Public Hearing on Veteran's Exemption: 12/15 at 6pm at Ledgeview

The regularly scheduled Clarence Board of Education meeting takes place on Monday December 15th at 7pm at Ledgeview Elementary's library. 

At 6pm, however, there will be a public hearing on the proposed school tax exemption for veterans. 

Most Clarence taxpayers are likely willing to honor our veterans, and would support a school tax exemption for them - even given the fact that school taxes would have to be raised on the rest of us to cover the difference. 

However, people should make sure that the school board doesn't do what they just did in Niagara-Wheatfield. Specifically, no decision should be made until we have all the information in as to how this will affect non-veteran taxpayers and their STAR exemptions. 

See this article in the Buffalo News regarding what just happened in Niagara-Wheatfield: 

Although the financial impact of the alternative veteran’s exemption was sketchy, five board members agreed to accept the resolution following a public hearing on the issue on Wednesday night.

The tax exemption will provide veterans a reduction on residential property assessments prepared after March 1 for school tax calculation. The law covers combat, wartime and disabled veterans with respective exemptions of $6,000, $4,000 and $10,000 on their assessments. The maximum exemption a veteran could receive would be a total of $20,000 for one who served in combat and was disabled.

No board members said they opposed the exemption but most wanted to know how the plan would impact other taxpayers.

We shouldn't have a problem supporting the exemption, but we should demand that the details of how it would affect the district and non-veteran taxpayers be a prerequisite to any vote. 

Furthermore, at least a few of the veterans lobbying for the exemption have not exactly been supporters of the district in the past. If an exemption is passed, Clarence voters should echo the concerns of Niagara-Wheatfield board member Gina Terbot, who noted: 

Terbot, who said some in the district said they would not support the district’s budget in May if the exemptions passed, told the 16 veterans at the meeting to come out and help get the budget passed.

Meanwhile, they're having a tough time in the Iroquois district, too. If the exemption passes there, 

...homeowners would pay an additional 1.5 percent in taxes to make up for the exemption.

Had the exemption been in effect for the 2014-15 school year, Iroquois district residents would have paid between $24 and $24.40 more per $100,000 of assessed valuation.

But it's not as simple as just that. 

George explained that the district’s reimbursement through the School Tax Relief Program, or STAR, would be affected by the alternative veterans exemption.

The state reimburses school districts for veterans who have a zero exemption on their school tax bills through Enhanced STAR.

However, the alternative veterans exemption comes off tax bills first, and the balance is removed by Enhanced STAR, which means the state would no longer be required to reimburse the difference to the school districts.

That puts more of the tax levy on the rest of the residents.

“A lot of these veterans have a zero exemption,” George said. “So this 1.5 figure is low; it will be higher.”

Board member Thomas D. DiScipio questioned whether it’s fair to offer the exemption to one group and exclude others who could also benefit from tax relief.

“There are some residents in this district who aren’t veterans and are in financial dire straits,” DiScipio pointed out.

One thing that the school boards in Iroquois and Niagara-Wheatfield can agree on is that it's unbelievably irresponsible for the governor and the state legislature to make local school boards shoulder not only the political burden of dealing with the implementation of this exemption, but by not funding it and requiring other taxpayers to foot the bill from within the district. 

If it is to be the policy of New York State to implement these sorts of exemptions, then it should be implemented everywhere, and the state should cover the cost.

Clarence Schools Bond Proposal Passes: Real Work Begins

What are you doing the next seven weeks?

If you care about Clarence schools, you'll be joining the effort to pass the two bond resolutions to finance 30% of critically needed repairs and upgrades to the district's buildings & grounds; the remaining 70% will be covered by the state.

Monday night, the school board voted 6-1 to bring the resolutions to the voters in a special referendum on November 18th. Roger Showalter was the sole "no"vote.

There appears to be no debate over that portion of this capital project that deals with repairs and mandated upgrades to the school buildings and bus garage. Roofs are in critical need of repair, many buildings need asbestos abatement, and other items relating to health and safety need immediate attention. These are problems that have, in some cases, not been addressed in generations.

There was, however, some concern-trolling from Mssrs. Showalter and Lahti over the proposal to replace some high school playing fields with modern artificial turf and a new scoreboard, and it's easy to dismiss this part of the project as optional or frivolous.

Well, it would be, except for the fact that sports are mostly played on these fields during the Fall and Spring - seasons not known for their dry predictability in western New York. In the Spring of 2014 alone, over 110 events had to be canceled because of wet, muddy, and unplayable conditions on the playing fields. If the district invested in turf and drainage upgrades, conditions would be playable in any weather except lightning.

Trustee Matt Stock argued that the tipping point for him was the fact that the fields are a school and town asset, and that turf would enable them to be utilized more often, and the money to maintain them would be better spent. It hardly makes sense to pay desperately to try and make fields playable if the weather won't cooperate.

Think of it this way: if you're a sports family, you have pride in your school community and you don't only want your physical education infrastructure to be excellent, but you recognize that it's in the civic interest to ensure that all of the school's programs are top-notch. By the same token, even if your family isn't involved in sports, it's in everyone's broad interest to ensure that the sports programs have modern fields that cost less to maintain and result in fewer injuries to players.

The meeting itself was unusually well-attended, with many parents speaking in favor of the one point of contention - the turf fields.  They spoke of how embarrassed the district should be over the dilapidated conditions of the high school field infrastructure. Just last Friday, a part of the bleachers broke during a varsity football game. (The bleachers are covered by the repair part of the capital project).

There was some debate and disagreement initiated by Trustee Roger Showalter over the actual board resolution about the two capital projects.  He objected to there being only one resolution, because he wanted to vote for the repair piece and against the turf piece. There was some clumsy fumfering over Robert's Rules of Procedure, and the district's lawyer explained that any last-minute effort to strike and amend the board's resolution would result in the contingency being omitted.

