I will approach discussions with respect, actively listening, and posing questions to enhance my understanding of the issue(s).

I will be open to persuasion, recognizing the importance of diverse perspectives in shaping well-rounded decisions.

I will strive to be approachable, reasonably available, and responsive to every question or request; each resident of Sharon deserves an answer, even if it is an answer they disagree with.

I will be as transparent as possible within the bounds of the law and in accordance with the best interests of the Sharon Public Schools.

I will admit what I don’t know; then, if possible, I will engage in diligent research to provide an informed response.

When I make a mistake, I will acknowledge it, apologize for it, and strive not to make the mistake again.

The School Committee worked hard to listen to the advice of all stakeholders, and contrary to its normal meeting procedure, the SC offered an appropriate amount of public comment.

While I know (and always try to assume) that everyone on the SC acts with good intent, you have the right to know what I would have done differently. 

First though, let’s address some HARD TRUTHS:

1. As a voter and taxpayer in Sharon, you are the ultimate steward of the Sharon Public Schools..

2. The Sharon Public Schools is the most precious resource in the Town of Sharon. It is why people move here. It is why property values remain high. It is the backbone of the safety and sense of community,  we feel here.

3. If the Sharon Public Schools became “average” tomorrow, our property values would plummet and other aspects of the community we value would diminish overnight. 

4. It NEVER becomes less expensive to maintain your most precious resource. At best, you can hope for prolonged, relative stability. 

5. For at least the last 35-40 years, Sharon has balanced the budget of the Sharon Public Schools on the backs of homeowners and property taxes. That is not going to change any time soon, and certainly not in the next 3 years. 

6. The long-time residents now unable to afford the property tax increases are my parents’ generation, who voted for overrides and debt exclusions when I was in high school.

7. The community built a new high school, new town hall, public safety building, and library in a short period of time. Therefore, taxes increased significantly in a short period of time.

8. It is not unreasonable for the community to decide that  the tax increases from these buildings means the  town can’t afford to spend more on its most precious resource this year.

9. The budget deficit we face is not just a “Sharon problem”. School districts across the state are grappling with similar, if not much larger deficits.

   For example, (based on my own research of news articles and town websites): Stoughton has a 2mil deficit, Marblehead has a 2 mil deficit, Brookline 2.4 mil, Belmont 8mil, Braintree 8mil, Wayland 3.1mil, Needham 3 mil. I could go on.

10. They’re all driven by similar factors: reduction in state aid; increased utility, Special Education, and personnel costs that have not kept up with basic inflation. A look at Wayland and Needham’s budget websites, for example, will confirm this.

11. Even larger deficits are expected in most towns in FY’26, The Speaker of he MA House recently said that he expects “broad based cuts” for state government in FY’26 too.

12. Sharon has historically raised taxes and not cut the operating budget. Thus, the town - as a whole and in general going back 30+ years - is not used to the painful outcomes that come with operating budget cuts.

13. Now, that does NOT mean I am advocating we raise taxes. I am simply highlighting the fact that all rational signs in other towns and at the state level suggest FY’26 will be even worse and even more hard decisions are likely to come.

14. So, FULL, frequent, and transparent communication (and the attention of the town) will be critical. 

15. In an SPS budget that is 85% personnel and 30% special education costs, it does not take much cutting to reach bone. And when cutting 1.4 million or more, it is going to mean cutting people and programs we all care about.

In the next three years, the School Committee is going to have to balance the tax burden it asks the community to absorb against the real possibility that significant, further budget cuts will hollow out a school system we expect to be superior.

No one in this race understands the importance or the ins & outs of Special Education like I do.

And no one in this race understands the importance and ins and outs of the college admissions process like I do; what it takes to get into college, and what must be preserved to keep Sharon a competitive school system for ALL students that want to go to college.

In tough budget times, these are two of the core issues that I will prioritize. Because our schools must be able to educate ALL students well and equip ALL students with the skills and life experiences they need to succeed upon graduation.

Specific to the FY’25 budget, here is what I believe I would have advocated for differently than the current school committee membership:

a) I would not have solved as much of the deficit by raising Full Day K fees as high. It is a short-term solution, which does not fix our structural budget problem in FY’26 (and beyond) and it disproportionately affects a small cohort of town residents.

However, in an environment in which parents were generally loud about not cutting any teachers, teachers were generally loud about not cutting any administrators, and silent groups were largely unrepresented in the discussion, this was the end result.

b) While prioritizing the retention of the reading specialist position at the Middle School, I would have supported raising class sizes in grades 6-8 in the manner that Dr. Botelho outlined.

Admittedly, this is not an easy choice, but I believe it is more important to prioritize class size in the elementary grades than the Middle School grades.

This likely would have been a ~$200k cost shift that could have been directed to the reading specialist and some of the FDK cost.

c) Furthermore, given that Dr. Botelho has recently indicated ~$100k for the new literacy and math curriculum is in the operating budget (unbeknownst until he announced it at the Fin Com at the end of March), I would have supported spending that 100k toward the Elementary VP/SPED Administrator, and asked the Finance Committee for 466k (“the full cost”) instead of 366k for new curricula.

The fact that Dr. Botelho did not publicly disclose the 100k in the operating budget to the SC is something that the SC needs to address with Dr. Botelho. Similarly, the SC must address with Dr. Botelho why he could not provide the Fin Com with an assurance that the final cost will be 466k or provide the names of the curriculum being purchased.

