Sorry, but No on 2 is correct. So-called "competition" from MV hasn't done a single thing to instigate change. If anything, since MV opened, things have gotten worse, not better, and I have zero hope that any improvement with the current crop of half-wits in place is even possible. They need to go. All of them, from the top to the bottom.

Agreed. Dolan tried that cockamamie override, and it got shot down. That doesn't stop them though. They just make up a bond proposal, like with the "learning commons" and now for the modulars, and ram it down our throats anyway, since the B of A doesn't have the stones to stop it. The very last thing I want is to give them any more money - it's throwing good money after bad.

We're talking about two distinct issues here. Stop muddying the waters by trying to link them. Fixing the charter funding formula has nothing to do at all with MPS, other than the financial drain. Voting no.

Still chuckling over the MV is financially transparent comment.

Wish we could post photos on this site. We could start with one of their state of the art pool and gymnasium facility - which by the way they CHARGE Melrose HS swim team to use...even though it was funded by tax dollars from Melrose, Malden, Stoneham...

Voting NO.

My final thoughts on this matter: Most of us seem to agree that by giving this existing Melrose school admin more money will not improve the educational outcomes because of who is at the helm of the school district, Taymore - this includes the current school committee members. Also, I think honestly, we know that the charter formula will take time, if ever, to get changed. So with that said - why would anyone still vote no and take the option away from so many kids, in the inner urban cities, who are waiting in line to participate in a lottery which - to some of these kids - is their only way out of potential poverty? Certainly this situation does not exist for the average student in Melrose (except for those who are in METCO).

You have again reminded me of why I am voting No: The absurdity of having to enter a lottery to receive what is perceived as a better education. A child's educational opportunities should not be dependent on her parents knowing or caring enough that this opportunity exists and figuring out the process for entering. A publicly funded education premised on a lottery system to gain access should have no place in this country's public education system.

Why would anyone still vote no? For every single reason listed in this thread, the main one being:

Because there is no way to fund all these new Charter schools without
further damaging the public schools that still have to serve the children who don't win the lottery or have needs that cannot be met by Charter Schools.

Come up with an economic plan that addresses all of these factors and then ask for an increase in Charters.

Just received my 10th email this week from the desperate union president- begging for more people to come and knock on doors, make phone calls (my union dues are now paying for the "pizza and drinks" that will sustain the phone bank participants), and stand outside with signs to defeat Question 2. You can feel her sweaty forehead through the computer. These people are terrified. Anything that terrifies the union to its very core has to be a good thing. Voting yes, because I am sick of being part of the problem. I love people who try to tell me that the funding model is "flawed". I cannot begin to count the number of things that are flawed in financing public education. For 30 years, I have watched the public schools as they are allowed to waste, waste, and waste some more, but then they want to call out the funding model because it takes money away from them. Maybe they should stop wasting what they have, and they could provide for their students and keep people from wanting more charter options.

Couldn't agree more with previous poster. If the 2 million that Melrose has to pay for its Mystic Valley 220 (±) students were spent locally (which doesn't figure in the Chapter 70 funds the district still collects), why should anyone believe that this utterly corrupt and incompetent administration would have spent it correctly and for the best interests of the students? Answer: it is virtually a guarantee that the MPS would have spent the funds in a way that few would think was responsible, that is if we ever got to see the true accountability that in fact does not exist under this school committee, mayor, BOA and administration. Accountability is just a mirage here. It's all smoke and mirrors, hiding the corruption and rank incompetence. Voting Yes.

And once again the conversation returns back to Melrose. It's a State of MA vote. Decision doesn't affect Melrose at all. We are at the cap.

Vote yes if:
- You are OK with ZERO control over how much and where your tax money is spent
by Charter Schools
- Have blind-faith in those schools and schools to come
- Have certainty that Charter Schools are "saving urban children from a life
of poverty"
- Have absolutely no concern about your state income tax going up

Vote No if:
- You would like to see the entire funding model reviewed
- You would like the entrance (lottery) model reviewed
- You want more Charter "innovation" passed on to public schools
- Have some uncertainty about whether or not Charters actually help "urban
children in poverty" over the long-term
- Enjoy some level of control over your tax dollars (both income and property).

Thanks for that. Unfortunately, this is the foolishness typical of the Yes on 2 supporters:

I don't know why such abject stupidity still surprises me, but it's not atypical of Melrose voters. Apparently this poster has no idea that every single taxpayer in every city and town in the Commonwealth will be paying for this.

I heard the Melrose school committee voted to spend about $5,000,000 just to build 4 kindergarten classrooms. They will hold fewer than 100 students. They already spend about $12,000 each year on those students-- the same amount we pay the charter school. The state pays for the buildings separately for the charter schools. We don't pay for them. We save $5,000,000.

If all new incoming students go to Melrose public instead of the charter, more classrooms would have to be built at $50,000 per student prices and Melrose would still have to pay $12,000 to educate each of them. It's far cheaper sending them to the charter.

For crying out loud, are you not listening? Melrose is at it's cap. We can't send them to a charter. But since Question 2 is a statewide question, if it passes we'll be paying for it anyway.

It does nobody any good to ignore facts that don't fit your agenda.

Really, Really? Melrose is not at it's cap or in the nearing the cap category.

Why don't you go check with the City of Melrose. Yes, we are almost at the internal cap on how many students from the City can attend the Charter with reimbursement from the City. The point is giving MV more students won't impact Melrose in any significant way. It will have a much bigger impact on cities and towns without Charters already.

As far as it goes, at this point in time that much is probably true. I can't imagine MV accepting any more Melrose kids if they're not going to be reimbursed for them. Of course, that could change.

Question 2 as written allows for the opening of up to 12 new charters per year. There is no cutoff date.

I think that this is a very good discussion regarding this ballot question, and although I feel that there are good points being made for either vote, I'm sorry to say that the deciding factor for me is that if the teacher's union is against it, I'm for it.

So you're going to cast your ballot not based on the merits but on who's for or against it? That's truly frightening.

And of course the Mayor and School Committee had the opportunity to use the Hoover School when the lease with the SEEM Collaborative expired this year but foolishly re-upped with the SEEM. One of the primary reasons for not selling the Hoover school parcel 10 years ago was for exactly this type of bubble in registrations. Now we are spending millions on temporary trailers with a useful life of about 10 years. Go figure.

Not Hoover. Beebe, which absolutely should have been used to solve this space problem--or the Franklin--for Melrose students instead of this new spending scheme (and the $200,000/year that the district gets for rent is another whole scam since we are paying utilities, snow removal, etc. and this building--and Ripley--were supposedly saved for our own students to use; and no, it's not about SmartBoards either, as RD claimed). And yes, stupidity in action once again. Mayor is tossing some vote-getting goodies to the Horace Mann by committing at least $1.5 million in "renovations" for that school in this new bonding bundle (only the first $400,000 for the "design" work bonded so far--what a boondoggle for this patronage fake-bid "process"). That Horace Mann project was never included in what the "public hearing" last May (you know, that trumped-up 8 am Margaret Driscoll/MEF special, with only canned questions/answers allowed). There has been zero public process around this newly proposed and quickie approved Horace Mann boondoggle, just another bunch of hooey (amplified by the power-abusing, restraining-order principal who insisted that "security" is the big issue there, so that new entryways simply had to be created immediately--probably jealous of Jenny Corduck's newly fashioned Hoover digs to match her miniskirts and window treatments). Can't worry about those silly members of the public seeking a legitimate public process when "security" is at stake. Denise Gaffney (city planner) admitted under questioning that the Horace Mann part of this new bond is at least (!) a third of the cost. That was absolutely never part of what was proposed last spring, and it should not have been allowed in this current bonding quickie vote that just went down (if the BOA had any backbone in their oversight role, which it obviously does not have, since they're more worried about politics than their fiduciary responsibilities).

The Franklin would have been the other totally sensible solution, since there is only one classroom's worth of students needing services according to Title 1. They could have been moved into the Beebe (that currently houses special needs students from SEEM). Instead, Taymore has converted the whole ECC into an "inclusive" school which means that basically every pre-school student is in a program designed for those with special needs, with far more staff and expensive accommodations than is required for a population of general students. The taxpayers are only obligated to be paying for that handful of students, and yet now the whole thing has become a Boutique Preschool, with ridiculous tuition for parents and using fancy renovated space that is needed for the regular population, making it ideal for a kindergarten overflow space. Instead of using the space we already have for this vague and probably temporary elementary enrollment bubble, we are now going to have to pay $4.5 million (and up, since they don't really know the upward limits of this boondoggle project), once again screwing secondary education and focusing resources in the wrong place. The ECC used to be a district money-maker, but not any more.

