 1998 to 2002 and are proportionally lower than they were 20 years ago. - January 2007 report on Property Taxes in Massachusetts by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.

Return to top

Myth #10:
The funding issues in our schools only affect families with children in our schools.

Reality: Underfunding of our schools affects everyone. As developing countries invest in public education, the United State’s ability to compete in a global economy requires that we maintain educational excellence. Public education is also the key factor that has promoted social and economic mobility throughout our history—all children must have access to quality education if we are to remain an open society. Finally, our real estate values depend on a quality public school system. - National Association of Realtors President, Al Mansell, in Public Schools - a Toolkit for Realtors, National Association of Realtors, 2005. David M. Brasington, “Which Measure of School Quality Does the Housing Market Value?” Tulane University, Journal of Real Estate Research, 1999 Sandra E. Black, “Do Better Schools Matter? Parental Valuation of Elementary Education.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1997.

Return to top

The Support Our Schools committee consists of about 35 volunteers engaged in the task of trying to increase funding to our school district.

It is important to understand that we are pursuing a broad range of possible solutions to the severe budget challenges that our school district faces. It does not necessarily mean that every member of the SOS committee personally endorses every idea or solution that is being presented. We are a diverse and complex group of concerned citizens united by our desire to continue the tradition of a strong public school system for Hamilton and Wenham.

We welcome new volunteers to join our efforts, so feel free to contact any one of the committee chairs in the area that you are interested in lending your time or talents.

View the Subcommittee page where you will find a description of the various subcommittees that have been organized and the name and contact information of the chair of each committee.

If you would like to volunteer, please contact the subcommittee chair, or send an email to the Tri-Chairpersons at info@hwsos.org.

Subcommittee - Chairperson

Additional Source of Revenue - Nancy Peterson

The Additional Revenue Sources subcommittee’s primary objectives are to identify additional sources of revenue to support the educational programs and operations of the Hamilton-Wenham Regional School District, and to pursue those with greatest potential impact through the necessary community, legal, political, and related processes from concept to implementation.
Email this subcommittee - revenue@hwsos.org

Attend Meetings - Kristen Fusco

This committee is for people interested in attending various town meetings (selectmen, finance, and school committees) which have an impact on the school budget process, both to report activities to the larger group and to speak up when appropriate in support of school funding.
Email this subcommittee - meetings@hwsos.org

Community Outreach - Laura Stock

This group is working to more effectively communicate the budget issues faced by the schools to all citizens who are involved with or have an interest in maintaining the high quality of our schools. Outreach will be responsible for publicity through local newspapers and other media and in particular will work to reach out to families with young children who are new to the school system.
Email this subcommittee - outreach@hwsos.org

Mass Mailings - Amy Landon

The purpose of this committee is to maintain an overall community database to inform citizens of SOS related news and events. We welcome volunteers to help with mass mailings throughout the year.
Email this subcommittee - mailings@hwsos.org

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary - Jeff Hubbard and Whitney Shepard

This committee’s goal is to work cooperatively with Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and the Board of Selectmen to find a financial solution to the burden that Hamilton and Wenham taxpayers bear for the 43 Seminary children that currently attend the schools without funding. The committee is also working toward a long-term plan to address the Seminary’s obligation to the school district going forward.
Email this subcommittee - gcts@hwsos.org

Lobby State Government - Tracy Mayor and Charlotte Lidrbauch

The goal of the lobbying subcommittee is to join with other cities and towns to more effectively lobby the state government for more and more-equitable funding.
Email this subcommittee - lobbying@hwsos.org

Grant Writing - Nancy Hughes

Research and apply for grants as a potential, additional source of revenue.
Email this subcommittee - grants@hwsos.org

Website and Email Fulfillment - Tom Rogers

Manage our website which is a WordPress blog. Manage mass emails sent to our extensive mailing list.
Email this subcommittee - webmaster@hwsos.org

This page has the following sub pages.

• Subcommittee List - All Members (password protected)

Comments from donors that supported our schools via the SOS fund raising campaign for the 2007/2008 school year.

Please Note: You will have to register with the site to leave a comment. It should only take a couple of minutes. Once you have registered, a comment box will appear on this page. Type in your comment and click the submit button. The comment needs to be approved before it appears.

Chairpersons:

Amy Landon
Nancy Peterson

They may be contacted by sending an e-mail to info@hwsos.org

Subcommittee email addresses:

Additional Source of Revenue – revenue@hwsos.org
Attend Meetings – meetings@hwsos.org
Community Outreach – outreach@hwsos.org
Mailings/Database – mailings@hwsos.org
Fundraising – fundraising@hwsos.org
Gordon Conwell – gcts@hwsos.org
Lobby State Government – lobbying@hwsos.org
Override Drive – override@hwsos.org
Website and Email Fulfillment – webmaster@hwsos.org

Please mail your checks and correspondence to:

Support Our Schools
P.O. Box 2445
Hamilton, Massachusetts, 01982

General Email address:

info@hwsos.org

Website and Email Issues:

If you see any problems with the website or emails please contact the webmaster at webmaster@hwsos.org

Thanks for dropping by. We are in the process of updating the FAQ page, please return soon!

