Chariho School Parents’ Forum

May 30, 2008

House Finance passes bond legislation

Filed under: bond,Budget — Editor @ 5:41 pm

From the people who brought us the $434mm budget deficit comes the decision to move forward with the Chariho bond.

PROVIDENCE — The state House Committee on Finance approved three bills designed to authorize $25 million in bonds for renovations and construction at Chariho’s Switch Road campus Thursday.

“The accreditation is my concern at this time,” said Rep. Peter L. Lewiss, D-Westerly.

The campus risks losing accreditation because of crowded and dilapidated classrooms, according to proponents of a bond.

Those proponents say the bond money will provide a solid financial plan for correcting these issues and forestall action by the regional accrediting association, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.

As passed by the finance panel Thursday, the amended bills exclude the specific state reimbursement rates and instead uses more general wording.

The next stop for the bills will be the House floor and later the Senate. Then, if passed by the state General Assembly, the bond will face a referendum at the hands of the voters of Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton. Several previous attempts to approve bonds to make repairs to the Chariho campus have failed during the referendum step, when voters from at least one of the towns have rejected the proposals.

A bond has not passed in all three towns since 1986.

“I expect that representatives from the three town councils will have something to say,” Lewiss said.

The majority of Hopkinton Town Council has not supported even bringing the question of bonding back to the General Assembly and the school district’s voters. The council has previously complained that Hopkinton pays more than its fair share of support for the school district. Both the Charlestown and Richmond town councils have supported bringing the question to voters again.

Hopkinton’s failure to pass the bonds has not only placed the accreditation at risk, but also put $10 million in state matching funds in jeopardy if enabling legislation is not passed by the General Assembly before July 1, say school construction supporters.

If it makes passes the legislature, the referendum presented to voters will be in three parts that require approval by all three of the Chariho towns.

The bond authorizations include $17.8 million for upgrades at the high school and general campus, $4.4 million for a permanent RYSE facility to replace its temporary classrooms, and $2.7 million for repairs and an addition to the middle school.

“We should let the voters decide,” said Lewiss.

The project was presented to voters initially as a $26 million single question to voters last fall. That measure passed in Charlestown in Richmond, but failed in Hopkinton by 47 votes. The district’s governing document — the Chariho Act — requires that a bond question pass in all three towns.

Rep Lewis claims that he fears the loss of accreditation.  This threat comes from an organization that Chariho almost stopped paying dues to a few years back because it was seen as a farce.  Besides, they claim we will loose accreditation because of poor classroom conditions and overcrowding.  Most of the classroom concerns are being addressed in the current capital plan and enrolments are dropping. 

Why are politicians so short sighted.  They passed S-3050 (the tax cap) to put pressure on school committees so they will address contract issues.  But then when the school committees refuse to deal with the unions and neglected maintenance instead, the politicians bail them out by passing bonds.  Like I said, these are the same people who brought us the $434mm deficit.



  1. Garbage in. Garbage out. Too many politicians know one thing…spending our money buys them votes. The calculation by Mr. Lewiss and the other politicians supporting the revote is that they will gain more votes than they will lose. Notice none of them address the underlying issues which have plaqued the district for years? They won’t touch those issues but sound bites are always reliable for fooling the masses.

    Looks like Hopkinton voters will once again need to be the adults in the drama. With the removal of specific numbers for reimbursement, I’m guessing the legislature is already backing away from 60% figure. Wonder how the Chariho apologists will spin this one? Notice how losing accreditation is now the theme instead of losing reimbursement money. Oh, what a tangled web they weave…

    Comment by Curious Resident — May 30, 2008 @ 6:17 pm | Reply

  2. Sadly, our state is addicted to spending money and our representatives are groveling in any pocket they believe will further their political career. I wonder if Mr. Lewiss would care to have any program he voted against overturned and voted on again, and again. Who said your vote counts? Maybe we could get Jimmy Cater to come on up and oversee what is happening here in the USA.

