« A Vote for Reconsideration? | Main | The DaVinci Code and Oriana Fallaci »
June 22, 2006
Doherty's Delegation Debacle
No doubt Jackie Doherty has a lot of passion for the Lowell public school system, but that passion has to be tempered with reasonable assessments of what transpires on Beacon Hill and City Hall. The easiest thing in the world is to fire salvos at the Legislature from 30 miles away, without understanding a government process that is so overwhelmed with political and economic tradeoffs it would bend even the straightest backboned politician over time. Doherty's strafing of Lowell's Statehouse delegation over the inadequate return on Chapter 70 monies for public schools just isn't true. Over the past two decades, hundreds of millions of dollars have poured into Lowell to build new schools. And nearly a billion dollars has poured in for local aid since the enactment of the 1992 Education Reform Act. The reps - Dave Nangle, Tom Golden, Kevin Murphy - along with Sen. Steven Panagiotakos always have their ears to the ground when there is a penny available to be steered Lowell's way. But they also face mounting pressures from their colleagues in other districts to share in the wealth, so to speak. Doherty is not doing herself or her school supporters any favors by attacking the very funding sources we need to rely on to bring home the bacon. It makes good copy in newspapers and sound bites on radio, but it doesn't do any justice to the problem at hand: the schools need more money through a better state funding mechanism. Let's face it, all local school districts from Billerica to Dracut to Tyngsboro need more funding. The problem rests with how to infuse cash equitably into both urban and suburban school districts without creating funding flaws. The Legislature, if anything, should be chastized for not coming up with a solution to a system that rewards Westford $5 million more than Chelmsford, even though both communities stack up as near equals in most school demographics.
Maybe Doherty is thinking about running for higher office in the future, like a state rep's seat, and feels this is her way to sound the alarm. If so, her shot across the bow may turn into cannon fodder when the reps' return fire. A well-versed politician would have taken the diplomatic approach, urging the Legislature to refine its local aid process while offering suggestions. Doherty's smart enough to do that and it's a mystery as to why she chose to blast away indiscriminately.
Posted by JimC at June 22, 2006 8:16 AM
Comments
Doherty shouldn't be condemned for putting legislators' feets to the fire. It should be applauded. It takes high profile people complaining to often get a response from the lethargic and pork infested legislature.
The Lowell area legislators are great at getting pork into the area. But if they truly care about things and have the clout they claim to have, then shouldn't they also be working and pushing harder on reforming the education funding formulas? This would help the Lowell area AND the whole state.
Posted by: Dr. No at June 22, 2006 5:22 PM
Dr. No,
Obviously you are as unaware of how Beacon Hill works. Get your head out of the sand and the teachers' union's back pocket and realize that more money is not the solution for education's woes. It is accountability. The Lowell reps number three against 160 in the state, all with the same goal of bringing more tax dollars home to their communities. If anything, legislators can be criticized about the spending craze that's taking place in Boston right now. But as for education money, I wonder if it is actually being spent efficiently, in both Lowell and other places. It's ironic that 10 years ago, school board membes were crying for more money to fix the problem. The budget has doubled and we still have the same problem. Go figure. The problem rests with the union which is gobbling up more and more of the funding, leaving little resources for the kids themselves. Look at Baehr's budget, and if you believe it, she writes that only $115 will spend to provide lesson tools for students next year - the lowest amount since she's been keeping track in her six years. Why? Because 82 percent of the budget now goes to Paul George's Samurai warriors who have sliced the pie to their benefit with ridiculous absentee givebacks and outrageous step increases. Doherty should concentrate on winning back for the people what is rightfully theirs - fiscal control - rather than giving more to a crowd that is underperforming in MCAS results and could care less about teaching kids. Why do you think the union rejected the superintendent's call forr a longer school day? I they really were concerned about an inner-city kid's education, they would have been the first union in the state to step up to the plate and become pioneers in this endeavor. Instead, they squabbled over who should get paid more - veteran teachers or beginners. Greed wins, kids lose.
Posted by: jim campanini at June 23, 2006 10:30 AM
Your arguments that local education is already adequately funded and its just the evil unions fault for lack of money might hold some water if not for the simple fact that the Legislature still has not returned local education funding (Chap. 70 money) to the levels they were at in 2002 despite large state budget surpluses. Instead the surplus is flowing into crack-pot schemes and pork and sweet heart deals to UMASS Lowell.
To say that the educations systems in the area are fat and bloated after 4 years of underfunding by the state, after school closings (or threats thereof), after teacher cuts etc, etc, just shows you are not paying attention to the real situation other then the usual sad Lowell Sun mantra that local government doesn't know what they are doing and/or overspends wildy and giving unions too much money.
If education systems within the Lowell area get their old 2002 levels of local aid and then still have problems, then I will indeed agree with you that they are not managing things well.
And in regards to unions, it is easy to say "just don't give the unions what they want." Typical comment from an out of touch newspaper editor. If you want strikes galore and school systems shutting down, yeah, that can be done. But in the end, until the union negotiating laws at the state and federal levels are fixed to not be stacked to the unions, the local governments are at a huge disadvantage.
Posted by: Dr. No at June 23, 2006 12:09 PM
Dr No, why would teachers strike and shut down the school system? Aren't they only in it for the children? I mean just because they get paid more in 9 months than most people do for 12 months isn't the point.
The union is sucking up all the money, they wont let bad teachers be held accountable. Enough with the raises.
Posted by: Frank at June 30, 2006 11:49 AM
Frankie, my boy. I don't speak for the unions or the lame legislators that support the laws that make unions have the edge during negotiations with local officials.
But regardless of that Frankie, you lame job of diverting the focus onto unions when the issue is the lack of funding the legislature gives to local educations is not impressing me.
Like I said. Until the state education levels reach the 2002 levels (which they may not even with the new budget presented), it is just pathetic to blame the lack of funding on unions. It's just a sorry attempt to divert attention away from the true culprit... the pork driven state legislature.
Posted by: Dr. No at July 6, 2006 3:32 AM
