For the record, although I vote, I do not feel that the school committee and the choices it makes represents my family or my family's interests.
The trickle down effect of hiring Taymore and it's ripple effects such as having a business manager-in-training, a gym teacher for principal, a union that seems to only protect the ones it shouldn't & so much more is alienating. I have older children and it feels like every day, there is a new bad decision being made.
I didn't know about the Northeast pool closing. My children took swimming there.
The cost of the MV pool should be somewhere in their annual report. One of the reports from the year it was built. They don't "charge back" the city of Melrose. They get the per pupil expenditures and allocate them.
I have no idea how the Northeast pool came to be. It was built before my time and probably before yours. I do know that there have been major changes by the state and the federal government to vocational training education over the years so I wouldn't feel comfortable speculating.
To your point about vocational elected officials, a more under the radar group, I have yet to see. Sure, they're on the ballot but I don't think too many voters pay attention to them. One of the people running right now seems to have much to say but I don't think this is usually the case. It seems like there are issues at that school too if he is right.
Saw a news article today stating that the reimbursement rate the state pays back to the towns for charter students is going to be 63%. That does it for me. Voting No.
do not listen to these people. they are wrong.vote no on number 2.you dont need these schools...charter schools are a joke.they will take money away from public schools...listen people you only get out of school what you put into school.go to school study hard end of story.......
Tail end of a story filed by Janet Wu on Ch 5. I watched it again, and she quoted a study that said the rate was 63% THIS year, not next. Boston is projecting a shortfall of 25 million next year, as opposed to 19 million this year, or 24% bigger, so I would suppose that same rate can also be applied to Melrose. I believe the figure we pay this year is $2,458,732. If we get a 63% reimbursement, we get $1,549,001 back, a shortfall of $909,731. Next year, if the 24% applies, reimbursement would be reduced a further $218,335. That holds if our in-house cost per pupil stays the same, but it' won't.
Some will tell you that it's a wash - we would have spent that much money on the charter kids if they stayed in the Melrose system, but that's not true. Cost per pupil includes just about everything spent - buildings, staff, supplies, insurance, etc,etc,etc. A lot of those costs don't diminish just because a couple hundred kids opt out.
Right...which is exactly the conversation that's been going on throughout this thread - the funding model is FLAWED! Where will the money come from to start all these new Charters? Someone tried to put the Cart way before the Horse with #2.
Look at what happens if we look at the BIG PICTURE and not just what is going on in Melrose.
I find it funny that so many people are perfectly happy to watch (for years and years and years) their public school system mishandle and misuse their tax dollars, but only now are they up in arms about the money the charters will "waste". Once again, hypocrites unite.
Your assumption is, I think, that I'm new to this. Your assumption is wrong. I've been pointing out the sad state of MPS in every regard for years, ever since Dolan got himself put onto the SC. Way longer even than Myron, who used to be a die hard Dolan supporter. Are there a lot of newbies? I guess - as there are newbies complaining about things like water and sewer, but I'm not one of them. Your point is, I think, that most Melrose residents have their heads either buried in the sand or jammed up their butts. In that you would be correct. I don't think they're hypocrites - I think they're just generally self-absorbed and disengaged, exactly the way Dolan likes it.
Some of you think that charter schools are going to pop up all around Melrose, which I believe is not the case since we are a feeder for Mystic Valley, I don't think another charter would necessarily appear around us. These charter schools are needed in cities with the school system that are failing, while this could be the fate of Melrose in the near future with the current administration and the mayor and school committee running it into the ground. I think question 2 is a viable option for all of Massachusetts and that's how we should think when we vote, it's not a Melrose question but a vote to give the entire student base in this state a chance for a decent education. If this question passed maybe our leaders would wake up and make clear concise, and fiscally responsible decisions regarding our own school system.
Scott, in your scenario please explain:
1. Who pays to build all these new Charters?
2. What happens to the public schools (that are failing) in the towns that build all these Charters?
3. What happens to the students in these towns that don't get a winning lottery ticket, or have special needs that cannot be met by Charters?
THINK before believing Number 2 is some kind of magic wand that rescues urban children. That's a complete PR play by the Hedge Funds who paid for the entire "Vote Yes Campaign." Google "dark money and Charter schools." Makes for some interesting reading.
Voting NO!
Thanks for pointing towards those articles about dark money. VERY interesting reading, and if you're on the fence, this should really make you stop and think. Voting no.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves to think so parochial and to be so narrow minded! Even the so called charter school funding issue has not impacted Melrose directly since the schools get ever so much more money from the city side each year - millions of dollars to carry on their mediocre performance! We have a personnel and management issue not a money issue. Shame on all of you for corrupting the conversation!
The only cities that have formally asked for expansion or new charter schools are in such urban city districts such as Springfield, Boston, Chicopee, Lynn, and Brockton. Go to: : http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=22832 to learn what schools are asking for expansion and to: http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=21829 to learn where new schools are being requested.
Vote Yes on #2 to give students a chance at an better education! Don't be so selfish!