As it currently stands, the passage of the repair bond is contingent in part on the passage of the turf bond. Specifically, if the turf project is contingent on the passage of the repair project - it is impossible to pass only the turf. (It is, however, possible to vote in favor of, or against, both. It is also possible to vote for the repairs and against the turf, but not vice-versa).

Showalter and Trustee Jason Lahti complained that they were "concerned" about public sentiment over the turf. It should be noted that not one person rose to spoke against the turf at any recent school board meeting. They suggested that there might be an effort to defeat the turf proposal that might spill over and cause the repair piece to fail.

Trustee Susan Altman noted - correctly - that the board's resolution was simply to present these items to the voters, and that this wasn't technically an opportunity for the board members to voice their specific support or objection for the underlying substance of the capital projects.

The effort to strike and amend the board's resolution failed 5 - 2.  The board then voted on the existing agenda item, and it passed 6 - 1 with only Showalter dissenting.

Over the next 7 weeks, expect thousands of dollars in mailers, ads, and signs to pop up throughout the town to reject the whole capital project.  Expect numerous Bee Heards and letters to the Bee's editor to relentlessly attack parents, students, and the board for allegedly "disrespecting the taxpayers".  Why?

Because the board voted to pass a resolution to make repairs and needed upgrades to assets that the taxpayers own and use. 

So, over the next 7 weeks students, parents, teachers, and alumni will need to coalesce and fight hard to get the vote out and energize the apathetic. We will need to set the tone, agenda, and message before the other guys do. We will need to get the parents who don't bother and don't pay attention to wake up.

The next 7 weeks will be tough and possibly as hard-fought as the 2013 budget. This time, we need to be ready.

If you want to help, please send an email to fixclarenceschools@gmail.com.  Don't wait for someone else to do it - we need people to put out signs, make calls, canvass, write letters to the editor, do Bee Heards, and leaflet at sporting events. It's up to you.

Fix Clarence Schools!

Today is Monday September 22nd. Tonight at 7pm, the Clarence school board will vote to put two bond proposals before the voters.  If approved, the district will finance 30% of the cost of necessary repairs and upgrades to buildings and grounds, while the state will fund the remaining 70%. We, as a school community, must show the board that we support this effort.

Earlier this year, a task force of board members, school officials, and community members met and analyzed enrollment in the Clarence Schools, as well as a wish list for the district's buildings and grounds.  The task force reduced the "wish list" to a "needs list" and recommended two separate bond proposals be put forth to finance needed upgrades and repairs.

Despite a current downward trend in enrollment, new development in town as well as an aging population is going to lead to turnover and new residents. There is no guarantee that enrollment will continue to trend down, and at this time no schools are slated to be closed.

At an August meeting of the school board, Superintendent Hicks recommended that the task force's repair & maintenance piece be reduced to $30.9 million.  The district would need to raise $9.3 million, and if successful, the state would fund the remaining $21.6 million.

The second bond would be for turf playing fields and other improvements at the high school. The athletic field bond would be for $5 million, including a $1.5 million town investment to leverage $3.5 million in state money.

The passage of the athletic bond is contingent on passage of the repair & maintenance bond, but not vice-versa.

Bonding and state financing such as this is only available for capital projects involving the school district's buildings & grounds. Despite the devastating losses in faculty, administration, social workers, and curriculum that the district has endured over the last few years, we cannot borrow and leverage state money for any restoration of personnel or programs.  We must continue to press the board and wage that battle.

With respect to repairs, the district has waited 40 years to undertake a comprehensive program to address deteriorating schools. This is the time to do it, when we can marshal 70% of the cost from outside sources.

If we do not pass it now, we will need to pay to make the repairs and mandated upgrades out of future operating budgets, and the town will have to cover 100% of the cost, rather than 30%. Here is how the money will be spent on needed upgrades and repairs: 

Here is the information on the athletic field drainage repair and upgrades: 

The school board is poised to vote on these proposals at tonight's monthly meeting, and it is expected that the bonds will be put to the voters sometime in mid or late November. Although there appears to be unanimity on the repair piece, at least two board members are anticipated to be "no" votes on the athletic field proposal, arguing that turf fields are a "luxury" and not a necessity.  

But something has to be done. In just the spring semester alone, over 110 events had to be canceled due to unplayable fields. If the school had turf fields with the associated drainage upgrades, the only impediment to gameplay would be lightning. Due to the evenness of the turf, you eliminate natural imperfections, leading to a reduction in injuries to players. Newer synthetics have been devised to reduce the harmful effects of "turf burn".  The cost to continually maintain natural grass fields for gameplay in WNY's unpredictable climate is in the tens of thousands of dollars, and when you have a particularly wet spring such as this year's, no amount of money can bring the fields up to playable condition. With turf, the maintenance is practically non-existent by comparison. Furthermore, when it comes time to replace the turf, the cost to do so is significantly less than the initial investment to construct all of the substructure and drainage. 

A study of a Michigan State University field showed that annual maintenance costs could be reduced by up to 20% over that of a natural grass field and that a savings of up to 40% can be seen in costs for maintenance equipment.

While this turf proposal will likely be spun by some as school district greed, it makes good business sense to improve civic assets such as this. These fields aren't just the school's - they belong to everybody, and the entire community has an opportunity to enjoy and use them. We should expect that our assets be - at the very least - usable, given the money spent to maintain them. 

There's a petition online urging the board to adopt the task force's recommendations, and it's close to 400 signatures now. Please go sign it, attend the board meetings, and contact fixclarenceschools@gmail.com to get involved in the coming campaign to fix our schools. 

As Goes East Ramapo, So Goes Clarence?

This is an absolutely heartbreaking story of an anti-tax takeover of a school board in downstate New York. Clarence came close, but it must never, ever let this happen.

