Report Inappropriate Comments

Mr. Testa:

Like other commenters here, I appreciate your reply. I also looked at Cranston's numbers to compare with Warwick's, using the links I provided earlier:

2014-15: 10,457 enrollment, $46.6 million state aid, $140.8 million local

2015-16: 10,441 enrollment, $50.6 million state aid, $144.6 million local

2016-17: 10,415 enrollment, $55.4 million state aid, $149.5 million local

2017-18: 10,364 enrollment, $58.1 million state aid, $154 million local

Taken together, that's a difference of 97 in enrollment, and increases of $11.5 million in state aid and $13.2 million in local contributions.

Compared that to Warwick's reduction of 324 students [my earlier statement of 328 was incorrect] and net increase of $3.05 million in state aid. At the same time, the local contribution in Warwick went from $158.8 million in FY2015 to $159.9 million in FY2016, to $161.1 million in FY2017 and $162.2 million in FY2018, an overall increase of $3.4 million.

Going strictly by these numbers, Warwick lost about 3.5% of its enrollment while getting 3.3% more in state and local aid, as Cranston's enrollment stayed basically the same while getting 13.3% more. Another way to state this is that Warwick's contributions rose at 25% the rate of Cranston's while its enrollment fell at three times the rate as Cranston's.

However it is expressed, the data show that Cranston's enrollment hasn't fallen as much as Warwick's and its contributions have increased at a faster rate as a result.

While I don't know whether this would be considered a "rational ratio," it does seem to follow logically that a school department that is losing hundreds of students should not get as much funding as another one that is not.

And as the consolidation continues in Warwick, there will be fewer buildings to maintain, fewer teachers to pay, and lower overall costs for the school department. Cranston is undergoing no such process, so a comparison is difficult to make.

Ultimately, as other commenters have suggested, the question facing Warwick is how to bring more students into our schools. Personally, I think putting an end to the labor disputes that have unfortunately characterized Warwick for nearly three decades is a start. That simply doesn't happen with one signed contract in five years. And that doesn't happen when what should be easy-to-conclude contract negotiations are dragged out for two years in arbitration, mediation, and court cases.

As I mentioned above, think about the educational and social opportunities that Warwick students just lost over the last three years amid the labor conflict; it stands to reason that ending those conflicts -- keeping Warwick out of the headlines for yet another round of teacher contract battles -- would improve those opportunities for students and lead parents to move to Warwick for our schools.