Why Should Newton Provide $7.5M/Year Worth of Educational Services to Other Towns for Free?

We are absolutely stunned that the tax-hikers who are pushing these three extravagantly expensive overrides are demanding $11.4M/year in new property taxes beyond the limitations of Proposition 2.5 while refusing to consider having other towns pay their fair share of the costs associated with educating their children in our school system.
We have evaluated the issue of the 538 non-resident schoolchildren attending Newton Public Schools.  We have concluded that the Newton School Committee, the Board of Aldermen and the Mayor have engaged in a gross dereliction of their fiduciary duty to Newton taxpayers by refusing to acknowledge that Newton provides a $7.5M/year value to other cities and towns for educating their children in our school system.  
We are also furious with the tax-hikers and our elected officials for their rhetorical gymnastics employed in order to misinform Newton residents about this issue.  We're told that 538 non-resident children do not represent a material cost at the margin but hundreds of Newton kids at the margin require three extravagantly expensive property tax overrides in order to build new schools, hire new teachers and a laundry list of other spending programs.
We thought we made it abundantly clear why we believed that the cost estimates by the tax-hikers were not applicable.  We also took the liberty of evaluating the annual value we provide to the city that benefits the most from sending its kids to our school system.  However we have decided to reinforce our original analysis and evaluation with the following facts to further buttress our conclusion.

• We don’t have a reciprocal agreement with Boston to allow Newton resident students to attend prestigious exam schools (Boston Latin, Boston English etc.)
• We spend $12.5M before state aid ($9M after state aid) in sending 167 Newton kids out-of-district.
• 145 METCO kids (36% according to School Committee Chairperson Sokoloff & Newton CFO Lemieux are Special Education/IEP students)
• 31 non-resident kids are hearing impaired
• Newton Public Schools have enrolled 863 more students in 2013 versus 2009 and as such whatever space may have been available in 2009 has probably dissipated in 2013
• It is folly to suggest that 538 non-resident kids don’t represent a material cost while hundreds of new Newton kids represent a need to increase educational spending by $9.2M/year over and above the Prop 2.5 limitations.
• If we offset the enrollment growth in Newton kids over the last 11 years by discontinuing educational services to non-resident kids, this would have offset nearly half of the enrollment growth that took place during this period
• METCO’s reimbursement rates have been reduced by 20% since 2008.  Override Supporter and Newton Alderman Ruthanne Fuller tipped us off to that.
• Boston is able to defray $60M per year in educational expenses by sending 3,184 of its children to suburban schools in greater Boston.
• Boston is able to offer a 30% residential property tax exemption (which ends up reducing the effective real estate residential property tax rate from $13.14/$1000 to $9.19/$1000 of assessed valuation and this is 20% less than the $11.49/$1000 that Newton taxpayers pay).
• Jeff Seideman still supports demanding full reimbursement for METCO and Ken Parker has also expressed support for increased reimbursements as well
• Boston can afford to pay $7.5M/annually to Newton since it has a $1.3 billion portfolio of cash, bonds and other marketable securities.
• If Boston paid the $7.5M/year we are pursuing, it would pay for the infrastructure related projects sought by the overrides without asking for additional taxes.
• Would the METCO program experience really change in any way, shape or form if Boston kicked in with a $7.5M check every year to supplement the meager state aid we get? 
• We think the METCO agency said it best when it said “given the low reimbursement and the present level funding of the program, it is unclear exactly how a school district could join without additional overall funding to the program itself.”
• If the Commonwealth is unwilling to pay the $7.5M in increased reimbursements we are seeking and the native districts are unable to pay the $7.5M we are seeking, then why can’t private individuals or organizations like the Carnegie endowments pay it?  Carnegie helped establish METCO in 1966.

In conclusion, Newton gets full tuition reimbursement for 4 non-resident kids (Special Education).  Newton garnered $79,155 from those home districts, this was according to Sokoloff and Lemieux and we feel is the clinching argument for why Newton needs Boston and other home districts to chip in with their share of the costs associated with Newton educating their children in Newton Public Schools.  Our $7.5M targeted increase in reimbursement sought is on a net of state aid basis because current state aid levels are not sufficient and have been cut by 20% since 2008.  In short, we urge Newton residents to vote NO on the three extravagantly expensive property tax (override) increase ballot questions because it is morally wrong for Newton's elected officials to demand $11.4M/year in new taxes while allowing $7.5M/year in educational service benefits to accrue to other cities and towns.