It was just three weeks before Christmas. The school and finance boards went toe-to-toe on the proposed education budget for next year. The finance board wanted a $1 million cut, and the school board stood its ground.
Eventually the school board got its way and the cut was voted down.
Guess which Fairfield County town it was?
Hint: It doesn’t possess the hubris to call itself the Gateway to New England.
Click here for Article
There is a reason Westport has the No. 1 school district in the state (according to a ranking of the most recent statewide test scores) and boasts of the No. 1 high school, Staples, which recently won a silver medal from US News in its annual ranking of the best high schools in the nation. Connecticut Magazine also rated Staples the No. 1 high school in the state.
Last year, Staples students packed the RTM meeting in Westport when it cut the current budget.
Elliott Landon, the legendary superintendent in Westport for the last 12 years, is no passive, get-along, shuffling wallflower. In the last two years, his proposed school budgets called for increases of 7.3 percent and 6.75 percent – in the face of severe declines in tax revenues. Landon is clear-minded about what his role is. He was not hired to build Westport a second-rate school system. He was not hired to worry about the declining tax base. (Greenwich, on the other hand, has had six superintendents in those same 12 years)
When Westport builds its school budget, it starts with the superintendent determining what he needs to give the town the best education for its children.
When Greenwich builds its school budget, it starts with the Board of Estimation and Taxation setting “guidelines” for all departments and schools are no exceptions.
I would like to use this opportunity to aver and reaffirm the truism by which we Connecticut homeowners have come to adopt – that there is a direct relationship between the reputation of the public school system and our property values.
While Greenwich has suffered a decine in its property revenues, so has every other municipality. But Greenwich stands alone in allowing its public schools to suffer a rapid decline over the last 10 years. And this will be reflected in home prices eventually.
Westport spends more than 70 percent of its overall budget on schools. Greenwich, on the other hand, spends 35 percent.
I cannot imagine any school board member in Greenwich publicly taking on the BET.
I cannot imagine GHS students packing an RTM meeting other than protesting some cut in a sports program.
Any politician in Greenwich who challenges the accepted practice of capping annual tax increases to 3.5 percent – NO MATTER WHAT THE NEED – risks total annihilation at the polls. Even Lin Lavery, who slung more mud than an old tractor, never dared to violate the sanctity of the mill rate altar that ultimately defines everything that is Greenwich.
None of this would have mattered as long as the schools maintained its facade of giving the town a reasonably acceptable school system. But it all begin to unravel during the Nancy Weissler era when the triple whammy of Betty Sternberg (the million dollar superintendent) collided with the fastest growing non-English speaking student population in the town’s history, along with a a desire to cut costs. In any other Fairfield County town, the Weissler board would have been thrown out just for the Sternberg hire. Add to that the palpable decline in test scores and every other objective measure of academic achievement in which Greenwich schools took a nose dive in rankings, and we have the makings of a disaster.
Since our school board and BET are accountable to very few people, it’s almost impossible to change this pattern of governance.
And there are other structural reasons for this. Greenwich has 35,000 registered voters – 13,000 Republicans, 12,500 independents and 9,500 Democrats. Yet, the first selectman was elected by only 8,800 voters. Moreoever, there are only 8,960 students in the public school system, with nearly a quarter of the student population attending private schools.
That is not to say you can’t get a good education in Greenwich. My son did. But it took proactive intervention by his parents as well as private tutoring. In essence, we – like many parents – subsidize the Greenwich schools.
Today, a caretaker superintendent Sid Freund – a good guy but not visionary and certainly not a boat rocker – is proposing a 4.1 percent budget increase, slightly more than the BET guideline, for next year. I think this is mostly a PR-induced budget. The challenges are so profound that a 4.1 percent increase will only prevent us from sliding more.
Greenwich needs a serious discussion on the future of its schools, and it’s not likely to come from the usual suspects. But where are the parents? The PTAs? The students? The Townies who run Greenwich are happy to have GHS contend for the FCIAC football title every year; the parents of private school students are not predisposed to spending tax dollars on the public schools; and the growing hispanic population in Greenwich have no respresentation whatsoever.
