Why I'm Going to Vote "YES" on the Motion to Close Marks Meadow

The vote about whether to close Marks Meadow at the end of the 2009-2010 school year is scheduled for tomorrow night (Tuesday, May 19th), and given that this is my motion (made at the March 17th meeting), I feel I owe it to the community to explain why I plan BARRING ANY UPDATED INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVE IN THE NEXT 24 HOURS to vote to close Marks Meadow. I've already expressed how I came to this conclusion many times in this blog -- so I'm not going to repeat all the reasons why I think it is a tough option for some in our community (and clearly closing a school and redistricting kids throughout Amherst is emotional for virtually all parents/kids/teachers/staff -- change is just hard, and few of us relish the thought). But because there were four columns in last week's Bulletin (most written by parents in the MM district, although not all were identified as such) describing reasons NOT to close MM, I'm going to respond to the points addressed in each of these pieces to share my thinking about how/why the issues raised in these Op Eds just didn't change my mind. But I'm still listening ... and I truly welcome any ideas that people want to send to me today or tomorrow in terms of how else we could save $700,000 a year. So, seriously, if you want to save MM, send me your ideas of how we can achieve this cost savings in a way that preserves the Amherst education to the best of our ability for all kids.

Unsustainable Amherst
By JIM OLDHAM

Sustainability cannot be measured simply in fiscal terms. While budgets must balance, the long-term strength of our institutions depends on our ability to preserve key resources through the toughest times. The proposal to close Mark's Meadow School fails this test and should be voted down or postponed when the School Committee meets on May 19.

Since Mark's Meadow wouldn't close until FY2011, nothing decided on May 19 will affect the budget currently under consideration. There is time, and a need, to carefully consider the long-term implications of the proposal in a way that has not yet happened.

The projected savings are small, about $600,000, less than 3 percent of the budget. Although significant, they won't prevent painful cuts. Much of the anticipated savings can be found without giving up a school: sharing assistant principals, guidance counselors, librarians and various "specials" teachers between schools would allow similar staff reductions yet would be easier to reverse. The greater efficiencies in distributing students among classrooms could also be achieved with four schools if the sixth grade were moved to the middle school as the School Committee is currently considering.

The full cost of closing Mark's Meadow has not been adequately explored. Most striking is the lost opportunity to collaborate with UMass. One frequent comment during the comprehensive planning process was that we need to address town needs by drawing on the university and colleges. Rather than demanding funds from a cash-strapped university, we could be asking how we could recover the mutual benefits once provided by our laboratory school.

No one knows whether the district will be able to keep the building for another use, nor is there any long-term plan for when shifting demographics or aging infrastructure again require an additional school. Meanwhile, as we seek ways to make Amherst walkable, the plan makes families more dependent on cars.

Closing Mark's Meadow has been tied to the need to redistrict for a more equitable mix of income levels in the schools. Unfortunately, the rush to close the school risks poorly planned redistricting. My concern, hinted at in initial redistricting maps, is that families living in apartment complexes will be disproportionally targeted for switching districts because they provide an easily identified and bused population. The children intended to benefit may become those most negatively impacted.

Why are we considering closing Mark's Meadow? Part of the answer lies in the School Committee's belief that it is OK for the Superintendent's salary to jump 17 percent in this year of crisis, and almost 50 percent since 2003, while growth in regular education spending (classroom teachers) rises less than 1 percent annually. The net gain in the superintendent's salary in just seven years would pay for the middle school librarian or a classroom teacher.

This is not about Dr. Rodriguez nor is the issue limited to the schools. The problem is the unsustainable idea that we should pay more than we can afford for outside experts even when that requires running down the very services they are paid to direct. The argument that we have to accept the "realities of the labor market" is based on the failed notion that only an elite management class has the brains and skills to handle our complex institutions. The result is a widening gap in pay levels and a two-tiered system where budget "realities" justify cuts to teachers, aides, librarians and lunch ladies but are ignored when hiring administrators.