Do you have something that shows how many teaching positions have been eliminated?

Do you have something that shows how many teaching positions have been eliminated?

Yes, there is a spreadsheet that shows what the School District has lost from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2008 (the 2007/2008 school year that we just passed an override for). View Excel Spreadsheet showing FTE’s Eliminated FY 2002 through FY2008

This is a list of donors who helped bridge the funding gap in our FY08 budget (2007-2008 school year)

Thursday 7/12/07 - We would like to thank our generous community for the huge outpouring of support. A total of $246,393 in cash was donated from 367 families and 6 companies. Employer matching gifts should bring in an additional $19,095. If all is collected we will have raised $265,488!

The June 15th mail brought in a huge number of checks including a very significant donation that enabled priority three to be fulfilled, an 8th grade social studies teacher. In addition, we were able to collect funds to reinstate the 4th and 5th grade teaching teams, preventing the redistricting of elementary school students and maintaining class size. With the remaining $31,488, the money will be split between high school technology purchases and instructional supplies for the three elementary schools.

It’s not too late to check with your HR department to see about doubling your donation with a matching gift!

The list below represents about 60% of the donors! We would love to list all donors here, but require your permission. Donors, please send us an email with permission to publish your name(s) - info@hwsos.org.

Donors:

• Kim Aalfs and Chris Needham
• T.C. and S.S. Ackerman
• John and Mary Adamik
• Dana and Mark Allara
• Michael and Daniel Allara
• Joseph and Bethany Allen
• Mark Anderson and Laura Mok
• Thomas and June Anthony
• Ernest and Linda Ashley
• David and Maryanne Askwyth
• Steven Balk and Dierdre McManus
• Matthew and Michelle Bailey
• Nicholas and Michelle Baras
• Mark and Jeanette Beauregard
• Jackie and Bill Belezos
• Grace Belfiore and Tony Grimshaw
• Jack, Susan, Jennifer, and Nicole Benner
• Katherine and Steven Bergholtz
• Beverly National Bank
• Scott and Polly Beyer
• Jeffrey and Corinne Bird
• Kimberly and Eric Blatz
• Bill Bowler
• Martha Brennan and William Hines
• Marie Buckley and Charles Goodrich
• Daniel and Lisa Bukkhegyi
• Bob and Carol Bullivant
• Richard and Karen Bursaw
• David and Elaine Carey
• Michael and Lisa Carey
• Carol and Tom Catalano
• Jennifer and Chad Caufield
• Rebecca and Ronald Chane
• Suzanne and Daniel Chansky
• Bill and Kim Charette
• Joe and Julia Cavanaugh
• Betsy and Bill Chapman
• Grace and Greg Chmura
• Mitchell and Heidi Clark-Goldfeld
• Julie and Peter Clay
• Barbara Clayton and Geo. Shinopoulos
• Jane and David Clough
• Benjamin and Elizabeth Collins
• Lisa and John Colucci
• Jennifer and Jay Cornforth
• Brad and Jodi Counihan
• Martin and Abigail Croyle
• Nancy and David Daschund
• Sam and Cappy Daume
• Debra Dellacona and John Vogus
• Ian Dent and Lisa Boudreau
• Leslie and Ray Desroches
• John and Julie Dickey
• Stephen and Lauren Dimarco
• Stephen DiNapoli
• Mark and Diane Dixon
• Pamela and Thomas Donellan
• Nan and John Driscoll
• Paul Driscoll and Nancy Peterson
• Paul and Sasha Durand
• Linda Duryea and Russell O’Brien
• Sandra Duryea
• Mr. William Duryea
• Charles and MaryBeth Dyer
• Anne and Christian Ecker
• Steven and Robin Ellis
• Andrew Erickson
• Amanda Erickson
• Janet Erickson
• Mr & Mrs Alan Evans
• Daphne Kelleigh Faldi
• Gerard and Lynnette Fallon
• David and Jennifer Flynn
• Tom and Heather Ford
• Cyntyhia and Curt Fougere
• Paul and Ann Foye
