This series will take a look back at how the community of Bedford has been affected adversely by the spending of almost $80M on a school that was not wanted, not needed, and could not be afforded by most of the taxpayers of that town. Buyer’s remorse is now being experienced by others who once supported the new school project, but now say the academic climate is less than what they expected and the taxes are not what they could afford.
We start with the parents. One we interviewed who did not want to be named, told us she had voted for the school but that she was extremely sorry to have done so and “wished they hadn’t lied” about the cost and the curriculum. “I have to de-program my children after they’ve come home from a history class” she admitted. She also complained that her two children had to be re-taught their math lessons at home because of the “fuzzy” methods being used by the school. She added that her children would “never be allowed to participate in anything like the IB Schools program”, a controversial curriculum for which Bedford pays thousands of dollars extra. One of her objections is that this program, which was created by UNESCO (a division of the UN) and is administrated from Geneva Switzerland, was not under ‘local control’. Indeed we found many parents complaining that despite repeated objections to the philosophy and methods used in this and other programs used at BHS, the school board is unresponsive and has yet to listen to their recommendations or concerns.
Another disillusioned parent told us that she did not approve of the narrow and biased scope of the history course nor how some teachers handled ‘team teaching’ duties. Bedford now uses the controversial ‘We the People’ curriculum which is the product of a non-governmental organization known as The Center for Civic Education, a group funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Chaired by Charles N. Quigley. The Center’s own website says: “The Center for Civic Education, based in Los Angeles, California, has its roots in the interdisciplinary Committee on Civic Education formed at the University of California, Los Angeles in 1964. The Committee was established to develop more effective curricular programs in precollegiate civic education. Charles Quigley became the Committee’s executive director in 1965. The Committee’s programs were field-tested throughout the nation.”
A little research on Charles N. Quigley shows him to be the author of “Conflict, politics, and freedom” a book that is described as the “Part of an experimental program in civic education sponsored by the Committee on Civic Education, UCLA, with the assistance of a grant from the Ford Foundation.”
It is in this way that a private group of the super-elite such as the Ford Foundation enables a UCLA committee of academians to let their “experiment” become the basis for an NGO such as the Center for Civic Education, whose programs are then permanently adapted by our government and placed in the government schools.
Yet another parent lamented the idea that the she felt compelled to send her children to private schools even though her taxes had skyrocketed in order to protect them from this agenda.
Five years later, we see how the public school spenders have hurt this community, not only financially, but with the type, quality, and tone of the education their children are receiving at this new school.
Watchdog groups of not-so-wealthy Bedford residents had traditionally warned against spending what ended up being about $79M on an unnecessary school. They feared a housing crash would destroy property values, and the bonding of this school would raise taxes to unmanageable levels on the already stretched out homeowners. However, rabid parents, school board members, and others who hoped their relatives would get school jobs insisted that “if they built it, people would come.” One woman, the wife of a prominent pro-school lawyer in town was even heard blurting out a racial epithet when defending the need to build this school.
Fast forward to 2009 and Hillsborough County has seen the second highest rate of home foreclosures in the state, many of these in Bedford. Many others can no longer afford to pay the tax increases but are unable to sell.
We still have in our possession, cards and mailings from two parent groups as well as the school department that claimed that the new school would only add “pennies” more per year on our taxes or “$1.21 per thousand over 20 years”. If only that had proven true.
Check this out: Three Dimes Front and Three Dimes Back
A homeowner with a tax bill of $6,400 in 2004, thanks to the school, has now seen a $2,000 increase or more, with most going for the schools.
So what we have is an overly expensive school that is overburdening the taxpayers, with a dumbed-down, politically biased curriculum and parents who are not happy because they find they must reteach, deprogram, or even send their children elsewhere. And all this on behalf of 800 students who were, prior to this, getting a great education at Manchester’s West High School, and for a great price.
Here is the first article in the series which tells the story. We start with the year 2003…but pay special attention to the last article.
—
December 1, 2003 – Bedford School Board Bullies by S. Harnden
(Commentary by Ed Naile)
A recent “letter to the editor” from Bedford stood out amongst the others like a roman candle.
“Bedford School Board should try new approach
To the Editors: It’s only a few days after the miserably failed special election in Bedford, and the Bedford School Board is already headed back to “la, la, land.” Touting figures like “76% of voters were in favor of article 1,” and 78% of voters were in favor of article 2,” some claim to be “encouraged.” Let’s get real!
Only 43% of the 12,840 registered voters went to the polls Nov. 4, less than the 50% needed to validate the election. Article 1 “yes” votes garnered only 32% of all registered voters; Article 2 “yes” votes garnered only 34% of all registered voters. This means that two-thirds of registered voters didn’t for whatever reason, choose to go to the polls and vote “yes” on either question.
Before the board sets off combing the ashes of a failed, minority election, conniving with crafty lawyers, listening to the empire builders and special interests, they should for once, just as a new approach, ask themselves (and not forget) who they’re supposed to represent. If they could just admit that it’s all residents, and only residents, democracy could again flourish in Bedford.”
Hooray for Mr. Harnden, as he has captured all that is wrong with the Bedford School Board in his excellent letter. Notice the real percentage of voters who wanted to stratify Bedford into rulers and subjects, about 33%! Only 33% of Bedford voters would have been necessary to pass a 30 year set of bonds for school construction if their rigged special meeting had succeeded. The 33% would have driven a smaller portion of residents most on fixed and moderate incomes out of their homes through excessive education spending. Why?
Take a look at the arguments they use about raising property values, providing a top rate education, and building a sense of community. That is certainly true for one segment of the community A community has many different people living in it with many different needs, not all of them are championed by a cadre of lawyers, public employees, union activists, and liberal local papers pretending to be objective. NH communities have home schooling parents who may not be interested in huge public school taxes. Retired and fixed income residents may just want basic services and the ability to stay in their own home. Young couples would like to be able to someday purchase a home in a community in which they grew up.
The Bedford School Board belongs to a different group. They want to eliminate or marginalize all but the pro-school spenders who draw a paycheck or perks from the system, have students in the schools and wish to afford them an exclusive private school education at the expense of their neighbors. They also want to raise property taxes to the point voters not with their program are forced out of town. All the while they believe they are increasing the re-sale value of their homes as an investment for when they move to a more affordable community.
Taxpayers have to acknowledge the advantage the school spending minority has in local politics. The statewide school industry provides legal advice and support to school spenders. CNHT offers taxpayers an opportunity to level the playing field in their own community. All you need to do is contact us.
—
February 14, 2004 – Bedford Wake Up Call Petitioned Articles
Bedford is going through another round of Annual Meeting manipulation by the proponents of public school industry spending. Local and School construction projects are a never-ending source of friction between different groups in municipalities all across New Hampshire. Huge multi-million dollar construction projects are a source of revenue and resume enhancement and prestige for School Superintendents as well. They, as a bonus, also stratify, or ethnically cleanse, a community of people on fixed and limited income giving even more power to the school proponents so they can provide even more for themselves.
Bedford is a prime example of how a very small minority like this strips any choice on the ballot from their neighbors and how the powers that be in Concord help them do it. After years of fighting over school spending, Bedford adopted Senate Bill 2 Ballot voting so that voters could, without intimidation, vote in the privacy of a booth not at poorly attended traditional meetings. The result was many more voters and the dilution of the school industry power. Starting shortly after the adoption of SB 2 statewide some schools activists began amending petitioned warrant articles at the pre-meeting or deliberative session portion of the SB 2 municipalities. They would amend a petitioned warrant article to mean the reverse of what the petitioners intended when they placed their names on the article to be presented to the voters at the annual meeting. So basically, the citizens right to a petition with the wording as it was when he signed it never gets to the final meeting where it counts.
In 2003 the Bedford School Board called for a Special Meeting, scheduled for that November, to pass a warrant article of their own creation. This warrant article was in essence a rigged deal that would have forced voters to build a new school, (along with some other construction totaling $44 million,) for 5&6 grades no matter how they voted. Heads they win, tails you lose, was the agenda. They lost because of the exhaustive efforts of Bedford CSE, a local taxpayer group. They also lost because it was a cheap sleazy trick to which the voters caught on. No thanks to the area newspapers. Subsequently the school board talked about bringing “choice” to the next ballot. That went south at the February Deliberative Session when a town council member stepped up to the spending plate and hit a home run once again stripping the voters of a choice by destroying Bedford CSE’s petitions with killer amendments.
Now it is obvious to us at CNHT that the Town Councilor did not draft this plan on his own by any means. That is where help from school industry lawyers and the different school professional associations came in. It is also why CNHT goes to places like Bedford and helps with their strategy.
Congratulations to the town councilor though, he has now started a firestorm once again and their meetings will have been for naught on March 9 now that the bonds they need require a 60% majority to pass. By the way, our taxpayer rights… our Constitutional rights, were violated back in 2000 when the state legislature lowered bond vote super majorities from 66% to 60% just for SB 2 municipalities in preparation for just this type of spending. Concord is in league with school spenders in Bedford and is handing them every advantage they can, right or wrong. Why?
All across New Hampshire schools are running out of “raw material.” Kids are in short supply. Merrimack Schools have for instance a net loss four students over the last six years but added 21 new teaching positions. Even so, they voted to spend millions on construction last year. But voters are catching on fast. Smart voters who still want a choice, as they deserve, want a real Annual Meeting with real choices on the ballot and an end this cycle of abuse of the taxpayers, the political system, people on fixed and limited incomes, and common decency. I also heard from State representative Lee Slocum tonight that the Municipal and County Government Committee quietly killed a bill that would have addressed this issue. It is about time Committee Chairman, Representative Betsy Patten stopped being a facilitator for NHMA and the DRA along with the rest of the spending lobby in Concord.
All of the problems such as this in Bedford and the rest of the state should be laid at that committee’s feet.
—
March 14, 2004 – Education Funding Editorial by State Representative David Scott of Durham
The Big Picture
An enormous transfer of wealth has taken place in New Hampshire over the past 5 years, coming from the pockets of home owners into the coffers of the Education Establishment.
Five years ago the New Hampshire Education Monopoly spent in total $1.3 billion. In the year ending June 2003 they spent over $2.0 billion, an increase of 43% in 5 years. During the same time enrollment has gone up 5%.
This increase of public school spending comes largely from those who pay local real estate taxes. This unprecedented transfer of wealth has impoverished our senior citizens and has drained the earnings of all working families who are homeowners. If this spending spiral continues at the same rate for the next five years a large majority of New Hampshire citizens are going to have great difficulty paying their real estate taxes. We do have a school funding problem but that problem is dwarfed by the spending problem of our government schools.
It is the relentless spending increases that have created the funding problem.
What we have is a serious management problem and unless the management problem is addressed the funding problem will never go away. Could it be that some school superintendents are unqualified to run a multimillion dollar organization? In what other organization would the board of directors not dismiss the manager who runs up his cost of product as rapidly as many of our school superintendents have run up their spending per pupil over the past five years.
When one asks how is it that the non public schools can do a better job for less than half the price? We get whining and excuses rather than solutions. The excuses won’t halt the rise in my real estate taxes. One would almost have to conclude that a clever superintendent has purposely cried wolf, or “we have a funding problem”, in order to divert the attention of his local school board and taxpayers from his management weaknesses and spending extravagances. Even if the exaggerated spending of our government schools had produced good academic results people could not afford the continued drain on their on their savings and earnings from ever higher real estate taxes.
As the season of town meetings and warrant articles approach, homeowners feeling the heavy burden of their real estate taxes must stand up and tell their school superintendents that unless this spending spiral is halted they will be replaced.
—
February 4, 2005 – Bedford Taxpayers Beware by S. Harnden
It’s “Silly Season” again in Bedford. The Bedford School Board and their minority group of supporters want us to cough up $50,000,000 to fulfill their dream of having their own high school, and to do what? They hope to duplicate the fine, diverse education that Manchester West High School now provides our students for just $6018 per student.
Someone forgot to mention how spending additional millions will improve education or help our students compete in a world currently eating our lunch. As columnist James Glassman recently pointed out, with the stranglehold the teachers unions have on the system, change is not possible. Taxes will soar, students don’t want it, and we’d be saddling our kids and grandkids with 100 million dollars of debt. With tough times looming that will affect us all, this is no time for useless, silly spending.
In addition, school board member David Sacks waltzed over to the town council and asked it to bond another $6,000,000 for a school road about which they know only two things – it would start at the proposed high school, and end somewhere on Wallace Road. No big deal, just “trust us”. Only Councilor Danielson had the honesty to point out that no study has been done; they know “nothing about nothing”, and refused to dump 6 million dollars into a bag with no bottom in it. The ludicrous has reached the absurd in Bedford.
The deliberative session is February 10th. The “mod squads” and their gaggle of rogue lawyers will be out in force to once again deny us freedom of choice, for even after last year’s debacle and resulting backlash, they’ve learned nothing. Anyone hoping to keep Bedford affordable and livable should attend, but if not, at least sharpen up your “NO” pencil again for the March election.
—
Feb 26, 2006 – Bedford School To Bankrupt the Village?
Eleven months ago in the middle of a snowstorm when many meetings were canceled, 30% of the Bedford School District voters committed the remaining 70% of us to spend upwards of $70 million dollars in unnecessary and wasteful projects primarily intended to benefit various special interests. In the process, home values have plummeted, students educational opportunities have been minimized, and the town advances one step closer to being an urbanized nightmare. Strong words, yet the facts speak for themselves.
Contrary to the assertions made by the pro-high school crowd that home values would magically increase if Bedford had a high school, the average home selling price has plummeted from $560,000 in August ’05 (the start of the BHS construction) to $302,000 in February ’06. THAT IS OVER QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLAR LOSS!
While these are average prices, experience shows that the lower the average, the harder it is to sell a more expensive home. Hundreds of homes are on the market and the spring selling season will further add to a glutted market. Many are now listing their homes at or below the appraised value in an attempt to sell as soon as possible further depressing prices.
For homeowners this is an economic nightmare. You can thank the 30% who voted in favor of the BHS last March for this mess. The March 14th vote may be the most expensive decision you are ever going to be asked to make. The assertion that the owner (BSD) in a construction project can not initiate a change order to a construction contract is so ludicrous as to be absurd. Such an argument is made by those apparently with absolutely no knowledge of construction contracting practices. As a standard practice the owner always reserves the unilateral right to change scope in a construction contract.
You can vote to end this economic madness by voting YES on School Warrants 13 and 14. If you stay at home and do not vote or vote no, you will probably find that option even more expensive as the magnitude of the economic calamity manifests itself.
—
Note: See Bankrupting the Village: Timeline of Bedford for a full timeline of events leading up to How the Public School Industry Spenders Hurt the Community of Bedford.