Listen here

Lahti and Stephen: So Happy Together

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Right on the corner of Main & Goodrich, there's a big "Stephen Development" sign, and next to it a sign touting IQ Modular Homes, which is supplying the pre-fabricated bits of Stephen's new shopping center.

Recall for a moment that Paul Stephen has been actively funding and supporting school board candidates who want to cut and weaken the school district. Recall that his are the deep pockets that fund Lisa Thrun's tinpot AFP astroturf effort to ensure that kids get to school in unsafe, dilapidated, rusting, broken-down buses. These are people for whom student safety takes a back seat to an extra $6 per year in the bank. (Now you know the price that the tea party places on your kid's safety.)

Paul Stephen has been vocal in town about ensuring that a proposed local law limiting multi-family housing be made more flexible. I favor smart growth in the town that follows the principles of new urbanism; walkable neighborhoods that are built for people rather than cars, and mixed-use development that doesn't require residents to have to drive to accomplish every activity of daily living.

So, while Stephen seems to have good ideas about Main Street, this project at Goodrich is about as far away from new urbanist principles as you can get. It's nothing more than a copycat of the plaza at North French and Transit - ground-floor retail, 2nd floor residential, and parking in front. If you want to build a proper walkable community, you build to the sidewalk and put the parking out back. Stephen talks a good game about urbanist principles, but he's not delivering, what with the trailer park and the motels.

Furthermore, among a large number of school families, Stephen's name is mud.

Stephen's reputation isn't only because he bankrolled the 2013 no vote, or the anti-bus effort in 2014, or backing Worling's campaign.

The unforgivable thing he's done is to back tea party activists to implement a "divide and conquer" strategy pitting school families against seniors.

The resentments are still raw even today, and people are angry at seniors. But the "seniors" aren't some groupthink collective that votes in lockstep, and dividing the town this way is cynical and completely counterproductive. Those who stoked these divisions are not deserving of respect or support.

So it is that Paul Stephen is doing business with IQ Modular, which is a company owned by the Lahti and Showalter families.

iQ Modular Homes was founded in 2005 by Lahti and his in-laws – members of the Showalter family – who own and operate Buffalo Tungsten Inc., a local manufacturer of tungsten powder products. At the time, there were no modular homebuilders in the area.

To what extent are Lahti or Showalter colluding with Paul Stephen to, e.g., elect Worling or agitate against the bus proposal that they voted for as board members? This whole thing reeks to high heaven, and our kids' futures are being held hostage by big business interests in town. But even worse, in order to get what they want, these deep pockets are dividing the town for their own financial self-interest.

Sour Grapes

From this week's Bee Heard:

New school buses, really? I think we have enough buses if you count all the SUVs and mini vans that drop their kids off at school every day. We have a huge problem at the middle school with half-empty buses and hundreds of vehicles that cause daily traffic jams before and after school. Maybe these parents could arrange car pools, so we could eliminate the need for new buses and daily traffic jams. 

Right. Maybe we can ask Santa Claus to use his sleigh.

There is no problem with "half-empty buses", despite the fact that many kids get dropped off. Also - the reason we need new buses isn't because we need MORE buses.  It's because the EXISTING FLEET IS TOO OLD AND UNSAFE

Sorry that your need to avoid a "traffic jam" outweighs the needs of kids to get to school safely.

You know, I see a big parking lot with a lot of cars in it at the Senior Center.  Based on the logic shown above, they don't need a taxpayer-funded shuttle bus.

Never let it be said that Clarence doesn't have a whole lot of selfish people.

The Clarence School District has more than 92 buses, 46 with more than 100,000 miles and no buses newer than 2010. I am a taxpayer with a 1995 and a 1999 car trying to keep my head above water. After 10 years, they are complaining it’s difficult to purchase parts for their buses. Well, give me a list of the parts needed and let me see if I can find them. Also, let’s find out the cost of contract transportation so taxpayers can compare costs. This is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you haven't gone out and "found out the cost of contract transportation" yourself, oh woeful whiner. You're a taxpayer with a 1995 and 1999 car, so maybe we can hire you to transport kids, right?

Mold Makes the School Go 'Round

Here are some more pictures from Clarence's school buildings: 

Mold: Neither delicious nor nutritious. 

Painting over the mold: not optimal

Perhaps some repairs might be needed. Perhaps some ceiling tile should be replaced. 

Telling a Thousand Words

Here is what an urgent need for school repairs looks like:

Water and electricity: they don't go well together

Clarence Center Elementary: water drips from the light fixture, collected in buckets

The vent drips water on the Ledgeview secretary every time it rains

Leaks in the Ledgeview Office

Doors at Harris Hill in Need of Repair. At Sheridan Hill, the ground heaves and prevents the doors from being opened

Water pouring through the wall at the Clarence Center Elementary Gym/Auditorium 

This is a classroom in Clarence Center. It is still in use. 

Thanks for the New Buses, Time to Fix the Dilapidated Schools

Thank you, voters, for choosing the safety of our kids over nickels and dimes. In May, you approved the purchase of several new buses to help transport Clarence's schoolkids to and from public and private schools across the region.

It wasn't just a safety issue, but also a value proposition. The state picked up the vast majority of the bill, the interest rate to finance the purchase is at a historical low, and newer buses are cheaper to maintain than older ones with hundreds of thousands of miles on them.

We turn now to the schools and their physical plants. A task force has been working for months at the school buildings and playing fields, and in mid-June made its recommendations to the Board of Education. Here are some facts, Clarence.