    Currently, the only leverage we have to demand careful spending, a transparent administration, and a good education and building maintenance is the bond. Looks like the state that spends the most wants to addict the rest of us. After all, if the state goes bankrupt, why not drag us with them?

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — May 30, 2008 @ 7:39 pm | Reply

  3. We are the fools because we keep voting for these guys who take our money and then buy our votes by giving us back pennies on the dollar. It is our labor and our ingenuity funding our own demise. We put up with it so we’re the stupid ones. Are there so many people on the government dole that we can’t turn things around at the ballot box? Is it too late?

    Comment by Real Question — May 30, 2008 @ 8:16 pm | Reply

  4. It will take a resounding no vote in HOPKINTON to wake up the constituents/voters. It’s been apparent for many years Dorothy and you are to be commended as a educated voter.

    Any debate on that can provide facts and figures (or we’ll get the usual lobbing over the fence for enjoyment tactics).

    Yes Dorothy the State is headed quickly to insolvency and a Hopkinton yes vote they would say, you voted yourself into insolvency get yourself out. This is a replay of 1991-1993 under the Sundlund Adminstration and the current councils swallowing wrong numbers. I’ve done much research and its being noted or hopefully so in some quarters. Hopefully it will surface soon in members of ‘STANDING.’ assessments, .

    Its been learned or told that you don’t have a voice at school committee meetings as you will be silenced by many sc members. Moved to motion.

    It lays at the feet of all the voters and the Councils to explore Freedom of Information Act suits among Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton against the ‘District’. It’s been noted in CT recently in North Stonington. Sue to get information your entitled to.
    It’s been beyond debate and the 50 years of information out there.

    Fair thee well.

    Comment by James Hirst — May 30, 2008 @ 8:27 pm | Reply

  5. I’ve just read Mr. John O. Craig Jr.’s (second resignation of the Charlestown Council under) Craig leaves Council, Panel president cites attacks, health concerns.

    One would assume this in the end of Mr. Craigs tenure in Charlestown.

    The previous ‘Craig’s resignation casts new shadow over Charlestown in the Westerly Sun editorial on July 17, 2001 is listed as

    The stunning news that John Craig, jr. has decided to resign as member and president of the Charlestown Town Council may not be directly linked to the the shock waves that engulged the town’s government since the firing of Town Administrator Edward Barrett.

    But Craig’s decision to steep down looms as a serious loss to the town. And it may deal another blow to the council’s credibility as it tries to restore the faith of voters understandably put off by the panel’s handling of the clouded Barrett dismissal.

    In his formal letter of resignation, submitted on Monday, Craig issued no reason for stepping aside. In a letter interview with THE SUN, Craig said the June 6 firing of Barrett- a move that has polarized town officials and residents-was not really a factor in his deciiosn to give up his post.

    “I haven’t really been debating it too long,” he said. “I just decided it I had just had enough.”

    Yet, with all due respect to Craig’s decision and comments, the timing of his move certainly casts new shadows over the operation of the Town Government.

    Just last Thursday, for example, Craig seemed to be looking toward the future when he spoke at a Chariho School District Omnibus meeting about the town’s options regarding the future.

    Earlier that day, he had also expressed renewed concerns about the manner in which his council colleagues decided to dump Barrett, noting that it seemed clear that three councilors had made the decision to fire the administrator they event spke with Barrett at a planned job evaluation session. Craig expressed a desire to get to the bottom of tht decision, essentially made by council members Karen Lytle, Lucy Hargaves and Pamela Holley.

    Even if Craig did simply decide he had “had enough,” the course of the concl without him raises all sorts of questions. Criag had oppenly opposed the move to fire Barrett, while Council Vice President Tully also resued to go along with the move-like Craig-officially abstained.

    If, as Craig suggested, the decision to fire Barret was clearly made in advance of Lytle, Hargraves and Holley-and if such a move was determined prior to any evaluation and discussion with Barrett, those three councilors owe more explantions than ever to concerned Charlestown voters, who must be starting to wonder why their local government is falling apart.

