Claire Sokoloff, Jonathan Yeo and Geoff Epstein — an interesting and controversial trio, to say the least — were scheduled to say farewell to the Newton School Committee this evening. What do you think their legacy is?
Thanks Claire Sokoloff, Jonathan Yeo and Geoff Epstein
by Greg Reibman | Dec 9, 2013 | School Committee | 26 comments
J. Yeo has a legacy of big time spending. Not such a bad thing if there is plenty of funds to spend. Newton is flush with debt and on a current spending course to spend at a continued high rate. Many families are selling here and moving to places where they can better afford to live.Homes are selling quickly and wealthier residents are moving into Newton as eastern Ma. shows good economic growth.
For the moment debt appears manageable. As interest rates increase in the future and health care costs soar we will all hold our breath in the hope the economy doesn’t falter too soon.
The camaraderie between Epstein and Yeo (and yes I’m being sarcastic) can been seen in this video (a feast for body language experts) at about the 69-70 minute mark from the Nov. 25 meeting.
I am sorry to see G. Epstein leave so soon. His legacy is the value he placed on the STEM program. Rarely has anyone worked so hard and upstream to bring attention to the need for more good science and math programs. Surely someone new will carry the torch he must relinquish.
Geoff was a person that was not selected by A. Larner and S. Heyman to fulfill their agenda. That was most refreshing. Geoff brought a very different, objective view to the old warn out status quo pushed by Ann and Susie.
Hopefully, for the sake of many young people in Newton that this new group on the S.C. will rethink how our children learn and reshape the direction of NP schools.
Greg, glad I wasn’t on camera at that moment in the audience, or you would have seen my jaw drop.
I think Epstein would have fallen off of his chair if he moved any further away from Yeo. Meanwhile, poor Angela Pitter. Hard to tell if it was cold in the room or she was just shivering from the overall frostiness between her two colleagues.
Greg – Can you find the Video where Claire Sokoloff tells Geoff that he cant ask any more questions – You wont have to search too hard – it happened at every meeting – even last night. Hopefully Matt Hill will allow questions even from those he disagrees with.
@Joanne: You don’t need me, as far as I know videos are all online. Feel free to post a link and a time stamp. I will ebed the video after you link to it.
That might be the 2nd most uncomfortable moment in recent Massachusetts School Comm Meeting history. The first being the town of Abington where the school committee chairman started a meeting, as usual, with one of his magic tricks. His most notable, and last performance was pulling a bra from the sweater of another SC member (female gendered, of course)
Claire’s legacy is the hiring of David Fleishman. She drove the search and hire process and she was intent on finding someone creative who could lead the schools to a better place without asking for huge budget increases every year. I’m not going to get into my own evaluation of Fleishman but I am going to give Claire the credit — or the responsibility, however you want to look at it — for bringing Fleishman here.
I have to agree with Colleen’s evaluation of Claire and Jonathan’s record of pushing for more burdensome taxes and more spending.
FY 2006 Newton Public Schools spent $134.8M
FY 2014 Newton Public Schools spent $187.7M
Colleen, why did annual Newton school spending increase by 39% ($52.9M) during the Claire and Jonathan era yet enrollment growth increased by less than 9% during this period?
At last night’s meeting I was pleased to see the superintendent offer a heartfelt thanks to Geoff Epstein for the questions he has asked him and the staff over the years. Another administrator approached Geoff after the meeting and said his questioning had made everyone do a better job.
I believe Geoff has carried out the role that voters expect of their elected officials – not to be satisfied with the status quo, but to always be prodding our government, and our governance, to improve.
I watched last night’s SC meeting. J. Yeo and Geoff made peace with each other. Most appropriate as both say goodbye.
I actually like to see some conflict and debate of issues and hope to see more in the future. Otherwise how do we see any changes made if problems aren’t identified and fleshed out.
If all the members simply agree with each other on critical issues fearful of innovative thought that challenges the status quo, then what use is that?
We have a good school system here in Newton. However, fancy state of the art buildings aren’t the only goal of a good education system. Newton has a long way to go before it is a first rate education system. Brookline High has different standards for their students and they don’t value expensive school structures as much as Newton leaders do. Substance there is more important than form. Here we value form over substance.
To me, hiring David Fleishman as superintendent is a great legacy. The smoothness of the transition between superintendents, from the outside, seemed excellent also, and, I’d guess, much of that credit goes to Claire Sokoloff too.
My kids have been in 2 school districts with a total of 4 superintendents. Newton Schools under Jim Marini and David Fleishman have been the most peaceful and harmonious.
The first time that Geoff Epstein came onto my radar was when I was watching an SC meeting (I think it was at a time when Zervas was having some particularly extreme class size and facilities issues and people in my community were really digging in our heels with Jeff Young and the Larner SC.) Geoff made public comments about using email instead of paper to save money and trees. Really common sense recommendations that seem like slam dunks now, but took years in the torpid timeline of school progress to even make a dent in.
When Geoff Epstein came into office, the term “data-driven decision making” was unheard of and likely mocked. We operated at the whims of school leadership who routinely told us that they knew more than we did and never had to prove it. Eight years later, we would not dream of making any decision without compelling data.
Geoff also ran on and stood for a STEM and technology platform that struck a real nerve amongst educated Newton parents and voters. He effectively linked an agenda on global competitiveness and economic prosperity to an opportunity to act locally. Every time he was elected, the voters affirmed their commitment to this agenda. I also think that, anytime that technology could have posed an answer to a dilemma, Geoff Epstein asked if there was a possible technological solution to the challenge faced.
He also took a lot of crap and ate a lot of derision. Jackie Robinson style. I think that Geoff helped to achieve a far less political dynamic on the SC.
I will miss Geoff and his honest, transparently frank Aussie openness. Not everything our NPS employees do is “excellent.” Nor are routine reports and “just doing one’s job” deserving of nauseatingly saccharine, thoroughly disingenuous, over-the-top kvelloramas. The voters elect SC members to ensure that the public interest and the public purse are optimized — not to blow overly excessive sunshine in the direction of every NPS employee that appears before them.
I am looking forward to a Hills/Decter era, though I would have been equally (perhaps more) happy with a Hills/Siegel one. I’m hoping that MRD has been tragically politically repressed over the past 6 years and that now, free from those shackles, will confidently step up and come into her own as a wise and brilliant advocate for education. I’m hoping that MRD will show particular leadership on the educational no-brainer known as full day kindergarten (by this, I mean a program that requires the instructional hours of grades 1-5) Margie showed a lot of spunk when she first came on board — such as her dissent over the choice of David Fleishman over Susan Marks. I know she has it in her. I just want to see the fire that got her involved in the first place re-emerge now that she is in a position of actually accomplishing something.
Matt Hills’ promise of creating an effective and high-performing board is well within reach. I think that we are looking at the prospect of the best SC that Newton has had within the decade or so that I have been watching it. (I just wish that Geoff was a part of it!) Matt possesses an impressive level of intellectual curiosity that seeks out opposing points of view. He is a convener and a listener. He is logical, extremely fair and opens his ears and mind to dissenting points of view. He is also very goals-oriented, and has the standard of professional boards within his sights when evaluating the effectiveness of our own school committee/board.
First district-defining pedagogical issue up: REAL full day kindergarten.
Thanks Karen for an excellent summary. I was particularly surprised by your notice of Susan Marks. I listened to every word she said during her address to the SC during the hiring process. She was outstanding in her vision for educational development. I actually sent her an e-mail to say how good she would be for NPS. In contrast I found D.F. bland and unappealing.
Naturally, I was confounded by the search results that fell so quickly behind D.F. and was baffled by how quickly M.R.D. was quickly silenced.
Let’s hope you are right about the future. The first task is to change the school fee structure which is abominable.
I think that if we want to change the game at 100 Walnut Street, we have to change the players.
Brooke Lipsitt was instrumental in Political Insider Group School Committee member Susan Albright defeating moderate reformer Allan Ciccone Senior in his 2003 Ward 2 Alderman At-Large reelection. She was instrumental in backing Matt Hills in his first School Committee run in 2009 and Margie Ross Decter in her first School Committee run against Tom Mountain in 2009. In 2011, she backed Greg Schwartz and Vicki Danberg against Charlie Shapiro.
This year, she also backed Eve Tapper against Emily, Andrea Steenstrup against Margaret, Alison Leary against Allan Ciccone Senior, Ellen Gibson and the 2013 override (and the 2008 override).
Margie also backed Vicki and Greg against lifelong Newton resident Charlie Shapiro, Andrea against Margaret, Steve Grossman against Karyn Polito as well as Ellen Gibson and the NO on Question 3 campaign.
I have no problem with the fact that Matt and Margie are part of Newton’s Insider Political Group as well as proteges of NDCC Old Guardsperson Brooke Lipsitt. I’m just not as optimistic as Geoff, Karen or even Colleen regarding Matt and Margie leadership of the 2014-15 SC. If we want to change the game that is played at 100 Walnut Street, we need to replace Insider Political Group proteges of Brooke Lipsitt with independent reformers.
Josh, I hear you.
I just need to say that dealing with Matt Hills as Chair is a helluva lot better prospect than the Anne Larner era that introduced me to Newton SC politics. What I love about Matt Hills’ approach to it all is that he focuses on the way that the SC body functions and seeks to emulate high-functioning boards of directors. As a parent, I was in an extremely dysfunctional elementary school that was saved by an interim principal (Ruth Chapman) who would turn every discussion around to a question: “what’s best for the children?” If Matt can forge a mission-focused board with really clear goals and objectives, rise above the politics of personal relationships and the destructively insular, “We’re Newton” culture, then he will have set us on a brilliant path.
I’m not an expert on Insider Political Groups. What I am is an observer.As an observer, I must say that other school systems have taken huge hits, but risen back up to restore programs such as gifted and talented support, world languages and to improve programs such as 1:1 computing or implementation of full day kindergarten. Meanwhile, we’ve been treading water and living on an old reputation in Newton for the past 10 years. We’ve futzed around with fees and been mired in building issues. None of these things improve educational outcomes or increase the value of a “Newton Education”.
It is my hope that with great minds like Margaret Albright, this new 2014 SC actually enacts measures that IMPROVE EDUCATION. It has been a long time since this was the mission of a SC. We’ve been putting out fires and treading water for far too long while other systems have leapt forward.
i thought this thread was in thanks to 3 SC members who devoted 8 years to the community [6 for Geoff].
Even though I quite often didn’t agree with the SC’s direction on a number of matters, I do want to extend to all 3 my recognition of the dedication that they brought to their tenures. Putting themselves out there in such a public way isn’t easy: they deserve our thanks.
I removed a comment that was unnecessary as well as a followup. Carry on.
I echo Dan’s thanks. No matter the election official, we owe our thanks for his/her willingness to serve. It’s a huge commitment of time and energy for a mostly thankless job. So, I too, thank Claire, Jonathan and Geoff for serving on the School Committee.
Dan, weren’t you the guy who tried to get Jonathan Yeo off the ballot because of that whole legal residency issue?
@Josh. Dan was and that’s another example of what a class act Dan is. Dan respects divergent views, doesn’t judge people based on some litmus test and recognizes that everyone who volunteers to serve our community is giving a great deal of themselves. It’s a practice we should all resolve to embrace in 2014.
Greg, I remarked about Dan Fahey’s role in that whole contretemps because I found it ironic that Dan Fahey was the one who told Jonathan Yeo to “BE A MAN!” about that whole situation only to deliver a tribute to Jonathan Yeo now that he’s termed-out.
I found it ironic that he played a pivotal role in Margaret’s campaign in 2011 yet was nowhere to be found in 2013.
I don’t judge people based on litmus tests, but rather hold people accountable where their rhetoric doesn’t match up with their record of advocacy and governance. It’s a practice we should all resolve to embrace in 2014.
One one good thing I can say about Dan Fahey is that I can point to his arguments in 2008 and 2009 against Newton’s structural spending problem in order to make the Newton Taxpayers Association’s case that Newton’s structural spending problem continues unabated and has manifested itself into Newton’s Billion Dollar Pile of Debt and Unfunded Liabilities. There are 3,742 business establishments in Newton and 32K households in Newton. Basically, Newton’s government has a $30,000 lien on all of Newton’s households and business establishments because it has racked up $1.07 BILLION in interest-accruing debt and retirement benefit liabilities that cost taxpayers $54 Million annually and represents one sixth of the budget.
@Josh: Oh, you thought I was talking about you and your propensity to besmirch people you’ve never met? How quaint.
Greg, actually, I’ve met more people than you give me credit for, including all three outgoing SC Members. You know, I thought Geoff Epstein was an OK guy after all. I disagreed with him on a few items of policy and I don’t share his optimism for the new SC, but we’re both smart guys and we agreed when it counted. I think that helped bolster and solidify my reputation as a data-driven reform-oriented activist that emphasizes measurable outcomes over qualitative conclusions and desire to replace Newton’s bureaucratic socialist governing model with more efficient methods of providing services and programs.
As for Claire and Jonathan, their record of pushing more burdensome taxes to underwrite more wasteful government spending is why I’m glad that they termed out. I don’t have to besmirch anyone, all I have to do is highlight their record of governance or activism and compare it to their rhetoric.
Bill Heck said it best when he said Joshua Norman insists upon REAL facts, REAL outcomes, and REAL debate regarding Newton civic issues and Newton’s elected officials and activists.
http://newton.patch.com/groups/newton-taxpayers-association/p/an-open-letter-to-newton-residents-taxpayers–voters-from-bill-heck
@Josh: I’ve interviewed Bill Heck. I’ve met Bill Heck. Bill Heck isn’t a friend of mine but I know that you are no Bill Heck.
Bill Heck focused on issues. He didn’t spend hours obsessing publicly over who endorsed who.
You’ve ripped Brooke Lipsett. You’ve dragged Anne Larner and Susie Heyman and others through your mud pies.
What were you, in middle school when these people served?
I’ve had my disagreements with all these people. We didn’t always share visions. But I’ve never questioned their desire to do what they thought was right for our city. I’d bet your hero Bill Heck didn’t either.
As many folks know, I’ve sparred with Geoff Epstein and Jonathan Yeo many, many, times. I’m guessing in your many hours of research you’ll find that I didn’t endorse Claire Sokoloff in her first election. (Does that make me a Dan Fahey-style traitor because I keep an open mind?) But I’m deeply grateful to all three for serving.