Ha! This is a funny dialog. I've read that article and many, many others. It does not answer any of the questions I put out there yesterday.
Answer this specific question before you preach the virtues of Question 2: What happens to the students in Springfield that can't get into a Charter due to their unlucky lottery ticket or their needs that can't be met by a Charter?
And, who pays for the new Charter in Springfield? Oh, right. Sending districts. Perhaps you missed the earlier thread on funding - but there is no reading comprehension required. The State of MA is currently reimbursing sending districts at only 63%. It's expected to fall even more next year due to a 25 million shortfall. Add MORE Charters and guess what happens to the shortfall?
Don't even bother to write a response unless it actually includes answers. But you probably won't be able to help yourself. So encourage everyone to ignore all of the above, and Vote for #2 because in Springfield, only children without an IEP and a winning lottery ticket deserve a chance.
I re-read that article again, and all it did was confirm the points made earlier, except for one piece of information that I hadn't seen before.
"Corresponding with the large drop in funding of tuition reimbursements in FY 2015, DESE changed its approach for prioritizing how available funding is distributed. Rather than providing all sending districts a uniform percentage of the total amount determined by the formula, DESE is now prioritizing reimbursements to districts during the first year of a tuition increase (the 100 percent reimbursement tier of the 100/25/25/25/25/25 sequence). Districts due reimbursements for later tiers only receive funding as it’s available. For FY 2016 it appears as though funding will be close to sufficient for funding first-year reimbursements (DESE currently projects 95% reimbursement for year one increases), with little to nothing left over for later year reimbursements. This effectively shifts the formula in FY 2016 from 100/25/25/25/25/25 to 95/0/0/0/0/0."
So, if there is a tuition increase, the state reimburses the sending district about 100% (supposedly) of the increase in the first year. After that the sending district eats the entire increase with zero reimbursement. That means that the gap between a district's total cost per charter student and reimbursement for tuition increases is GUARANTEED to widen in every year following the first year.
Let's translate that to Melrose. If MV raises it's tuition $1000, in the first year Melrose will get most of that reimbursed. In the following years, Melrose will get none of it reimbursed, meaning a guaranteed additional shortfall of about $200,000.00 every year, and that's just for one $1000 tuition increase.
The reimbursement formula is even more screwed up than it appears to be.
I notice you avoided talking about the dark money being given to the Yes on 2 campaign. Why would these corporations funnel so much money this way? It's actually pretty simple - Massachusetts is being used as a test case for them. They see charters as a business opportunity and a way to make enormous amounts of money down the road. These are the same people responsible for the financial crisis we're just now beginning to fully recover from. Do you really want these people running a public school system?
Voting no on 2.
And Hedge Funds also get huge tax breaks for giving money to Charters.
Just vote yes with no idea how any of these schools will be funded or what losing the additional funds will do to already failing schools. Perhaps we should just eliminate public school altogether in America, and let Hedge Fund Managers create schools and just offer lottery tickets. Winner Winner!
And forget those kids on any type of IEP - those parents are just going to have to figure it out. Maybe home school. Oh, and school athletics - that will become a thing of the past. No town football game to go to when there are 17 different schools in the town. The bussing will be interesting too when there are a zillion different schools. What a sad, bleak picture.
Voting NO.
We all should read the following passage from the post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/06/04/why-hedge-funds-love-charter-schools/
Everyone is making money off the charter schools, with the profiting all funded from tax payer's wallets.
Interesting. Obviously there are massive tax advantages to them. Being able to write of $2 for every $1 - that's a deal you and I sure don't get. But I think they're playing a much longer game than that. I think they want eventually to privatize public education. The amount of money they could make is staggering. If you think public schools are in trouble now, wait until it becomes a for-profit private enterprise.
No one is saying that some companies are making money in these exam prep firms - I sent some of my won kids to these firms for extra help - and it worked well for them.
What I'm saying is that the 70 or so charters schools are not gong to be an attractive alternative for Capitalists to make big money - they do that in the stock market or other such investments - get real folks and grow up - mentally!
What I would like to see done is to eliminate the US Department of Education- this bureaucracy has grown too big and is hammering school districts all over the nation with these unfunded requirements - and helping special interest groups to develop and expand their influence into our education system. This is were Common Core was developed - Washington bureaucrats - and we all know from news accounts how unsatisfactory this program has been nation-wide including here in Mass.
I'm sorry you are having a tough time understanding (mentally) the relationship between Hedge Funds and Charter Schools.
First, ask yourself why the hedge funds and their investors are 100% funding the "yes" campaign. Here is the answer: Charter schools are big money for them. Clearly you do not work in the financial services industry. I do. Let me help you to understand (mentally) how much money a tax credit is worth for a hedge fund.
The typical minimum hedge fund investment is between $500,000 and $1 million. Per investor. Most of the big successful funds have a much higher minimum initial investment. Because the managers of these funds invest so frequently there are typically very high capital gains - resulting in taxes for the investors. So a tax credit is very, very valuable - to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
So of course Hedge Funds are for 70 new charter schools! That's an opportunity for 70 funds to receive a tax credit! Rich get richer.