    To date, none of those councilours has come forward with any justification for the firing, exept to say that Barrettt had any communication problems with the council. If the councilorsfired Barrett before speaking with him, once could argue that they-not Barrett-were the source of such a problem. Without Craig to push for any further explanation,any more specific reason for the firing may never be known. That would be ungrossly unfair to Barrett and to Charlestown Voters.

    Assuming Craig stick to his resignation guns-and it should be noted that the council has not yet formally voted to accept his move in that direction-
    his actions looms as another blow to those voters.

    Charlestown voters, after all, made Craig their No. 1 choice for the last tow elections. And his victory last November stood as a solid triumph for grass roots politics, since eh fir had to force his way onto the ballot rhough a Republican Party primariy, then ousted then-council President CharlesBeck to earn one of those seats.

    His presence on the council, particulary in the weeks since Barrett’s firing, seemed to provide a very necessary bit of checks and balances to the council majority. And this is, after all, a council majority that may have clearly violated the state’s open meeing law, then refused to respond to legitimae questions and concerns raided by residents regarding their town administrator.
    Craig had become a councilor who seemed committed to becoming part of the solutionto Charlestown’s problems. In stepping aside (@July 17. 2001)he has only cast new shadows over the town’s beleagured government. That a shame.

    Any corrections or Credit due to the Westerly Sun Editorial Staff on July 17, 2001. Other Craig Incidents in Archives.

    Comment by James Hirst — May 31, 2008 @ 12:32 am | Reply

  6. Hi!
    It would appear “political paralysis” will set in in Charlestown for the most part. Mr. Mageau will become acting or possibly succeed to Town Council President.I assume no sucessor to Craig will be appointed as it would disturb the political balance in the town on the town council.
    What is interesting is this: Town Council Presidents don’t make motions or rarely do.What happens if Mr. Picard makes a motion and neither of the two ladies are willing to second it? Also technically the Charlestown Town Council does NOT have to accept a resignation. Rules for Town Council members are “they serve until another is engaged in their room” or “until discharged from the office”. Quotes may not be exact from quotes noted. However there is a section in law for a vacancy if one “removes from the town” by taking up residence elsewhere. The Charlestown Town Charter may spell out things differently.
    The question for Richmond and Hopkinton is thus: What impact will Mr. Craig’s departure have on Chariho related issues in the next several months?

    Comment by Scott Bill Hirst — May 31, 2008 @ 9:31 am | Reply

  7. Looking online, the Charlestown Town Charter does not directly address resignations and whether they can not be accepted or not. Since Mr. Craig is supposedly moving to Cranston though, that immediately disqualfies him from continuing to serve the citizens of Charlestown.

    From this also addresses if he can make a motion, which I assume also, by inference that he has all the same priviliges as the rest of the body, he can also second the motion.

    Is it true that the president can vote only to break a tie?

    No, it is not true that the president can vote only to break a tie. If the president is a member of the assembly, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, speak in debate and to vote on all questions. However, the impartiality required of the presiding officer of an assembly (especially a large one) precludes exercising the right to make motions or debate while presiding, and also requires refraining from voting except (i) when the vote is by ballot, or (ii) whenever his or her vote will affect the result.

    When will the chair’s vote affect the result? On a vote which is not by ballot, if a majority vote is required and there is a tie, he or she may vote in the affirmative to cause the motion to prevail. If there is one more in the affirmative than in the negative, he or she can create a tie by voting in the negative to cause the motion to fail. Similarly, if a two-thirds vote is required, he or she may vote either to cause, or to block, attainment of the necessary two thirds.

    I do expect to see a stalemate for the next 6 months coming out of Charlestown. This will be as much fun now as it was watching the Hopkinton Town Council when Mr. Matson was on the Town Council.

