“Move that the Cheshire Board of Education include a line item in the annual operating budget in the maintenance account designate, “Annual Contribution – Turf Replacement Fund.” It is the intention of the Board to designate those monies currently associated with maintaining the sod field into an account to offset the future replacement cost of the synthetic turf field. The amount of said line item for 2012/13 shall be $13,XXX. The amount contributed each year shall be at the discretion of the Board of Education based on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools and shall be based on the status of the budget at the close of the fiscal year.”
If the education budget has been slashed, hacked, burned...then how is it that Peter can support a slush-fund line item for turf in the BOE Operating Budget? I propose that the $13,000 in savings be put towards textbooks, upgraded telecommunications lines, a part-time assistant at Doolittle or towards purchasing technology devices to aid with classroom learning.
Consider that at the end of the 2010-2011 school year, the BOE had ~$24K leftover in it's budget. This money was given back to the town as surplus.
Consider that at the end of the 2009-2010 budget, the BOE had ~$320K leftover in it's budget. This surplus was moved to the Medical Trust Fund.
Consider that as of 10/20/2011, the BOE Medical Trust Fund balance is $3,000,000.
Regarding Peter's comment on Doolittle Enrollment: "Talbot said the average class size at Doolittle School had risen to 23 children and that, should test scores fall in coming years, it would be attributable to a "slash and burn" attitude toward education spending."
Well, what Peter didn't mention during the debate is that the school district received 19 teacher retirements as part of the concession package negotiated with the teachers' union this past spring. Why didn't Peter propose utilizing 1 or 2 of these positions in the budget to add teachers at Doolittle and offset classroom size this school year? With 19 positions, there certainly was wiggle room in the budget. Oh, right, the budget was slashed and hacked.
Peter also forgot to mention that Dr. Florio and the administration implemented a remediation plan for Doolittle by adding additional instructional assistants, increasing reading, writing and math lab time to ensure that the children receive one-one instructional time moreso than the children at Highland.
Now, I singled out Peter here because his comment of "slashing and hacking" is outrageous. I actually like and respect Peter Talbot. During his short time on the BOE, he has been a positive influence. He has good ideas (specifics) on where/how to invest in education. I wish he would focus on those specifics during his campaign.
Peter is not alone. Joe Schmitt made the following accusation: "Rumor has it that the majority on the Town Council want to do away with Advanced Placement". To echo Andy Falvey's reply on this, I have not heard about this either. In fact, not a single Republican member of the town council ever asked me or the BOE to eliminate AP classes at CHS.
But I'll ask Mr. Schmitt this question: Namely, where does he propose obtaining more funds for education and, more importantly, how does he intend on investing it in our school district? The town reserve? Higher taxes? Increased pool fees? Where?!?
When these candidates (any of them) come knocking on your door over the next few weeks, ask them for specifics. Have these candidates done their homework? Can they state fact or propaganda? If these candidates were your investment advisors, would you trust them with your money (i.e. property tax dollars) and that they will invest it wisely in town? Are they accountable, responsible and transparent?
I welcome any candidate interested in the education budget to meet with me and establish communication on how we can work together to better education. I think I speak for many in town when I say that we need candidates that will put party lines aside and demonstrate collaboration not propaganda if our Cheshire is to move forward.