The world of instant communications via the internet and instant messaging services has created an environment that schools find increasingly difficult to regulate or influence. Complicating the issue is the limited authority of schools and the individual rights of teens and children to express freely their thoughts and comments on social media. This area deserves much judicial attention and in fact will take many years of litigation in order to draw reasonable conclusions about the ability of school officials to intervene when student speech reaches a broad audience via cyberspace.
A review of fundamental issues regarding student free speech rights reveal how little school officials can control the content of student online expression especially if the student speech originates off campus. Students have a constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression as granted by the United States Constitution. The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and applies this concept to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In my home state of New Jersey, the free speech clause is found in Article I, paragraph 6, and states that “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech…” The freedom of expression encompasses non-verbal and verbal speech, including expressive conduct which conveys a particularized message that must generally be understood by those viewing it. When expressed views are controversial the government must be tolerant of the rights of individuals to express their views. Students cannot be disciplined or even punished for expressing their personal views on school property unless school officials have reasons to expect that the speech or expressive conduct will substantially interfere with the operation of the school and this becomes more complex when student views are expressed off school property.
A school district can restrict certain speech depending on the forum in which the speech or expression occurs. This becomes clear if the speech originates on school grounds or at a school sponsored function when that speech is lewd, vulgar or profane, or if the speech advocates for the illegal use of drugs. When an observer would view student speech as that of the school’s own speech on the basis of legitimate pedagogical concerns, or if the speech were powerful enough to cause a substantial disruption to the educational process or the rights of other students at school, school officials may act to limit or restrict such speech. Three types of forums exist: open forums, limited public forums, and closed public forums. The open forum is a traditional place with a long-standing tradition of free expression such as sidewalks, streets, parks, shopping malls, and generally any public venue like the Internet. Limited pubic forums and closed public forums allow governmental limits to certain types or forms of public speech as long as government policies are reasonable and do are not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint nor can such policies discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint of the speaker.
School policies are generally designed to control student speech and conduct attributable to actions occurring when students attend school or school sponsored events. It is wise to note that most children and young adults attend school only about one-sixth of their lives from birth to eighteen years of age. The other five-fifths in the lives of youth occur in public settings, communities, or homes and these actions generally are not within reach of school officials. This is an important component for consideration given that the majority of student speech originates in the public or private sector of society and not in school buildings.
School officials are confronted these days with complex questions when asked to deal with the phenomenon of what has become to be known as “Cyberbullying”. This area of student speech is largely unregulated and often results in what researchers have characterized as “willful and repeated harm” inflicted through phones and computers toward other children or students. Remember that cell phones have just recently evolved into tiny computers with internet capabilities including not only texting but photographic and video sharing of content. Often, school disciplinary codes of conduct define very little about the authority of educators to regulate online student speech and expression due to the lack of authority that school officials actually have regarding these matters. Whether the responsibility for regulating student conduct online falls to the family, the police, or the schools remains an open question for modern society to explore.
The issues of student speech and content of online speech will remain problematic for school officials unless such speech materially and substantially interferes with maintaining discipline and the general safe operation of the school. One example would be an off campus threat of violence made by a student such as a bomb threat or “hit list” against specific individuals. The more complex issues revolve around non-violent, non-threatening speech that may simply be vulgar, offensive or harassing. Courts are clearly divided on the ability of school officials to regulate or even react to student online speech that originates off campus. Numerous cases have risen in various circuit courts and the overwhelming majority of cases have been found in favor of the free speech rights of students or children.
It is increasingly more apparent that the Internet has created a revolution in the manner in which society communicates. Students will use the Internet as a vehicle for social interaction, communication, and information. Young people will use the online forum to criticize, attack, humiliate, embarrass and even anger other students or school officials. With respect to the type of speech that occurs on the Internet, the central question of whether such speech substantially interferes with the operation of the school will determine the appropriate reaction of school officials nationwide in future months or years. The facts or circumstances that may lead a reasonable person to conclude that the result of such speech will lead to classroom disruptions, acts of violence such as fights, defiant student behavior, and truancy, will be the determining factor guiding the actions of schools. The “materially and substantially interferes” threshold of law that applies to the appropriate discipline and operation of schools will continue to guide school officials in this confusing and complex area of student speech regulation. Until the courts have provided sufficient guidance to school officials, the Internet remains a wide-open public forum for expression that will evade restrictions or regulations due in part to the freedoms provided by the United States Constitution for all individuals in society including our youngest citizens.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Connection Between Student Achievement and Teacher Evaluation
The debate concerning the use of student progress as a measure of teacher performance is beginning to receive considerable attention nationwide. With the recent election of Chris Christie as governor of New Jersey this idea gained further traction in the Garden State. The sought after federal “Race to the Top” U.S. Department of Education grant for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding is contingent on a renewed teacher evaluation process that formally recognizes a correlation between student achievement and teacher performance. Is this a valid idea whose time has come? Ask yourself this question: In an era of increased accountability for public education why would any reliable system for evaluation not include student performance?
