CLT
UPDATE
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Income tax hike defeated ...
but here come da judges, again: "More Is Never Enough!"
Lawmakers stuck to the status quo on all tax issues during yesterday's budget debate - shooting down plans to ratchet up taxes on income and meals, but also turning back efforts to slash the gas tax and create tax deductions for trash collection and school fees.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Lawmakers resolve tax issues
"There's a very, very clear recognition that if in fact a modest economic recovery is underway, you don't want to kill that in the crib," House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said, explaining lawmakers' resistance to higher taxes despite the state's continuing fiscal woes. "They do recognize that the competitive posture of Massachusetts is important." ...
Earlier votes illustrated the reluctance of the House to raise taxes. Legislators rejected Menino's meals-tax proposal 89-66. Earlier in the day, lawmakers defeated by an even larger margin a measure that would have raised the state income tax from 5.35 percent to 5.95 percent....
Political calculations also drove yesterday's antitax votes, however. Romney had vowed to veto the meals-tax proposal because it didn't give local voters the power to levy it, and he has repeatedly pledged to veto any broad-based tax increase. In an election year, with a veto looming, not many legislators were willing to put themselves on the line for higher taxes.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
House rejects raising tax bill
Levies on investors, meals meet defeat
A 1993 SJC ruling found that the state hadn't met its constitutional duty to fund its schools. That led to the passage of the Education Reform law, which overhauled the way schools are funded in the state.
Since then, Massachusetts has spent nearly $31 billion on schools, much of it in lower-income districts.
Associated Press
Monday, April 26, 2004
Judge rules school funding unfair to poorer districts
In an exhaustive 357-page report, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Botsford said Massachusetts must re-examine education aid and figure out how much more money is needed to close the achievement gap between rich and poor.
Her recommendations, if adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court, could cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" in more education aid every year, said state Sen. Robert Antonioni (D-Leominster), co-chairman of the Education Committee.
"Certainly over the long term you're probably looking at billions of dollars," he said. "Either way you slice it, you're talking about some real money here."
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Judge says state fails poor students:
Ruling may force hike in spending by millions
The improved test scores and the billions of dollars pumped into the state's 1,900 public schools since 1993 have helped, but they have not been enough, Botsford wrote. Her recommended remedies, which state education officials would carry out, include establishing free preschool programs for 3- and 4-year-olds, constructing adequate school buildings, and determining how much more money is needed for children with special needs. She also called for better leadership in some of the school districts named in the suit.
If the SJC requires the state to follow Botsford's recommendations, the cost could be considerable. The SJC and the Legislature must determine how much they would cost, the lawyers said....
She pointed out that the state's basic aid to schools increased 12 percent annually during the last decade, going from $1.3 billion to $3.2 billion. In response, schools added elective courses, lowered class sizes, and provided summer school.
But recent state and local budget cuts have slowed the progress made since 1993; state basic aid to schools dropped by 4.5 percent between 2003 and this year....
Botsford recommended that Massachusetts follow New York, where a commission charged with carrying out that state's school-finance ruling found that it could cost an extra $2.5 billion to $5.6 billion a year.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
School financing unfair, judge rules
Findings go to the SJC
The state's two teachers unions have funded the roughly $1.5 million cost of the education funding lawsuit, officials said.
But the money - $1.3 million from the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the rest from the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers - may not be the greatest contribution to the case....
Norma Shapiro, president of the Council for Fair School Finance, contributed $100,000 of her own money to the cause....
Shapiro works unpaid as a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Funding advocate puts money where her mouth is
In 1993, the last time a court order spurred an overhaul to K-12 education funding, advocates of greater accountability gave significant ground to the "more money" crowd in order to win modest reforms.
The reform side got MCAS and curriculum standards. The money side got $31 billion poured into schools over the last decade.
Now we know who got the short end of the stick.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Money won't solve poor school woes
Massachusetts is building a reputation for education reform. But Botsford's findings, which now go to Justice John Greaney of the Supreme Judicial Court, serve as a reminder that education reform is still unfinished business.
A Boston Globe editorial
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
A finding for fair schools
Judge Botsford’s ruling presumes that funding is the only variable that matters when it comes to educational outcomes when, in fact, it is one of the least important factors. Lack of funding is the excuse used by incompetent educators and self-serving special interests when they won’t take the steps needed to raise academic performance. Raising academic standards and expectations while refusing to coddle students who are either inattentive or who actively resist learning can reduce costs while dramatically raising student performance.
