"Board member William Cooper gave his opinion about the potential ramifications of closing a school."
Anytime a board member comes up with a cost saving idea, Bill gives his opinion about why it is a bad idea. Hey Bill, why don't you come up with some ideas to balance the budget, besides raising taxes? I know you feel as though a .55 millage increase is like no increase at all, but in reality, it is like a .55 millage increase. What did someone say? A million dollar increase?
More suggestions made at Monday's meeting included: (as quoted in the PG article)
• Eliminate an elementary librarian's position and have six librarians share duties among the seven schoolsThe best line in Harry's story was the last line.
• Re-examine the high school's Math Lab, which provides tutorial, remedial and enrichment services for students
• Increase class sizes at the secondary level
• Reduce physical education requirements in high school
• Ask teachers to take fewer in-service or personal leave days
• Cut funding for club sports
Other suggestions involve ways to increase revenue, such as raising student fees for activities and parking.
"We have not gotten a lot of feedback to this point," Mrs. Cappucci said. "I hope that people will start joining the conversation."I hope the school board will start listening. We have had quite a conversation here.
42 comments:
Mrs. Cappucci ought to review the decision that brought us to this point, like her answer to tthe CAC that she had no intention of revisiting the plan to tear down building C.
And her deaf ear to the 4,000 voices that warned not to spend more than $75 million on the high school project.
People spoke Mrs. Cappucci, you just didn't want to hear there warnings. You and your cohorts put the district in this predicament!
Does anyone realize the reason why many people chose a community other than Mt. Lebanon to live?
I keep hearing this about "people move here because of the schools".
Here is what I can tell you for a fact. More people DON'T move here because of the taxes. How many of your friends from work do you talk to that say, "Oh, you live in Mt. Lebanon....how do you like those taxes?". Without question I find myself sheepishly defending the higher taxes by talking about the schools, the roads, whatever I know to be good about out town.
But the fact is, the high tax rate is well known in SW Pennsylvania. And people who would otherwise move here choose BP, USC, Peter's, or Cranberry to raise their families. If our tax rate was competitive to Peters, how many more people would want to move here. Mr. Cooper, with that increased demand for housing, what would that do to home prices?
There is a whole economics lesson in this for the Board but I don't get the sense they want to sit through it.
9:36 the perception lingers that Mt. Lebanon is the premier school district in Western PA. Unfortunately, by all measurements that perception is no longer true. The Business Times ranks MTLSD 3rd. I believe NEWSWEEKLY ranks the district below a few others. Our PDE test scores rank us below USC and NA as well I believe.
So the claim that people locate here because of the schools is a minnomer. If they want to best schools they go somewhere else, if the want the best school district for the buck, then they have to go to USC.
So what that leaves us with is that people move here for a variety of reason or their too dumb and lazy to research whether our schools are best or not.
For the board to keep harping on this myth that people move here for the schools is just one more bogus claim, like a .55 mill is the same as a zero mill increase.
If you asked them to document their claim, like 51% of the community wanted the $113.4 million high school project, they won't show the evidence to back their claim.
Yes, 9:36 AM, outsiders know exactly what is going on here. Some openly laugh at us. More and more, I find myself avoiding telling people where I live to avoid the snickering that inevitably follows.
A move has been on in the last five years to change this community from a well-run place where raising taxes was taken very seriously. Residents should be very, very afraid of the future and those who are controlling it.
I find Mrs. Birks' remarks very curious. She worries about cutting programs and staff, but yet went along with the "gang" to approve the high school monstrosity.
Here's another curiosity: no board members want to close a school, yet Markham has had half of its school population diverted to Jefferson. No wonder parents complain about traffic nightmares at drop-off and pick-up times.
And that brings up another point: all of our neighboring school districts provide busing, which is a considerable expense. We DON'T, and yet our 2012 millage (27.13) was higher than most neighboring districts: (25.49, Bethel Park; 25.718, Upper St. Clair; 23.4, Baldwin-Whitehall; 28.8240, South Fayette; 19.88, Chartiers Valley.
We're hanging on by a thread here, folks. It's time for a change before we are bankrupt.
"Upper St. Clair top school district 7 years in a row" - Pgh Business Times, 4/6/2012
MtLSD 2012 millage rate - 27.13
USCSD 2012 millage rate - 23.4
So if you were looking for the best education for your kids, Mt. Lebanon 'ain't' it!