Here is the problem: The current system of teacher evaluation in use throughout New Jersey is far too narrow in scope and falls short in many key critical areas. This is primarily due to overreliance on outdated methods for assessing teaching performance linked to limited criteria. For example, a major flaw in the current process for evaluation is the sole reliance upon direct observation of teachers by principals or supervisors. Direct observation limits the evaluator’s view to only a fraction of total annual teaching time. As a result the evaluation process fails to offer a complete picture of employee performance. Therefore by design the common evaluation process for assessing teacher performance in New Jersey limits school administrators to only a snapshot of employee performance. What’s needed is a full motion picture of performance over time.
The dual mandates of teacher accountability and improvement of instruction are among the most important components of our schools and should be the centerpiece for valid and reliable teacher evaluation practices. Consider that the quality of any school district is directly linked to the performance of the individuals who work there. Administrators are in need of accurate and complete measures of employee performance in order to assure the best connection between qualifications and assignment of personnel. By extension, administrative decisions concerning teacher placement typically correlate with the overall achievement of students assigned to specific courses within a school. These important components need to be infused into a reliable and defensible evaluation process.
Classroom observation as a primary data source for evaluation provides only one snapshot of teaching actions and limits the administrator’s overall view of performance. The exclusive use of direct observation presumes that observable, overt teaching behaviors provide a sufficient basis for judging teacher adequacy and competencies. Hidden from view are the elements of teacher planning, modification of instructional materials, context and depth, working relationships with colleagues, and student growth factors. Equally important are the teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, content mastery, and feedback from students and parents.
The reforms that are shaping America’s public schools include a movement toward increased academic rigor, learner-centered schools, distributed leadership responsibilities, professional learning communities, and collaborative problem-solving. A new era of rapid technological change implies that teachers will need sustained professional growth experiences and the ability to communicate with many constituencies. Outdated and subjective teacher evaluation practices exclude most of the elements described above and contribute little to the student learning and growth measures needed today in our public schools.
If teachers and principals together are to be held accountable for student performance then they will need to have genuine and sustainable professional interactions that support teaching and learning. What is also needed is a mechanism for performance evaluation that takes into account multiple measures of student success. If evaluation protocols intend to respect the professionalism and qualities of excellent teaching then a more inclusive system for collecting, collaborating, analyzing and disaggregating data is needed. At the center for all of our efforts must be the growth and progress of the students we serve.
Schools now have access to multiple views and longitudinal data about student progress thanks to a decade of content standard development and standardized testing in America. Why not use this rich data to inform us about the effectiveness of teaching practices and behaviors in our public schools? Outdated evaluative practices merely offer a glimpse into the act of teaching as opposed to the results of teaching. This is an important shift for educators. Why do many professional teacher associations appear fearful of analyzing the results of teaching when considering the overall effectiveness of teaching behaviors?
In fact, teachers should be making their own case for valid and reliable evaluation practices rather than avoiding or deflecting this discussion. The reason schools exist as a public institution is to meet the needs of the children we serve. Teachers who are unwilling to accept responsibility for student progress or demonstrate consistently mediocre professionalism need to be counseled and removed. Unfortunately, only in extreme cases are schools able to facilitate the dismissal of ineffective teachers. In order to prevail in cases of dismissal school boards must rely upon a wealth of data absent from common evaluation practices in New Jersey.
Many other states have embraced the use of student data and multiple criteria for evaluation as part of a complete picture of employee performance. It is time for New Jersey to usher in a new era of accountability and cooperation based upon more modern and reliable assessments. Evaluation of teachers should contain multiple rating categories and procedures that value student growth and achievement. Evaluation must be fair, inclusive of constructive feedback, and connected to a foundation of support and shared professional development in schools.
New Jersey’s new administration has a golden opportunity to depart from the past practices that have limited the overall view of educational performance and innovation by advocating for evaluation reform. These reforms need to be consistent with the federal Department of Education’s Race to the Top funding goals as millions of dollars in federal support could be gained. This alone is reason enough to pursue some much needed reforms in educational evaluation.
If New Jersey is to embrace any form of merit pay for school employees it will first have to address the inconsistencies and shortcomings of current evaluation processes. The Commissioner of Education would be wise to inspect the educational changes that have taken root in other places and be prepared to break from outdated thinking about evaluation and accountability practices. This may finally be the best time for us to place students at the center of our renewed efforts to build excellent public schools in New Jersey. Isn’t that why our schools exist in the first place?