What's the sustainable alternative? Michael Greenebaum suggests filling future openings with career-starters to reduce costs while promoting innovation. I'd encourage hiring from within the system and nurturing talent committed to our community. Besides costing more, people attracted by big salaries are easily lured away. We need a less hierarchical management model where no one individual carries such a large burden or high price tag. Such changes would not only save money short term but contribute to a more collaborative, community connected, and truly sustainable approach to education in Amherst.
Jim Oldham is a precinct 5 Town Meeting member and a parent of students at Wildwood and ARHS.

Catherine's comments: First, although the school wouldn't close for a year, a tremendous amount would need to occur to carry this closing out with minimal impact to kids. New district lines would have to be drawn (and this would need of course to be done very carefully -- and for the record, all of the plans move MANY kids -- not just those in apartments by any means). Staff/teachers would have to be moved. Kids/families would have to have time to visit and get to know their new schools. This all takes time, and I think a vote on May 19th would give the administration time to accomplish all of what needs to occur much better than a vote sometime next year (in which surely, according to Mr. Oldham, redistricting plans would be that much more rushed). There is also a proposal right now from the Finance Committee suggesting that the use of reserves will be considered ONLY if there is consensus for a specific plan (not just the discussion and studying of a plan) to achieve greater cost efficiencies (so voting to close a school on May 19th could indeed help this year's budget as well). Second, although Mr. Oldham suggests $600,000 is a "very small amount" (and smaller than the $671,000 that is actually projected), this is a HUGE amount to cut in a budget of about $20 million. And although he is correct that we could cut the same amount in other ways (sharing guidance counselors, specials, librarians, assistant principals), you can't achieve these cost savings without impacting services (so, one librarian would serve twice as many kids, as would one art teacher, one guidance counselor, etc.). And the savings can NOT be achieved (even if you get rid of all assistant principals) unless you also impact class size. That is the reality. Third, I'm in favor of moving 6th grade to the MS ... but if/when we do that, we also have to pay to educate those kids, which would mean covering part of the MS staff salary (e.g., principals, art, music, librarian, guidance, custodians, etc.). That achieves cost savings by reducing the number of classes needed, but also has more administrative costs, so this actually leads to higher costs overall for our elementary school budget. Plus, if we move the 6th grade, thereby reducing the elementary school enrollment to 1100 kids (needing about 54 classrooms), why in the world would we need four schools -- there would be literally over 15 classrooms sitting empty! Fourth, having a year to plan the transition would indeed give us a chance to explore how U Mass wants to be involved -- whether they would let us use the space for our two alternative high schools (the interim superintendent's preference) or whether they would pay us an annual sum to educate the kids in U Mass housing who attend our schools. Either seems like a great win to me compared to keeping open a school we don't need! Fifth, everyone knows I didn't vote for the new superintendent's salary ... but let's say we were paying the new superintendent EXACTLY what we paid Dr. Hochman ... that would have saved us a total of $30,000 ... split between Amherst and Regional (a sum much, much less than what is saved by closing MM), so it seems silly to bring that up as a reason to keep MM open. I'm fine to hire from within, and seek less experienced people -- but those two plans aren't going to save $700,000 a year. On the other hand, a big part of the savings of closing MM is achieved by reducing the administrative staff (e.g., principal, secretaries, librarian, nurse) -- which I think is exactly what Mr. Oldham has repeated pushed for in his prior columns (reducing administrator costs and keeping education focused on classroom teachers -- which the close MM plan does).



Chart a long-term course for schools
By DAVID KASTOR, ALYSSA MELNICK and JENNIE TRASCHEN

On May 19, the School Committee will decide whether to close Mark's Meadow school. As Mark's Meadow parents, we know this school provides an outstanding educational environment. We believe that a decision to close it should only be made based on solid, long-term planning. Although the process around this question may already seem drawn out, there has in fact been little substantive discussion by the School Committee and few answers provided to concerns raised at the various meetings and forums.

