The leading bullet of Colleen Murphy’s letter reads as follows:

“The decline in college matriculation rates. As Ms. Kourkoumelis pointed out in her evaluation, in 2005-6, 95.9% of Melrose High School graduates attended either 4-year or 2-year colleges. By 2013-14 that number had plummeted to 88.3%. And while the number of students attending college overall is declining, the number attending 2-year schools has increased dramatically. In 2005 just 11.4% of students attending college were attending 2-year schools; by 2009 that number almost doubled to 21%.”

However, the following allows you to search these data points by year:

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/plansofhsgrads.aspx?mode&orderBy&year=2015&filterBy

The first comment is fairly accurate in that the state reports the graduates attending 4-year or 2-year colleges went from 95.1% in 2005-6 down to 88.4% in 2013-14. Close enough.

However, the second point compares the number attending 2-year schools in 2005 to 2009. The state says the number was 13.8% in 2005 and it actually DECREASED slightly to 13.5% in 2009. While nothing to brag about, according to the state it is incorrect to suggest that the rate of students attending 2 year schools nearly doubled. This is one of the few concrete data points in Murphy’s letter as well as her leading bullet point yet it does not appear to be accurate.

Doesn’t the Free Press have an obligation to check facts before publishing a letter?

Murphy put a Vote No sign on her front lawn...and has no intention of ever sending any of her children to Melrose High School. She didn't want to see her taxes go up for schools if her kids weren't going to be there. As with a large amount of the misinformation spread by the anti Melrose Public School crowd that has sent their kids to private school the facts don't matter. Its all about justifying an individual decision to rip your kids out of a public school system to spend hundreds of thousands on private school educations. The punch line comes a few years later when these kids get into the same colleges Melrose High Kids get into.

I know nothing about the facts above but it's strange how the numbers reported on the state website change from time to time. A few years ago I researched some Melrose data on the state and copied it. When I went back to it later on, it had changed.

One other thought came to mind from the post above: If checking facts was an obligation, they would never publish press releases from the schools or city, especially now that the PR firm is spinning the truth so flagrantly.

With all that was written by Ms. Murphy, that is the best you can do? Perhaps her letter inspired questions, leading you to do your own due diligence. Are you capable of independent thought?

If so, you must have something to say about Ms. Murphy's accurate indictment of the school committee (except C. Kourkoumelis) for failing to consider the mishandling of the first OCR investigation in the superintendent's evaluation. Many other very valid concerns remain. It is time for a real conversation so we can get to the hard work of fixing some of them.

To Motivation:
You obsessively post as if the four high school years mean nothing to a child's development other than to get into some college. Those four years of high school are developmentally significant for a child.

The academics of a school may matter to get into a college, but the culture of a school matters far more. Two children matriculating at the same college who had vastly different developmental experiences in high school are not the same, as you imply. One could have developed a mature, broad-minded, tolerant, giving and forgiving nature based on the culture of her school while another could be a mean girl. Not saying private v. MHS specifically, but you can't ignore the value of a good school which transcends your artificially narrow metric of using college acceptance decisions.

To Motivation: speaking of motivation, what is yours? Why does it bother you so much when people choose a different option for their own children? I know nothing about their finances, but if they can afford private schools, I doubt very much a $300 or $400 increase per year in their property taxes weighs heavily. Why do you take it so personally because these parents made a different choice? They are tax payers and I am grateful Ms. Murphy spoke up. I would like to see the high school and middle school to improve, and for that to happen, we need more people to come forward with their concerns without fear of reprisal.

Speaking of fact checking, I live in the neighborhood and do not recall a "no" sign on their lawn before the election.

Not sure whether "Fail's" comments were directed to my original post or not. However, I found the letter to be heavy in opinion and light on facts. Everyone can have their own opinion and I take no issue with that. However, everyone cannot have their own facts. If we are going to have a real conversation, as you suggest, the best place to start is with accurate information. I my eyes, an opinion piece that starts with an incorrect or misleading fact quickly loses merit.

STATMAN, yes my comment was in response to your initial post. Obviously, perspective is key here. I found Ms. Murphy's letter chock full of facts. You reveal your hand when you outright ignore my question about the "facts" surrounding the superintendent's evaluation. To save you from having to look back, I wrote:

With all that was written by Ms. Murphy, that is the best you can do? Perhaps her letter inspired questions, leading you to do your own due diligence. Are you capable of independent thought?

If so, you must have something to say about Ms. Murphy's accurate indictment of the school committee (except C. Kourkoumelis) for failing to consider the mishandling of the first OCR investigation in the superintendent's evaluation. Many other very valid concerns remain. It is time for a real conversation so we can get to the hard work of fixing some of them.

If you look at the data on this site, Melrose over a 10 year period went from 95% in 2005/6 attending some sort of college vs. 86% in 2014/15. Wakefield stayed the same (88%) over the same period, Shrewsbury (a town often compared to Melrose in terms of population/tax base/income) went up from 87% to 94% attending college over the same 10 year period.