Instead of undermining accountability by rewarding failing school districts, Massachusetts could raise academic outcomes (especially in poorer communities) rapidly and at no extra cost by instituting a statewide voucher system.
Response by Dr. Charles C. Ormsby
North Andover school committee member
Monday, April 26, 2004
When asked by the Eagle-Tribune to comment
Mini-Winny's Darkest
Hour
– An update of his continuing trials and
tribulations –
When did lying become not only acceptable among our political leaders, but the norm?
Was it on the morning of Jan. 26, 1998, when a worn-looking President Clinton stood in the West Wing, waved a finger determinedly in the air, and declared, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"? ...
I bring this up in light of Boston's own Tom Finneran, who may go from the State House to the Big House because of, of all grand things, a lie. Can you picture the speaker and his penny-ante cronies, also known as your state representatives, looking quizzically at each other over the federal investigation and asking, "What's the crime in that?"
You see, lies are marbled into their public lives. They lie on the House and Senate floor when they invariably describe their political enemies as "my very good friend." They lie to potential contributors about needing money in campaigns where they face no opponent. They lie with a glint in their eye, a wink, and a little nod. There are times when they seem to be trying to outdo each other with the sheer brazenness of their lies....
I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't be wonderful to see him pay a very steep price.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Tangled webs they weave
By Brian McGrory
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Yesterday was a mixture of extremes in state
government. Taxpayers won a big one with the defeat of
Rep. Robert Spellane's House budget amendment to jack the income tax
rate back up to 5.95 percent [see
debate and roll call vote].
Defeat of the income and other tax hikes was termed
by House Speaker Mini-Winny "the competitive posture." He was
referring to economic competition -- I think -- but it's nothing short
of amazing what running for re-election with challengers nipping at
their heels can do to focus a Legislature's attention back to actually
representing voters.
But at the same time, a Superior Court judge ruled
that "More Is Never Enough!" and found that -- despite the $31
billion spending increase on education "reform" over the past
decade -- still more needs to be spent.
"Despite a number of impressive accomplishments of the commonwealth and the Department of Education over the past 10 years, the record here establishes that the plaintiff children are not receiving the education to which they are constitutionally entitled,"
she wrote, shipping her decision up to the state Supreme Judicial
Kangaroo Court.
The Massachusetts Constitution, Chapter
V, Section II.,
The Encouragement of Literature, etc. [full text
below] states:
"... it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the
towns..."
Despite my best efforts, nowhere in there can I find
a constitutional mandate to spend another few billion taxpayer dollars
more a year on public education -- or any amount whatsoever.
Can't we "cherish the interests of literature and the
sciences" without utterly bankrupting the state?
According to my Webster's New World Dictionary, the
word "cherish" is defined as:
1. to hold dear; feel or show love for
[to cherish one's family] 2. to take good
care of; protect; foster [to cherish one's rights] 3.
to cling to the idea or feeling of [to cherish a hope] -- SYN.
see APPRECIATE
Nope, nothing about billions of dollars -- or any
dollars -- there either.
The Boston Globe today reported:
[Judge] Botsford recommended that Massachusetts follow New York, where a commission charged with carrying out that state's school-finance ruling found that it could cost an extra $2.5 billion to $5.6 billion a year.
Why is the court attempting to create a very real
and needless fiscal crisis out of thin air?
Already our per-pupil expenditures are 4th-highest in
the nation -- according to the National Education Association, the
national teachers union. (The national average is $7,548 per student;
Massachusetts spends $10,190.)
Taxpayers can once again thank the state teachers
unions for its ceaseless assault on our economic survival. "More
Is Never Enough!" for them either, and never will be. The Boston
Herald today reported where the expenses for the "roughly $1.5
million" cost of the lawsuit came from:
"$1.3 million from the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the rest from the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers..."
There is no bottom to teachers union deep pockets
when it comes to relentlessly sticking-up taxpayers. And if they can't
acquire greater and greater public largesse through the Legislature,
then by god they'll jump on the liberals' bandwagon, head for the
courts, and sue to steal it "legally."
Again unelected, appointed-for-life, and
unaccountable "philosopher kings" decree from high atop their
lofty benches, making a mockery of democracy and representative
government in the name of the Constitution.
And once again the legislative and executive branches
are being emasculated, the people tyrannized.