You are delusional if you think that investing in 12 additional charter schools is going to make Wall Street take notice here in Mass! This is a typical response from those delusional progressive Democrats who don't want the unions to lose members! Please - do is all a favor and keep dreaming of a world run by unions and big government!
I'm having trouble understanding the total lack of comprehension you show. They've already taken notice. Why do you think they are investing in the Yes campaign? Maybe you're struggling with reading comprehension - it's 12 PER YEAR. There are 70 in Mass now - in 10 years there could be 190, and in case you've forgotten, there are 50 states. And I'm not a Democrat, let alone a delusional progressive Democrat.
They have such hate for unions and government that they don't see the threat posed by Wall Street. Apparently they've forgotten about the last ten years spent trying to recover from the last Wall Street scam. Can't see the forest for the trees. Pathetic.
When people like "Delusional" don't understand the truth and have absolutely no facts, they result to word like "ashamed", "delusional", "pathetic", "scare-tactics".
It's pretty clear "Delusional" doesn't understand how Wall Street operates or how much money these Hedge Funds stand to gain off of Question 2.
My advice: instead of ranting, and stubbornly hanging on to your position, how about just googling "Hedge Fund and Charter Schools". Spend an hour reading - there is a wealth of information out there.
Not going to argue. I see the points on both sides. I will say that it is funny (?) to me that there is so much disdain for the hedge funds and privatizing proponents who are making so much money, and not so much for the powers that be in the government who are running the public schools.I agree that Pearson is horrible and that company is making tons and tons of money, but they are making that money off of public schools. The Feds sold us down the river a long, long time ago by making Pearson the end all, be all in testing our kids. Just pointing out that you don't have to privatize or go to charters to make mountains of money off education. You just have to get in good with the federal government.
I totally agree with "The Feds" as well. I'm sure most who concerned over Hedge Fund involvement with Charters are equally as concerned with any and all companies making a profit through public schools. Common Core, standardized testing, competency based learning - these are all profit makers for private companies off of taxpayer dollars - and do not serve the best interest of students.
The basis for this thread is Question #2. Most people voting No care about public schools in America - and at the same time most of us are also fed up with all the bull**** in public schools and clearly very unhappy with Melrose administration.
However adding more Charters does address in any way the fundamental problems with public schools - in Melrose or in the State. The Charter funding model is severely flawed, it doesn't serve ALL children and helps the extreme wealthy get even richer. That's why I'm voting NO.
I'm voting no. This vote is entirely independent of the traditional public schools. The Mystic Valley charter school is a glaring example as to why everyone should vote no. This school is outside of the reach of taxpayers and is using our money to the benefit of a very few residents of this city. The tax dollars of Melrose residents has gone to build fields, buildings and pools for the charter school. As a resident of Melrose you are not allowed to use the facilities that you paid for. It is unconscionable. The group that runs the Mystic Valley charter school is very savvy and they have effectively exploited the MA charter school laws to benefit a very small group. Basically they are running a private school on our dime.
Conceptually, charter schools are a good thing. Sadly, a small band of thieves have taken more than they need and further expansion of charter schools is not a good idea at this time. Until such time that taxpayer oversight is implemented; there should be no further expansion.
I agree with the chorus of criticism against the public schools. However, if I am so-motivated, I can do something about it. I can run for SC myself or get behind a candidate I believe in.
Meanwhile, the Mystic Valley charter school is mishandling my tax dollars and I have absolutely no recourse against them. I just have to sit back and watch them use my money to build buildings and facilities that I can't use.
Emphatically voting no.
Honestly, the only narrow-mindedness I see is yours. Perhaps fiscal responsibility and accountability aren't important to you, but they are to me. If you're going to sink to third grade name-calling, I'm going to ignore you from here on in. Why do you feel it necessary to sink to that level? It's a consistent MO for the Yes proponents when confronted with facts they can't dispute. Grow up.
Voting no. Get over it.
Because it isn't just one article. It's page after page of articles that would undoubtedly crash this board if copied and pasted.
Don't be a schmuck. Google that topic yourself and start reading.
Who said anything about Hedge Funds running Charter Schools? Please - you think those fund managers care one bit about "public" schools? All their children attend private school. They don't have time for curriculum nonsense. They are busy making money! That's why they are bankrolling the entire "Yes" campaign - so more Charters will open and they can get their zillion dollar tax credit. Once a school is open they need another one - which is why they want MORE. It's pretty simple.
The insane Charter funding model doesn't affect them. Increased taxes to cover massive state losses won't affect them. Public schools that are only reimbursed 63% doesn't affect them. Kids left behind because their needs can't be met by a Charter doesn't affect them. Residents paying taxes with zero oversight on the spending doesn't affect them.
If those things don't affect you or you have convinced yourself that you are saving "some" poor urban children so none of them matter - then go ahead and vote yes. That's what the hedge fund managers want you to do :)
If the public schools are such a problem, why not just take all of this effort and energy of creating new charter schools and direct it to fixing the public schools?