Friday, April 2, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Sad Day For Westport
Fin/Com voted 4 to 5 against supporting the schools use of stabilization, to cover the schools $150,000 deficit the schools currently have.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Frequnetly Asked Questions
These questions were submitted to the school committee on 23 Jan. The answers were compiled
by Dr. Colley and the school committee.
1. What % of the budget is comprised by administrative salaries; and consultant costs?
4% admin costs no info for consultant.
a. Has the budget been analyzed to determine what savings can be found within those areas of the
budget?
Yes
b. What did the analysis yield and what were the savings?
We believe we are staffed (admin) at or below minimum necessary levels. Any further reductions would result is the inability to properly administer the faculty, staff and students.
2. Are the supplies purchased by the school department sent out to bid or purchased in increments just below the sum that requires open public bids for services and materials?
Yes
a. Has consolidation of this practice been analyzed to see if savings can be realized?
Yes, consolidation has been done with the town.
3. Do the contracts for consultants have a clause that allows them to be voided if funds are unavailable?
Yes. However, consultants are usually due to SPED and they need to be paid whether the funds are “available” or not.
a. Has the school committee looked into voiding all such contracts and looked into establishing new ones for the coming fiscal year?
These contracts are only for the current fiscal year.
4. Have the Administrators been approached about taking a pay cut for this fiscal year in order to preserve classroom staffing levels, and class continuity?
Union would have to agree.
5. With so many educated and willing parents available to volunteer, has the administration considered replacing para-professionals now in classrooms with parent volunteers?
This is not an option for a host of reasons including: violates union contract; district is unable to control volunteers as an employer needs to, i.e. scheduling, evaluation etc; Student information is confidential; IEPs require school employee implementation.
a. If so what type of budgetary benefit would be realized?
N/A
6. Besides the current shortfalls in anticipated state funding that have occurred, what other reasons has Dr. Colley given for the deficit in this year’s budget?
• Increased legal expenses
• Increased SPED costs
• Decreased school choice income
• Restructuring previous poor budget practices
• Increased custodial supplies
7. Has the school committee explored furloughs for administrative staff to take care of the budget deficit?
Only if union staff takes a cut too.
8. Has the administration and committee explored the possibility of seeking the retirement of High tier personnel? And offering incentives for them to retire?
This requires incentive cash. The teacher’s contract has incentives built in.
9. Will you call the administration building and request that they make copies of the budget for fiscal year 2009/2010 as well as the actual year to date expenditures available to the public without the need for a freedom of information act request?
This is on line.
10. What does a single/family/ health plan cost? What is the employee contribution to said plan?
The contribution % is 50/50.
a. Has this area been analyzed and the union approached to renegotiate this point, if it saves jobs?
We are in negotiations for this item.
by Dr. Colley and the school committee.
1. What % of the budget is comprised by administrative salaries; and consultant costs?
4% admin costs no info for consultant.
a. Has the budget been analyzed to determine what savings can be found within those areas of the
budget?
Yes
b. What did the analysis yield and what were the savings?
We believe we are staffed (admin) at or below minimum necessary levels. Any further reductions would result is the inability to properly administer the faculty, staff and students.
2. Are the supplies purchased by the school department sent out to bid or purchased in increments just below the sum that requires open public bids for services and materials?
Yes
a. Has consolidation of this practice been analyzed to see if savings can be realized?
Yes, consolidation has been done with the town.
3. Do the contracts for consultants have a clause that allows them to be voided if funds are unavailable?
Yes. However, consultants are usually due to SPED and they need to be paid whether the funds are “available” or not.
a. Has the school committee looked into voiding all such contracts and looked into establishing new ones for the coming fiscal year?
These contracts are only for the current fiscal year.
4. Have the Administrators been approached about taking a pay cut for this fiscal year in order to preserve classroom staffing levels, and class continuity?
Union would have to agree.
5. With so many educated and willing parents available to volunteer, has the administration considered replacing para-professionals now in classrooms with parent volunteers?
This is not an option for a host of reasons including: violates union contract; district is unable to control volunteers as an employer needs to, i.e. scheduling, evaluation etc; Student information is confidential; IEPs require school employee implementation.
a. If so what type of budgetary benefit would be realized?
N/A
6. Besides the current shortfalls in anticipated state funding that have occurred, what other reasons has Dr. Colley given for the deficit in this year’s budget?
