Choice, Change and Transparency

     First, I’d like to thank Simsbury Community TV for allowing me to tape a video explaining my views.  The following is a transcript of that video.

     As a petitioning candidate for the Simsbury Board of Education, I’d like to introduce myself to those who don’t know me already.  I am a 37-year resident of Simsbury with my wife Connie.  I am a proud supporter of our exceptional school system and our two children Michael and Sue attended Tariffville School.

EDUCATION:  I attended Fairfield University undergraduate, St. Louis University Medical School, a residency in Internal Medicine and a fellowship in Cardiology at Harvard University.

PROFESSIONAL:  I have practiced non-invasive, invasive and interventional cardiology for 40 years, serving as president of our interventional and invasive cardiology group based at Hartford Hospital, retiring in 2012.

     As a resident of Simsbury, I believe the present and past members of the Board of Education have done an excellent job of producing and maintaining a school system that has a sterling reputation, one that our community is extremely proud of and that stands as a hallmark of our town.  Simsbury residents take pride in our educational system and support the Board’s annual budgets at referenda by an average 3 to 1 favorable margin.  Our system provides a quality public school education and it ranks among the top school systems in scholastic achievement.

     So why am i here to advance my candidacy for the Board of Education in an already quality educational system?

     I’m here to discuss three issues I believe will promote an even better outcome.  They are Choice, Change and Transparency.

     In the matter of CHOICE:  Before I moved to Simsbury, our town fathers felt that the Board of Education should be an advocate of a school system that would be a-political.  This meant that, on a Board consisting of 8 members, 4 would be from each of the two major political parties; therefore there would be no minority representation. On election day every two years, four seats on the Board of Education must be filled and each party nominates 2.  You are asked to vote for any 2 candidates but all 4 candidates are elected in what is an apparent popularity contest.

     My candidacy will truly give the voters a choice.  When you go to the polls on November 5th, there will be 5 candidates.  You will still have a choice of any 2 but only 4 will be elected.

     The “a-political” system seemed to work well when both political parties produced a Board that not only contributed to producing and maintaining an excellent system but one that’s cost-effective.

     However, over the past 10 years with a decreasing enrollment approaching 1000 fewer students and with budgets that consistently exceed the rate of inflation, our per-pupil costs have exceeded more than twice the rate of inflation, particularly in the past 6 years, when the town’s taxpayers had to survive one of the worst recessional periods of our generation.

     If elected I will be only one member of an 8-member board.  Obviously I will not be able to effect much change unless I can persuade my fellow members of a more cost-effective way to maintain or improve an already exceptional system.

CHANGE:  Policies and programs that were instituted during the last Superintendent of Schools’ tenure were not always cost-effective.  At the beginning of the recent recession, the former Superintendent stated that she did not want to down-size the system, thereby protecting teaching and administrative positions.  Many of her policies and programs were instituted through state grants that subverted the budgetary process and bypassed the Board of Finance.  Two of these programs were all-day kindergarten and the added 8th period at the high school.

     I am all for all-day kindergarten.  Although there is no evidence that it leads to increased scholastic achievement, my grandson loved all-day kindergarten for the extra time to interact with his classmates and my daughter-in-law loved all –day kindergarten for the added support for her busy schedule.

     And additional 750,000 dollars was needed to advance this program.  But it was instituted without approval by the Board of Finance because a state grant was obtained which would supply 600,000 dollars of the necessary funding.  The grant provided an additional 3000 dollars per student for the present 100 students giving an additional 300,000 dollars and the addition of another 50 students from Project Concern at 6,000 dollars, adding another 300,000 dollar for a total of 600,000 dollars.

     However, the program through the grant actually cost the taxpayer more than if we provided the program though the usual budgetary process, since the difference for the additional 50 students from Project Concern, at 13,500 dollars exceeded the grant  by 75,000 dollars and undoubtedly will further increase costs because the grant dollars are fixed while per-pupil cost will increase.

     The goal of this and other programs was to protect faculty and administrative positions during a period of marked decreases in enrollment that are averaging more than 2% per year declines.

     Another such program was the institution of the 8-period day at the high school, which is also undergoing declining enrollment, adding an 8th period without extending the school day hours.  This change required an increase in the number of teaching positions, since the present teacher contract calls for teaching 5 out of 7 regular class periods.  Now the present staff would teach 5 out of 8 shortened periods.

     Also, part of the 8-period project was to increase elective choices combined with increases in study halls, producing, in fact, less instructional time per day.  This program, which was instituted with a one-year 350,000 dollar grant, will cost 3.5 million dollars over the next 10 years...hardly a cost-effective way to add an 8th period.

     And then there are the “placebo”, or feel-good programs.  The most dramatic decreases in enrollment are in the primary grades, kindergarten through 4th grade.  To avoid decreasing staffing levels, a program was instituted to bolster reading proficiency at the 3rd grade level.  While reading proficiency did improve with this program, there is no evidence that it wouldn’t have improved without the program, since we know that reading proficiency always improves by later grades.  This is what I call the placebo effect, giving a prescription when you know that, in spite of the intervention, a favorable outcome will be achieved.  And now a 4th grade reading program is projected, again to protect faculty positions during declining enrollment.

     Remember, with yearly budgets exceeding the rate of inflation and with declining enrollment exceeding 2% a year. a decline of nearly 1000 students or 17%, and per-pupil costs exceeding 13,500 dollars...that is a cumulative cost of over 13.5 million dollars!

The Board of Education, through its own study on enrollment, has known for the past decade that projected enrollment will be around 3800 students in the coming years and has done very little to effectively down-size the system without affecting its quality and thereby saving millions of taxpayer dollars.

TRANSPARENCY:  The Board of Education has consistently stated that its budgets are cost-effective.  In its school publication, the communication that is sent out to Simsbury residents and during budget town meetings, the Board always produces data to substantiate their budgets.  In the past budget cycle they produced a graph showing budgetary increases less than 2% a year, the lowest in any annual period in the past 25 years.  While that data is correct, they fail to communicate that, during this time, we averaged a more than 2% a year decline in enrollment, combined with a yearly inflationary rate of less than 1.5%.  Imagine telling your stockholders that your material costs have exceeded only slightly the rate of inflation while producing 17% less product.  I doubt that you would have a job much longer.

     If elected I will advocate for our students and for our taxpayers to maintain and improve our system in a cost-effective manner.  Every proposed program will have to be one whose primary objective is to improve student achievement, not to protect faculty and administrative positions in a school system that has one of the highest administrative per pupil ratios in our DRG.  One of my first suggestions is to promote the second assistant superintendent of schools to a position of superintendent in another school system.

     Simsbury, we are proud of our school system.  Every elective official running for town office always declares support for our school system.  It is what makes Simsbury, Simsbury.  People move here for the educational opportunity for their children.  Where is it written that we cannot do it in a more efficient, cost-effective way? The 2 people most responsible for the budgetary process are the Chairman of the Board of Finance, who has continually set budget guidelines at more than the rate of inflation at a time of declining enrollment, and the Chairman of the Board of Education, who has proven unwilling to require the school administration to down-size its system.

     I pledge to give our taxpayers and voters a choice November 5th for the first time in years and, if elected, to work to ensure that your tax dollars are used effectively and economically to maintain a school system to be proud of.

Please vote on November 5th for your candidate of choice.  It is your duty.  Thank you.