The penurious citizens who took to the polls to vote in the same cast of characters to guarantee that their mill rate will remain the lowest in the state will also suffer the absolute decline in the value of their real estate when the Greenwich brand loses its resonance as its schools fail to deliver on its promise.
Like the Mendoza line in baseball, no active participant in the game wants to fall below that fault line.
The Weissler Penalty put Greenwich below the Mendoza line in education, and the Weissler Penalty will more than eat up the misbegotten savings from keeping our mill rate artificially low.
A day of reckoning is coming. When the economy recovers, and people wonder why Greenwich is not bouncing back like its customary self, we will look at 10 years of neglect of our schools and wonder why we didn’t do the right thing at the time.
‘thr FCIAC’, next time don’t forget to use your spellcheck.
Have you thougt to ask the question – Why is the Greenwich Board of Education too ‘Administration Top Heavy’. This where the highest percent of the budget goes. In addition, perhaps we should cut the football program in half to save money. The entire system needs to be revamped.
Comment by Greenwich Resident — December 31st, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you attended a BET or BOE meeting in person? Watching these meetings on the Channel 79 after the fact doesn’t really “count” does it? Whether you attend in person or watch later from the comfort of your home, what is apparent is that we are fortunate to have people volunteer to serve our Town. They work very hard for nothing, but instead are criticized and insulted by people like you. You are sadly out of touch with many of the people you refer to in your blog. You clearly have a poor understanding of our school system. It is actually embarrassing. Why not make a New Year’s pledge: step up to the batter’s box yourself instead of mud slinging in a blog OR move to Westport as you seem to think it is so superior to Greenwich.
Comment by Parent — January 1st, 2010 @ 10:37 am
Every town in the state has the same meetings, the same challenges, same kind of volunteers. Greenwich for a town its size – 62,000 persons- has actually fewer people involved in its town affairs and it’s a small circle. It’s not an accident that every selectmen lives in Cos Cob. And less than 35 percent of the voters even bother to show up at municipal elections. So you get what you pay for. But thanks for the “Greenwich right or wrong, Love it or leave it” bit of nostalgia. Brings back memories of Richard Nixon.
Comment by Lincoln Millstein — January 2nd, 2010 @ 7:01 am
Mr. Millstein, though I agree with you that the Greenwich public school system is an under-performer and sorely needs concerted efforts to effect major improvements, I am appalled by the language you’ve used in your post. As a senior vice president at Hearst Newspapers, indeed, one of only four senior vice presidents in the entire company, you should be more responsible in your writing than you’ve been.
Once again, you’ve directed insults at local political leaders without backing up your charges. You write here that during the past election campaign Lin Lavery, “slung more mud than an old tractor.”
Really, Mr. Millstein? Tell us exactly what “mud” Ms. Lavery “slung”? At the very least as a senior member of a major newspaper company, you of all people should know not to make ad hominem attacks without supporting your charges with factual evidence. What you’ve done here is journalism at its sleaziest. The Tesei campaign accused Ms. Lavery of lying about the harbor master/dockmaster issue. But you yourself debunked that issue on your own Hearst blog, pointing out why the Tesei administration had handled that issue poorly, and supporting Ms. Lavery’s contentions. Did Ms. Lavery sling mud about the loss of the earmark for flood control? Absolutely not; she was right, and Mr. Tesei blew it. Did Ms. Lavery “sling mud” about the town’s missing out on federal stimulus funds due to Tesei’s poor handling of the application and the follow-up? Absolutely not. Mr. Tesei did drop the ball- big time. And the email from Congressman Himes quoted in your newspaper confirmed how Mr. Tesei screwed up the follow-up, unlike Mayor Malloy of Stamford and Mayor Finch of Bridgeport, and any number of other mayors and first selectmen who managed to apply and successfuly push for far more funds than did Mr. Tesei’s administration. Ms. Lavery pointed out almost two years ago that Mr. Tesei was politicizing the volunteer town boards that were supposed to be staffed on a non-partisan basis through a non-partisan nominating board that was supposed to be, by agreement of both Democratic and Republican past first selectmen, free of members of either party’s town committee. Ms. Lavery was right about that politicization, and the fact that the coastal usage (can’t recall the exact title) committee had Tesei’s secretary call a press conference to slam Ms. Lavery in the closing days of the campaign provided abundant proof of that politicization.