How much longer must we suffer and endure at the
hands of this oligarchy of black-robed elitists?
They have left us citizens with no choice. With some
reluctance, I say bring on that pending constitutional amendment for
periodic voter ratification or rejection of now-untouchable judges ...
before all is lost.
God save the Commonwealth!
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Lawmakers resolve tax issues
By Elisabeth J. Beardsley and Steve Marantz
There will be no $275 million retroactive tax break or tax hike on capital gains from 2002, after House lawmakers quietly settled on a plan yesterday to satisfy a recent court order.
Lawmakers tried to hike the capital gains tax in mid-2002, but the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled it was unconstitutional to change the rules in the middle of the tax year.
Gov. Mitt Romney then lobbied to delay the effective date and deliver a one-time $275 million tax break. Liberals argued for moving the date back so the state could recoup more money.
But House leaders set the tax-hike date on Jan. 1, 2002, and created a four-month amnesty period so that nobody pays more or less than lawmakers originally intended.
Lawmakers stuck to the status quo on all tax issues during yesterday's budget debate - shooting down plans to ratchet up taxes on income and meals, but also turning back efforts to slash the gas tax and create tax deductions for trash collection and school fees.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
House rejects raising tax bill
Levies on investors, meals meet defeat
By Scott S. Greenberger
House lawmakers voted yesterday to resolve a controversy over the 2002 increase in capital gains taxes, proposing that Massachusetts investors should neither pay more nor get a tax refund to settle a legal question that could drain some $275 million from the state budget.
Under the House plan, which still needs approval by the Senate and Governor Mitt Romney, the capital gains tax increase that went into effect May 1, 2002, would be made retroactive to January of that year, but investors would be granted a tax amnesty for the first four months of the year. The proposal is meant to answer the Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled earlier this month that the state has to set the tax increase either at the start of 2002 or the start of 2003.
In other action yesterday, the House also defeated Mayor Thomas M. Menino's proposed tax hike on restaurant meals, which would have delivered millions of dollars to Boston but was tailored to appeal to smaller towns without many restaurants. It was one of a series of votes that illustrated lawmakers' distaste for taxes in this election year.
"There's a very, very clear recognition that if in fact a modest economic recovery is underway, you don't want to kill that in the crib," House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said, explaining lawmakers' resistance to higher taxes despite the state's continuing fiscal woes. "They do recognize that the competitive posture of Massachusetts is important."
Yesterday began a weeklong series of votes on the House version of next year's $23 billion state budget. The capital gains tax issue -- which surfaced this month, just as lawmakers were preparing the budget for the House floor -- has spooked House members of both parties.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Legislature unconstitutionally raised the capital-gains tax rate in 2002 by making the tax hike effective May 1, rather than at the beginning of that calendar year. The high court ordered one of its justices to determine whether the state should make the new rate effective January 2002, which would require some 120,000 investors to pay about $102 million more, or January 2003, which would result in a windfall refund for as many as 145,000 taxpayers that would cost the state betweem $225 million and $275 million.
Calling retroactive taxes "un-American," Romney backed the latter approach and directed Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly to urge the Supreme Judicial Court to make the capital-gains tax increase effective on the later date.
Yesterday, however, the House approved a third way: making the tax hike retroactive to January 2002, but granting a tax amnesty for the first four months of that year. A Romney spokeswoman said last night that the governor needs time to review the idea. Legislators, who approved it on a voice vote, described it as a reasonable solution.
"The Commonwealth cannot afford to lose $280 million," said Representative J. James Marzilli Jr., the Arlington Democrat who proposed the measure. "No person will receive an additional penny or pay additional taxes."
Earlier votes illustrated the reluctance of the House to raise taxes. Legislators rejected Menino's meals-tax proposal 89-66. Earlier in the day, lawmakers defeated by an even larger margin a measure that would have raised the state income tax from 5.35 percent to 5.95 percent.
"We believe that if you keep taxes low, you will conceivably gain more revenue as a result of that and therefore raise all boats," said Representative John A.
Lepper, an Attleboro Republican, in remarks that seemed to encapsulate the majority view.
Political calculations also drove yesterday's antitax votes, however. Romney had vowed to veto the meals-tax proposal because it didn't give local voters the power to levy it, and he has repeatedly pledged to veto any broad-based tax increase. In an election year, with a veto looming, not many legislators were willing to put themselves on the line for higher taxes.
