On The Budget: An Editorial

The situation is dire. It may be that not everyone realizes the
situation is such. Maybe some don’t feel implicated by the storm that

is brewing. I dearly hope that it is the former. The Dresden School

Board is considering cuts of epic proportions across the board to

counter the unfortunate combination of a sluggish economy with the

expiration of a financial agreement with Dartmouth. After this year

the college will no longer contribute the half a million dollars it

had annually contributed to the Hanover High coffers. It follows that

even with a zero percent net spending increase taxpayers will be faced

with a five hundred thousand dollar deficit for the 2011-’12 school

year. 

Additionally, members of the community have argued that with

wage freezes and people losing jobs around the Upper Valley (at

Dartmouth, DHMC, Teleatlas) taxes should in fact decrease. This is the

crux of the problem, one that everyone agrees. The solutions, however,

vary greatly with a bitter battle and difficult decision ahead.

       Proposed cuts are draconian. They are not trimming the fat but

slashing the sinew, shattering the bones of our school. Proposals on

the table include requiring that students take no more than five

classes, no more than one language, or cutting a substantial amount of

elective courses all together. To anyone who has spent time at HHS

these proposals sound farcical. Indeed, what has allowed us such a

positive reputation throughout New Hampshire an the college admissions

circuit is the very fact that we offer so many different courses in

various levels and subjects. To sever these essential programs will

not only drastically affect school life in the immediate for us, the

current students, but more seriously, will leave a much less complete

and, lets say it, worse school for future classes.

        In light of these proposals one would expect an overwhelming

reaction. A tidal wave of rebuke swelling through the community and

breaking upon the School Board meetings. It seems not to be the case.

Crushing proposition after crushing proposition is laid out for

serious consideration. In the goal of cutting ten to twenty classes

the school is on the brink of undoing years of improvement, and

possibly dealing a blow from which the school will struggle for years

to recover from. With a goal of cutting $400,000 we are only getting

started. Wayne Gersen, the SAU 70 Superintendent, cites the possibility

of a double dip recession as incentive to cut. Whether or not this

actually happens, leading economists have suggested that the job market

might not be reinvigorated by 2013. I have a difficult time imagining

taxpayers jumping to raise taxes again in the near future just to get

back to the level of funding we are at currently. More likely, the

push to reduce spending will continue regardless of whether the budget

is cut this year or not.

       Now on to solutions, of which there are two. The first is to not make

the cuts. We could override the voices of opposition and renew the

current budget. This obviously seems to be the consensus pick among

staff and students. The second possibility is to make cuts. It seems

that a very vocal portion of the community is behind them, and so they

seem, at least to some extend unavoidable. How big and intelligent

those cuts are will become the legacy of the budget dispute of 2010.

To the supporters of drastic cuts I offer a two-fold appeal. Firstly a

monetary one: The cuts would save each household about $200-$300

according to the number of taxpayers given to be at the town hall.Two

hundred dollars is a sum easily frittered away on little knickknacks

over the course of the year. Could you not spare it for the education

of the town’s children? This brings me to my second point: a purely

emotional one. Would it not be ironic and sad for a town so directly

and inextricably tied to education to become the one who savaged the

curriculum of the children it has bred? We in the Upper Valley always

portray ourselves as a close knit community which values neighbors and

mutual help. Would it then be presumptuous or outrageous to ask for

some aid? Even without any vested in interest in our school system,

wouldn’t one want to pitch in for his neighbors and the kids from up

the street? We ask you voters, before you go to the ballot box, to

remember all who hinge on your vote. If, in good conscience you feel

that your financial straits are such that the current budget is

untenable for you, then by all means. But if there is but the smallest

doubt, the most insignificant frivolity that comes to mind which you

could dispense of, that would allow you to contribute to keeping your

neighbors’ children in the best school in the state  please consider

your vote.

       We finally move to worst case scenario. If the concerns are heard and

the largest proposed cut objective is approved we must then mitigate

the damage to the HHS curriculum as much as possible. I took a look a

the 2010-’11 budget and thought it opportune to share a few numbers.

-Total instructional salaries: $3,876,877

-Copier Expenses: $50,000

-Art supplies: $17,440

-HHS substitutes: $28,500

-Awards: $4,910

-Guidance Textbooks: $2,295

-Postage: $12,400

-Field trips: $19,650

       The first number is the one we want to protect. Many other items,

like the ones listed below seem reducible. For example, we can

envision shifting more towards e-mail  and the internet to reduce

postage and copier costs. The goal in navigating these cuts is to

leave the student experience as intact as possible. If one takes a

close look at the budget it seems clear that we could trim spending

with minimal teacher cuts or course reduction.

       Clearly, the proposals above can be debated. In fact they must. It is

of utmost importance that we do (all are encouraged to request a

budget, they are readily available). I believe that the majority of

taxpayers are against these measures, at least in their most drastic

form. Unfortunately, so far they have been a silent one. This is not a

habitual call to democratic involvement, this is an the ringing of an

alarm. This is the fate of the future: A future that may be very

different in a short while.