If you were looking for the best education for the least amount of money... Here's what you'd paOrin school taxes for education in second place Mt. Lebanon if your home was assessed at $200,000: $5,426 annually
Education would cost you in the premier district (USC) if you lived in a $200,000 home: $4,680 annually
So, if people are moving here for the schools, they're paying a $746 premium on a $200,000 house for a second place education!
One would think the smart people would save that $746 every year and invest it in their kids college fund. 18 years (you pay school taxes even while your kids is 1 to 5 years old) would give you an additional $13,428 without any adding in accrued interest to put towards college.
We're paying first class taxes for second or third rate education. 2/3 are paying for no education at all !
We have too many greedy administrators and teachers !
5:49 PM, at least too many greedy administrators. Whenever I watch the meeting, for some reason, I think of the children's story, "The Emperor's New Clothes." It starts at the top, Tim.
Elaine
Anon: 11:36
"People spoke Mrs. Cappucci, you just didn't want to hear there (sic) warnings."
People did speak, but I think the people who didn't want the new school were the ones who wouldn't listen. The fact is, the people spoke through elections. Mrs. Cappucci was the top vote-getter both times she ran. In the last election for school board the only anti-school candidate came in dead last. The pro-school candidates were all elected.
We had no anti-school candidates. We don't hate kids either.
Elaine
12:45 first you really have poor reading comprehension skills and a propensity to twist the facts to fit your view of the real truth.
#1. There were very few people that didn't want a 'new' school... There were 4,000 people that petitioned for a less expensive 'new' school, so right off the bat you've twisted the facts to fit your own myopic opinion.
#2. Only about 32% of eligible voters spoke of those Cappucci got the majority, hardly a mandate. If anything it only proves that Lebo has turned into a community of mindless, lazy little sheep.
But let's delve deeper into your claims. Why did Cappucci win? She won on a campaign of deceit. The board claimed the 'new' building would most likely come in 17% under their widely optimistic estimates. Rembrr the FAQ sent out. Well the estimates didn't in closer to $95 million, they were closer to $130 million!
Cappucci andfriends also claimed no cuts in programming, no cuts in staff, no school closings, no teacher or support staff.
So you're right Cappucci won. But tell me where are the promises she won on?
C'mon fill us in, you're so smart. I'm hearing higher taxes, larger class sizes, staff layoffs, curriculum cuts, possible school closings, more fees and on and on.
So you're right 12:45, Cappucci won! Now let's see her deliver on her promises!
This business of the "people speaking" in the last school board election would be funny were it not so sad. Here are some facts:
1. In the election of 2011 there were 25,687 registered voters in Mt. Lebanon. Of that number, 9,394 voted. That represents a turnout of 36.6%.
2. There was no analysis or study adduced by anyone in this community as to why the other 16,293 eligible voters decided to stay home. Therefore any attempt to consign reasons for not voting in that election is pure speculation, colored by the prejudice of the speculator.
3. The oft stated reason by pro-tax and spend school board supporters as to why the turnout in 2011 was low is that the vast majority of residents were pleased with the direction the board was taking the community and therefore saw no reason to vote. I read this bit of flummery on several blogs, including this one. Given the fact that at least one ballot candidate was opposed to the direction the current board was taking the community, and the presence of a last-minute write-in campaign for a handful of other candidates, logic would dictate that the pro-tax and spend people would rally their troops to get out the vote, producing a high total turnout. That did not happen.
There is no question that the pro-tax and spend people won the school board vote in 2011, but to intimate that this group speaks for the majority of the community must perforce come under the heading of "not proved."
For the record - and speaking as a former teacher - I have no problem stating that I am definitely against the current form of eduction practiced in this town, and I am definitely pro-student. The concept of the geographical school "district" and its subsequent local prejudice, fueled by an archaic property tax based funding system that favors administrators over kids, is a dinosaur facing extinction - and good riddance!
Thank you, RG. Yes, I believe that is exactly what is going on. But this practice will be perpetuated in May. The school board candidates are more of the same. Scott Goldman will be eaten up alive. I expressed my concern to several of my friends, saying that we need a dream team to support Scott. He will be crushed, just like what they did to Dale Ostergaard and James Fraasch, not to mention others along the way. The current school board is quite a dysfunctional group.
Elaine
Yes, Mr. Gideon you are of course correct that there have been no studies on why the low voter turn out.
I erred and let personal opinion overrule and allowed it to mar my comment. I stand corrected and apologize.