    Comment by CharihoParent — May 31, 2008 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

  8. I doubt Craigs resignation will impact Chariho. The Charlestown TC was a joke with Craig and will be a joke without him. The one thing they all agreed on is the need to keep riding the Chariho gravy train.

    Comment by Real Question — May 31, 2008 @ 4:08 pm | Reply

  9. RQ, you’re wrong, this is perhaps the one issue that their Town Council would come to a consensus on, and it’s certainly not in favor of Chariho. The unfortunate part is that the bond vote, if it is voted on, will come at the same time as the town votes for their town council so we won’t see it. I don’t see all four of these councilors being re-elected, some of them maybe, but not all of them.

    Comment by CharihoParent — May 31, 2008 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

  10. Mr. Craig is a public school administrator. His departure isn’t going to change Charlestown’s position on Chariho…but it is always good to rid ourselves of politicians who make their living off the public dole. These types almost always want the government to spend more.

    Comment by Curious Resident — May 31, 2008 @ 10:30 pm | Reply

  11. I am sure that the district will get to vote on the bond again. The bond that failed by the people will be resurrected by the legislature and voted on again.

    Comment by BarbaraC — June 1, 2008 @ 9:47 pm | Reply

  12. Sorry to hear that Mrs. Capalbo. Here’s to Hopkinton showing backbone and rejecting all parts of the revote.

    Comment by Curious Resident — June 1, 2008 @ 10:42 pm | Reply

  13. Kennedy could stop the revote in his tracks if he wanted to do it. He has the power in Providence. If the revote makes it out of the legistlature Kennedy can be sure I’ll never have a nice thing to say about him come election time!

    Comment by Real Question — June 2, 2008 @ 8:01 am | Reply

  14. All Hail B.P. Kennedy! The Prince of the Rub and Tug Club in the State House. How much more will he have to kiss Rep. Murphy’s behind to stop it in it’s track?

    Comment by CharihoParent — June 2, 2008 @ 2:01 pm | Reply

  15. If CP is against Kennedy than Kennedy can’t be all bad! Kennedy kisses Murphy’s behind and CP and his Richmond colleagues kiss Ricci’s behind…CP’s butt kissing probably costs us more than Kennedy’s butt kissing.

    Comment by Real Question — June 2, 2008 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  16. RQ, how much to kiss Bill Felkner’s butt? Now that will really cost us, inflated annual budgets to begin with!

    Comment by CharihoParent — June 2, 2008 @ 8:35 pm | Reply

  17. Once out of the House the bond question must progess into and out of the Senate. Kevin Breene is not bringing it forward in the Senate. At this time I don’t believe (and I can be wrong) that Dennis Algiere is bringing this forward because all three towns have not endorsed the legislation.

    Please remember that the funding of the bond is one question, the other, and much more important question, is that the bond does not address the problems in the high school by going far enough to solve them and not simply mitigate the damage. After 30 years of neglect, 17 million won’t fix it.

    Comment by BarbaraC — June 2, 2008 @ 9:36 pm | Reply

  18. Barbara,
    Algiere already submitted legislation

    Comment by what? — June 2, 2008 @ 9:38 pm | Reply

  19. I believe that NO amount of money will “fix” CHARIHO. Before we even talk about money, bonds, or anything else, we must get a handle on the administration and the education of our children. We have to develop an open, transparent, thrifty method of running our schools. We need to provide a rich, BASIC education to all of our children, and build on that foundation with any monies we have extra. We must only accept curriculum which has been tested and proved to prepare our children for a career or college, and provide follow up evaluation to be sure our education is meeting expectations. We must develop and follow a clear path for maintenance of all of our buildings, and a long term plan using projections of student census to allow development of projected costs and possible savings to maintain a cost effective system while providing excellence in education. Then and ONLY then should we discuss another bond.

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — June 3, 2008 @ 8:05 am | Reply

  20. A re-vote bill was passed by the legislature. It now needs to be passed by the state senate and I assume signed by the governor.