1. It has been over 40 years since the town undertook a comprehensive project to make repairs and upgrades necessary to maintain the physical school buildings. When it comes to HVAC systems, roofs, and windows, many have never been replaced and are woefully wasteful and inefficient. The school buildings are between 48 and 75 years old, and are held in trust for the benefit of the people of Clarence. It is our responsibility to ensure that our investment is properly maintained, and that we are not throwing money away. Here is what will be done:

2. When Clarence undertakes this comprehensive maintenance project, the State of New York will fund 70% of the cost; Clarence taxpayers will only be on the hook for 30% of a 15 year bond, amounting to $6 per month on a home valued at $200,000.

To reiterate: if we bond this, we pay 30% of the cost. If we do not bond this, we will still have to make the necessary repairs, and pay 100% of the cost. 

3. Enrollment trends are reasonably stable, but in decline. They are not, however declining at a rate that would facilitate the closing of an elementary school.  Between 2009 and 2014, enrollment for all schools is down only about 350. Experts project that, going forward, 2014-2019 enrollment will decrease by 104 in K-5, 139 in 6-8, 23 in 9-12, and 266 overall in K-12. That's a slower rate of decline than the previous 5 years, and it doesn't factor in 700 building lots in the town's development pipeline, potential Catholic school restructuring, and unknown potential growth of younger households. The elementary school census would have to be at or less than 1,650 to justify closing a school - the current figure is 1,954. The optimum capacity for an elementary school is about 550, and our schools are at between 422 - 534.

4. In 2011, a building condition survey was undertaken - these surveys are done every 5 years. To make necessary - not optional or discretionary, but mandatory - repairs to the schools, the task force recommends a $9.3 million town investment in order to leverage an additional $21.6 million in state aid, for a total rehabilitation of $30.9 million. Most of the school buildings have not had a needed upgrade since 1970.

• Black Sabbath's debut and second albums released
• The Chicago 7 are acquitted
• Cambodia's King Sihanouk is overthrown in a military coup; US invades
• The inaugural Earth Day occurs
• TV cigarette ads are banned
• Apollo 13
• Kent State Shootings
• American Top 40 debut
• Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin die
• Nasser dies
• de Gaulle dies
• Bridge Over Troubled Water is the #1 song of the year

5. Pursuant to the 2013 building condition survey update, a total of $43.7 million should be spent to make all upgrades identified as category 1 and 2 needs.  Category 1 updates involve health & safety, electrical, HVAC, and roof repairs, building infrastructure, and technology updates. The task force whittled this down to $30.9 million out of respect for the taxpayers, by excluding category 2 items, and by recategorizing some items from 1 to 2. Task force chairman Vic Martucci emphasized that the task force recommendations reflect only needs - nothing is a "want".

6. The updates are needed now in order to bring the buildings up to code. Martucci indicated that state aid is available now, but might be gone if we wait.  It is, therefore, imperative to strike while the iron is hot and get a state aid commitment. He also indicated that historically low interest rates are so attractive that the board would be breaching its fiduciary duty to the schools and the taxpayers if it didn't do this now. He added that many systems have long outlived their useful life, and efficiency updates would pay dividends year over year.

7. A second bond will be proposed to make needed upgrades to the high school playing fields. The passage of the sports bond is contingent on the passage of the larger bond proposal, but not vice-versa. The task force is recommending a $1.5 million town investment to leverage $3.5 million in state aid in order to perform $5 million in total upgrades.

8. The condition of the fields is poor, and grass is expensive to maintain. Drainage is poor, and leads to myriad cancellations. When conditions are muddy, it takes a great deal of time for the fields to recover, and this past school year 117 games had to be rescheduled, and the fields affect 1,775 students. These fields can also be utilized by the community, to everyone's benefit.

9. One of the proposals includes upgrading the football field to field turf, which is safer and will have state-of-the-art drainage. It will be cheaper to maintain, be more durable, and lead to fewer injuries. We will also have a new scoreboard, a new track, and new fencing. A second multi-purpose, soccer field-sized area will also be upgraded to turf, accommodating soccer, field hockey, baseball, and softball.  The life of the turf itself is about 12 - 15 years, and is relatively cheap to replace. Adoption of field turf will save money on the operating budget as it relates to field & grounds.

The incoming school board will be analyzing the task force's recommendations, and it is anticipated that it will vote on the final bond proposal sometime in September. The vote would take place sometime in November, and be held at the High School, like all school board and budget votes. 

Financing the repair and maintenance of publicly owned buildings is not only necessary, but the economic conditions are ideal - 70% of it paid directly through state aid, and low interest rates. 

Don't think that you're saving the state any money if it's rejected - Albany will spend the money one way or another, and it's important that Clarence claim its fair share. 

Clarence CSD: #3 in Erie County

CLARENCE (Via Business First) 

Rank: 3 (of 97)

Percentile: 97.9%

Subject awards: English/foreign, mathematics, science

English/foreign languages rank: 1 (of 97)

English/foreign languages rating: 5 stars

Math rank: 2 (of 97)

Math rating: 5 stars

Science rank: 1 (of 97)

Science rating: 5 stars

Social studies rank: 12 (of 97)

Social studies rating: 4 stars

Population (all residents): 27,833

Enrollment (K-12): 4,812

Pupil-teacher ratio: 13.9

Spending per pupil (2012): $14,288

Eligible for free or reduced lunch (2012): 7.7%

Youth poverty rate (2012): 5.3%

Median teacher salary (2013): $62,374

Achievement index rank: 36 (of 97)

Achievement index rating: 3 stars

Cost-effectiveness rank: 2 (of 97)

Cost-effectiveness rating: 5 stars

Administrative efficiency rank: 6 (of 98)

Administrative efficiency rating: 5 stars

Socioeconomic climate rank: 4 (of 98)

Socioeconomic climate rating: 5 stars

Student access rank: 95 (of 98)

Student access rating: 1 star

Teacher experience rank: 36 (of 98)

Teacher experience rating: 3 stars

Teacher pay rank: 13 (of 98)

Teacher pay rating: 4 stars

(Subject ratings are based on the percentage of other Western New York districts that a given district outperforms in that field: 5 stars (90-100 percent), 4 stars (75-89 percent), 3 stars (50-74 percent), 2 stars (25-49 percent), or 1 star (0-24 percent).)