There are probably many reasons for 16,000+ eligible voters casting ballots though I'd still bet not being involved to learn the facts and taking the easier path of deciding "my one vote doesn't matter so I won't make the effort" are two of them.
None the less, the question remains did the Cappucci and other incumbents win because they mislead themselves and the public.
A look back to a classic Lebocitizen post will refresh.
The Curious case for Kubit- 11/6/11 -- http://lebocitizens.blogspot.com/2011/11/curious-case-for-kubit.html?m=1
So yes, crucify me for my comment on Lebo voters, guilty as charged.
But no more than the board for misleading us. The HS project will never be under the $13 million budget by 17%. Mrs. Cuppucci's comment: "We have not gotten a lot of feedback to this point," Mrs. Cappucci said. "I hope that people will start joining the conversation." [post gazette] is just as ridiculous.
I hope people get involved, study the facts, not the propaganda and get out and vote.
Blog readers:
My comments at 9:39 AM today were not meant to be a "shot" at anyone personally. I battle in the arena of ideas, and not against people personally. As it happens that particular post of mine was prompted by an comment made on March 23, 2013 at 12:45 AM. It is this "the people have spoken" myth, and its logical inconsistency, that I am addressing.
On a somewhat related note, I wrote Mrs. Cappucci a few days ago and explained to her that my profession does not permit me to attend evening meetings on Monday or Tuesday nights - usually, anyway - and would she accept written testimony via E-mail as participation in the budget discussion. To her credit she answered promptly and said that would be fine. I would therefore advise anyone who wants to address the budget question and cannot attend the Board's April 2nd meeting to write the Board with your concerns - schoolboard@mtlsd.net. There is no guarantee that your concerns will change any minds, but doing nothing at all reinforces the myth that the Board has broad-based support. I'd also recommend keeping your message on topic and refrain from taking personal shots at anyone on the Board.
For those of you who say that writing the Board is useless; you may be correct. But I still intend to do it because it is the right thing to do.
Richard, not trying to fight but how do you rationally deal with a president claim that they have not gotten any feedback to this point?
They got plenty of feedback years ago and up to this point on the budget. Two of her co-directors tried to warn her and the community that at some point we would have to pay the piper. One was demonized in the press for spelling out what the budget would look like in the future. The CAC, building professionals told the board their plan was too expensive and overly extravagant, and then didn't listen.
Now Cappucci is going to open her ears? Why the big invitation? Now that they are in trouble and must go begging ((PK fund raising) for even more money beyond their ever increasing tax hikes to feed the beast.
At Mr. Kubit seems to have gotten religion. He recognizes the absurdity of adding to the payroll while you talk about cutting librarians and charging more fees.
When does the spending stop? Mr. Lebowitz doesn't want to raise taxes. Good but what are higher fees. It's still money out people's wallets.
11:50 AM, I am hoping those were rhetorical questions since you asked anonymously. Richard Gideon likes to know with whom he is conversing.
Elaine
When Mrs. Gillen joined the conversation and represented the voices of 4,000 residents that authorized her to speak for them by signing the petition, what was the board's response?
Did Mr. Kubit gavel the snickers and disrespectful coments from the audience as she joined the conversation?
Did we ever see the wishes of the "other" 50% that Ed claimed he heard from?
Furthermore, why are they allowed to speak off camera and away from meetings?
But those hoping for more judicious spending must appear in person?
Yes it was rhetorical, Elaine. I addressed it to Richard for those not following closely to better be able to follow the conversation.
But to be accurate, mr. Gideon wrote at 11:22: " As it happens that particular post of mine was prompted by an comment made on March 23, 2013 at 12:45 AM. It is this "the people have spoken" myth, and its logical inconsistency, that I am addressing."
G'day
Something to for every resident to stop and think about, in one person's opinion.
In 2003-4 the school district budget was a hair under $59,959,699.
http://www.mtlsd.org/district/stuff/finance/2003-2004_mtl_budget.pdf
Today, just 10 years later the board is approving a 2013-14 budget of $84,469,784,
That means the school district is proposing spending $24,735,095 more to educate kids than they spent just 10 years ago!
That means an average increase of $2,473,509 per year. So even if PK does manage to bring in $6 million (which they get almost $1 million of) over five years it won't be enough to cover the 10 year average increase going forward.
$2,473,509 average yearly increase over 10 years and they say they've been frugal!!!
