| In the March 26-April 1 issue of The Reminder, the headline reads; "A passing grade: Costa's contract extended by Board". The point of the article is that the School Committee adopted a policy that evaluates the superintendent in thirty-three categories. The superintendent received an exceptional rating. That's great. The School Committee then extended Dr. Costa's contract for one more year. The problem I have with that is, it is five years away from the end of his current contract. I am all for foresight, but is this a good thing to do? What if he is not doing "a good job" in two or three years? The town is locked in. The superintendent's contract and any other official working for the town should not have their contracts extended so far out from the end of the current one. The article also touches on the subject of where a child should go to school, in regard to custody cases. The issue here is that the courts have determined that where a child sleeps on school nights fifty-one percent of the time is where that child goes to school. That's fine. What I would like people to know is that there are many kids going to our schools that do not live here. They are using family members and friends addresses that live in town. This is fraud. People move to this town for the schools. The fact that the Springfield School system is less than desirable is a shame, but that is not our problem. People in this town pay a lot of taxes so their children can go to school here. It's not fair to them or anyone else. We hear a lot about school overcrowding. This issue may not solve that, but it will sure help. There is not enough being done about this issue. I hope the School Committee and the superintendents office does more about this. Ron Cutler East Longmeadow |