Bottom Line: RD and MEF are in the business of buying votes from the gullible Birth to Five group, meaning that the Designer ECC matters a whole lot more than accountability to the taxpaying public who must now foot the bill for yet another stupidly conceived many-million-dollar project, once again catering to the parents of the "babies" and leaving the high school without appropriate staff, cutting key department chair positions, etc. (RD threw some vote-getting crumbs at the MHS parents with the "Learning Commons" boondoggle, a stupidly conceived $5.3 million-dollar boondoggle. As anyone who looks beyond the surface will find, those $6.6-million-dollar Science Labs did absolutely nothing to improve the district's Science scores, speaking of badly conceived and executed boondoggles.)

This makes total sense - give this person credit for critical thinking! Most intelligent residents know that the unions are out to: get more money for themselves and their management to fund their own internal programs and to give money for lobbying - plan and simple - also - they are used to fight any change in educational systems - especially changes that limit their influence and power - and they are specifically setup -to defend poor performing teachers - when was the last time the union helped a high-performing teacher - answer - NEVER! They are against giving high performing teachers more money than poorer performing teachers!

So again, to the person who said - if the union is for it - I am against it - excellent thinking! Also another convincing argument is that our own school committee is against this Ballot Questions #2 - and that should scare ALL of us to vote YES!

Trying to post anything about the bigger picture is futile on this Board. It always comes back to complaints about Melrose. There are many, many towns and cities in MA. Many have high-functioning school districts and teacher unions. Many do not.

Voting yes is not going to impact teacher unions in any significant way - and it certainly will do absolutely NOTHING in Melrose. Haven't you read the 99 other posts?

First of all Resident, you got it backwards. What the poster actually said was "I'm sorry to say that the deciding factor for me is that if the teacher's union is against it, I'm for it."

Secondly, the poster who said that it is frightening that you would cast your ballot based on what someone else's position is, rather than on the facts of the issue is absolutely correct. That's not critical thinking. It's intellectual laziness of the worst kind, absolutely typical of the average Melrose voter, and a total abdication of your civic responsibility.

I'm voting yes not because of what anyone else supports or doesn't support, not because I think the SC is a bunch of ignorant morons, and not because I think the Mayor is a disgusting megalomaniac, but because I think it's the right thing to do.

You are entitled to vote for the reasons you gave - other people are also entitled to vote for their own reasons. People - it is free country to vote the way you want! And please don't be so naive as to cast aspersions on the average Melrose voter - it just shows your condescending and arrogant attitude - as if you have the monopoly on truth and knowledge!

Oh - you mean those same Melrose voters who year after year elect the same gaggle of morons to the SC, the same feckless GIC-grabbing slime to the B of A, and the same megalomaniacal fraud as Mayor? Those voters?

Res ipsa loquitur.

Yup. The same voters who continue to vote in people who support $6.5 million science labs that have done nothing to improve science scores, $5.3 million learning commons (when someone figures out what that is actually supposed to do, please let me know), and now $4.5 for trailers and "security" upgrades to the worst school in the city. $16.3 million totally wasted, and for what? To buy votes from the ignorant lemmings that make up most of the Melrose voting public.

I'm voting Yes on 4 because that sanctimonious twit Margaret Driscoll had the nerve to post that the Melrose SC was against 4 like that's something to be proud of.

What's the SC stance on #3? They like citizens to pay more so it's probably Yes. Voting No.

Yes on 2 all the way.

MV is as transparent as the MPS and the Melrose City government, a low standard for sure but the same. None of the sending districts are transparent.

How about those Melrose gyms at the middle, high & elementary schools that The Melrose Rec has to pay to use? To run programs for the children of Melrose tax payers?

That middle school bond funded by the tax payers. The learning commons bond funded by the tax payers. Now what is essentially the Horace Mann bond funded by the tax payers.