    The language regarding 56%/60% reimbursement was REMOVED from the re-vote bill. At least I don’t see it like I did originally. The bill refers to a substitute amendment or something like that. My take on it is voters will be asked to approve millions in spending with no guarantee of a reimbursement rate.

    Because of the unfair tax situation and Charlestown’s ability to absorb ever increasing spending I am against spending millions at Chariho without tax equity but for those claiming we have to rush to qualify for reimbursement I’d like to hear there latest reasons for the rush?

    If it is true that there is no longer guaranteed reimbursement why did Scott and Walsh continue to sponsor voting aqain?

    Comment by Truth or Consequences — June 5, 2008 @ 12:27 am | Reply

  21. Perhaps Reps Walsh and Scott feel it’s in the best interests of the students to allow the voters to approve the revised bond. If Charlestown is so able to absorb ever increasing spending why was their budget so tight this year? Charlestown is under the same pressures now as every other town because they can only increase their taxes by state mandated tax cap. Bill 3050A changed the way the tax cap is figured. It used to be the bottom line on the town’s budget, now it’s the line for taxes that is limited. Even if a town has a huge building increase and their grand list went up drastically in one year, they would not realize the benefit of that like they used to. The only thing that would happen is that the taxes a spread out more but the town could not collect more in taxes than what the tax cap allows for. Get that through your thick head!

    Comment by CharihoParent — June 5, 2008 @ 9:22 am | Reply

  22. Why not push legislation through to make Chariho a taxing district. If a legal vote can be subverted through legislation (and against the will of the Hopkinton people) why can’t tax equalization be pushed through without Charlestown’s approval?

    Comment by RA — June 5, 2008 @ 9:36 am | Reply

  23. Again, it is not about Charlestown, it is about people. Get that through your thick skull? Charlestown families (people) vote on budgets and bonds with a much different tax burden than Hopkinton families (people). It totally alters a person’s perspective if they are paying 2 to 3 times more for the same thing. Charlestown families (who are people) don’t have to worry about the impact of Chariho spending because it doesn’t cost them nearly as much as it costs Hopkinton families (also people). It is unfair for Hopkinton families (people) to have to live with the decisions of Charlestown families (people) who don’t pay the same.

    The Providence paper has an article on the re-vote. They don’t mention the bill had the language changed. Maybe the bill still specifies 56% reimbursement but I can’t find it. Anyone know if the politicians took out the reimbursement rate from the bond?

    Comment by Truth or Consequences — June 5, 2008 @ 9:42 am | Reply

  24. I’m with you RA. For the re-vote they were able to find enough politicians willing to subvert the first vote. They might not find any politicians willing to fight for Hopkinton though. I certainly support legislation requiring Chariho being a tax district. Let’s hope a politician stands up for us for a change.

    Comment by Truth or Consequences — June 5, 2008 @ 9:44 am | Reply

  25. Great to see the esteemed Brian Patrick Kennedy, who represents only Hopkinton, vote for the bond. Way to stick it to your town Brian. What a waste he is. Somebody should run against him knock his rear end out of office.

    Comment by what? — June 5, 2008 @ 10:03 am | Reply

  26. Did Brian vote for the re-vote? Maybe he didn’t vote?

    His last name is Kennedy and related or not, Kennedys never lose in the Northeast. This is what happens when an entire population of people receive inferior educations. The other end of the state elects a drug addict Kennedy without missing a beat.

    Comment by Truth or Consequences — June 5, 2008 @ 10:14 am | Reply

  27. Him winning has nothing to do with his name… has to do with nobody running against him. and who would want to go up there to the cespool of corruption…..for 12k/year. but he does have almost 70k in his campaign account….for what, i dont know

    Comment by what? — June 5, 2008 @ 10:25 am | Reply

  28. I don’t know. I remember when he first ran. He was a kid. Never experienced anything. I’m pretty sure he had competition in the early days and he never lost. All he brought to the table was the Kennedy name and around here it’s enough.

