Milford School Board, 3-year seat

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Four people are running for a pair of three-years seats on the Milford School board. The Cabinet asked them to answer this question: “Given the financial times, list an example of a school program that could be cut to save money and an example of a school program that should not be cut under any circumstances, and explain why you feel this way. Please be as specific as possible.”

Len Mannino

If considering “cuts”, one question that should always be asked is, “What action can we take to reduce expenses that will have the least impact to the overall education of all students?” I would seek to identify a program that is not a part of the minimum requirements, but one, such as an elective program, that demonstrates the least amount of student interest; that if eliminated would have the least amount of impact to all students and reduce personnel costs that amount to tangible savings.

With the exception to the activities that do not have any measurable student participation, it would be my position that co-curricular programs be spared from cuts. Co-curricular activities are an important part of a majority of students’ overall educational experience and to eliminate the programs would, in my opinion, cause catastrophic harm to the experience and morale of not only our students, but to the community. In my opinion, “pay-to-play” would not be a suitable solution because the equal opportunity that exists for all students would give way to the predominant membership of the most affluent.

Bob Willette

I believe the school’s administration has the best overview of the curriculum and has the education and experience to make these decisions that will least negatively impact our students’ education experience and preparation for their future.

Ron Carvell

Education costs money and when you cut programs that statistically work and give our students the competitive edge, you’re impacting the future of all of us. Programs that don’t work or don’t give our students an opportunity to be successful in life should be cut. To give an example is difficult. As a School Board member I would look to our superintendent to report those programs that don’t achieve the intended results. Programs that could be cut and fall into this category have been cut over the years.

Teachers have been cut when the need or the enrollment wasn’t there to justify the position. Two years ago an English teacher retired and the district did not fill the position. Five years ago an assistant principal position was eliminated. To make a decision of program cuts without hearing the superintendent of schools is not a position I would take nor do I feel it the responsible way to operate.

One program I would not cut from our district is co-curriculum activities. These programs are vital to having a well rounded school system. The value of these programs is well beyond their actual cost. We spend approximately $380,000 a year for these programs, that’s a little over 1 percent of the total budget. The value of these programs is well over 1 percent.

John Parker

Reading at all levels is critical to the overall success of all students. Reading programs must be maintained. If students are to be successful in any area of school, and more importantly, after graduation, they must all be given the tools and opportunities to become competent, confident readers throughout their school years.

I would hope that the focus of cuts would be in areas that do not impact the entire student population. This would include any offerings that are voluntary or elective in nature. While everything that Milford offers has great educational value, whether it is voluntary or mandatory, we need to maintain the core academics. If there is a program that is not required, and does not directly benefit the entire population, I would expect the superintendent would look in that direction first.