Despite the state's continuing fiscal problems and yesterday's Superior Court ruling that Massachusetts must spend more on public schools, lawmakers actually reduced overall revenue by a small amount: In addition to knocking down the tax hikes on meals and income, they scrapped the so-called anniversary fee for plaintiffs in civil cases, which ranged from $90 to $120, and repealed fees the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind was charging for identification cards and certificates of blindness.
Two years ago, the Legislature approved Menino's proposal to allow cities and towns to levy a 1 percent tax on top of the state's 5 percent sales tax on restaurant meals, but Acting Governor Jane Swift vetoed it. Last year, the measure lost by 30 votes in the House.
This time, the mayor hoped that giving some money to communities that didn't stand to benefit from levying the tax themselves would put the idea over the top. Under the new proposal, cities could have levied a tax of up to 3 percent on restaurant meals (on top of the state's 5 percent tax), retaining 75 percent of the resulting revenue. The remaining 25 percent would have gone into a statewide pool for disbursement to cities and towns that don't impose the additional meals tax.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Monday, April 26, 2004
Judge rules school funding unfair to poorer districts
By Ken Maguire
A Superior Court judge ruled Monday that Massachusetts is still failing to adequately educate students in poorer districts, and recommended that the state's highest court order education officials to change to the funding formula.
The 300-page ruling by Judge Margot Botsford in a lawsuit filed by 19 school districts sets the stage for the Supreme Judicial Court to again dictate the future of education in Massachusetts. If the high court agrees with Botsford's findings, it could radically change the way the state spends money to educate its nearly one million public school students.
"We're thrilled," said Brockton superintendent Joseph Bage. "It's certainly going to be in the best interests of our kids, and city kids across the state, because obviously we're all in the same boat."
A 1993 SJC ruling found that the state hadn't met its constitutional duty to fund its schools. That led to the passage of the Education Reform law, which overhauled the way schools are funded in the state.
Since then, Massachusetts has spent nearly $31 billion on schools, much of it in lower-income districts.
But the SJC in its 1993 ruling left the case open for review, and the lawyers who won that case returned to court last June, arguing that the state still shortchanges poor districts. They said those districts still suffer from crowded classrooms, unsafe facilities, and regularly lose top teachers to wealthy suburbs.
Botsford was tasked with hearing testimony and delivering her report to SJC Judge John M.
Greaney.
"Despite a number of impressive accomplishments of the commonwealth and the Department of Education over the past 10 years, the record here establishes that the plaintiff children are not receiving the education to which they are constitutionally entitled," Botsford wrote.
In testimony that stretched over parts of nine months, the plaintiffs urged such measures as more funding for special education, libraries and technology, along with full-day kindergarten and other programs.
But Assistant Attorney General Deirdre Roney argued on behalf of the state that Massachusetts is a model in education funding and already provides far more resources to poorer school districts than wealthier ones.
The "focus districts" in the case were Brockton, Lowell, Springfield, and Winchendon.
Botsford's report recommends that the SJC order state education officials to determine the actual cost of educating kids in those districts; determine costs associated with improving "leadership capacities" there; and implement whatever funding and administrative changes that result.
The report says the state should have a "definite but limited period of time" to comply, and, like it did 11 years ago, the SJC should retain jurisdiction "to be satisfied that the remedial efforts are progressing towards a timely, effective solution."
If the court agrees, lawmakers may be forced to scramble for funds in already lean budget times.
The attorney general's office referred comment to the Department of Education. A spokeswoman for Education Commissioner David Driscoll did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The other plaintiff districts are Barnstable, Belchertown, East Bridgewater, Fitchburg, Gill-Montague Regional, Holyoke, Leicester, Lynn, Mashpee, Orange, Revere, Rockland, Sandwich, Taunton, and Uxbridge.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Judge says state fails poor students:
Ruling may force hike in spending by millions
By Kevin Rothstein
Massachusetts may need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on sweeping changes for its public schools after a judge ruled yesterday the state isn't living up to its responsibility to teach poor students.
"What Judge (Margot) Botsford has done in short is to say to the state, it's time to get the job done," said attorney Michael Weisman, who argued the case on behalf of 19 kids who said Massachusetts is short-changing their schooling.
In an exhaustive 357-page report, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Botsford said Massachusetts must re-examine education aid and figure out how much more money is needed to close the achievement gap between rich and poor.