This is from a thread on the community page. One member pointed out that the town of Bedford, under their new superintendent, experienced the exact opposite of Melrose. In the past three years their attendance at four year colleges has increased.

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/plansofhsgrads.aspx?mode&orderBy&year=2015&filterBy

Was thinking the exact same thing. Thank you!
I am going to add onto it for those who can't see beyond the narrow. There are many varying reasons for choosing any school for your child. It is like choosing a job. Pro and con columns. Make a wish list and write those ✅'s or ❎'s next to what specifically one wants for their child/family or what their child needs. It doesn't have to be a default decision for one who has the money or desire to find the right fit for their child/family based on research, knowledge and information of everything/everyone involved in the equation. While the information of where graduating students matriculate from any secondary school is indeed information one can get and can use to help them make their decision, do not assume that is the end all be all of information nor of highest priority for all families choosing private school.

I took your challenge and went to the site you posted and made some simple calculations posted below.

The percentage of all college-bound seniors in 2009 going to two year colleges actually more than doubled, to 2.3 times the percentage of all college-bound seniors in 2005 who went to two year colleges. You claim it went down instead of up. Your numbers are definitely not supported by your data source.

Although the actual amounts on that website are not what exactly what Ms. Murphy posted, your conclusions are definitely not supported by your own data source.

Also, perhaps you should ask Ms. Murphy what data source she used before you attempt to criticize her numbers or conclusions. She may be using a different data set of which you are unaware. Given the thoughtfulness and depth of her letter to the Free Press, I would imagine she's not making numbers up out of thin air.

Here are the actual percentages from the state web site you posted for
2005 and 2009 graduates:

2004-2005 Seniors
Four year private=51.8%
Four year public =34.8%
Two year private = 0.9%
Two year public = 05.8%

Total two year% = 06.7%
Total to college% 93.3%
2 year percentage of all college bound = 7.2% (6.7% divided by 93.3%)


2008-2009 Seniors
Four year private=37.6%
Four year public =33.2%
Two year private =00.4%
Two year public = 14.0%

Total two year % =14.4%
Total to college% 85.2%
2 year percentage of all college bound = 16.9% (14.4% divided by 85.2%)

The two year percentage of college bound Seniors in 2009 is 2.35 times the two year percentage of college-bound Seniors in 2005 (16.9% divided by 6.7%).

Exactly. Each time I have direct knowledge of a particular topic, I'm amazed at how the school press releases dance around the truth.

Precious. This time STATMAN was SCHOOLED by Simple Math. Time for STATMAN to go back to her hole for a few more years until she thinks no one remembers again. She may or may not know statistics but on MM she just tries to mislead the parents to help her buddies on administration the school committee rationalize their failures.

I remember the STATMAN screen name (all caps, even) on MM from a long time ago. She attempts to portray some expertise in evaluating statistics. She was similarly shown the door by someone who nailed her and her shenanigans back then. She must believe no one in Melrose has any memory.

“Fail’s” - I would urge you to take another look at the Murphy letter and separate facts from opinion. You are correct in that Ms. Murphy expresses her opinions about how the SC responded to the Department of Education’s OCR investigation. Again, I take no issue with her opinions. I do take issue with her leading her arguments with an incorrect fact.
You are correct in that Ms. Murphy’s letter did inspire questions. I found her statement that the number of students attending 2 years schools nearly doubled in a 5 year period to be alarming and this is what caused me to check for myself. As it turns out, she was wrong and the statistics from the state of MA do not support her statement.
I am not sure I follow your comment about independent though. I reacted to a position that found alarming and it turns out it was not correct. It really isn’t that complicated.
To “Simple math” as much as I would like to trust your twisted math, it really is not that complicated. First, for some reason you selected different years than Ms. Murphy. More importantly, there is no need for your misleading math. The state provides the data directly. In the 2005-06 year 13.8% of MHS grads planned to attend 2 year schools. In the 2009-10 year that decreased to 13.5%. Feel free to spin, but those are the state’s facts.

2010 Data is irrelevant and never should have been used in a letter to criticize 2016 activity. It mixes apples and oranges and 2006 to 2010 was right in the middle of the financial melt down. A driving factor on 2 year and 4 year college admissions is the motivation of the student and the parent. If the kids are not going to college the answer to why starts at home. There are plenty of options for every student in MA for 2 and 4 year college options.

I cannot disagree.

The Melrose Messages Crowd is the Bernie Sanders of the blog world. If there is a drinking incident outside of school the administration handled it poorly. Senior skip day, blame the school and police when kids get caught drinking in a house party. Threaten to sue the school if the kids are punished. Offensive Material on Social Media is the schools fault. Kids decide not to go to college after high school...yup, blame Dolan. Kids do poorly in school, has to be the schools fault because Arnie Duncan says all kids can to Harvard with the right foundation. Student misbehaves in class, say for instance refusing to put food away and acts disrespectfully toward the teacher...sure the teacher should be fired because the parent of the kid complained. By no means is this administration faultless. However, many of the issues that the school deals with and gets criticized for result from poor parenting and low parental expectations. In general, too many parents in Melrose suck at being parents and are screwing up their kids

We know that. You've proved time and again you cannot disagree with school administration or school committee no matter how bad they act.

