Opinion: It's Time For The School Board To Re-Think Their Strategy

The State has withdrawn educational aid from Springfield and a revised budget has been drafted to reflect the loss of aid. The revised budget includes personnel and program reductions and an increased tax levy. The Board of Education and their chosen administration say Springfield will weather the storm. We are told that designated cuts will not affect the quality of instruction and that education of our students will in no way be compromised.

For years the Board and Administration have taken pains to tell us what a great job they have done of making tough choices while advancing the best educational opportunities. Every budget has been kept at or slightly under mandated caps. Yes, every year taxes have gone up, but it could have been worse. (Maintaining or reducing a budget from one year to the next is not an option.)

Over and over we are told "Trust us. The increase is minimal. You only pay a fraction of the real cost. Don't ask too many questions we can't or won't answer; you are getting value for what you are paying for." It is that kind of thinking that has led to the fiscal crises we suffer at every level of government services. Logic dictates that if cuts will not cause educational programs to suffer, then there must be a bit of excess, if not waste, in the system.

A "modest" tax increase might be more palatable if it didn't accompany reductions in useful services along with the preservation of discretionary and/or arguable programs. For all the changes, adjustments and fine-tuning over the years, there has been no significant change in our local school performance: test scores and college admissions haven't changed appreciably. It's a crude measure, but it's all we've got.

Each year the administration is saddled with rapidly inflating special education and transportation costs they don't control. But for all of the reshuffling, all of the efforts to invest in necessary and discretionary technology and technology based curriculum, nothing has changed significantly for the better. The answer, we are often told, is that those changes and investments kept us afloat and we otherwise would have drowned.

I don't buy that notion.

I am the parent of a 2002 graduate of the Springfield schools and another who will graduate in the class of 2010.  I believe that educational programs, at the high school level at least, have been reduced or diluted. Of course, I am told that my personal observations are wrong. I accept that my experiences may not represent the statistical average.

While some wonderful electives have been added, some core programs have been narrowed from three tracks to two. An academic period was eliminated, which inevitably complicated scheduling. Some students are enrolled in classes where the pace is not appropriate for their ability and/or take electives that are of marginal or no interest. The challenge of accommodating a small heterogeneous student body is no easy task, and with diminishing resources it is daunting. A high school is the marquee of a school system; it represents the culmination of twelve years of effort.

Our Board and administration have said that reading, writing and computation are essential for educational achievement. So it is ironic that instead of developing programs focused on those core competencies, we have adopted computer literacy, (which studies have shown is somewhat antithetical to interest in reading), as the centerpiece of our school curriculum. Sometimes I wonder if our focus on computer literacy has more to do with parents falling behind their kids and fearing what they don't know is what their kids won't know.

When implemented, the Pre-K program, we were told, would be a universal requirement in the future. That was fourteen years ago. Pre-K has never been mandatory, and if we take our governor at his word, it won't be on his watch. I have challenged current and past boards to cite one study that demonstrates the program's efficacy in Springfield or any other district with a similar demographic. Has anyone bothered to find out if it's worth it? Elimination of Pre-K could save hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of which could be used to supplement other soon-to-be starved programs. Advocates have stated that some residents think Pre-K makes Springfield an attractive place to live. That isn't even a relevant argument. Can Pre-K be shown to have provided irreplaceable enduring value to the educational experience? Can measurable downstream results be demonstrated?

Sometimes thinking out of the box isn't adding some new nifty mousetraps. Sometimes it is going back to basics. Educational experimentation is fine and necessary, but at some point economics and economic realities have to be taken into account. Either prove discretionary programs have irreplaceable value or terminate them. Educational thinking and fiscal realities have obviously changed; why can't our local Board admit that what we once thought would work might not.

We were once told that the Superintendent was fond of saying "good is not good enough." But sometimes better is the enemy of good. For years the Board has complained that Springfield was not treated fairly by the State, and has penalized us for being ahead of the curve. I think the Board didn't see the writing on the wall. Maybe it is time to learn that getting ahead of the curve isn't always about adopting new theories, but is about being realistic about the costs of hanging on to noble but marginal strategies.

Then again, maybe trying to be 'realistic' is a new theory worth exploring.