Her recommendations, if adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court, could cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" in more education aid every year, said state Sen. Robert Antonioni (D-Leominster), co-chairman of the Education Committee.
"Certainly over the long term you're probably looking at billions of dollars," he said. "Either way you slice it, you're talking about some real money here."
The suit was filed by the Council for Fair School Finance, the same group that argued the landmark case that prompted the ruling that the state is responsible for providing an adequate education for all. Soon after, the Education Reform Act of 1993 was passed, but Botsford said students from poor districts were still being denied the right to an adequate education.
"Despite a number of impressive accomplishments of the commonwealth and the Department of Education over the past 10 years, the record here establishes that ... the plaintiff children are not receiving the education to which they are constitutionally entitled," she wrote.
Botsford also laid out a series of broad reforms she said are needed:
l Preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds, at no cost for those who can't afford it.
l Better teaching and more money for special education students.
l Improved school buildings.
l More attention to health, arts and foreign language instruction.
She also recommended improving remedial programs, lowering class size to below 20 students for pre-kindergarten through third grade and making several changes to the foundation budget formula, which governs how much state education aid local districts get.
Her report, written after 78 days of trial, was sent to the Supreme Judicial Court for review. She suggested the high court order the state Department of Education to report back in six months with a plan and a timetable. A special overseer could be appointed to ensure the order is carried out.
Gov. Mitt Romney [related, bio] and Attorney General Tom Reilly, who defended the case, declined to comment.
"Today's report by Judge Botsford makes clear that we have made great progress with education reform," Education Commissioner David Driscoll said in a statement.
Botsford was not so kind in her report, concluding staff cuts have left the department unable to help schools and districts improve.
"In the meantime, the plaintiff children in the failing schools continue to suffer," Botsford wrote.
Some superintendents from wealthier communities fear the additional money called for in the report will come from their coffers, said Tom Scott, head of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents.
The education provided to students in Brockton, Lowell, Springfield and Winchendon were examined in-depth at the trial on behalf of 15 other plaintiffs.
At Brockton High, students such as freshman Michelle Lawrence experienced firsthand what Botsford wrote about.
"Some students stand in the back throughout the whole class" because of overcrowding, she said.
Textbook shortages have forced her teachers to photocopy books, which works except when they run out of paper.
At least 40 other states have or are facing similar education funding suits. New York is scrambling to meet a court-ordered deadline for submitting a plan to fix its state system. Competing plans estimate the cost from $2.5 billion to $20 billion.
Some states are considering tinkering with their sales tax to meet court-ordered education improvements. New Hampshire's legislature is considering new taxes.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
School financing unfair, judge rules
Findings go to the SJC
By Anand Vaishnav, Globe Staff
Massachusetts is shortchanging children in its poorest school systems and should overhaul the way it finances public schools, a judge ruled yesterday.
The judge's decision, the latest chapter in the 26-year battle over school funding in Massachusetts, could reshape classrooms across the state if the Supreme Judicial Court follows the recommendations. The findings of fact by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford go to the high court for the final ruling.
The improved test scores and the billions of dollars pumped into the state's 1,900 public schools since 1993 have helped, but they have not been enough, Botsford wrote. Her recommended remedies, which state education officials would carry out, include establishing free preschool programs for 3- and 4-year-olds, constructing adequate school buildings, and determining how much more money is needed for children with special needs. She also called for better leadership in some of the school districts named in the suit.
If the SJC requires the state to follow Botsford's recommendations, the cost could be considerable. The SJC and the Legislature must determine how much they would cost, the lawyers said.
Michael D. Weisman, the lead plaintiffs' attorney, called the decision a "spectacular victory for the nearly 1 million children who attend public schools in Massachusetts." The high court's eventual decision will stretch far beyond the 19 school systems who helped bring the current suit, Weisman said.
"I don't believe the decision is the end of the struggle, but I do believe it's a very, very important step in the struggle on behalf of children," said Weisman, who was also the lead lawyer in the 1993 case. "What Judge Botsford has done is to consider a massive amount of evidence and determine that the state is still not meeting its duty."
Botsford's 358-page report was issued 11 years after the SJC ruled that the state was neglecting its constitutional duty to provide an adequate public education. The current suit stems from that decision, with families from 19 poorer school systems arguing that the state is still not meeting its responsibilities.