Clarence School Rankings 2009 - 2014

Here are charts showing the Business First rankings of individual Clarence schools from 2009 - 2014.

Due to the nature of this chart, a lower number is better, so you want to see a light green trendline that slopes down, not up.

High School

Graph maker

Middle School

Create a chart

Clarence Center Elementary

Create a graph

Ledgeview Elementary

Create a graph

Sheridan Hill Elementary

Graph maker

Harris Hill Elementary

graph and charts

And the spending and tax levy data during this period: 

Respect the Taxpayer: Part 2

At a meeting the other night, some detestable loudmouth started whining about how teachers make $40k to start, and $90k after 30 years of service. Too much, said he!

So, how come they never bring up these salaries, some of which these people earn on day one? Some of whom have part-time jobs?

Clarence Central School District: Respecting the Taxpayers

Business First has more good news for Clarence taxpayers - i.e., the people who think that they deserve maximum benefit and minimum cost.

Yesterday, we learned that Clarence teachers' salaries don't even crack the top 10 in western New York, and let's not forget how many we've let go in the last few years.

Today, we learn two new data points that should make taxpayers downright cheery.

Clarence broke the top ten on the list of districts with the lowest spending. Clarence is 8th, spending less than $15,000 per pupil - 31.66% lower than the state average.

Another data point to consider: Clarence is one of the 25 lowest-spending school districts in the entire state. 

Another baseless charge that the pediaphobes throw around is that there's too much administrative waste in Clarence.

That, too, is not borne out by the facts. The Clarence Central School District is the 6th most administratively efficient district out of the 98 western New York school districts. As Business First explains,

Business First's three-part rating formula is designed to determine which Western New York school districts have the tightest budgets and leanest staffs, regardless of academic performance. 

The best rankings go to districts with low spending rates per pupil, high ratios of students per administrative staffer (a group that includes principals, assistant principals and district-office employees), and small percentages of their budgets committed to debt service.

The best way to combat lies and propaganda is with the facts. Remember:

• one of the 25 lowest spending districts in New York State; 
• 8th lowest spending in western New York;
• 6th best for administrative efficiency in western New York; and
• teacher rate of pay not excessive.

Buffalo Business First: School Ranking Roll-Out

Every June, Buffalo Business First releases its various rankings of western New York schools and districts. These rankings use a complicated algorithm to assess how big of an educational bang taxpayers get for their school tax buck. 

Clarence has a reputation for educational excellence and cost-effectiveness.  It is only through false, twisted, well-funded propaganda that certain people came to doubt this. On top of the skewed information, the propagandists would have you believe that the school district is somehow disrespectful of the taxpayers. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

As of last year, the Clarence Central School District was ranked #3, behind Williamsville and East Aurora. In fact, Clarence's decline was already reflected last year, as East Aurora edged Clarence out of the #2 spot. 

People who like to get a good value for their money expect great results. 

In order properly to respect the taxpayers, we need to strive for #1; not #2 or #3. 

We won't know how Clarence ranks in 2014 for another couple of weeks, but we do have one new data point. Clarence's teachers are 13th in terms of pay. The highest-paid teacher earns $92,680. A starting teacher earns $45,750, and the median is $62,370. 

This is average for a professional with a Master's Degree. 

The people who complain about what teachers earn bring up tons of oranges to compare to this particular apple. They compare teacher pay at parochial and private schools, and basically suggest that they should be held to lower qualification standards and earn less pay.  But when you ask them how much, they never give you a straight answer. Do you think $46,000 per year is excessive for a professional with a master's degree? How about $92,600 for a professional with a master's and 30 years of experience? 

Teachers at Sweet Home make the most - $51,300 to start, a median pay of $78,300, and the highest-paid teacher earns just under $100,000. 

Educating the next generations of Americans. Providing educational excellence. What's that worth to you and your family? 

Would They Scapegoat Police or Firefighters, Too?

If 58% was a mandate, what do you call  77%? 

By now, you likely saw this Fisking and take-down of Lisa Thrun's dopey attempt to spin the school elections. She's trying to convince people it was a low turn-out, made up only of union hacks. She's wrong, of course, but people like her are all about the ideology, and never about the facts.

But chances are you totally missed her pathetic get out the vote effort.  (I base this primarily on the fact that no one was talking about it, no one saw it, and her little group has fewer than 30 Facebook likes, and very few updates).

They spent a few thousand dollars on slick ads, and some pancakes.

Let's take a look at the worst closing argument ever.

The choice has never been more clear.

Last year, the Clarence School board tried to kick the can down the road at the taxpayers by proposing a tax-cap-busting budget requiring a tax increase of nearly 10%.

Kick the can down the road at the taxpayers? That's a convoluted mixed metaphor. But yes, as was discussed at great length in 2013, that year the district found itself in a horrible budget jam due to a huge loss of state aid thanks to the gap elimination fiasco, as well as pension costs still being adversely affected by the stock market crash of 2008.

In order to maintain the same level of academic excellence that the district thought the community expected, a one-time hit above the tax cap was needed to bridge the gap. Unfortunately, it failed. Teachers were fired. The quality and quantity of programs, sports, electives, and music were harmed.

Common sense should have told them it was just too much, but they made the voters do it instead. The electorate responded with an overwhelming “NO!” A record number of District residents turned out and the 58%-42% margin sent a clear message to the District that they had to respect the taxpayers.

Well, yes. They made the voters do it instead. Thrun and her crew spent tens of thousands of dollars to whip the voters into a kid-hating frenzy, filled with half-truths, spin, and outright lying.