And the community buys that BS???? No we'd rather focus on whether someone signs their blog comments or not. Yeah, it's for the kids!
Goodbye, good riddance.
1:37 PM says:
"That means an average increase of $2,473,509 per year. So even if PK does manage to bring in $6 million (which they get almost $1 million of) over five years it won't be enough to cover the 10 year average increase going forward.
$2,473,509 average yearly increase over 10 years and they say they've been frugal!!!"
Boy, that is scary!!! I had never looked at it that way. That is before the grievance and the second bond too!!!!!
Elaine
$60 million to educate kids in 2003 vs $85 million in 2013 and the district doesn't think they're getting enough!
They're hiring a professional PR/Fund Raising firm to get people to give them even more money.
And to add insult to injury they'll probably support covering sports fields with $1,000,000 turf and lights.
Another thing no one has brought up. With the district finding a private firm to maintain school district fields fir substantially less cost, what does that new costs do to Mr. Franklin's grass vs turf cost comparisons?
And will the municipality need as many parks and recreation employees when they no longer have to maintain fields?
5:00 PM, the school district won't have to worry about paying for turf. It has already been set up that the candidates running for Commission are advocating turf for the district. The sports advisory board (which no one stepped up to record for me) will proclaim that turf will be needed. There will be enough votes for turf to be paid for by the municipality. It is a done deal.
Elaine
EG:
One of the highlights of the last SB meeting was the reaction of board members to the news that a private company could maintain District fields for half of its current costs. Imagine that! - privatizing a public service and saving money. But why stop there? I would be in favor of privatizing the maintenance of the schools; in fact, the instructional staff itself! The District could farm out some of their courses quite easily. A total immersion course in History from The Teaching Company could be taught to great effect in two or three weeks, and I daresay the kids would probably learn more, and have more fun doing it, than they would in a more "traditional" setting.
Anyway, I found the whole thing amusing. It's always fun to watch the reaction of a collectivist when he or she is brought face to face with a free market solution to a problem.
That Mr. Gideon is why I brought up the topic of turfing fields. If the district can save 50% on field maintenance couldn't the municipality reap the same savings?
If so that changes the whole discussion on how turf will save money.
Your suggestion on privatization of other district functions is interesting.
Privatization of functions would eliminate the pension problem since public-sector-service unions are almost the only organizations that have that albatross around the consumers neck.
Other benefits besides
pensions such as
salaries,
healthcare,
vision,
dental,
social security,
workman's compensation,
disability benefits,
guaranteed wage increases at 4%+ per year would be reduced because the work would be done in the private sector.
The political class in the Pa. Legislature slipped in a prevailing wage that inflates school building labor costs 20% above comparable private contractor's actual wage costs.
All of these bloated costs would be removed if we privatized education.
Of course the unions would make large political contributions and work very hard to see their candidates elected to prevent privatization from happening. The proof of that statement is found in the composition of our present school board with three teacher's kids and a union member from the Pennsylvania System of Higher Education who thinks a million dollars in higher taxes is nothing.
Privatized costs would provide just as good an education as public sector unions and do the job at a much lower cost.
What is maddening is that Mt. Lebanon - both the Municipality and the District - could become a model community for innovative solutions of various public sector problems by adopting private/public partnerships, or farming out various services to the private sector. The Reason Foundation has many studies available showing how this can be done. I have been sending some of these studies to the Commission and District for the past two years. To date I've heard back from the Commission on various issues. The District has never responded to the studies I've sent them. I don't, however, intend to stop sending information to the District. Walls are made to be cracked.
There is a perception on the part of public officials that turning over some public services or functions to private enterprise will somehow "cheapen" those services or functions. In actual practice this is unlikely to be the case. When a public body has several private business from which to choose you may rest assured that there is every incentive for those business to provide good service - if business A won't then business B will.
Believe it or not, between the two government bodies in Mt. Lebanon, it is the District that stands to gain the most from privatizing. The money saved could result in reduced real estate taxes AND improved services to kids (isn't that what we all want?) if only the school board would be willing to listen to reason (and Reason). I guess that's the real issue, isn't it?
This is curious!
I don't believe I have ever heard this topic when Ms. Birks or any other board member claims that Harrisburg needs to up it's payments to the district.
The comment is from the PSEA.
"School districts and the Commonwealth have not paid their fair share [into PSERS] in any of the last ten years."