Am I able to use these locations for free to run programs? Didn't think so.

Ha - thanks for making my point. Melrose taxpayers voted for the Middle School renovations. Like it or not, Melrose taxpayers elected the mayor, and the SC who make the decisions on the bonds.

No one mentioned using schools for free for personal events. The students in Melrose schools that play sports use the gymnasiums and do not pay a fee to use their own gymnasium.

Melrose Rec is a separate entity and not a "school". In fact students from MV, and every other school are welcome to play any Melrose Rec sports, in the gym and on the fields if they live in Melrose.

Not a single person in Melrose had or will have a say in anything that is purchased or built by MV, yet their tax dollars pay for a portion of everything - to the tune of 2.2 million a year. That is the distinction. Charging Melrose to swim hardly seems "collaborative".

Good points but, knowing the dummies in Melrose chances are nobody ever discussed being "collaborative" with MV and just went ahead and paid the fees when told to.

Looking at the Melrose Rec Guide to Programs:

Middle School Basketball complete with tryouts

Are these not the official team(s) of the middle school?
I have been told by the rec dept itself that part of the high price to play $385 for boys and $415 for girls is because they have to pay to use the school gym in Melrose.

Was only interested in boys but why is girls more? Someone else can fight that battle.

MV didn't take $2 million from Melrose to build a pool but true, they did build a gym & pool because they didn't have a gym. No gym whatsoever.

Do they need a pool? I don't know. Malden HS has one. The vocational school in Wakefield has one. If Melrose could have found a better deal hopefully they'd take it. Should MV let Melrose & the other sending districts use it for free? Probably.

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.

Middle School Basketball (in the Melrose Rec Guide) is NOT a Melrose "Middle School" basketball team. It is open to any and all students that attend middle school and live in Melrose.

Also the pool in Wakefield has been shut down for years. The point is that in your examples, taxpayers elected the SC's that built those facilities and had an opportunity to be involved in the decision. There is really no issue with schools taking on capital projects - the only issue is transparency with taxpayer $$$$$$$$$ and the charge-back to Melrose, a sending district. Has the actual cost of MV facility ever been disclosed????

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 you have a source? I'd like to read it. 63% of the 100% & the 25%? OR ...

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.

I'm not sure who you think is perfectly happy in Melrose. Certainly not most of the people on this Board! Did you forget that the tax override was handily voted down? Melrose residents were loudly heard - not even one additional penny to the administration to "mishandle and misuse".

Thank you for that perfect example of how taxpayers have "some" say in where their money is spent. With Charters we have ZERO.

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.

That's a joke, right? This bunch? Please don't make the mistake of thinking I support giving the SC any more money. I do not. They should all be $hitcanned for malfeasance. But this is a State issue. They, as usual, f***** this all up, stepped back, and said you (cites and towns) have to pay for it. It's essentially another one of their unfunded mandates.

Look, the funding formula is a cluster****. 1. they use the so-called "Per Pupil Cost" to calculate what we pay to MV when it doesn't reflect the actual cost to educate one student and 2. over and above that, we're also already getting screwed to the tune of almost a million bucks a year by the state on the reimbursements (63%) they promised. Question 2 calls for allowing up to 12 new charters per year. It's not impossible to think that in 10 years there could be 70 or more added to the 70 we already have. That's totally unworkable under the current formulas. It's a really good way to push borderline districts into the "underperforming" or "failing" category, meaning even more charters would be needed.

Fix the funding issues, then talk to me. Until then, voting no.

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!

Instead of answering the questions in "What?", and offering any type of informed point of view on the issues, you result to insults and shaming. Nice tactic. It is you that should be ashamed for this type of response.

To "What?" and his/her followers who appear too lazy to find answers to their own questions - read the following article which will answer their questions: http://www.massbudget.org/report_window.php?loc=Charter-School-Funding,-Explained.html

- but remember - you will need some degree of reading comprehension to fully comprehend this information - I am assuming that you all meet this requirement - please don't disappoint me! Also, remember that charter schools started back in 1994 so please do not tell me that charter school spending has had a negative impact on the educational system in Melrose all those years! Again - vote Yes on #2!

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 agree with you the public schools and teachers are finally scared. My oppinion they should be scared for the way Melrose is a big joke.