• Increased legal expenses
• Increased SPED costs
• Decreased school choice income
• Restructuring previous poor budget practices
• Increased custodial supplies
7. Has the school committee explored furloughs for administrative staff to take care of the budget deficit?
Only if union staff takes a cut too.
8. Has the administration and committee explored the possibility of seeking the retirement of High tier personnel? And offering incentives for them to retire?
This requires incentive cash. The teacher’s contract has incentives built in.
9. Will you call the administration building and request that they make copies of the budget for fiscal year 2009/2010 as well as the actual year to date expenditures available to the public without the need for a freedom of information act request?
This is on line.
10. What does a single/family/ health plan cost? What is the employee contribution to said plan?
The contribution % is 50/50.
a. Has this area been analyzed and the union approached to renegotiate this point, if it saves jobs?
We are in negotiations for this item.
Cuts - Without the $1 million increase to the budget
Possible cuts if we don't get the Million dollar Increase
Activities = $50K
Custodian = $30K
Supervisor = $50K
Administration = $150K
Teachers(4) = $120K
Sports = $150K
PreK = $40K
Counseling = $80K
Art/Music = $80K
There will be more......
Activities = $50K
Custodian = $30K
Supervisor = $50K
Administration = $150K
Teachers(4) = $120K
Sports = $150K
PreK = $40K
Counseling = $80K
Art/Music = $80K
There will be more......
Friday, February 5, 2010
Letter From Dr. Colley
February 5, 2010
Dear Parents and Guardians:
I feel the need to give you another FY 10 budget update in our quest
to properly fund the Westport Community Schools. As you know, we have
had a deficit since I came on board due to reduced levels of expected
revenue and unanticipated cost increases in SPED. We have kept the
town and community well informed by being transparent and open from
the very beginning. At first, we thought that the amount would be
close to $300,000 and by this week, we have managed to bring that
amount closer to $150,000. There seems to be no way to deal with this
problem, other than picking between two choices by the end of next
week.
Choice 1 – Cut up to $150,000 worth of staff now.
Choice 2 – Wait until the May 4th Special Town meeting within the
Annual Town Meeting to ask the voters to allow the use of
stabilization funds to cover the deficit.
A few weeks ago, I asked the Board of Selectmen, on behalf of the
School Committee, to consider taking a vote to support us in asking
the Town to use stabilization funds. They voted to allow us to put a
warrant article on the Special Town Meeting.
I also asked the Fin Com for the same vote. They discussed it at a
previous meeting and they tabled the motion. I will be going to their
meeting on Tuesday, February 9 at 6:00 p.m. to ask them again for
their vote.
In the meantime, I have continued to listen and to discuss this issue
with the community, parents, staff, administrators, students, town
officials, and many others. I continue to evaluate the ongoing
support to see if there is enough to pass a motion (2/3 majority
required) to use stabilization funds to balance our budget at the May
4th Special Town meeting. I will make my decision between choice 1 and
2 on Wednesday, February 10th. If it is choice 1 – I will send
notices out at the end of the week and layoffs would take effect March
15th.
Now to the next and perhaps most important issue facing our schools in
the last 10 years - the FY 11 Budget:
We are basing this budget on the assumption that the state will fund
our schools at no less than the amounts from last year. We are also
making the assumption that the cost of SPED out of district placements
will not increase next year beyond the 2 new student placements, we
currently know about.
In the FY 11 Budget, we have included all the services that we have
this year including, those we lost this year to the Chapter 70
reduction from the state, the Circuit Breaker Reimbursement (for
extraordinary SPED costs), and School Choice revenue.
For FY 11, we are adding the services of a psychologist, while
decreasing our consultant line for the same type services. By bring
the psychologist on board, we will have the benefit of reducing costs
and directing services more effectively. We are also adding staff for
a group of students moving from the MAC to the WES that are in need of
more specialized services than the WES was currently providing.
FY 11 Budget carries an increase of $1 million. This allows us to keep
the schools operating at the same level as FY 10 and at the same time
cover the structural deficits that exist in our budget. Many of these
are caused by increases in SPED costs. Historically, we have spent
less than most districts of similar size. This budget does not contain
increases in other services or reductions in fees.