Dealing with the suit's potential costs could be hard for the already cash-strapped state government. Governor Mitt Romney's press office referred questions yesterday to the state Department of Education, which issued a three-paragraph statement that ignored most of Botsford's findings. In the statement, Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll pointed out that the judge rejected plaintiffs' request for a budget commission and instead recommended a revamped budget formula.
"This challenge is consistent with the efforts already underway by the administration, the Legislature, and other education groups around the state," Driscoll said. "As commissioner, I am committed to providing all schools with the tools and resources they need to achieve even greater student success."
Victoria J. Dodd, a Suffolk University Law School professor who has studied the case, said that yesterday's findings could have a huge financial and educational impact.
"Her suggestions and recommendations will end up influencing education in Massachusetts, should the Supreme Judicial Court adopt them, and possibly will even influence the education of children in other states," Dodd said. The judge's comprehensive ruling could serve as a model for other states dealing with similar suits, she said.
Botsford also wants the highest court to order the state to get students to achieve state academic standards and foot the bill of achieving that goal. She also said the state must address neglected subjects such as arts and health.
She pointed out that the state's basic aid to schools increased 12 percent annually during the last decade, going from $1.3 billion to $3.2 billion. In response, schools added elective courses, lowered class sizes, and provided summer school.
But recent state and local budget cuts have slowed the progress made since 1993; state basic aid to schools dropped by 4.5 percent between 2003 and this year. Because of the high cost of schooling needier students, the money has not been enough for struggling cities and towns, she wrote.
Springfield, for example, saw its state funding double to $236.4 million in a decade, Botsford wrote. Yet the 106-year-old Forest Park Middle School still holds classes in coat rooms, locker rooms, and the basement. There are just 12 microscopes for its 930 students.
Along with more money, Botsford also urged the high court to order the state to improve school and district leadership in the four districts that were at the heart of the suit: Brockton, Lowell, Springfield, and Winchendon. She did not outline specifics.
She singled out schools in Winchendon, in north-central Worcester County, as "sorry," and she wrote: "The passivity of many participants in the district's educational system is quite astounding." Last year, the state declared Winchendon schools "underperforming," and education officials are monitoring the school system.
School Superintendent Robert A. O'Meara, who took over the Winchendon schools in August 2002, said the school system is fixing some of the problems Botsford highlighted.
Other school chiefs involved in the suit yesterday applauded the decision.
"I don't take any exception to her acknowledgement that leadership is very important," said Superintendent Joseph P. Burke of Springfield. "I think she's right."
Superintendent Karla Brooks Baehr of Lowell said she would use new money from the state to expand the city's preschools, which serve just one out of every 10 eligible children. The school systems involved in the suit are Barnstable, Belchertown, Brockton, East Bridgewater, Fitchburg, Gill-Montague Regional, Holyoke, Leicester, Lowell, Lynn, Mashpee, Orange, Revere, Rockland, Sandwich, Springfield, Taunton, Uxbridge, and Winchendon. The Council for Fair School Finance, a statewide group, sued on their behalf.
Since the first version of the suit was filed in 1978, a different family from Brockton has been the lead plaintiff. In the most recent case, it was Brockton High School 10th-grader Julie Hancock, who spoke to reporters yesterday with her father, Maurice, a Brockton School Committee member.
"I'm hoping the Supreme Court will rule as this judge has, so we will get more funding and we'll continue to reach our goals," said Julie Hancock, 15.
Judges nationwide are ruling in favor of poorer school systems that assert they are not receiving enough money to educate low-income students. Twenty-four states have education finance suits pending, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and solutions come with billion-dollar price tags. Botsford recommended that Massachusetts follow New York, where a commission charged with carrying out that state's school-finance ruling found that it could cost an extra $2.5 billion to $5.6 billion a year.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Funding advocate puts money where her mouth is
By Kevin Rothstein
The state's two teachers unions have funded the roughly $1.5 million cost of the education funding lawsuit, officials said.
But the money - $1.3 million from the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the rest from the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers - may not be the greatest contribution to the case.
Norma Shapiro, president of the Council for Fair School Finance, contributed $100,000 of her own money to the cause.
"It's very hard for me to express how passionately I feel about public schools and the role they play in our country," the Concord resident said. "I just don't think there's anything more important in our society."
Shapiro works unpaid as a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union. She is married to Benson Shapiro, a retired Harvard business professor.
