Lexington: A Sustainable Future

Guest Commentary by Mark Andersen

            Lexington residents are frustrated by the funding crisis for our public schools.  Advocates for our children are discouraged by failed overrides and diminished support for programs.  Taxpayer advocates are dismayed by the regular march of tax increases with no sign of abatement.

            Yet, a structural problem underlies this fiscal crisis, which requires shared recognition and action by the community as a whole, particularly the Selectmen and Planning Board.  I propose to you that the town budget will be a cause for strife until the taxable base per student is significantly increased.

            Lest you think I state the obvious, I am going to take this argument in a new direction.  Lexington is a bedroom community, yet the problem we face is more severe than that faced by our neighbors.  In particular, there is evidence that Lexington has failed to attract and retain residents without children in schools.

            Let’s start with some basic facts about our town and schools.  Below is a table which shows the number of students and residents in Lexington and comparable or neighboring towns:

K-12 Schools	2005-06 School District Enrollment	2005 US Census population estimate	% of residents in a public school
Newton	11,567	83,158	14%
Lexington	6,253	30,266	21%
Andover	6,017	33,042	18%
Brookline	6,014	55,590	11%
Waltham	4,731	59,556	8%
Woburn	4,667	37,147	13%
Wellesley	4,559	26,978	17%
Arlington	4,522	41,224	11%
Winchester	3,802	21,181	18%
Belmont	3,694	23,371	16%
Burlington	3,551	23,299	15%
Weston	2,355	11,581	20%
Bedford	2,282	12,462	18%

            What should strike you about this list is that Lexington has the second largest school system of these towns.  Our school district is more than one-half  Newton’s size, but our community is hardly as large.  Our school system is larger than those in much larger communities such as Brookline and Waltham.  And our school system is larger than that found in comparably sized communities.  We should ask: why does Lexington have a much higher % of residents in school?

            Another statistic illustrates how Lexington stands out: how many adults live in each community per child attending public schools?   The following table gives a surprising answer:

K-12 Schools	2005-06 School District Enrollment	2000 US Census: Population Aged 21 and older	Adults per child in public school
Newton	11,567	61,286	5.3
Lexington	6,253	21,813	3.5
Andover	6,017	21,506	3.6
Brookline	6,014	45,876	7.6
Waltham	4,731	45,234	9.6
Woburn	4,667	28,419	6.1
Wellesley	4,559	17,589	3.9
Arlington	4,522	33,898	7.5
Winchester	3,802	15,118	4.0
Belmont	3,694	18,268	4.9
Burlington	3,551	16,887	4.8
Weston	2,355	7,733	3.3
Bedford	2,282	9,402	4.1

            Lexington has fewer adults per child attending schools than most comparison communities.  In fact, in Lexington there are only 3.5 adults per child in our schools.  And while our school children rely on only 3.5 adults to provide their public education, let us remember that those adults include seniors and others not in the labor pool.

            I suggest the big picture: whether we spend additional funds per pupil is not as material to our budget as the relative number of students to taxpayers in our community.  This ratio underlies the constant pressure on Lexington’s resources.

            This problem is compounded by a state education aid system which penalizes Lexington both for good schools and high income levels.  Little account is taken of the fact that Lexington’s good fortune sustains many students.  In fact, because Lexington educates many students with little compensation (Chapter 70 and building reimbursement), I have urged our School Committee to negotiate firmly with the state and Boston regarding METCO reimbursements.

            In the short run, I think we need to bring the community together to understand and discuss this structural problem.  Advocates for children should understand that until this problem is fixed, it would be difficult for Lexington to reach similar per pupil expenditures to comparison districts.  Conversely, opponents of higher taxes should appreciate that adjustments to per pupil costs cannot compensate for our disproportionate share of students.

            We have an opportunity to come together and work on a long term structural issue: how can we actively manage our school-aged population while maintaining excellent schools? 

To begin this conversation, here are a few suggestions:

Firstly, we should make Lexington even more attractive to people who do not presently have children in schools.  Diversify the housing stock, support seniors, expand our lecture series, create venues of interest to young adults, improve transportation access to downtown via Alewife, and continue to reduce Hanscom and highway noise pollution.  I absolutely support world-class education, but believe we have a shared interest in attracting residents without children and reducing departures of those whose children have graduated from our schools.

Secondly, until Lexington is in line with its comparison districts, public policies should be evaluated in terms of how they impact the number of students.  While my family enjoys living in a community with many school children, I propose that we slowly bring Lexington more in line with comparison districts.  Perhaps Lexington’s low-income housing can be targeted at single people in need.  Also, we should ask whether cluster housing has successfully attracted down-sizing adults or instead families cramming into slightly smaller quarters.  Minor policy changes can have magnified and indirect impacts on our long term town budget.

Without active control, I fear the future could prove bleak.  Health care costs will continue to rise, special education will become more costly, and state aid will at most trickle.  Do you support excellent schools?  Do you want to protect your home values?  Then we must work together as a community to shape our future and create a sustainable Lexington for tomorrow.