Some have questioned our motives for not increasing the FY 11 Budget
even higher than our purposed budget and I need to explain why this
has been the case:
This is still a very difficult economy and financially, not everyone
is doing well. I recognize and propose that we ask for enough to
maintain our existing services and programs. As the economy improves,
we will be able to improve our budget to fund the schools at levels
that are more appropriate than what we have received in the past. The
increase now is small enough to avoid hurting those in need, yet large
enough to maintain and improve a few programs.
As the superintendent, and the loudest voice advocating for our
students, I also need to be the voice of caution. This budget will
force the town to respond in a way that has never been possible
before. It will mean that a large majority of voters will need to come
out to May Town Meeting and to the June special election to vote in
support of the schools and the town budgets. Based on past history, I
need to caution all of us as to what is at stake – We can improve our
SPED services and maintain our programs, if the town supports the
schools by voting. But, if the votes do not materialize, we stand to
lose $1 million worth of services. All areas would then be affected;
larger class sizes, reduced sports offerings, reduced administration
and student supervision, reduced availability for the use of our
facilities, reduced activities being offered for our students, reduced
choices for art/music and other electives. In general, it will be a
very different school district. A district that, in my opinion, does
not prepare our students well for a global economy and would limit
their opportunities for entry into more selective colleges and
universities.
I am proposing an increase that has the potential of winning the
support of more than just a simple majority of the town voters. I can
defend what we have and the additions we are seeking. In the face of
our economic climate I do not suggest asking for more. I will even
propose that we postpone the request of our capital needs until we
have taken care of the needs within the operating budget.
Now is the time to get behind the schools, to fund a reasonable budget
and to maintain our services and programs. Now is not the time to
bicker about what else should be in the budget. If we lose this battle
– then the war will be much worse for us. If we win this battle,
however, then we can begin to build our programs to where they should
have been during the “good years” rather than keeping them at minimum.
These are our children and our future. If we are to be successful,
they need an education that expands their options, not one that limits
them. That is what I am fighting for. It is not a year’s effort – this
is a long-term effort. What we accomplish this year will build the
stage for the future, so that not only our current high school
students will benefit, but those at the MAC as well.
I will present these proposals to the Board of Selectmen on Monday,
February 8 at 6:00 p.m., along with the Town Administrator, who will
present the town department budgets. We hope this will present a
clear picture of our need for funding before we go further into the
spring. I will also ask the Board of Selectmen to consider funding the
budget for the schools without the use stabilization funds. Therefore,
we are not placed in the position of having to ask again for more
funds in the future.
I hope that all those who care about our children and the well being
of our schools will get behind our effort to support the funding we
need for the schools. If you know of someone who is not usually
involved – now is the time to encourage them to become part of the
town. After this effort, I do not expect to hear, “But the town won’t
let us…” or “The town won’t give us….” You who are reading this
letter and either live here or work here - ARE THE TOWN. What happens
is in your hands.
I am extending my hand to you for help.
Sincerely,
Dr. Carlos M. Colley
Superintendent of the Westport Community Schools
Dear Parents and Guardians:
I feel the need to give you another FY 10 budget update in our quest
to properly fund the Westport Community Schools. As you know, we have
had a deficit since I came on board due to reduced levels of expected
revenue and unanticipated cost increases in SPED. We have kept the
town and community well informed by being transparent and open from
the very beginning. At first, we thought that the amount would be
close to $300,000 and by this week, we have managed to bring that
amount closer to $150,000. There seems to be no way to deal with this
problem, other than picking between two choices by the end of next
week.
Choice 1 – Cut up to $150,000 worth of staff now.
Choice 2 – Wait until the May 4th Special Town meeting within the
Annual Town Meeting to ask the voters to allow the use of
stabilization funds to cover the deficit.
A few weeks ago, I asked the Board of Selectmen, on behalf of the
School Committee, to consider taking a vote to support us in asking
the Town to use stabilization funds. They voted to allow us to put a
warrant article on the Special Town Meeting.
I also asked the Fin Com for the same vote. They discussed it at a
previous meeting and they tabled the motion. I will be going to their
meeting on Tuesday, February 9 at 6:00 p.m. to ask them again for
their vote.
In the meantime, I have continued to listen and to discuss this issue
with the community, parents, staff, administrators, students, town
officials, and many others. I continue to evaluate the ongoing
support to see if there is enough to pass a motion (2/3 majority
required) to use stabilization funds to balance our budget at the May
4th Special Town meeting. I will make my decision between choice 1 and
2 on Wednesday, February 10th. If it is choice 1 – I will send
notices out at the end of the week and layoffs would take effect March
15th.