One major concern is space. Do the three other schools have enough of it to meet the needs of our school population, including a reasonable contingency for possible future increases? There is cause for great concern. A 2007 report, commissioned by the schools, concluded that all four elementary schools are already overcrowded by modern standards. While the detailed numbers in this report can be argued with, its main observation is sound. The scope of educational services has increased dramatically, outstripping the buildings' capacities. "Programs or services," it states, "have moved into regular classrooms, storage areas, alcoves and wherever else space could be carved out."

The three-school plan calls for 64 classrooms, five more than currently used at these schools. No mention is made of where the educational services now taking place in these five classrooms will happen, even as the programs are expanded to serve 17 percent more students from the closure of Mark's Meadow. Perhaps more closets are available.

A responsible plan should also allow for possible future growth. For example, 27 affordable apartments will soon be built on Longmeadow Drive. Moreover, Amherst's 2008 draft master plan proposes a range of measures to increase affordable and moderately priced housing. More such housing means more kids in school. Planning for the schools should be consistent with our town's deeply held and clearly stated aspirations.

Although owned by UMass, Mark's Meadow represents a major fiscal asset to the town. If it is closed, UMass will reclaim the building. If a new school is subsequently needed, it will cost millions of dollars, assuming a suitable site can be found. The town pays no rent or utilities for Mark's Meadow, a significant in-kind contribution from UMass.

In January, the former superintendents recommended against closing Mark's Meadow, stating that the result would be "large, overcrowded elementary schools." The option is now under serious consideration only because of the anticipated, major budget shortfall. Due to the global recession, both state aid and growth in town tax revenue are down substantially. Closing Mark's Meadow would fill about one quarter of the possible $2.1 million gap in the FY2010 elementary school budget.

We agree with the former superintendents that this budget shortfall should be met through reversible cuts. School administrators have produced a list of careful cuts, now revised many times in response to community input. Many of these cuts are painful. However, they can be undone once the economy recovers.

Hard times call for creative thinking and flexibility. We offer the following additional possibilities: Share some positions between schools. Cutting the number of principals and assistant principals by one each would save about $170,000. Sharing one secretarial and one custodial position would save about $60,000. Having students eat lunch in their classrooms as they do at Mark's Meadow would save about $75,000 on cafeteria aides. Eliminate computer instruction for a few years. It is not a core subject. Reduce energy usage by turning off unnecessary lights. Utilities are one of the fastest growing parts of the budget.

Currently Amherst pays $150,000 for 30 students leaving through school choice, but doesn't allow students to "choice in" to our elementary schools. This policy should be changed to enhance revenue. Such cuts and new revenue can match the projected saving from closing Mark's Meadow.

A sensible, long-term plan is to purchase two more modular classrooms for Mark's Meadow, giving it a total of two classrooms per grade. Its enrollment could then be expanded, reducing enrollment at the other schools.

Eventually the economy will improve. We should get creative about economizing and making reversible cuts, rather than charting a long-term course that leaves our schools overcrowded and poorly equipped for the future.

Alyssa Melnick is a project manager in construction for MMB Associates. David Kastor and Jennie Traschen are married physics professors at UMass. All have children in the fifth grade at Mark's Meadow who would not be affected by a 2010 closing of the school.