You can't disagree with them when they violate civil rights of students.

You can't disagree with them when they don't provide a free appropriate public education to all students (and you are perfectly happy as long as you believe your child gets one).

You can't disagree with them for paying tens of thousands in special ed settlements when they didn't properly service a child as the law requires.

You can't disagree when they pay themselves pots of money in raises.

You can't disagree when they spend more than $100,000 for lawyers to run interference for their illegal acts in the OCR case.

You can't disagree with Clown Patrol, Vuvu, and all the other aliases you use on this site.

You can't disagree with all the other apologists for the schools who publicly support the administration, seeking to get cushy jobs, get favors for their own children, or to avoid punishment for their own children whom they fully expect will get into legal trouble in the future.

I've seen your type of people who can't disagree and I'll respect Colleen Murphy and Mrs. Kourkoumelis Kaynor over them every time.

I'm a parent and resent the attitude of school supporters that every problem is caused by the parents. I know parents who did all the right things but their kid didn't. It wasn't a parenting fault. There are many other factors and variables. It takes a village to raise a child. The parents, the schools, the coaches, the neighbors - everyone.

We're obligated to send our kids to school for 10 months a year. The schools must be responsible when they don't hold up their responsibilities in raising our children.

No matter how good you believe the schools are, why wouldn't you want them to do better for my kid as well as your kid? Why wouldn't you want the schools to help children to overcome all the poor parenting you believe is so prevalent in Melrose?

You take too much glee in claiming that bad parenting causes problems that you don't seem to care to help the kids of "bad" parents. In that respect you are just like the schools - they, too, seek to punish the kids for their environment and other things they can't control.

Maybe you should heed "there but for the grace of God."

So the year one of my children sat in the racist's classroom doesn't count for anything? The two years since the incident that the school administration and school committee have spent trying to convince our city that Baline's racist comments either didn't happen, were overblown, or were misinterpreted have no bearing? and what about all the money the city will now spend because it failed to do something about the situation? I wonder, do you think these funds could be put to better use?

The kids saw the grown up faced no consequence for her vitriol. In the real world, there are consequences. There should be consequences when a teacher betrays the trust of her students and their families with her ignorance and intolerance.

No, I cannot disagree with the statement that the data referenced is old data and is probably no relevant. I just want it accurately reported if is going to be used.

So it's my fault when my kid's teachers at the high school can't seem to show up for work? I instilled a work ethic in my student, he shows up every day, which is more than I can say for half the staff up there. My student also works hard and gets his assignments in on time; he respects deadlines. But his teachers don't seem to have any, his progress reports are meaningless because most of his teachers haven't entered all the grades in, and it can take weeks, even months, to get an exam corrected from some of them. Is that my fault also?

And when my extremely self motivated, hard working student tells me that he is "learning nothing" in a class with a problematic teacher, ( who just gives everyone A's to cover up the fact that she's not doing her job) , I suppose that is the result of my poor parenting?

Give it up, "Statman." You lost. First, you give a link on the state web site as 'proof' of your analysis. "Simple Math" does what you suggest. When proved wrong, you attack the messenger. What a Melrose thing to do!

Ms Murphy wrote about 2005 and 2009. "Simple Math" looked up 2005 data and 2009 data. Ms. Murphy wrote "in 2005," not the 2005-2006 school year as you chose to use. Similarly, Ms. Murphy wrote "by 2009," not the 2009-2010 school year (if she meant what you claim, she obviously would have written 2006 and 2010 - which she didn't do). For comparison, notice that earlier in her quote she wrote specifically about the 2005-2006 school year and the 2013-2014 school year. You conveniently 'misinterpreted' that she was writing about 2005-2006 each time. You did so to attack her unsettling assertion that the percentage attending two year schools doubled over a short time. You used the different data because you probably already saw that the real data wouldn't support your attack on Ms. Murphy.

If you were a high school student, I'd chalk it up to sloppiness and lack of critical reading and thinking skills. Given you're an adult and on this message board, it's obvious you'll do anything to attack anyone who dares criticize Melrose, even a learned attorney such as Ms. Murphy. You're out of your league, bud. Hang it up.

It isn't hard. Click the link, read the data. It is not me who is choosing to spin the data to fit an argument. I am just reading stats as the state provides them. Like I said, the raw data is nothing to be proud of, but it also should not be spun to make a point. If you want honest discussion, be honest with the information.

Here is another statistic that shows a different number than is reported by everyone here. The statistic for college going students is on the third page in the chart in the link below. It is closer to that 95% from 200 (but still lower) that was highlighted by Ms. Murphy, but slightly higher than her and the DOE's statistics from 2013-2014. Food for thought:

http://d1868cr0a5jrv6.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/05/School-Profile-2015-2016.pdf