    Comment by Truth or Consequences — June 5, 2008 @ 10:34 am | Reply

  29. The ProJo article can be read here:

    No mention is made of the revote bill language being changed. The Rag article does refer to a substitute bill. You can read the bill approved for the revote here:

    Notice there is no mention of a reimbursement rate. Approval of this bill would mean the district is approving the bonds with no guarantee of specific reimbursement from the state.

    The revote is a terrible idea for Hopkinton. As written this bill could potentially make us liable for much more then many people think. Mrs. Walsh and Mr. Scott allowed their language to be changed and hope nobody is paying attention. I trust Hopkinton is taking heed and will reject this latest scam by Chariho.

    Comment by Curious Resident — June 5, 2008 @ 5:26 pm | Reply

  30. Hi!
    I am Secretary and Member of the 38TH Republican Representative District Committee. If any of you want to run as a Republican against Brian feel free to contact me at and 401-377-4643 or committee chair Amanda Doescher at 377-0034,.
    Only Republicans or unaffiliated voters can file as a Republican.

    Comment by Scott Bill Hirst — June 5, 2008 @ 5:38 pm | Reply

  31. hey hirst,
    why dont you run against brian?

    Comment by what? — June 5, 2008 @ 7:32 pm | Reply

  32. And many Charlestown residents cannot afford paying for repairs in the annual budget, just like families in Hopkinton and Richmond. You see the beach front properties, these are mostly non-voters. Yes, the residents north of Route 1 benefit from this but they can afford just about as much as you and I can. Smarten up people!

    Comment by CharihoParent — June 5, 2008 @ 8:15 pm | Reply

  33. The families north of Route 1 have home valuations similar to Hopkinton residents. Their tax burden is 2 1/2 times less. Their taxes would need to go up 2 1/2 times as much as they pay now for them to approach the economic burden anywhere near that of Hopkinton families. What is difficult to understand about this simple reality? ONe more time…Charlestown families approve budgets and bonds which cost them individually much less than what it costs Hopkinton families.

    To make the dispartiy even worse, I’ve heard that Charlestown is readjusting and beach propetties (usually non-voters) will be paying more taxes and non-beach properties (voters) will be paying less taxes. This means that Charlestown voters will likely become even more tolerant for tax increases. Who wouldn’t be tolerant when somebody else is paying?

    Charlestown approves irresponsible and unaccountable Chariho spending because it costs them next to nothing. They don’t have to pay attention to Chariho and for the most part they do not. They don’t care. Hopkinton needs them to care. We need them to pay attention to the waste and unnecessary spending. Until Charlestown has incentive to care, our families will continue to suffer.

    Since the legislature saw fit to override the will and legal vote of Hopkinton, I call for them to bring forward tax equalization legislation for us to vote on. Want to see Charlestown care?

    Comment by Curious Resident — June 6, 2008 @ 9:30 am | Reply

  34. For those still too numb to understand the concept of Charlestown being much more tolerant of Chariho spending then Hopkinton, take a peak at this linked chart from RIDE:

    While Chariho towns are all lumped together, you can be sure that Charlestown’s “property value per student” is up in the stratosphere along with Narragansett, Jamestown, and other shore communities. Please note that the graph is titled “Equity and Adequacy of Resources”.

    Should Hopkinton challenge Charlestown in court on the issue of tax equity, charts such as this could play a key role. While CharihoParent and others may not understand that Charlestown families are taxed less and can therefore afford to spend more, obviously Rhode Island’s Department of Education understands the availability of resources varies based on the property valuation to student ratio. As we’ve said right along, Hopkinton families carry a much bigger tax burden for Chariho than Charlestown families.