However, that does not mean that the 100k should stay in the operating budget if 3/4 of the curriculum will be funded by non-operating budget funds.

c) Since Dr. Botelho initially presented all of his HS faculty cuts as requiring the elimination of AP classes, I would have insisted on a detailed explanation from him of the HS faculty positions that could be reduced without compromising AP class offerings.

The purpose of this would have been to attempt to find sufficient HS faculty cuts (likely 2-3 FTE) to maintain a separate Athletic Director and Assistant Principal at SHS.

Indeed, SHS faculty indicated this was critical.

d) In this scenario, any more funding received by SPS, I would advocate be spent restoring 6th grade class size, 7th grade class size, and 8th grade class size (in that order). Any further monies, then could be considered for SHS faculty restoration.

As a student, I had an IEP from the Early Childhood Center through to SHS graduation. I had multiple physical disabilities and learning deficits. My family and I worked closely with both building and district-wide Special Education staff. My experience was mixed: sometimes I got the services I needed, and sometimes I did not. In those instances, substantial advocacy was required.

Having spent my professional career in disability civil rights, I know that equal opportunity is still too elusive for students in education, employment, housing and other aspects of daily life.

I will be a staunch advocate and ally for Special Education effectiveness and excellence as a School Committee member.

At least 20-25% of students in Sharon are students with disabilities, and 30% of the school budget pertains to Special Education Services. Yet, Special Education Services, and the perspective of the Sharon Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SSEPAC) is too rarely a focus of the School Committee. SSEPAC is a subcommittee of the School Committee, yet it seems largely ignored.

Parents know their children best, and this is especially true when it comes to what their child with a disability needs to be successful academically. Parents should not feel as though getting their children what is needed requires them to be adversarial with the School Department. It should be a collaborative process.

The School Committee must prioritize not cutting Special Education services, as well as the non-Special Ed services that support students at Tier 1 and Tier 2 to prevent them from needing more intense support.

Side tangent…..the fact that this town opened a new High School that was not 100% accessible and compliant with state accessibility building standards is embarrassing and unacceptable. Hopefully, that’s the last time a new building opens in Sharon in such condition.

There are a myriad of metrics that could be analyzed about the effectiveness of our Special Education services; these metrics apply both to the services delivered in-district and out of district. These metrics relate to student achievement, and the extent to which parents have taken formal steps to indicate their dissatisfaction with the Special Education services provided. This aggregate data should be part of the public discourse if we truly want to provide the most effective Special Education Services possible.

The School Committee can support and hold the school administration responsible for these improvements through its broad policy making authority. If certain practices and transparency is not implemented in a timely manner, the school committee can establish policies to require it.

You want your child to at least have the opportunity to go to college, right?

I have been a part-time college admissions counselor for nearly 20 years. I have read thousands of applications for Suffolk University, my alma mater. As such, I understand what it takes for students to get into Ivy League Schools (for whom Suffolk is a “safety”), and I understand what it takes for students to get into Suffolk when it may be their “reach” school.

The amount and variety of honors and AP classes that Sharon High School offers is one of the ways that colleges and universities measure the rigor of SHS. Therefore, it is important for ALL students - not just those students in honors and AP classes - that we preserve these classes. We want students at all academic levels to be viewed by colleges and universities as having come from a rigorous curriculum and highly regarded school.

Additionally, honors and AP classes are important experiences that push students, helping them prepare intellectually and practically for adulthood.

Some students will take many honors and AP classes, while other students may only take one or two. Particularly for students who may take fewer of these classes, it is important that we preserve a wide variety of subjects; we should want as many students as possible to take even just that one class about which they may be most passionate and prepared to do college-level work.

I believe that there are times when it is reasonable to allow (or risk) a student, who believes they are prepared for higher level work, to do so despite not having the pre-requisite grade or a teacher’s support.

But I do not endorse de-leveling because it swings the pendulum too far in minimizing the experience and perspective of educators. Moreover, it hurts students and teachers in practical terms. It is exceptionally difficult for teachers to teach a topic to two or three different levels of students at the same time. As a result, students are inevitably not receiving the level of education they could be. This is particularly true for the students at the college prep-level who may be less likely to be able to figure things out on their own when the class moves too fast and less likely to speak up.

I have personal experience with this issue. When I was in 10th grade, I wanted to take Honors English in 11th grade. As a student with disabilities receiving special education services, my 10th grade English teacher made clear at my IEP meeting that she did not believe I should move up to Honors English despite having the pre-requisite grades. She believed my disabilities and medical absences would prevent me from keeping up. She thought it better to get a high grade in College Prep English than risk a low grade in Honors.

I still regret following her advice (and the consensus of the IEP team). They read some great books in 11th grade Honors English – for example, The Great Gatsby – that wasn’t read at the College Prep level. On the other hand, my teacher for 11th grade CP English, Mr. Payne, is one of my all-time favorite teachers. As with anything in life, there are trade-offs.

Each student’s appropriate academic placement should be made on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with the teacher, student, and family; there will be students for whom the jump is reasonable and some for whom it is not. But forcing teachers to teach a multi-level class, particularly at the High School, does not generally help students be most successful.