See: http://www.psea.org/uploadedFiles/LegislationAndPolitics/Pension_Issues/PSERSLong-TermSolvency.pdf
That's quite an accusation considering that, at least here in Lebo, in the last ten years our school district budget has gone from <$60 million in 2003-04 to <$85 million in 2013-14!
Almost $25 million more a year to educate our kids and it's still not enough!
How did we arrive at this point? For 100 years of excellent Lebo schools have we always been in budget crisis mode or is this a relatively new problem?
Are we taxpayers cheapskates? Is someone or everyone completely oblivious to the realities of economics?
I don't have the knowledge or expertise to analyze the PSEA claim, but the obvious question based on the MTLSD budget numbers '03 vs '13 is... Where is all the money going? And how long can it go on... in another 10 years will the district budget be $110,000,000 or more?
2:28 PM, it looks like Jan Klein has some explaining to do. Will she say that this is typical for this time of decade?
Elaine
I believe, and this is pure speculation on my part, is that Jan will claim the district paid exactly what Harrisburg mandated the district to pay.
There will be no recognition tHe role that annual administration, staff and teacher raises also places an increasing burden on the PSERS.
The staffer that retires at $140,000/year and got say 4-6% raises throughout their career gets a larger pension than one that say retired at $134,000 and got 2-4% raises.
It would be interesting to see calculations comparing the retirement projections with and without those missing steps for those teachers that have filed suit for $900,000.
It sounds like the $900,000 grievance is being held back by the union to force the board into another big contract.- maybe even an early contract to prevent public comment.
What would be the TOTAL COST of a $900,000 increase in salaries if all the benefits are added in?
Mr. Cooper need not answer the question. We all know the unions think $1,000,000 isn't bigger than zero.
For those that missed the 5:28 comment here and don't think the difference in cost between a USCSD education and a MTLSD education is a big deal, you might want to read the following article if you plan to borrow money for your kids college education.
http://triblive.com/mobile/3422931-96/loans-student-debt
Payment slows as college debt grows
The average debt per borrower rose, by 30 percent since 2007, to $23,829, TransUnion said.
And the graduates and the lenders aren't the only ones affected. Rising student debt levels can act as a drag on the economy.
“Too many Americans are carrying around mortgage-sized student loan debt that forces them to put off major life decisions like buying a home or starting a family,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in January after reintroducing two pieces of legislation related to student loans. “And it's not only young people facing this crisis but also parents, siblings and even grandparents who co-signed private loans long ago.”
12:39 AM, would you explain this further? "What would be the TOTAL COST of a $900,000 increase in salaries if all the benefits are added in?" Are you saying that $900,000 is the base number? Isn't it interesting how the Board was so confident early on, thinking they were going to win? Wasn't it Remely who said that? I also know that residents sent case law to the Board and Attny. Lebowitz, which suggested otherwise.
Elaine
Question: why would cutting a librarian be the focus of a staff reduction? Or the cutting back the hours of all the librarians?
Why wouldn't the board look at position that aren't essential in the task of educating children. Say for instance, the PR person. There is no one in this overly bloated administration that can't post calendar and PR submissions to MTL magazine and the Almanac?
How cutting the owners liaison, that no one has ever seen. Couldn't Steinhauer and his 2 assistant superintendents just as easily advised themselves to tell the board to approve change orders?
No Dr. S and the board are right! School PR is a critical element of our kids education!!!!!
8:42 AM, I have a feeling the owners liaison is history, but Timmy will never admit that hiring his buddy didn't work out.
As far as PR, you have my vote on that. With the commission and school board getting cozy with a joint sports advisory board, why don't they consider a joint PR office? That came out during one of my therapy sessions about mtl magazine and Susan Morgans.
Elaine
Hmmm!?
I wonde, does anyone know when a PR person became an essential position in K-12 education? Plus, why the salary and benefits package far exceeds a similar position in the private sector?
Just think, we are on the verge of creating another essential position. A permanent fund raiser, it's not yet permanent, but Posti speculated it will be.
Why we need a fund raising at all baffles me. The school district pretty much has the ability to raise taxes, raise fees or reduce services pretty much however they wish.
An interesting perspective--"VIEWPOINT
A Parent Warns: A Focus on Fund-Raising Lets the Government Off the Hook"
"It was borne of enlightened self-interest among a passionate group of committed public school parents. But what sprang from a need for survival has now uncomfortably morphed into survival of the fittest, aided in large part by the recent influx of affluent families who might once have chosen private school for their children, and who consider a $1,000 donation a tremendous bargain as compared to a $35,000 tuition.
