[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::maynard

Title:Maynard -- Center of the Universe
Notice:Welcome to our new digs...
Moderator:PRAGMA::GRIFFIN
Created:Wed Aug 06 1986
Last Modified:Thu Feb 20 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:509
Total number of notes:4062

247.0. "Article offensive to Maynard?" by GTIGUY::CLOSE () Mon Oct 08 1990 12:26

    Tell me if I'm too sensitive about this. I this week's edition of
    that Sunday newspaper/ad package that gets delivered on Saturday
    afternoons, there's a column by Jack Spillane called West of Boston.
    He's discussing the high school regionalization issue. He raises
    some legitimate points, but I found his tone very troubling.
    
    As a Maynard resident, I found his column to be condescending, smug,
    and full of generalizations. Did anyone else read it this way?
    
    Examples:  Maynard is referred to as a "working class town" surrounded
    by wealthier brethren; as a "struggling blue collar town"; as "lower
    middle class"; as coming out on the "short end of a class" conflict.
    He writes a little paragraph about how "spunky" working class people
    are inclined to say something like "this is how we look, and if
    you don't like it, we don't care" (I'm paraphrasing here).
    
    There's an exagerated little scenario imagining an Acton parent
    expressing disappointment that their son is dating a Maynard girl.
    
    Now, Spillane is saying these things in support of Maynard. He writes
    about how impressed he is with WAVM and with the high school. His
    anti-regionalization points are worth considering (although I favor
    regionalization). But his column made me mad. I think he needs an
    attitude check about his feelings towards the "working class", whatever
    that is. His column is full of generalizations about Maynard that
    I find offensive. Does anyone agree?
    
    Also, his stirring defense of "spunky, lower middle class" Maynard
    against those elitist meanies in Acton backfires, I think. I won't
    concede one inch or one IQ point in comparing Maynard High kids
    to Acton kids. Spillane does a backhanded disservice to Maynard
    by "defending" it against the better-funded Acton schools and students.
    And people in Maynard who oppose regionalizing because they fear
    Maynard students will be treated as inferiors are creating an
    atmosphere which will ensure just that.
    
    Opinions?
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
247.1Curious...PRAGMA::GRIFFINDave GriffinMon Oct 08 1990 13:553
What generalization of the citizens of Maynard would you not find offensive?

- dave
247.2Your point?GTIGUY::CLOSEMon Oct 08 1990 13:587
    Your point?
    
    Are you saying you think all generalizations are offensive? Or that
    the generalizations in Spillane's column are not offensive to you?
    
    I'm just trying to gauge my reaction to this against that of others.
    
247.3PAXVAX::RUZICHSteve Ruzich, VAXELN EngineeringMon Oct 08 1990 14:1565
.0>    As a Maynard resident, I found his column to be condescending, smug,
.0>    and full of generalizations. Did anyone else read it this way?

I think it is clear that Spillane tries to use a very confrontational approach,
a very sharp tongue.  Often, I have disagreed with him in the past. 
His approach guarentees that if you think he's wrong on any point, you won't
just have a polite difference of opinion - he's going you make you livid. 

I think in this case, he is raising real issues which deserve discussion.

Personally, I didn't find it smug and condescending.  I thought that Spillane
expressed opinions I've been hearing in town since the idea of regionalization
was first raised.  The problem is, that no one is comfortable standing up in a
meeting and saying such things.  Maynard is not wholly working-class, and is
certainly less so than in the past.  However, the question is one of attitudes
of people in both towns toward one another.

Talk to people who have lived here all their lives.

.0>    Also, his stirring defense of "spunky, lower middle class" Maynard
.0>    against those elitist meanies in Acton backfires, I think. I won't
.0>    concede one inch or one IQ point in comparing Maynard High kids
.0>    to Acton kids. 

IQ is hardly the point - I don't concede IQ to Acton either.  The question
is whether Maynard kids are going to integrate well in Acton, whether they
are going to profit from the experience, that is, whether they find
themselves in the stands, rather than on the playing field. 

.0>    by "defending" it against the better-funded Acton schools and students.

Funding is close to equal, in terms of the per-pupil expenditures reported
to the State.  I attended the recent Acton-Boxboro School Committee meeting at
which the AB Committee endorsed regionalization, and they pointed out that
funding was nearly the same.  The entire Maynard School Committee attended,
too, and they didn't disagree when the AB committee said that funding was equal.

The future difference in funding is that if we regionalize with Acton and
Boxboro, we lose control.  If two out of the three towns pass a school budget,
then the third town will *have* to pay their share of that budget, regardless
of whether they want to or not.  Thus, we lose the ability to set priorities.

We would also lose control of curriculum.  There are different ratios of
School Committees being proposed, depending on whether regionalization is
being proposed on a K-12 or 7-12 basis, but in any case, Acton would have
more seats than Maynard and Boxboro.

Automony is a big deal - Boxboro has voted down K-12 regionalization twice 
('77 and '90). Maybe they know something. 

.0>    And people in Maynard who oppose regionalizing because they fear
.0>    Maynard students will be treated as inferiors are creating an
.0>    atmosphere which will ensure just that.

No, I think the apprehension has much older roots.

Obviously, there are compelling arguments on both sides of regionalization.
I've been pulled back and forth when I think of all the what-if's involving
the town, the potential for State aid given the CTL ballot question, who's
running the various school committees, and what my daughter is likely to face. 

I think we're better off having our own school system, and running it right. 

-Steve
247.4Re: .2PRAGMA::GRIFFINDave GriffinMon Oct 08 1990 20:3819
Sorry, I didn't really have time to contribute to the degree I should have.

I was curious to hear how you might "sum up" an entire community in a few
words in such a way that represented it and didn't offend anyone when it
was compared to something else.   I'm not sure it can be done, so whenever
I see attributions of "working-class community" applied to any community I
take it all with a grain of salt.   As Steve points out in .3, the author
writes his articles to create discussion -- see we're doing it!   A sensitive
person in Acton probably took offense at their community being portrayed
as a group of snobs or nouveau riche upper-class whatevers.   I don't think
that either side of the fence received a glowing review.

To answer your question directly - I wasn't all that offended by the article
because it said a lot of things that other people have said before.  I can
easily see how a Maynard resident could be offended -- especially if they
are sensitive to town pride (which is not to say that I'm not ... right? :-) -- 
it is difficult to put complex situations into a small number words. Sigh!) 

- dave
247.5Quality education vs. "control"RACHEL::BARABASHThis note was written by TECOWed Oct 24 1990 14:5310
  RE: .3

  The citizens of Boxboro didn't know better.  You get a different view of
  the situation depending on whether or not you ask parents of school-age
  children.   Parents are angry and upset that their children are not able
  to participate in the extended day and extracurricular activities they
  would otherwise have been able to.  Non-parents are happy as clams that
  the town of Boxboro has "control".

  -- Bill B.
247.6That was an odd commentPRNSYS::LOMICKAJJeffrey A. LomickaMon Oct 29 1990 16:134
Why wouldn't kids be able to participate in after-school activities in a
regionalized high school?  Is that bacause the larger student body makes
it harder for students to "make the team" or "get the part in the play",
or is it because it's too far away to walk home?
247.7Grades K-6 were not regionalizedRACHEL::BARABASHThis note was written by TECOWed Oct 31 1990 13:274
  I was referring to grades K-6 which are not regionalized.  The proposal to
  regionalize those grades was defeated in the most recent Boxboro Town Mtg.

  -- Bill B.