See the latest Norwich Bull article 3/20/07 on the plight of the Academy and Mike Alberts’ claim that he doesn’t know “what specific changes Breen wanted” in his request (supported by many) to the Education committee. Just as a reminder, see the quote below:
“Proposal – Woodstock Academy’s “driftâ€? from its chartered public education mission is a function of its poorly defined governance, and has raised serious legal and public policy issues which can only be resolved through modifications to the state statutes, the school’s charter and the sending town contracts. However, any proposed changes require direction from the General Assembly. Woodstock Academy should be governed by the simple principle of public oversight of public funds expended to accomplish a public objective. These principles can be captured with the following basic modifications.
1. Mission – The Academy’s role in the provision of public education services to secondary students from its sending towns, and its responsibility to advocate for the public education of all students should be made explicit and extended in perpetuity.
2. Governance – The sending towns should have full 50% representation on the Board of Trustees, proportionate based on student/tuition contributions. Sending town representatives should be appointed by the sending town boards of education and their role as representatives of the sending towns should be made explicit. The chair position should be rotated between public and private representatives.
3. Major Decisions – Major capital, financing, curriculum, management, budget and legal decisions, including reasonable line item budget restrictions as well as expansion of participating towns, facilities or land holdings, should require consent of the sending town representatives with input by their boards of education.
4. Domicile Costs – Woodstock, as the home of the Academy, bears costs for public infrastructure, traffic and public safety costs, and should be reimbursed for reasonable associated costs.”
The natives are restless in Woodstock… I can hear the drumbeats across the Quinebaug. Unlikely alliances are being formed at the hearths of those that have felt ostracized, dispossessed, or are otherwise unable to affect the track of their own life’s paths. Suddenly there seems to be a place for negativities of all stripes to bond…the cynics, the pessimists, the conspirators, the ignorant, the displaced, the mean-spirited, and the just plain selfishly cheap.
Now, this group is gathering in homes to foment their conspiratorial accusations. Once again they have set their sites on the Board of Education and the Superintendent. Under the rallying flag of protecting the Academy, their blind hatred is seething forth with wild allegations of ‘hiding money’, building empires, and even embezzlement.
Their continued ignorance to the facts is astounding. With our ‘per pupil’ spending in the bottom 3% of the state, how is it that there is money being hidden? How is it that expecting proportional representation on the Board of Trustees empire building? Perhaps there was embezzlement by a Superintendent or Board of Ed years ago, when some of these malcontents were involved on the Board of Education. Why else would that idea surface in their minds and spew out of their mouths?
How much nonsense must we indulge? These are the same people that want to insist on a referendum to spend $100,000. Why wouldn’t they also want to have some say on the $5,000,000 that is shipped off to the Academy each year? Talk about pennywise and pound foolish!
The Academy is entirely dependent on the four sending towns for their existence. When my eighteen-year-old filed her income taxes without consulting her parents, her father was concerned that she may have claimed herself as a dependent. When we queried her about it, she responded “She hadn’t… how could she have when every penny she has spent came from her parents. ” That came from a young college student, someone who understands who is buttering her bread. Why is it so threatening for the Academy to admit the fact that they are wholly dependent on taxpayers? What would be so devastating to be honest not only with themselves, but the taxpayers that provide their livelihood? Whether they like it or not, the taxpayers should be their ultimate supervisors, not a non-representative so-called Board of Trustees.
So as I see it, you would support shifting funds that go to pay the academy tuition to the funds that support the K-8 programs. The resulting cutbacks then in Academy spending would potentially effect its quality. What do you think the other sending towns would have to say about that? Because of the Town of Woodstock’s failures to support their K-8, the Academy and the other sending towns are expected to suffer the brunt? How is that the other towns provide for their education and do not have higher taxes? These are some questions that need to be answered before we go after the Academy. Right now, the satisfaction levels for the Academy are high. We need to keep them high and go after the reasons why our K-8 is lagging. Attempting to change State Legislature to alter the Academy status is just a short term fix. In the long run, without fixing the problems inherent to our budget process, we will end up with not only a dismal K-8, but a poor 9-12 as well which will be at the political wims of the ever changing elected Board of Ed. Has Joe Breen considered all other options? Is it his way or no way? Do the taxpayers in town have a say? Can the BOF go after the fluff in other town budgets and perhaps loosen its interpretation of Prop 46 to meet emergency expenditures? Can we develop a capital spending plan that makes sense? Yes, the drumbeats are rolling…waiting for transparent answers and creative thinking.
Taxpayer. The “split” in Pomfret, for example is 80/20. Pomfret may not have higher taxes, but they allot more money to education and less to town government than we do, and they will tell you, its based on “need”, not a sum that is arrived at by the BOF and a sum that education has to simply live with.
Thanks for the info. Harry! This supports my point that we should not be going after the Academy. We need to go after the BOF. I hope Mr. Breen runs for the BOF again and takes care of the K-8 via this path. There is certainly room in the general gov’t budget to give to the school.
I think the BOE and the Superintendent of schools should publish a letter to the “Friends of K-8″ and divulge all the details on Preston Schultzes frequent “Freedom of Information ” requests and also Lisa Raposes episode with the BOE. Why is it “OK” for these people to question/hammer the BOE, but Joe Breen cant question the Academy’s interpretation of their Charter? Why cant we get more representation for the sending towns?
Annie & Harry,
Bravo!!
Taxpayer,
I don’t see how the Joe Breen proposal which ultimately is asking for more fiscal accountability from the Academy to their sending towns is a bad thing necesssarily. Asking for more representation is also not a bad thing. Actually, the letter mirrors in many ways the last contract proposal from the BOE which was ulitmately ignored by the Academy behind the guise of “Woodstock is only one of the sending towns”. In my estimation, this was a decent idea which was horribly executed. The manner in which it was done inadevertently tarnished the BOE (which I do not believe was Joe Breen’s ultimate aim) and subverted whatever progress the BOE was able to make toward a new contract and/or fiscal balance with the BOF.
Taxpayer I wonder: if the Academy is indeed spending money on expansionism and setting up their football program etc, and they also continue to be INexpensive. How far can money be stretched? Exactly WHAT is going toward academics? Is there any money left for academics? I wonder if the parents expect that they are paying for a new Chevy and getting a used one.
If an education budget does not allow for optimal spending then it is my belief that spending per student at the high school level needs to be greater than the per student spending at the K-8 level. This greater spending does include non-academic programs which are essential to broaden a student, prepare them for college and global competetiveness. At the K- 8 level this broadening and preparation for real world are less important. We can provide a decent education at the K-8 level by focusing soley on the basics, where with secondary education this would be a huge mistake and a detriment to the child’s success. Keep in mind my first sentence. This isn’t optimal, but if hard choices are to be made then I say protect Woodstock Academy funding at all cost and go after government funding for K-8. These are important questions and that demand answers from this years town candidates. Can’t wait.