• Jenny and Bill Frain
• Charles and Jemma Freeman
• Sandra Frye
• Matthew and Kristen Fusco
• John and Shari Gallant
• The Gaquin Family
• Ganister Fields Architects
• Ronald and Laura Gauthier
• Sarah and Chris Gaylord
• William and Meredith Gisness
• Graeme and Ilse Lister
• Henry and Elizabeth Loomis
• Cheryl and Alex Glovsky
• The Goodwin Family
• Peter and Donna Gourdeau
• Robert and Linda Greenwald
• William and Susan Gribbell
• Bob and Barb Grinnell
• Royce and Graco Gruenler
• Paul and Rebecca Gyra
• Emma Hale
• John and Madaline Hale
• Milton and Annette Hamilton
• John and Alison Hawke
• Dan Heffernan and Family
• Greg Heppner and Kathy Duggan
• Lisa Highland and John Gorga
• Charles Hoffman
• Seth and Janice Holden
• Dan and Michelle Horgan
• David and Celia Horn
• Bruce and Beth Howell
• Jeff and Julie Hubbard
• Nancy and Scott Hughes
• David and Dianne Johnson
• Lori and Jay Johnson
• Carole and Happy Keating
• Donald and Tracy Keith
• Katherine and James Knudsen
• Candace and Roger Kuebel
• Jeff and Janet Landis
• Sean and Amy Landon
• Gerald and Catherine Lanois
• Elizabeth and Fredric Lebel
• Charlotte and Jim Lidrbauch
• Peter and Barbara Locke
• Luanne Lyons
• Wallace and Susan MacGregor
• John and Maire MacLean
• Anne and Stephanie MacLeod
• The Maddern Family
• Jane Magro-Hattabaugh
• Lanie and Richard Makin
• Cheryl and Gary Manter
• Daniel and Katherine Marks
• Dr. Miguel & Kristina Martinez
• Peter and Wendy Mason
• Heather Matheson
• Anne and Andrew Mauck
• E.F. and D.E. McCarthy
• Sean and Ariana McDonough
• Pete and Bob McKenzie
• Elizabeth, Brizuela and Leonardo McLeod
• Frances and Lisa McNamara
• Gregory and Margaret Meahl
• Jeffrey Melick
• Stacey and Scott Metternick
• Christopher and Kate Mills
• Jean-Pierre and Ann Minois
• Stephanie and Matthew Moffat
• David & Lori Morency
• Jere and Joelle Moroney
• Rich and Sue Mulley
• Phil and Mary Ellen Murphy
• Robert and Debra Murray
• Julie Nagazina and Richard Einhorn
• David and Lynne Naman
• Mark and Susan Namaroff
• Anthony and Carolyn Nickas
• Carey and Eric Nielson
• Dudley and Sasha Nostrand
• Kendra and Clark Obrist
• Sage and John Oram
• George & Katie Parker
• Michael and Michelle Parler
• Martha and Tony Passaretti
• Jeffrey and Sharon Pcaione
• Bill and Michelle Peach
• Virginia and Jeffrey Perkins
• Kate and Paul Perrotta
• Jana Plesums
• Jeff and Jo-Ann Pomilla
• Gregory Pottle
• Reggie Prioli
• Michael and Lauren Prior
• Susan and Rich Quateman
• David and Trudy Reid
• Moira and Felix Riccio
• Jon and Linda Rich
• Kate and Ted Richard
• Anne and Scott Roberts
• Tim and Lisa Robinson
• Chuck and Elaine Rogal
• Terence and Joyce Rodgers
• Tom Rogers and Pam Wells
• Jim and Kathy Ruane
• Jeffrey and Dacia Rubel
• Leonard and Julia Rubin
• Peggy Russell
• Heather and Joseph Ryan
• Jana Plesums and Dennis Ryan
• David Santomenna and Ana Crespo
• Jennifer and Jeff Scuteri
• Whitney and Peter Shepard
• Denise and Daniel Sklar
• Ian and Shona Smith
• Nancy and Timothy Stehfest, In Memory of John Pike
• Luo Sun and Zhiping Yang
• Brette and Kirk Swanson
• Michael and Patricia Symes
• George and Karen Tanch
• Marybeth & Daniel Tobin
• Susan Tomases and Paul Erhard
• Mark and Cindy Townsend
• Laurie and John Truschel
• Kristine and Joseph Trustey
• Esther and Rex Vanier
• Sarah and Blair Villa
• Aaron and Teresa von Staats
• Helen and Stanley Ward
• John and Cheryl Walsh
• Francine and Tory Weigand
• Joel and Maureen Whitman
• Amy and Harry Wieman
• Jeff and Susan Wilfahrt
• Geoffrey and Chenda Wilson
• Jen and Chris Woodin
• Cynthia and Michael Woods
• Willa and Rennie Worsfold
• Lara and Kent Wosepka
• Eileen and Mark Young
• Aihua Zhang and Jian Yu
• Michael and Lorna Zizza