Approximately 80 residents listen to Stu Sklar and Kirsten Wright share their views on the School Committee’s responsibilities on Tuesday, April 13. (Photos by Lisa Aciukewicz)

Stu Sklar (left) and Kirsten Wright.

Stu Sklar and Kirsten Wright, the two candidates for School Committee, don’t agree on support for a Proposition 2½ override this year to reduce the burden of school activity user fees on families. They also have different views on the issue of School Choice. The candidates explained their positions in an amicable debate sponsored by the Harvard Press and League of Women Voters last Tuesday night in Volunteers Hall, with roughly 80 townspeople in attendance.

Differences in style were more apparent than differences on the issues. Sklar, the incumbent, was clearly more comfortable in speaking to a sizable gathering. Wright acknowledged her nervousness at the outset but seemed to gradually grow more at ease.

In their opening statements, candidates described their backgrounds. Sklar explained that he had first gotten involved with the Suburban Coalition, a group of towns that banded together to counter the advantage that urban areas have in dealing with the state legislature. He was later elected to the School Committee, where he said his background in sales helped him lead two successful teacher contract negotiations.

Wright emphasized her 30 years of teaching, first in the public schools and currently at a private school. She explained that she had left the public schools because the many state mandates had made it very difficult to teach there, but that she was still deeply committed to public education. She later noted that no one on the current School Committee has a background in education.

The major issue on which the candidates differed significantly was School Choice. Asked about the program, Wright said, “It has saved us some heartache, that’s for sure,” referring to the money that Choice students bring into Harvard’s budget. She argued, however, that it was currently more important to focus on students from Devens, rather than bringing more students into the system. “We have adopted a community, and that is something we need to treasure.” She opposed accepting choice students at the kindergarten level. “If we take them in kindergarten we have them for 13 years,” she said.

Stu Sklar and Kirsten Wright shake hands at the end of their debate.

Sklar countered that next year’s kindergarten enrollment is currently only 53 students, which would create three rather large classes of 17 or 18 children each. The addition of seven Choice students would allow for four smaller classes, he said, with the Choice funds mostly covering the cost of the additional teacher. At the upper grade levels, he noted that Choice students help keep each grade at about 100 students. If the schools fall much below that level, he said, the Bromfield School would not be able to offer as many electives as it does.

Wright and Sklar also differed on whether or not the override to reduce athletic user fees should be on the ballot. Answering first, Wright said emphatically that she did not support the override. “It was disappointing when I saw how carefully they had crafted the budget and had cut educational leadership. Then Stu put forth the idea of the override, with $31,000 to come from the budget that had just been created.” While recognizing the burden that athletic fees put on many families, she said that an override was “insensitive” given the current economy. Overrides, she commented, should be reserved for “unexpected emergencies.”

Sklar responded, “This was not Stu Sklar’s override. It was the Bromfield School Council’s.” As liaison from the School Committee on that council, Sklar said, he had researched how to achieve the council’s goals—cutting fees by half and setting the same fee for all sports. “All an override does is give the voters a chance to say what they want,” he added, saying either outcome on the issue was all right with him.

About midway in the debate, the moderator asked, “If you could do anything you wanted for the Harvard schools, what would it be?” Sklar responded emphatically, “I would like to solve the funding crisis. Our costs go up more than 2.5 percent a year, even if we don’t change anything.”

Wright, in her turn, said she would not focus so much on funding. “I would concentrate on staying within the budget,” she said, seeking “creative ways to improve and maintain our excellence.”

Throughout the debate, both candidates repeatedly referred to the importance of the contract with MassDevelopment to educate Devens students from kindergarten through high school. Both acknowledged that the contract was essential to the school budget, and both expressed concern at what might befall the Harvard schools when the contract ends. Sklar pointed out that more than 70 teachers have applied for one opening at the Bromfield School this year, largely because of the many layoffs in other schools around the state. The Devens money has helped Harvard avoid such cuts.

Audience questions led the candidates to discuss several new issues. Both Wright and Sklar stated that they would be willing to look at alternative administrative models for Harvard, such as sharing a superintendent or special education programs.

Asked whether the teachers’ health insurance would be taxed as a “Cadillac” plan when national health reform takes effect, Sklar announced that all the unions in Harvard had accepted a plan with higher copayments and deductibles so that it does not fall into the “Cadillac” classification. He praised both the unions and town officials for achieving this settlement, saying, “There are many towns where the unions won’t even sit at the table to talk about this.”