This year’s Clarence school budget fully restored all sports and extra-curriculars, protected all teaching positions and stayed within the tax cap. Cooler heads have prevailed, and it’s time to move on, right?

Not so fast.

It appears that three of this year’s school board candidates want to re-wind the clock. It one of the most unlikely political moves ever, the three teachers'-union-backed candidates all said that they not only approved of last year’s failed 9.8% budget, but they would do it again too.

Damn right they would. It was a test case to see if the community truly believed that maintenance of academic excellence was of paramount importance. It was a wholly democratic, transparent process. There was nothing objectively wrong with the district making the ask. To suggest otherwise is idiocy.

You can’t make this stuff up.

The event was Tuesday’s lightly-attended Meet the Candidates forum - and one of these three, who as a member of last year’s board actually approved the failed 9.8% budget, blamed its defeat on a “PR manipulation.”

That one must have stung, right, Lisa? It must suck to be the object of so much scorn and derision.

The whole episode seemed so inexplicably anti-taxpayer that it left us scratching our heads. Then, the next day, we saw this ad (see below) appear in the Clarence Bee.

Apparently these three are completely out of ideas, because they certainly didn’t offer any for voters. We really want to ask them what they were thinking, but we don’t think it was so scrupulously devoid of content by accident.

Lisa didn't bother to go into any detail about what the candidates discussed at the forum. She's merely regurgitating her own - ahem - PR manipulation into it. Spin. Propaganda. If you want to know what the various candidates discussed at the forum, why not read this?

Caution. Conspiracy theory ahead. 

We’re not sure if this declaration of blind loyalty was required by the teacher’s union in exchange for their endorsement, but it is certainly a message to the taxpayers – and a warning.

When in doubt, accuse the unions! When you lose an argument, and when you present a candidate who has contempt for taxpayers, public education, and students and the guy loses decisively through a record turn-out, then just shout "union!" and hope that no one notices.

Was there a warning? Yep. The warning is this: there are people in Clarence who hold our public education system in high esteem, and won't see it dismantled by angry, vicious, right-wing ideologues.

Last year’s failed vote awoke District voters, but these candidates are clearly hoping that this year’s “perfectly reasonable” budget will lull them back to sleep – while these hand-picked teachers' union candidates make sure future school boards return to the failed policies of the past.

Utter shit. Of the three "ASK" candidates, Stock and Kloss work in the private sector. Their interest in the school system has to do with them being taxpayers who want to preserve and protect our schools. Andrews is a stay-at-home mom and very active with the Harris Hill PTO.  Thrun and her handful of malcontents don't understand the notion of service for the greater good, so they denigrate Andrews as just another union hack.

None of these candidates was "hand-picked" by the union, but the CTU did support them.  You know why? Because, unlike Mr. Worling, they maintain an educational interest and investment in the district, and because the things that came out of their mouths did not scapegoat teachers and staff, and instead focused on the real problems - unfunded state mandates, a loss of state aid, and pressure on the system thanks to years of harmful cutting.

You don't, incidentally, cut your way to excellence. You don't divest your way to #1.

That’s why - even while the budget is not contested - we urge Clarence District voters to come to the polls and vote: YES to the budget, NO to the Bus Proposition and - most importantly - vote ONLY for candidates that Respect the Taxpayers!

The record turnout trounced you on the buses and on Worling.

But now is not the time to be complacent. You can see from the tenor in her comments that Thrun is now launching an anti-school jihad. It's altogether possible that next year will be even more ugly than 2013, because they are now going to target the teachers.  It's going to be easy for them in a conservative town - teachers are public-sector employees who earn reasonably good wages, enjoy good benefits, and have a generous pension program. The latter two are things that used to exist in the private sector, but 30 years' worth of the erosion of the middle class to help further enrich the already wealthy has brought about this result.

We're still waiting for the wealth to trickle down.

And Thrun is so enraptured by her phony faith in supply-side economics, that she thinks taking away teachers' pensions and benefits is going to solve the district's fiscal problems. They continuously argue that the district should hire a "professional contract negotiator" to deal with the CTU and, presumably, bring the teachers to heel and force them to accept the unacceptable.

Two words: Triborough Amendment. You can bring in anyone you want - how about Carl Paladino? And Carl can waltz into the meeting with the unions, show them some equestrian pornography, hurl epithets at them, and otherwise use his magical negotiating powers to make the union succumb to his might.

But you can't bully the teachers into committing financial suicide, because they can simply walk away and the existing contract remains in effect, in perpetuity or until a reasonable deal is agreed-upon.

Furthermore, Worling said at the candidate's forum that education should be funded through non-tax-deductible charity; through a line item where families can choose to pay more if they want, like we chose to in 2013 by funding CSEF.

Worling didn't donate to CSEF. Neither did Thrun. This underscores how much contempt they have for the schools and students.

How about Thrun and Worling pool together all of their money and retain this phantom "professional contract negotiator" on their own dime? I'll bring the popcorn.

But here's the thing about teachers and their benefits. Every single time Thrun and her ilk bleat on about the teachers' unsustainable benefits or pensions, do one simple thing:

Replace "teachers" with "cops". Or "firefighters". Or "soldiers". Or "town board members". Why, exactly, is it that teachers are the only public employee group that the right-wing targets for harm? Teachers are on the front line. They're not just teaching, but they're helping to mold young minds, to help them build character and confidence. Teachers stay late and work early to help prepare their curriculum or help students who need something extra. They're not fast food workers; they're not disposable warm bodies, but professional educators - most of them with graduate degrees. Being a teacher is a profession - and a noble one at that. You denigrate and defame teachers at your own risk.