Now to the next and perhaps most important issue facing our schools in
the last 10 years - the FY 11 Budget:
We are basing this budget on the assumption that the state will fund
our schools at no less than the amounts from last year. We are also
making the assumption that the cost of SPED out of district placements
will not increase next year beyond the 2 new student placements, we
currently know about.
In the FY 11 Budget, we have included all the services that we have
this year including, those we lost this year to the Chapter 70
reduction from the state, the Circuit Breaker Reimbursement (for
extraordinary SPED costs), and School Choice revenue.
For FY 11, we are adding the services of a psychologist, while
decreasing our consultant line for the same type services. By bring
the psychologist on board, we will have the benefit of reducing costs
and directing services more effectively. We are also adding staff for
a group of students moving from the MAC to the WES that are in need of
more specialized services than the WES was currently providing.
FY 11 Budget carries an increase of $1 million. This allows us to keep
the schools operating at the same level as FY 10 and at the same time
cover the structural deficits that exist in our budget. Many of these
are caused by increases in SPED costs. Historically, we have spent
less than most districts of similar size. This budget does not contain
increases in other services or reductions in fees.
Some have questioned our motives for not increasing the FY 11 Budget
even higher than our purposed budget and I need to explain why this
has been the case:
This is still a very difficult economy and financially, not everyone
is doing well. I recognize and propose that we ask for enough to
maintain our existing services and programs. As the economy improves,
we will be able to improve our budget to fund the schools at levels
that are more appropriate than what we have received in the past. The
increase now is small enough to avoid hurting those in need, yet large
enough to maintain and improve a few programs.
As the superintendent, and the loudest voice advocating for our
students, I also need to be the voice of caution. This budget will
force the town to respond in a way that has never been possible
before. It will mean that a large majority of voters will need to come
out to May Town Meeting and to the June special election to vote in
support of the schools and the town budgets. Based on past history, I
need to caution all of us as to what is at stake – We can improve our
SPED services and maintain our programs, if the town supports the
schools by voting. But, if the votes do not materialize, we stand to
lose $1 million worth of services. All areas would then be affected;
larger class sizes, reduced sports offerings, reduced administration
and student supervision, reduced availability for the use of our
facilities, reduced activities being offered for our students, reduced
choices for art/music and other electives. In general, it will be a
very different school district. A district that, in my opinion, does
not prepare our students well for a global economy and would limit
their opportunities for entry into more selective colleges and
universities.
I am proposing an increase that has the potential of winning the
support of more than just a simple majority of the town voters. I can
defend what we have and the additions we are seeking. In the face of
our economic climate I do not suggest asking for more. I will even
propose that we postpone the request of our capital needs until we
have taken care of the needs within the operating budget.
Now is the time to get behind the schools, to fund a reasonable budget
and to maintain our services and programs. Now is not the time to
bicker about what else should be in the budget. If we lose this battle
– then the war will be much worse for us. If we win this battle,
however, then we can begin to build our programs to where they should
have been during the “good years” rather than keeping them at minimum.
These are our children and our future. If we are to be successful,
they need an education that expands their options, not one that limits
them. That is what I am fighting for. It is not a year’s effort – this
is a long-term effort. What we accomplish this year will build the
stage for the future, so that not only our current high school
students will benefit, but those at the MAC as well.
I will present these proposals to the Board of Selectmen on Monday,
February 8 at 6:00 p.m., along with the Town Administrator, who will
present the town department budgets. We hope this will present a
clear picture of our need for funding before we go further into the
spring. I will also ask the Board of Selectmen to consider funding the
budget for the schools without the use stabilization funds. Therefore,
we are not placed in the position of having to ask again for more
funds in the future.
I hope that all those who care about our children and the well being
of our schools will get behind our effort to support the funding we
need for the schools. If you know of someone who is not usually
involved – now is the time to encourage them to become part of the
town. After this effort, I do not expect to hear, “But the town won’t
let us…” or “The town won’t give us….” You who are reading this
letter and either live here or work here - ARE THE TOWN. What happens
is in your hands.
I am extending my hand to you for help.
Sincerely,
Dr. Carlos M. Colley
Superintendent of the Westport Community Schools
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Comparison by similar demographics
1. As you know we have the lowest real estate tax rate of the 36. Actually we are 18th from the bottom out of 326 city/towns in MA.