Outside of the union donations, her contributions are the largest single source of funding for the council, which scrambled for money when Attorney General Tom Reilly decided to fight the case in court.
The council is the same group that fought the landmark case that led to the 1993 Education Reform Act, but the case was decided by a judge without a costly trial.
Other donors to the council, according to 2003 public tax filings, include the Fleet Charitable Gift Fund, which gave $20,000, and the Cambridge-based Schott Center for Public and Early Education, which donated $45,000.
More than $150,000 of the $165,000 collected directly by the council went to the law firm of Weisman and Associates, which is working on a reduced fee basis, Shapiro said.
The donations were made directly to attorney Michael Weisman's law firm.
MTA General Counsel Anne Clark, who is a director on the council's board, said the goals of the union and the council are the same.
"We feel perfectly aligned with the interests of that group," Clark said. "The concern here is the kids are succeeding."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
A Boston Herald editorial
Money won't solve poor school woes
No one wanted to touch the hot potato thrown back in the Supreme Judicial Court's lap yesterday on education funding. We fail to see why.
"Despite a number of impressive accomplishments of the commonwealth and the Department of Education over the past 10 years, the record here establishes that the plaintiff children are not receiving the education to which they are constitutionally entitled," Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford wrote.
There's really one inescapable conclusion to draw from Botsford's report to the
SJC. It's not about the money.
We hope to hear more about that from Gov. Mitt Romney today when he addresses the Mass. Association of School Committees.
In 1993, the last time a court order spurred an overhaul to K-12 education funding, advocates of greater accountability gave significant ground to the "more money" crowd in order to win modest reforms.
The reform side got MCAS and curriculum standards. The money side got $31 billion poured into schools over the last decade.
Now we know who got the short end of the stick.
Romney should insist that the Legislature pass the recommendations of his task force on underperforming school districts, making it easier to fire bad teachers and take over bad schools.
And he should go even further.
He was on the right track insisting that parents get involved, and shouldn't back down because of political correctness.
He ought to demand that the caps on charter schools be abolished once and for all so more disadvantaged students have more choices.
He should push for veteran teacher testing and even higher MCAS standards.
And he should make clear the debate about the next steps in education reform will be about accountability, not money.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
A Boston Globe editorial
A finding for fair schools
Suffolk Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford ruled yesterday that the state is failing in its constitutional duty to provide effective public education in all communities without regard to income. Her lengthy ruling demands that Massachusetts education officials work harder to ensure that students in low-income cities and towns have the same opportunities as wealthier students to succeed in school.
The judge listened to more than 100 witnesses and examined 1,000 exhibits before finding the state wanting in a case brought by 19 familes challenging the state's school financing formula. The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Michael Weisman, called Botsford's ruling a "spectacular victory" for public school children from economically disadvantaged districts. But there are no easy remedies in Botsford's decision to address the academic gaps between racial minorities and white students or between poor and rich. That hard work is still ahead.
Key portions of the ruling should grab the attention of Governor Romney and the Legislature. Botsford cites staffing levels at the state's Department of Education that are less than half what they were in 1980. It falls on this shrinking staff to find remedies for underperforming students while improving the state's foundation formula, which determines how much schools should spend per pupil to meet the minimum requirements of the state's education reform law.
"The department's own lack of capacity impedes its ability effectively to help the local districts with theirs," Botsford writes. Enlarging a state bureaucracy isn't a popular activity. But elected leaders need to see that it will be necessary to provide relief.
Botsford made a less compelling case when charging education officials with the task of determining costs for correctives. She appears to mandate that educators expand their curriculum and assessment efforts in the areas of health, arts, and foreign languages. How such efforts address the academic achievement gap between rich and poor students, as evidenced by their performance on the math and English sections of the high-stakes Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System tests, is unclear.
Botsford is on point, however, when requiring state officials to determine the costs of providing preschool programs for 3- and 4-year-olds from low-income families. Several of the judge's "should be considered" categories, such as remedial tutoring and extra help for low-income and bilingual students, are worthy of elevation to the "must be covered" list.
Massachusetts is building a reputation for education reform. But Botsford's findings, which now go to Justice John Greaney of the Supreme Judicial Court, serve as a reminder that education reform is still unfinished business.