So what exactly was this “mud” that you accuse Ms. Lavery of “slinging”? It wasn’t Ms. Lavery who used inflammatory sexist language in accusing her of running for “prom queen”; that was Mr. Tesei. It was, indeed, Mr. Tesei who repeatedly insinuated that Ms. Lavery was a liar from the very first debate.
Furthermore, far from supporting the status quo on education, Ms. Lavery made a point of stating that she would break with tradition and take an active interest in the policies of the school board and use her power to set spending guidelines and her influence as first selectman to push the school system for improvement. As you should know, the previous first selectmen virtually took a hands-off policy toward education, simply setting a spending guideline, then washing their hands of any further involvement.
You’ve used this sort of unsupported incendiary language before, Mr. Millstein. You called the Democratic candidates for board of education “bobblehead dolls”; you called the DTC chairman Dave Roberson every name in the book; and, incredibly, you accused former first selectman Dick Bergstresser of having “no discernible management skills” when he became first selectman, ignoring the fact that he had spent three decades in upper management at IBM, one of the world’s biggest and best-managed corporations, and had served as an officer in the United States Army, certainly a position in which one learns a thing or two about “management”.
The issue of the poor quality of our public schools relative to the town’s wealth, the level of education of our population, and the aspirations of our students is a serious issue. But your ad hominem attacks do nothing but degrade the argument and diminish the journalistic reputation of this newspaper and your company.
You would be better advised to push Greenwich Time to actively report on education issues and, instead of simply regurgitating press releases from the board of education, actually begin investigating problems with the school system. You might have your education reporter begin by finding out why Greenwich High School is no longer listed in the top ranks of public high schools by U.S. News & World Reports. The current chairman of the board of education last fall touted GHS’s “silver” ranking as evidence that they were doing things very right. Now we’re not even ranked in the bronze category, though sixteen Connecticut public schools did receive designations, including two in our DRG B category. Perhaps you could have encouraged Greenwich Time reporters to investigate the claims by board of ed members up for re-election to strong performance, claims that were highly misleading and sometimes simply false.
Perhaps you could have your reporters investigate why Black students at GHS comprise just 3% of the student body, but accounted for 30% of all students suspended and expelled. Your paper reported that several months ago in one sentence, but never bothered to follow up or find out what was going on. Not a word on that issue ever made its way into subsequent articles.
This town deserves better schools, and if Greenwich Time were doing its job, it would be all over education issues, investigating claims by the BOE, debunking claims by the administration, and pointing out means of improvement. But we get none of that. Instead, we are treated to irresponsible insults that do nothing to further our understanding of issues confronting our education system, and diminish the debate and the newspaper company that permits them.
Comment by Sean Goldrick — January 4th, 2010 @ 10:48 am
Dear Mr. Goldrick,
Thanks for writing. It’s been a while. Your passionate and perspicacious views are always welcome, as you are one of the most informed citizens in town. You are also right in urging us to keep the dialog civil. Thanks for the reminder.
As you know, I write my blog as a interested citizen. My views are mine and mine only. I was a Greenwich resident long before joining Hearst. Are your views that of you as a resident or as a member of the Democratic Town Committee? Also, these blogs are open to virtually any resident of Greenwich. The journalists have their own blog called Greenwich Real Time.