Privatizing public schools through fervid outside fund-raising drives the already wide and seemingly irreparable gap between the haves and have-nots to unprecedented divides — so much so that it is effectively institutionalizing inequity in the school system.
The basic calculus of fair student funding — the portion of the school-based budget that is doled out on a standard formula and is spent at the discretion of the principal — is completely distorted."[,,,]
[,,,]"We, the more educated, more vocal and more politically connected public school parent population, have been allowing the government to relinquish its legislated responsibility for providing an adequate education to our children by masking the damage done by years of budget cuts.
We plug our funding gaps and make sure that the programs and services we value most are saved. We cover the costs of teacher salaries when permitted, allowing for smaller class sizes. We foot the bill for visual and performing arts and music collaborations (even though many of our children are already engaged in private arts and music instruction after school).
We contract with chess masters for chess instruction. We pay for teaching assistants for our youngest learners. We even hire wellness chefs to upgrade the quality and nutrition of our school food to address child-health issues (even if we have to beg children and families to consider buying school lunch, because this population, for whom food insecurity is not an issue, mostly brings lunch from home).
We do this because we know an enriched curriculum is critical to giving our children the well-rounded, robust educational experience they need to excel and succeed as future leaders, thinkers and innovators.
In the process, we are diverting our ample energy and commitment to react to bad policy rather than to prevent bad policy. The more the city and state cut, the more we dig into our own pockets (and encourage others to do the same) to mitigate the impact of the cuts. The more we successfully dig, the more we pave the way for new rounds of cuts that continue to strip away the things we have just worked to replace.
Our entrepreneurial activity and financial success is what is fueling our sense of purpose. The true mission gets muddled. At the end of the school year, we congratulate ourselves for reaching our insanely ambitious fund-raising goals and prepare to do it all over again next year.
Imagine if we had been channeling all that energy, passion and community organizing into forcing systemic change."
http://www.schoolbook.org/2012/06/14/a-parent-warns-focus-on-fund-raising-lets-government-off-the-hook
Gee, this sounds suspiciously familar doesn't it-- "But what sprang from a need for survival has now uncomfortably morphed into survival of the fittest, aided in large part by the recent influx of affluent families who might once have chosen private school for their children, and who consider a $1,000 donation a tremendous bargain as compared to a $35,000 tuition [or paying one's fair share of the school district property taxes]."
It is real easy to advocate, say for instance, spending on artificial turf when your property assessment decreased or only rose a smidgen compared to your neighbors.
Tell me again please, how do property values decline (especially from the recent open market sale price)in highly desirable Mt. Lebanon.
Richard Gideon sent these estimates to me.
Per capita debt for every Mt. Lebanon resident*:
Share of US Debt: $53,047 (US Debt Clock)
Share of Pennsylvania Debt: $9,337 (US Debt Clock)
Share of Allegheny County Debt: $504 (Allegheny County Financial Report for 2010, total debt divided by County population)
Share of Mt. Lebanon Municipal Debt: $768 (2012 Budget figures)
Share of Mt. Lebanon School District Debt: $4100 (District figures for proposed 2013 - 2014 budget)
Total indebtedness for every man, woman and child living in Mt. Lebanon:
$67,756
*Estimates based on numbers reported by various government agencies, not all of which are current figures.
Elaine
RG,
How much interest do each of us owe?
I disagree with the comment that Mount Lebanon is a second rate school. Comparing the tax rate difference between Mt Lebanon and Upper Saint Clair, and splitting hairs between first place and second or third place in a rank does not make it a second rate school. My family moved here from a second rate school, and if you knew the difference, you would not make such exaggerated claims. Many schools are drastically cutting programs. This place is a dream in comparison, a fantasy school. You do not realize how good it is here. Of course taxes are higher than Upper Saint Clair. The infrastructure is older, the community denser, public life, walking district, all more cost consuming. We considered USC when we moved here, but preferred MTL access to public transportation, proximity to the city, walking access to uptown, and, yes, the schools. If there are discrepancies in the efficient use of public moneys, by all means fix them--- but don't call this a second rate town or school because it lost first place to new construction and the wide open spaces of St Clair and Peters. Be glad we are investing in the old school buildings to keep pace with those schools in outlying districts.
Post a Comment