Consider,

All this raises a larger point: what sort of people do we want teaching in our schools? Educators who demand that they be respected and treated as the career professionals they are? Or employees who meekly accept frozen pay, diminished benefits, and degraded workplace protections? 

Who are the better role models for our students? Who are the people more likely to be able to command a classroom and lead their lessons with poise and confidence? Career educators who believe enough in their own abilities to insist on fair wages and tenure protections are employees who set a tone in their schools and their communities of respect, self-reliance, and integrity.
The notion that teachers, alone among all professions, shouldn’t act in their own interests is simply absurd. Yes, there needs to be accountability; yes, there are limits on what we can pay teachers. 

But standing up for yourself isn’t a character flaw; it is a virtue. So if we want put an excellent teacher in front of every student, let’s start by acknowledging that teachers have every right to act in their own, enlightened self-interest."

You think they don't pay enough for health insurance? That they should pay what people in the private sector pay? People with graduate degrees earn more in the private sector, and that helps offset that cost. You think that they shouldn't have a pension? When a teacher with 30 years' experience and a master's degree retires at a $90,000 salary, that's not at all excessive. What do you think a veteran teacher should earn?

They love, however, to point out the pensions. Yet just this month, Comptroller DiNapoli revealed that the state pension fund has never been stronger.

It was a stellar year for us. The Fund grew in value to a historic high of $176.2 billion,” DiNapoli said. “The strength of the domestic equity market, coupled with strong private equity and real estate returns, drove much of our growth. The Fund’s diversified asset allocation continued to help generate strong positive returns. The financial markets have given investors a wild ride the last few years but our investment strategy has allowed us to capitalize on opportunities and minimize risks.

But if these people want to change how teachers are remunerated and the benefits they receive, this is (like most things) not something you can demand from the local union, but a legislative change that has to take place in Albany. All of their ire is directed at things that are imposed from afar, yet they expect the teachers on the ground to just surrender.

Teachers contribute to the retirement system their entire careers. This isn't some random hand-out. The effort to slash teacher benefits under the guise of "reform" is part of a well-funded lobbying effort, made up mostly of - you guess it - ideological nonsense and manufactured, non-existent crisis.

Next year, when they're going to war against the teachers and defaming those who support teachers as "anti-tax", remember to ask them if they're prepared to do the same to police, firefighters, or the armed forces.

May 20th: VOTE

It is critically important that everyone go out and vote today - May 20th - at the Clarence High School gymnasium.

Vote in favor of the school budget - maintain our excellence, keep the programs.

Vote in favor of the bus referendum - our kids need to be safe.

Vote for three people only for school board:

• Tricia Andrews
• Matt Stock
• Maryellen Kloss

If you don't vote, you're part of the problem.

The Dismantling of Public Education: Prologue

The Worling Plan

A recap of Tuesday's Clarence School Board Forum appears at the Keep Clarence Schools Great website, and you can read it here. 

The people who support strong schools are backing Andrews, Stock, and Kloss.  For many, last night was their first opportunity to see and hear Mr. Worling. 

In his opening statement, Worling said that Clarence needs excellent schools and teachers, but we need to be careful about budget issues. He added that the community's seniors must be respected by solving budget issues through what he repeatedly called “creative solutions”.

The candidates were asked what their first priority would be. Maryellen Kloss said we have many priorities, most of which involve making up for lost Albany funding, and Tricia Andrews agreed. Matt Stock's first priority would be to maintain the district's reputation through a focus on not only finances, but academics. If you divest from the schools, everything else falls, as well. A downward spiral would find families avoiding the town, and budget problems would only worsen. 

Worling said he had a list of "creative ideas" that would create "clean revenue", rather than rely on the taxpayers.  No one knows what "clean revenue" means. It appears to be some sort of obscure management speak, 

"The five pillars that drive clean revenue are pricing flexibility, utilization, predictability, recurrence, and sustainability. Valuable companies regularly cleanse their revenue by focusing on the highest margin and repeatable revenue sources."

I'd like to hear some details about what's "unclean" about the schools' revenue, which comes from the community through taxes, and the state. 

The candidates were asked if they had supported the 9.8% budget from last year. Andrews said yes, because even with that increase, the tax rate would still be lower than '08 - 09. Stock agreed, and pointed out the value proposition; that it costs money to attain excellence, and even with the increase we'd have been the most cost-effective district. Kloss strongly defended that budget and attributed its defeat to "PR manipulation" where certain people launched a campaign of disinformation to demonize the schools, and we've suffered terrible repercussions as a result.  

Only Mr. Worling opposed the 9.8% budget as being "too far-reaching".  He lamented that no one came up with his patented "creative solutions", ignoring the fact that he was absent from the entire process and also never suggested any "creative solutions" at the time, when it counted. He then proceeded gently to lay the blame on the faculty for having the audacity to have reasonable health care and a pension plan. 

This is the coward's way - blame the very people who have devoted their lives not just to a job but to a profession requiring a graduate degree, rigorous training, and testing. These teachers could have gone into the private sector and, e.g., been glorified volunteers like the teachers at private schools, or made tons of money working for private industry in some capacity.  Instead they answered the call to educate future generations. There are few professions nobler than this, and they earn - and deserve - good pay and good benefits. 

The candidates were asked if the board should more closely protect the interests of taxpayers or students. Everyone agreed that you can't separate the two. Andrews and Kloss pointed out that everyone is a taxpayer, but also that the schools are an integral part of our community of taxpayers. Stock returned to the idea that the schools offer a return on public investment - what we put into the schools has a long-reaching, positive affect on society. 

Worling said we should expand programs in the schools that teach kids real-life lessons, and we should "give them what they need". He did not explain how that jibes with his opposition to last year's 9.8% budget and the way in which its defeat did not give students "what they need", and cut the types of programs he described from the curriculum. 

A question about vouchers came up, and most candidates begged off, indicating that it would have to be a specific proposal to evaluate before they could comment, but Kloss, Andrews, and Stock all expressed their support for a strong public education system.  Andrews correctly noted that Clarence offers a better education than most private schools.  Kloss noted that the community would be weakened if the public funded private education. Worling wouldn't say he was for or against schools, but noted that "choice is good" and that "competition is good". 

There is competition. If you want a private education, send your kids to private school.  If you don't like Clarence schools, move someplace else. Lots of choices exist that don't deliberately allow parents to take their money out of the public school system and pay it to a private entity. The only loser in that scenario is the public system. Vouchers are a great last resort to help kids in a failing system. Clarence's system is far from failing, but instituting a needless voucher program could likely bring about that result. 

Did you know that Clarence has no social workers on staff in any school this year? They were cut in the wake of the defeat of the 9.8% budget.  Here's a tip: privileged kids from well-to-do homes experience problems, just like poor kids do. Andrews noted that we need to restore the social workers to enable kids in crisis to have a trusted adult to speak with in a confidential setting.  Stock said that people think mental health services are a luxury because they don't need it, but a kid going through a bad time can affect others, and guidance is especially needed if the kid can't go to family about it, or when family is the cause of the problem. Kloss said the loss of social workers "keeps [her] up at night". Worling gave some story about attending small claims court where parents were arguing and they had kids and maybe the kids might need help. Well, yes. But you supported the defeat of the budget that funded social workers, and now you tell us what, exactly? That we can have it all both ways? 

Some dopey question about whether people are undertaxed or overtaxed was asked.  No one thinks they're undertaxed - how dumb. The question is value, said Stock, Kloss, and Andrews. We get an excellent bang for our tax buck in Clarence, when it comes to the schools. Worling said we should look at costs and whether they're "sustainable".  He said we should look to other revenue sources. 

Likewise, when asked about what caused last year's budget crisis, Kloss, Andrews, and Stock pointed to loss of Albany aid, the global financial crisis, and an aggressive spending of fund balance that left us with little flexibility during the global financial meltdown. 

Worling blamed the teachers. Health care and retirement costs demand "creative solutions", basically laying all the blame on the people who work hardest and educate the next generation of kids. 

Finally, in his closing argument, Worling laid out his prejudices. 

He said the schools are "run like they were 50 years ago", and that they should modernize.  Query: when was the last time this guy sat in a Clarence classroom? 

What he means is that we pay teachers a living wage and provide them with benefits that people generally don't enjoy in the public sector.  This is true, to a degree.  The reason why this is has to do with attracting and retaining good teachers. Do you attract someone with a mountain of graduate school debt with a minimum wage job with poor benefits? Or do you offer them a solid pension, a good wage, and decent benefits? 

The candidates were asked whether they thought people were under or overtaxed.  The real question is: do you think that teachers are under or overpaid? Not only for their time actually teaching, but for the afterschool curriculum prep, the disciplinary issues, dealing with parents, preparing kids for standardized tests, revamping everything to comply with new standards, helping kids who need it and praising those who show advancement. This is not like being a cashier at a grocery story - being a teacher means being able to hold a class' attention on a given topic, having a mastery of a subject, being a surrogate parent, a social worker, a policeman, and confidant. To these people we deny a good living?! 

Worling said we need "creativity" but didn't expound on that. He said we need "clean sources of revenue" without saying what that means. He tried to explain by blaming the town for being unfriendly to business.  Really? A town whose supervisor heads up the IDA? He says the schools should create a trust fund of some sort, so that people who want to give more are able to do so. 

What a cop-out. 

This character has so much contempt for the schools, parents, and teachers that he would cut spending to the bone, despite saying in an election that he wants to give kids "what they need". He would then expect parents to pay, in effect, a surtax to maintain programs that prior generations enjoyed. It is an avenue that leads to the slow and systematic dismantling of public education by people who think it valueless. It is a way to destroy the public school system by rendering it a charity case, always with its hand out, looking for some spare change. 

To paraphrase, Worling is telling Clarence parents, "voluntarily pay more if you want to keep music, arts, electives, and clubs". Never mind that the entire community benefits from an excellent and comprehensive public school curriculum. 

Never mind that Worling is a real estate agent and should know better than most how school quality goes hand-in-hand with property values. 

Render the schools a charity case, and make parents pay a "voluntary surcharge" to keep critical programs, and you've signed a death warrant for not just the schools, but also for the town. There will be a sea of "for Sale" signs as supply overwhelms a shrinking demand, and by the time the damage is done and middle-class families abandon the town for better schools elsewhere, the town will be left with farmers, seniors, and the ultra-wealthy who can afford private education. 

Last year, when the 9.8% budget that Worling opposed was defeated, the schools lost a great deal of what made them unique and excellent. We didn't just lose social workers, but great teachers, electives, clubs, music, sports. Kids who had plans drawn up as a path to get into the college of their dreams - paths that included certain courses, electives, and extracurriculars - suddenly found themselves in study halls. 

Parents and businesses had to take up the slack, and raised over $200,000 to restore many of these programs out of their own pocket, in addition to paying their allotment of school taxes. 

That was the exception. Worling and the so-called "Clarence Taxpayers" vultures want that to be the norm, and he said as much on Tuesday. 

Worling? He did not contribute to CSEF. His concern for the education of our kids wasn't so great that he sought to help restore lost programs. When push came to shove, he abandoned our kids. 

What makes you think he won't do it again, if given the chance?  

If you care about the town, and you care about the schools, you won't let us undergo a repeat of last year. You won't let these horrible people destroy public education in Clarence as we know it. 

When your kids are done with school, will you work actively to dismantle the system that once served your family so well, and deny the same opportunity to current and future generations? Or are you not an awful person? 

That, to me, is the fundamental question.