Catherine's comments: First, the NESDEC report was done prior to the start of the Chinese Charter School, and hence their enrollment projections were high (thus, we have more space than they anticipated we would). The superintendent and her staff have computed classroom projections, and believe we will have no trouble fitting the kids in three buildings. They also note, wisely, that if projections are higher than anticipated, we could move the 6th grade to the MS (an educationally sound move) -- which would eliminate about 200 kids from the elementary schools (MORE than currently are in Marks Meadow). Second, there are now empty classrooms in ALL of the schools. Crocker Farm is currently using 16 classrooms, but there are 19 classrooms in that schools. Similarly, both WW and FR have empty classrooms right now. That is how we are able to handle all the kids from MM in our existing three schools. Third, if projections are lower than actual enrollment, we can move our roughly 200 6th graders to the MS (again, this is more than the total enrollment in MM). That school was designed for three grades, and could easily handle our 6th graders (a move which also makes sense educationally). We could also move the portables to one of the other schools -- none of the plans now are to even use those two classrooms, which could each house 25 kids (again, adding space for another 50 students if projections turn out to be inaccurate). Fourth, the superintendent has clearly stated her preference is to continue using MM to house the two alternative high schools (and thus get the free utilities). If U Mass prefers to reclaim the building, we could then negotiate a fee from U Mass to cover our expenses in educating the kids living in U Mass housing. Both of these represent real cost savings to our district. Fifth, although the authors describe a few cost saving measures (representing about half of what is saved through closing MM), these measures seem really problematic to me. The authors propose that kids at MM (180 of them) will have ONE principal, as will the kids at the other three schools (with class sizes at WW and FR more than double that in MM) -- surely the principals at the large schools will have great difficulty spending time in classrooms, getting to know kids, mentoring teachers, handling emergencies, etc. without an assistant principal, whereas the kids at MM will experience no difference at all since they don't currently have an assistant principal! Firing all of the lunch ladies -- among the lowest paid workers in our district -- to save MM just seems really wrong to me, as does eliminating computer instruction for ALL kids in ALL schools (which probably is much more of a hit for low income kids than those who are the children of professionals and graduate students at U Mass and presumably are more likely to have computer access at home). And even if you thought these reversible measures DID make sense ... you are only half-way there (so, come up with another $300,000 -- which is going to mean larger class sizes). Sixth, School Choice doesn’t solve it — if we take in 60 kids a year, we make $300,000 (that of course assumes that we could find 60 kids in the exact right grades who want to enter our district). But we have to hire three more teachers, so we make $150,000. This is, once again, a LOT less than $700,000. And finally, we are NOT using the 2 modulars bought (for $380,000) for MM right now, nor do we need them for next year. So I guess I'm really not sure why they suggest the answer to solving our budget problem is to buy two more?!? The issue is NOT classroom space ... we have EMPTY classrooms right now. The issue is that we don't have money to pay teachers to be in those classrooms. Last point -- the authors note that they are the parents of 5th graders, so they won't be impacted if MM closes ... but the more important point to me is that they ALSO won't be impacted by the devastating cuts that all schools will experience IF we keep MM open.





Don't kill Mark's Meadow Elementary School
By ADRIAN A. DURLESTER

Much has been said about the attempt to close Mark's Meadow Elementary School in Amherst as being for the greater benefit of the whole community. I just can't see it that way. Our school system is a family, and killing off a family member should not be the typical human response to hard times that threaten survival. Here's a straightforward analogy.


Imagine a hardscrabble farm family during the dust bowl/depression years deciding to kill one of their four children to enable them to weather the tough times they are facing. This child they decided to kill was healthy and thriving. It might have been their smallest child, but it wasn't sickly. Each of the family's children had special skills and characteristics, and this child was no exception. (Had the child been sickly or frail, it would still have been an unthinkable crime, a murder, for the family to kill this child.) Yes, tough times require tough choices, but our human morals and ethics create some boundaries which, when we cross, we give up some of our humanity.)


What would have really happened is that everyone in the family sacrificed so that all might survive. They would divide the food into smaller portions, give up things they could do without, maybe even send the family dogs and cats off to fend for themselves, but they would stop short of sacrificing a member of the family. They would band together. Why aren't we doing the same?


Here in Amherst, people are trying to drive people apart, with a specious "sacrifice for the greater good" argument. Let's not buy into this Spartan, Lord-of-the-Flies mentality. Let's face this financial crisis with our family, our elementary school system, intact.


Things look pretty bleak, budget-wise. At this point, even the closing of Mark's Meadow would not prevent other drastic cuts from happening. Some argue that even if it doesn't really keep things at status quo, why not save every penny we can by closing the school. This is a callous and cavalier attitude, and one that has no place in a family. It's like the farm family saying, "Well, we can't really be sure that killing one child will truly insure the survival of all the others, but let's just kill them off anyway so we can each have a little bit more to eat than we would have with all of us alive."


I have been a musician all my life. I would hate to see any of the great things that characterize Amherst schools, like music, disappear. Yet I do know that such programs can be put on hiatus and later restored. (They could possibly be sustained with alternate funding sources, as well.) You can't bring the dead back to life. Kill Mark's Meadow, and you lose it forever. Don't side with those who would murder a family member to survive. Join hands with your whole Amherst family and together we will all survive this crisis.


A great sage once said, "In a place where no one (else) is acting like a human being, strive to act like a human being." Let's all strive to act like human beings, not merciless Spartans.
Adrian A. Durlester lives in Amherst.



Catherine's response: I have only two reactions to this. First, I think it is really a shame to talk about this in terms of "killing a member of your family." ALL the schools are excellent -- great teachers, caring staff, involved parents. That is why I do not care where my own children go -- because I know they will be OK in any of the buildings. If we close the school, the families, the kids, the teachers, and the staff would work in other buildings (a better analogy -- during times of really tight budgets, do you consider selling your "vacation house" that you don't really need because the whole family can live in your "regular house" but you do still like to have the vacation house for weekends and summers? Ummm, yes, I think you should consider selling the summer house). I don't believe for a second that what makes your school so good is the physical space -- it is the PEOPLE. And those PEOPLE could and would be equally excellent in another building because they care about building a community and educating kids. We are going to continue to educate the kids who now go to Marks Meadow -- they will just be educated in ANOTHER building. Second, although you say we could find "alternative funding" for music, art, etc., there are three major problems with this: first, you can't just find grants to pay for all in school activities (e.g., music, art, etc.); second, if these programs "go away for awhile," the kids who go through elementary school during this time would not have them -- we can't make it up to them in a few years when they are able to return; and third, even if you get rid of ALL the art and music -- you still don't save $700,000 a year ... meaning other cuts still need to occur (e.g., fewer intervention teachers, larger class sizes). At what price do you think it is worth it to keep MM open? All kids in all schools having larger classes, no art/music/PE, and no intervention teachers? Is that really a trade you think is good for all kids?




What is best for the children? Small schools
By DANIELA CALZETTI


The considerations presented here are based on scholarly research, and attempt to address the basic question: What is best for the children? All other considerations, like what is best for the Amherst taxpayers or what are the desires of some groups of citizens, are less quantifiable in terms of scientific research, and will not be discussed in this commentary.


Research shows that small schools perform better than large schools, as quantified by a number of metrics (see below). How small is small? Although numbers vary from research to research, a reference number is less than 300 to 400 students. Small schools should not be confused with small classes, which are sometimes correlated. Most statistics quoted here refer to small schools, not necessarily small classes.


If Mark's Meadow were to be closed, only Crocker Farm would remain below 400 students, while Wildwood and Fort River would receive more than 400 (and, in one re-districting scenario, more than 500 for Wildwood) students.


Is this matter of concern? There is a well documented gap in performance between students coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and students who are not. This has been shown by a variety of research across the U.S., by comparing standardized test results between free and reduced lunch students and other students. Typical differences in (math and reading) test results are around 20 percent, with free and reduced lunch students performing less well than the other students.


However, these differences are smaller in small schools relative to large schools, and by eighth grade economic differences all but disappear as a factor in student performance for students from small schools, studies show.


Other rigorous studies also show that small schools are positively correlated with: greater teacher commitment, better student attendance, greater sense of community and belonging among students. In a study of 264 elementary schools sized 150 to 1950, researchers found that in schools with less than 400 students: 1) teachers take more responsibility for the students' academic and social development, and 2) this translates into higher student achievement. Student tardiness and absenteeism are lower by at least 10 to 30 percent in schools with less than 300 students relative to students in larger schools. The greater sense of belonging that students feel in small schools, in addition, leads to: lower rate of behavioral problems, and higher participation in extracurricular activities.


Extracurricular participation not only translates into a better educational experience, other studies show, but also leads to future greater involvement through high school, and greater volunteerism and participation in society as adults.


Mark's Meadow is a success story of how well small schools work and serve their communities. It is a small school (slightly less than 200 students), although it does not have small classes; most classes are similar in size to or larger than those of the other three elementary schools in Amherst. Mark's Meadow has 38 percent free and reduced lunch students, significantly larger than both Wildwood and Fort River schools.


Yet, the MCAS scores of Mark's Meadow school for at least the past three years (2006-2008) have been typically higher than those of the other elementary schools in the district. The largest difference is at the highest schools grades (fifth and sixth), which support the findings of the scholarly research quoted so far. In 2008, Mark's Meadow was number one in the state in sixth-grade English MCAS, and number two for mathematics; this is a testament to the efficacy of small schools.


Bottom line: cost efficiency does not equal cost effectiveness in education. Closing Mark's Meadow hardly seems the correct direction to take, if we want to be serious about stronger curricula.


Daniela Calzetti is a professor in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.



Catherine's response: First, the vast majority of research cited in this piece is messy -- small schools are often rural and surburban schools, and large schools are often urban schools -- so it is important not to mistake correlational for causation. Second, the majority of research cited in this article focused on schools below 400 kids. If we move the 6th grade to the MS, all three of our schools would be below 400 (we'd have 1100 kids to educate in three buildings). I'd be glad to push for this as a goal, which I assume Dr. Calzetti would eagerly support -- then we'd have three schools, but all would be within what the research shows is a good size. Third, there is also well-documented research showing that small class sizes matter, especially for lower income kids and especially in the early grades. We've heard from the superintendent that keeping MM open will result in larger class sizes, which seems especially problematic for more disadvantaged kids, so one would have to careful consider whether having ONE small school with regular class sizes for some kids (13%) is more important than smaller classes in all the schools for all kids (100%). Most of the disadvantaged kids in our district are not, in fact, at MM -- in terms of overall number of kids on free/reduced lunch, both FR and CF (and maybe even WW -- I'm not sure about their overall number of low income kids) have many more kids on free/reduced lunch than MM (so again, is it fair that only the low income kids at MM get to experience the small school environment)? Fourth, the parents of MM children are often affiliated with U Mass, so it is not surprising that these children (sons/daughters of U Mass professors, administrators, graduate students) are achieving well on the MCAS - they are very likely to be in families in which education is very prized, and would do very well if in another building in Amherst. Again, let's not mistake correlation for causation. One final thing -- let's say for the sake of debate, that I agreed that smaller schools were better for kids, based on scholarly research. Then it seems like the only fair thing for all kids in Amherst is to have a lottery in which a lucky 13% of the population gets to benefit from this superior learning environment, right? I mean, it really doesn't seem fair that kids of U Mass faculty and graduate students get to have a great school that leads to great MCAS scores when the other kids in Amherst go to schools that produce less good outcomes. So, I would hope that Dr. Calzetti and other current MM parents would come forward and ask the SC to make sure that if we keep MM open, MM turns into a lottery system so that all kids in Amherst can have at least a chance to experience this opportunity. Such a proposal, to redistrict Amherst into three districts, but allow a lucky 13% of each district to attend MM, would get some serious attention by all members of the SC and the administration, and I think would hep convince the community that desires to keep MM open, even given the costs it would entail to all schools, is really for the benefit of ALL kids in our community and NOT just those who happen to currently attend MM. I would welcome such a proposal by a group of MM parents on Tuesday night.