Lastly, I don’t think my characterization of the “mud-slinging” in the last election was off base. It certainly was not ad hominem. I should have made it clear that it was equal opportunity mud-slinging as Peter Tesei took his share of the mud pie as well.
I harbor no illusion about where I live and what the prospects are for change in this bastion of conservatism. No one is about to change the Greenwich formula any time soon just because two guys named Millstein and Goldrick are strident in their views.
The decline in the schools is the one thing that depresses me about living in Greenwich. And let’s make that clear – the schools are on the decline no matter how much wishful thinking is indulged by the Greenwich Establishment.
Unfortunately, I don’t think most voters have the facts just as I did not when I first moved here. Most residents harbor an assumption that the folks running the place would never let the schools abate in quality. You and I know differently because we have done our independent research.
Anyway, thanks again for writing. And thanks for using your name. Most emails I get are anonymous, and many are unprintable because they are truly ad hominem in nature.
Comment by Lincoln Millstein — January 4th, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
Mr. Millstein, though you were a Greenwich resident long before joining Hearst, you are now an executive with Hearst. That means that your views printed here cannot possibly be viewed solely as those of a private citizen. Indeed, if memory serves, you are responsible for all digital media at Hearst, which includes this online edition of Greenwich Time. As such, your views are not only not just your own, but you are also directly responsible for the content, quality, and journalistic integrity of the posts you carry and the writings of Hearst employees on this site. You are far too senior in Hearst to pretend that you have no responsibility for what is written here, or to suggest that what you publish on your blog doesnt influence the staff or output of Greenwich Time.
You suggest that you were remiss in not accusing Mr. Tesei of slinging mud as well as Ms. Lavery. But I would pose the question again: exactly what “mud” are you accusing Ms. Lavery of slinging? You specified nothing. You say that your characterization of “mud-slinging” by Ms. Lavery wasn’t “off-base”. Yet you fail to back up that extreme accusation with even a single instance. As the senior vice president of the newspaper company that operates a virtual monopoly in Southwestern Connecticut, it behooves you as a journalist to support your accusations.
You contend that “most voters don’t have the facts” about the state of our school system. I agree. As a member of the Democratic Town Committee, I certainly advocated for reform and reform candidates for the BOE. And together with other reform-minded DTC members, I’ve pushed for much greater accountability to residents by the BOE members and to the DTC that nominates them. I’ve also circulated data and positions to DTC members highlighting the problems of our school system and advocating for a much different relationship with BOE members. I’ve also spoken out at DTC meetings about the need for reform.
Now it’s time for your newspaper to do its part for reform and to get residents the facts about their school system by stimulating far better reporting on educational issues. Here’s an example: a few months ago your education reporter wrote an article that stated that AP enrollment had hit an all-time high. Of course, all he did was print what was put out by the BOE, and he didn’t question what was really going on. In fact, GHS has seen the ranking of its AP program slide for years. It might this year fall out of the top 1,000 schools in the country on that measure, a decline of hundreds of places in roughly six years, something that is inexcusable for the wealthiest town of its size in the entire country. And contrary to the Greenwich Time article, in fact the percentage of students taking and passing at least one AP course before graduation, the basis for rankings in both Newsweek and US News & World Report, barely moved at all. That figure hasn’t changed significantly in years. But none of that came out in the article.
Now as one of the senior officials at Hearst responsible for integrating all of its Connecticut publications, are you telling me you can’t sit down with the publisher and editors, to whom you are senior, and tell them that you personally think they’re doing a poor job of reporting on critical education issues, and that they need to step up their game? If not you, then who?
Last, since you say the problem is that Greenwich is a “bastion of conservatism”, why are virtually all of your most scathing criticisms and ad hominem slights reserved for the Democrats who are out of power here, rather than the ruling Republicans? Why are you not taking Mr. Tesei to task for not forcing the BOE to improve the school system, or for not criticizing the Republican-controlled BOE for the slide in the educational system?
Comment by Sean Goldrick — January 4th, 2010 @ 4:24 pm