    Comment by Curious Resident — June 6, 2008 @ 11:18 am | Reply

  35. I am forced to pay 74.83 a week in taxes. I certainly don’t want this to go up to pay for landscaping, lockers or a program which gives no proof as to whether or not it works and which does not have reintergration as a goal(RYSE). How would you feel if your child was pulled out of a program like Bradley or South Shore and put into a prison model, refered to as the “sped shack” by the other children? There should absolutely be tax equalization legislation that we can vote on (and re-vote on until we get the results that we want). Charlestown is not a person by the way. How much state aid a community gets does not effect the individual tax payer rate.

    Comment by RA — June 6, 2008 @ 5:46 pm | Reply

  36. You encapsulate the many problems with the bond very nicely RA. Not only are Hopkinton families paying far more than Charlestown families, we’re being asked to pay for nonsense along with the needed repairs. Because they pay so little, Charlestown families are able to overlook the nonsense. Hopkinton families can’t afford to diregard irresponsible spending.

    Tax equity solves the problem. All families would face the same economic burden and all families would be as likely and unlikely to overlook irresponsible spending.

    I could live with RYSE (“sped shack” is shameful) if parents were able to choose. Then RYSE would suruvive or perish based on its merits rather than based on the adult employees who depend on its existence for their paychecks.

    Comment by Curious Resident — June 7, 2008 @ 11:13 am | Reply

  37. I don’t actually think that the RYSE employees are chariho employees. I believe they are “independent contractors” who have no benefits. I’m sure that it is a very tough job. This may have changed. It is an unfortunate label, but kids can be mean.

    Comment by RA — June 7, 2008 @ 4:18 pm | Reply

  38. Chariho employees or not, there are adults who depend on RYSE for employment. The MST method was develop for violent juveniles. It is doubtful that a large percentage of RYSE students are violent but the administration, with the School Committee’s blessing, has decided the one-size-fits all approach is better than letting parents make the choices for their children. No matter how you slice it, RYSE is a questionable program which operates in the shadows. Hardly worthy of investing millions more on infrastructure.

    Comment by Curious Resident — June 7, 2008 @ 4:46 pm | Reply

  39. There are Chario employees at RYSE and support personnel from Psy Centers, Inc., the company who got the no-bid contract last year.

    As an example, in one class of 3 students, we have a teacher, two TA’s and Psy Center’s provides the specialized services.

    The contract is quite generous (George knows #’s better than I) but the contract has gone from the original winning bid of $420,000 (the losing bid from South Shore was $275,000) to about $780,000 per year. You can read all about how they had outcome measurements in the original bid but then decided not to use them later – why we are using a system designed for the training school – how we provide everything from psychiatrists to employment counselors for PARENTS – and other whacky stuff.

    In short – the contract is quite generous and goes up every year in equivalent amounts as do normal Chariho expenses. Oh yea, all while RYSE tells us that enrolments have dropped by 1/3.

    PS> Did you notice in the latest grad numbers that RYSE graduates 100% of its students – but only 8% can score a 62.5% or better on the math test.

    Comment by Bill Felkner — June 7, 2008 @ 7:51 pm | Reply

  40. Chariho will graduate anyone who stays in school long enough. No point dropping out if your guaranteed a diploma. Who cares are accreditation when students who can’t do math are graduated. Under these circumstances a Chariho diploma is meaningless.

    Comment by Real Question — June 8, 2008 @ 7:15 pm | Reply

  41. We lost accreditation during the 80’s when the school had double sessions, which was prior to the middle school.

    We have doctors and lawyers in our ’83 graduating class. Ask Mr. Petit. The accreditation was made out to be more than it really was at that time.

    Quite frankly, the colleges and universities use the SAT’s and college entrance exams to evaluate the applicants.

    Plus, they want your money.

    Comment by Lois Buck — June 8, 2008 @ 11:04 pm | Reply

  42. Lawyers? Maybe if Chariho had been accredited they could have made something of themselves?

    Comment by Real Question — June 8, 2008 @ 11:30 pm | Reply

  43. Good one!

    Comment by Lois Buck — June 9, 2008 @ 8:14 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: