The School Committee will meet TONIGHT at 7:00 p.m. in Room 210 at the Ed Center, 100 Walnut Street. Their agenda includes voting on the Revised Equity Guidelines and the FY20 Budget. I attended the last two meetings and it was standing room only. The Revised Equity Guidelines brought out many parents testifying about the process and about the new caps. Public Comment at the last meeting was focused on the FY20 budget, with teachers and staff testifying about the need to settle the contract prior to voting the budget.
School Committee to Vote on Revised Equity Guidelines and FY20 Budget
by Amy Sangiolo | Apr 8, 2019 | Newton | 7 comments
There was a good discussion about the equity policy at Franklin Elementary a few months back, and I applaud the members of the equity committee and School Committee for reaching out.
From the discussion, there seemed to be four related but separate issues:
the inequity of financial resources available from fundraising between one school to the next due to socio-economic disparity,
the current lack of NPS support for now-essential classroom tools such as document cameras (which replace yesteryear’s overhead projectors), thus requiring PTO fundraising,
the disparity between schools regarding current facilities and needs (building on top of the growing inequity between new schools and old schools),
the inability of some schools to make up the gap between what they need and their ability to get it (a combination of the other points).
An equity policy should address these important issues. I appreciate the work that went into the existing proposal, which caps the per-student fundraising PTOs can do. However, that only addresses the first point (socio-economic disparity), and it does it imperfectly through equality (equal caps), not equity.
I see the following problems with this approach. First, while the proposed policy is designed to force NPS to pick up expenses previously covered by PTO fundraising, NPS has to my knowledge made no explicit commitment to do so. Second, it doesn’t float all boats: some schools still won’t raise the money they need. Third, it delays ideas for remedying inequity between schools (e.g., a “luxury tax” on fundraising, community fund, etc.) off to a later date. It provides no clear mechanism for appeal, exceptions, or acknowledgement of disparity between the current state of different schools. Finally, it is a sudden change to the system, providing no transition between old and new.
Equity across our schools is incredibly important, while the inequality that currently exists is not widely appreciated. I think that there is broad agreement that every Newton child’s classroom and broader school experience should be first class, roughly equal, and independent of the financial means of the local neighborhood. We should be actively lowering how much money our parents have to pitch in through the PTO to meet this goal.
However, we need reassurance our kids won’t be lost in the cracks.
NPS must simultaneously and explicitly explain how they will address expanded technology and (to a smaller extent) other school expenses. There should be no gap between the PTO support falling off and NPS stepping up.
The equity policy must live up to its name and start addressing equity from the beginning, not just equality.
Ideally, the policy should include a transition from the existing to new rules.
Of all the ideas raised to address equity, the “luxury tax” idea seems the most workable. Instead of hard caps, the equity policy should set lower soft caps over which some percentage of funds raised go to a central fund. The amount of the soft caps and the percentage tax can both be adjusted over time.
This approach allows parents from any school to continue fundraising while at the same time building up a central reserve fund. How this fund will be allocated will be tricky (PTO Council? Individual proposals?), but equity itself is tricky. Disbursement decisions don’t need to be made immediately: the fund would just build up.
Without accompanying changes in NPS technology support and explicit mechanisms for remedying equity between schools, the current equity policy proposal fails to address its important core mission.
Seems like an exercise in futility to have these public meetings. The school committee appeared to stand by their flawed process to determine what is and is not equity. The most ironic part of the meeting was David Fleishman quickly trying to explain to the room of incredulous parents that equity is only applicable to the elementary schools and could not possible be implemented at the high school level. If they vote in the guidelines that were created through a methodology that wasn’t based on data or current processes, we’ll have true taxation without representation and that’s not something parents will forget come November.
My recollection of the ‘standing room only” equity meeting is quite different. There was one group opposed to the new policy and another that supported it. Both sides appeared to be well represented.
The room had representatives from both sides, however the side that was questioning the methodology of the working group and how the equity cap adjustments were determined clearly overpowered the room. They were counted in those sitting on the floor, leaning against the walls, and spilling out into hall. And of course (something easily proven by watching the video), there were more speakers representing the Newton parents who felt they had not been represented by the original working group.
Perception is in the eye of the beholder. I was leaning against a wall and support the equity committee.
Not to mention, the issue at hand is not who can fill a room that fits about 50 people. The PS part of NPS is public schools – schools that provide an equitable experience for all students.
I’m really not understanding why you are arguing about crowd size. Amy did not report anything other than the room was full. That’s a fact. The majority of speakers from the community on the equity question spoke out against the methodology that the committee and working group used to come up with their recommendations. That’s also a fact. You were leaning against a wall. A third fact that doesn’t dispute the first two facts.
If you’d like to question whether or not some people were for equity for all public school youth, the answer is, as the stickers read, everyone was for equity in schools. The School Committee has thrown out this red herring and are distracting from the fact that they have required Creative Arts and Sciences programming and Technology standards for the schools but there is a gap in tax payer funding (the original equity pool!). There were lots of ways to have gone about this process and yet the school committee has chosen one that would break down our community and divide it. We’re arguing and it’s unclear why. Only a few short years ago, we all came together and supported three elementary schools getting new buildings. Now, instead of identifying issues and trying to problem solve where there are fundraising gaps, the working group has chosen to go down a route not backed by data, where they take away from some children to create equity. Taking away to create equity? What? Should we demolish the new Angier, Cabot and Zervas then? Or overcrowd all the classrooms? Or put all the kids in modular space like they do at Countryside? Some schools don’t have working kitchens, should we shutter all the working kitchens? Sounds crazy, right? Taking away is not a solution.
And yes “PS” does stand for public schools. Therefore, the next time a committee is created to analyze the donations coming out of my pocket, I expect there to be a requirement that there’s a representative to be from every elementary school. Taxation without representation is something we try to avoid in a democracy.
I merely stated that the room holds about 50-60 people, and both sides were represented. I pointed out the limited number of people who could fit in that room because it’s an infinitesimal percentage of Newton parents and as a result, of no consequence in this decision.