2. Out of the 36, only 3 school districts spend less per child. (Ranked 33)
3. Out of the 36, only 7 spend less per child on administration. (Ranked 28)
4. Out of the 36, only 5 districts have lower paid teachers. (Ranked 30)
5. Out of the 36, only 7 have less teachers than we do. (Ranked 29)
2. Out of the 36, only 3 school districts spend less per child. (Ranked 33)
3. Out of the 36, only 7 spend less per child on administration. (Ranked 28)
4. Out of the 36, only 5 districts have lower paid teachers. (Ranked 30)
5. Out of the 36, only 7 have less teachers than we do. (Ranked 29)
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Cuts to be made without stabilization money
MAC - Nurse $16,000
WES - Teachers ( 3) $86,000
WMS - Teacher and .5 AP $50,000
Building Supervisor - ( HS & MS) $24,000
Custodian - $11,000
Spring Sports & Athletic Director - $50,000
WHS - Teacher $18,000
SPED - Teacher $18,000
WES - Teachers ( 3) $86,000
WMS - Teacher and .5 AP $50,000
Building Supervisor - ( HS & MS) $24,000
Custodian - $11,000
Spring Sports & Athletic Director - $50,000
WHS - Teacher $18,000
SPED - Teacher $18,000
Positive News
Breaking News from Craig Dutra: "We (Board of Selectmen) voted tonight
to support inclusion of the warrant to use stabilization funds at Town
Meeting for the current year's School Department's projected deficit."
Please share, it's a great first step!
to support inclusion of the warrant to use stabilization funds at Town
Meeting for the current year's School Department's projected deficit."
Please share, it's a great first step!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Board of Selectman Meeting
The Board of Selectmen, have agreed by a 4 to 1 vote to place the school Committee on the warrant for the special town meeting at the town meeting in May. There is a school committee meeting tomorrow night at 5:00 at the HS.
Study on Per pupil spending and Property value
School Spending Raises Property Values
School Spending Raises Property Values
"� A $1.00 increase in per pupil state aid increases aggregate per pupil housing values by about $20.00, indicating that potential residents value education expenditure."
An enduring question in education policy is whether spending additional public resources improves schools. Those who argue against strategies to increase public spending argue that current spending levels are too high and that public schools spend their current revenues inefficiently.
In Using Market Valuation to Assess Public School Spending (NBER Working Paper No. 9054), co-authors Lisa Barrow and Cecilia Rouse first examine whether an additional dollar of public money spent on schools increases residential property values. If it does, then consumers presumably value the additional spending because it increases school quality. Further, the authors evaluate whether the current level of spending is too high.
School expenditures are financed with both state and local contributions. Each state has a financing formula for determining the state aid to each district, and these formulas are revised periodically. The state portion of the contribution often is negatively related to property values because states try to equalize expenditures across rich and poor districts. Thus, it is difficult to assess directly the effects of an increase in state aid on school quality as it may reflect a worsening of other conditions in the local district that also affect school quality. To overcome this difficulty, the authors examine 1980-to-1990 changes in property values resulting from changes in state aid for schools that arise solely from changes in state financing formulas -- they control for an extensive list of district and county characteristics that may also affect property values.
Their results suggest that, overall, a $1.00 increase in per pupil state aid increases aggregate per pupil housing values by about $20.00, indicating that potential residents value education expenditure. Further, their results suggest that some of the increase in value reflects lower local tax burdens, but most reflects increases in total per pupil district expenditures. Finally, they conclude that there is no evidence that school districts are overspending, on net.
However, this overall result may mask important differences, because some school districts may operate more efficiently than others. Specifically, the authors note that because households with greater income can afford to consider a wider range of schooling and housing options, school spending in districts with wealthier residents may be more efficient. Similarly, the degree of external competition that a school district faces (from having many neighboring districts) or the district's size may also affect the efficiency of school spending.
To test whether wealthier and more educated school districts spend their revenues more efficiently, the authors categorize school districts by average household income and education level of the adult population, as well as by the degree of competition faced by the district, and the district's size. Although potential district residents on average value additional state revenues, the authors find that "large school districts, and those areas with fewer homeowners and in areas in which residents are poor or less educated" are more likely to overspend.
School Spending Raises Property Values
"� A $1.00 increase in per pupil state aid increases aggregate per pupil housing values by about $20.00, indicating that potential residents value education expenditure."
An enduring question in education policy is whether spending additional public resources improves schools. Those who argue against strategies to increase public spending argue that current spending levels are too high and that public schools spend their current revenues inefficiently.
In Using Market Valuation to Assess Public School Spending (NBER Working Paper No. 9054), co-authors Lisa Barrow and Cecilia Rouse first examine whether an additional dollar of public money spent on schools increases residential property values. If it does, then consumers presumably value the additional spending because it increases school quality. Further, the authors evaluate whether the current level of spending is too high.
School expenditures are financed with both state and local contributions. Each state has a financing formula for determining the state aid to each district, and these formulas are revised periodically. The state portion of the contribution often is negatively related to property values because states try to equalize expenditures across rich and poor districts. Thus, it is difficult to assess directly the effects of an increase in state aid on school quality as it may reflect a worsening of other conditions in the local district that also affect school quality. To overcome this difficulty, the authors examine 1980-to-1990 changes in property values resulting from changes in state aid for schools that arise solely from changes in state financing formulas -- they control for an extensive list of district and county characteristics that may also affect property values.
Their results suggest that, overall, a $1.00 increase in per pupil state aid increases aggregate per pupil housing values by about $20.00, indicating that potential residents value education expenditure. Further, their results suggest that some of the increase in value reflects lower local tax burdens, but most reflects increases in total per pupil district expenditures. Finally, they conclude that there is no evidence that school districts are overspending, on net.
However, this overall result may mask important differences, because some school districts may operate more efficiently than others. Specifically, the authors note that because households with greater income can afford to consider a wider range of schooling and housing options, school spending in districts with wealthier residents may be more efficient. Similarly, the degree of external competition that a school district faces (from having many neighboring districts) or the district's size may also affect the efficiency of school spending.
To test whether wealthier and more educated school districts spend their revenues more efficiently, the authors categorize school districts by average household income and education level of the adult population, as well as by the degree of competition faced by the district, and the district's size. Although potential district residents on average value additional state revenues, the authors find that "large school districts, and those areas with fewer homeowners and in areas in which residents are poor or less educated" are more likely to overspend.
Here is the contact information for the secretary of the Westport Board of Selectmen, Denise Bouchard- bouchardd@westport-ma.gov 508 636 1004 Please drop a quick note or call to politely let the selectmen know that you are a voter who would like them to fully support the Westport Schools. Let them know that how they support the schools will play a large part in how you vote in upcoming elections.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Taxes
Property TAX RATE: ( PER $1,000)
Somerset - 10.1
Swansea - 9.48
Dartmouth -7.85
Fairhaven -8,89
Westport - 6.27
Commercial Property Tax rate:
Somerset - 24.70
Swansea - 19.21
Dartmouth - 11.99
Fairhaven -17.87
Westport - 6.27
There May not be to many businesses in town but think of the revenue that the town could make from an increase in Commercial property tax. There is no reason it should be exactly the same as our real estate tax.
Please let me know if these numbers are not accurate, I found them online, most from the town websites.
Somerset - 10.1
Swansea - 9.48
Dartmouth -7.85
Fairhaven -8,89
Westport - 6.27
Commercial Property Tax rate:
Somerset - 24.70
Swansea - 19.21
Dartmouth - 11.99
Fairhaven -17.87
Westport - 6.27
There May not be to many businesses in town but think of the revenue that the town could make from an increase in Commercial property tax. There is no reason it should be exactly the same as our real estate tax.
Please let me know if these numbers are not accurate, I found them online, most from the town websites.
Facts!
School District spending per student:
New Bedford - $12,682
Fall River - $12,120
Somerset - $11,514
Swansea - $10,561
Westport - $9,529
New Bedford - $12,682
Fall River - $12,120
Somerset - $11,514
Swansea - $10,561
Westport - $9,529
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Westport Schools
Unless there is change in the next few weeks, the superintendent, Dr. Carlos Colley, will be forced to lay-off teachers within the Westport Community Schools as of the beginning of February. As of now the town is showing little sign that it will help with the deficit ($170,000) within the school District. The town has a 'rainy-day fund' that has 1.5 million dollars ( which is less than it should be ) but none the less, they have stated that at this time they can not fully support the schools going forward to ask for this money from a special town meeting. We as a community need to show that the education of the children within our town is a priority, and that we will not allow our children to pay for the mistakes made by those before us, who only ever cared to level fund our schools, and never pushed for anythings better. Our kids deserve better!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)