Return to
top
Response by Dr. Charles C. Ormsby
North Andover school committee member
Monday, April 26, 2004
When asked by the Eagle-Tribune to comment
Judge Botsford’s ruling presumes that funding is the only variable that matters when it comes to educational outcomes when, in fact, it is one of the least important factors. Lack of funding is the excuse used by incompetent educators and self-serving special interests when they won’t take the steps needed to raise academic performance. Raising academic standards and expectations while refusing to coddle students who are either inattentive or who actively resist learning can reduce costs while dramatically raising student performance.
Instead of undermining accountability by rewarding failing school districts, Massachusetts could raise academic outcomes (especially in poorer communities) rapidly and at no extra cost by instituting a statewide voucher system. Offer all parents a voucher worth 75% of the average per pupil expenditure in their district for use in the school of their choice. Unresponsive and failing school districts run by special interests for their own benefit will feel the anger of their customers and be quickly dispatched. Marginal school systems will be shaken out of their lethargy and will start serving the educational interests of their students in order to survive.
Competition is key. School administrators and employees need to know that they will prosper ONLY if their students prosper academically. Put the power in the hands of the customers (parents and students) and you won’t need complex new re-distribution formulas … parents will hold schools accountable.
Dr. Charles C. "Chuck" Ormsby is a
member of the North Andover School Committee as well as a member of
Citizens for Limited Taxation and the North Andover Taxpayers
Association.
Return to
top
The Massachusetts Constitution
Chapter V, Section II.
The Encouragement of Literature, etc.
Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people. [See Amendments, Arts.
XVIII,
XLVI,
XCVI and
CIII.]
Return to Commentary
Mini-Winny's
Darkest Hour
– An update of his continuing trials and tribulations –
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Tangled webs they weave
By Brian McGrory, Globe Columnist
When did lying become not only acceptable among our political leaders, but the norm?
Was it on the morning of Jan. 26, 1998, when a worn-looking President Clinton stood in the West Wing, waved a finger determinedly in the air, and declared, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"?
On Aug. 17 of that year, there was Clinton again, this time as contrite as April snow, saying, "Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate."
The nation was -- wink, wink -- shocked, and a whole new generation of politicians, as well as the one already in power, got it in their bloated heads that they could get away with anything they pleased.
I bring this up in light of Boston's own Tom Finneran, who may go from the State House to the Big House because of, of all grand things, a lie. Can you picture the speaker and his penny-ante cronies, also known as your state representatives, looking quizzically at each other over the federal investigation and asking, "What's the crime in that?"
You see, lies are marbled into their public lives. They lie on the House and Senate floor when they invariably describe their political enemies as "my very good friend." They lie to potential contributors about needing money in campaigns where they face no opponent. They lie with a glint in their eye, a wink, and a little nod. There are times when they seem to be trying to outdo each other with the sheer brazenness of their lies.
Unusual they are not. In Washington, Bush and his minions lied about whether Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda. They lied about knowing where the weapons of mass destruction were hidden. They lied about when they decided to go to war. They lied about Iraqi oil paying for the cost of reconstruction.
Just this month, Condoleezza Rice lied about the nature of the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing, which was revealed when the document was made public a few days after her testimony. The administration even lied about something so trivial as whether it had a role in the "Mission Accomplished" sign.
And let's not forget the prescription drug bill, by any measure the gold standard of lies. A high-level Medicare official testified on Capitol Hill in March that he had warned the White House last year that the benefit would cost 25 to 50 percent more than projected, but was directed not to tell the Congress.
Kerry, he's not much better. He lied when he said he wasn't going to opt out of public financing, because then he did. He lied when he reached a landmark campaign spending agreement in his campaign against Bill Weld, which he then broke. After he was overheard earlier this year describing Bush and his compatriots as "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen," he lied about whom he was referring to. In other words, a lie about liars -- you can't beat that.
But back to Finneran, who is destined to be the national poster boy for America's political liars, given that federal investigators are now nipping at his heels. When he testified before a three-judge panel that he hadn't seen the redistricting plan, which affected his own district, until after it was publicly filed, it's amazing he held a straight face.
The famously autocratic speaker had handpicked the redistricting committee and its chairman, and the committee in turn hired Finneran's boyhood friend, Larry DiCara, to guide them. Finneran's top aide had installed the redistricting software on his computer.
But he had no idea about the plan. Hey, why not?
Here's why not: Their word is the currency of politicians, and Finneran and so many others have made it absurdly cheap. They demean the democratic process, and by doing so demean all the people who choose to take part in it.
I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't be wonderful to see him pay a very steep price.
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|