Here is the problem: The current system of teacher evaluation in use throughout New Jersey is far too narrow in scope and falls short in many key critical areas. This is primarily due to overreliance on outdated methods for assessing teaching performance linked to limited criteria. For example, a major flaw in the current process for evaluation is the sole reliance upon direct observation of teachers by principals or supervisors. Direct observation limits the evaluator’s view to only a fraction of total annual teaching time. As a result the evaluation process fails to offer a complete picture of employee performance. Therefore by design the common evaluation process for assessing teacher performance in New Jersey limits school administrators to only a snapshot of employee performance. What’s needed is a full motion picture of performance over time.
The dual mandates of teacher accountability and improvement of instruction are among the most important components of our schools and should be the centerpiece for valid and reliable teacher evaluation practices. Consider that the quality of any school district is directly linked to the performance of the individuals who work there. Administrators are in need of accurate and complete measures of employee performance in order to assure the best connection between qualifications and assignment of personnel. By extension, administrative decisions concerning teacher placement typically correlate with the overall achievement of students assigned to specific courses within a school. These important components need to be infused into a reliable and defensible evaluation process.
Classroom observation as a primary data source for evaluation provides only one snapshot of teaching actions and limits the administrator’s overall view of performance. The exclusive use of direct observation presumes that observable, overt teaching behaviors provide a sufficient basis for judging teacher adequacy and competencies. Hidden from view are the elements of teacher planning, modification of instructional materials, context and depth, working relationships with colleagues, and student growth factors. Equally important are the teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, content mastery, and feedback from students and parents.
The reforms that are shaping America’s public schools include a movement toward increased academic rigor, learner-centered schools, distributed leadership responsibilities, professional learning communities, and collaborative problem-solving. A new era of rapid technological change implies that teachers will need sustained professional growth experiences and the ability to communicate with many constituencies. Outdated and subjective teacher evaluation practices exclude most of the elements described above and contribute little to the student learning and growth measures needed today in our public schools.
If teachers and principals together are to be held accountable for student performance then they will need to have genuine and sustainable professional interactions that support teaching and learning. What is also needed is a mechanism for performance evaluation that takes into account multiple measures of student success. If evaluation protocols intend to respect the professionalism and qualities of excellent teaching then a more inclusive system for collecting, collaborating, analyzing and disaggregating data is needed. At the center for all of our efforts must be the growth and progress of the students we serve.
Schools now have access to multiple views and longitudinal data about student progress thanks to a decade of content standard development and standardized testing in America. Why not use this rich data to inform us about the effectiveness of teaching practices and behaviors in our public schools? Outdated evaluative practices merely offer a glimpse into the act of teaching as opposed to the results of teaching. This is an important shift for educators. Why do many professional teacher associations appear fearful of analyzing the results of teaching when considering the overall effectiveness of teaching behaviors?
In fact, teachers should be making their own case for valid and reliable evaluation practices rather than avoiding or deflecting this discussion. The reason schools exist as a public institution is to meet the needs of the children we serve. Teachers who are unwilling to accept responsibility for student progress or demonstrate consistently mediocre professionalism need to be counseled and removed. Unfortunately, only in extreme cases are schools able to facilitate the dismissal of ineffective teachers. In order to prevail in cases of dismissal school boards must rely upon a wealth of data absent from common evaluation practices in New Jersey.
Many other states have embraced the use of student data and multiple criteria for evaluation as part of a complete picture of employee performance. It is time for New Jersey to usher in a new era of accountability and cooperation based upon more modern and reliable assessments. Evaluation of teachers should contain multiple rating categories and procedures that value student growth and achievement. Evaluation must be fair, inclusive of constructive feedback, and connected to a foundation of support and shared professional development in schools.
New Jersey’s new administration has a golden opportunity to depart from the past practices that have limited the overall view of educational performance and innovation by advocating for evaluation reform. These reforms need to be consistent with the federal Department of Education’s Race to the Top funding goals as millions of dollars in federal support could be gained. This alone is reason enough to pursue some much needed reforms in educational evaluation.
If New Jersey is to embrace any form of merit pay for school employees it will first have to address the inconsistencies and shortcomings of current evaluation processes. The Commissioner of Education would be wise to inspect the educational changes that have taken root in other places and be prepared to break from outdated thinking about evaluation and accountability practices. This may finally be the best time for us to place students at the center of our renewed efforts to build excellent public schools in New Jersey. Isn’t that why our schools exist in the first place?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A Superintendent's Perspective on Budget Cuts to Public Education
The economic realities that confront the nation and particularly the state of New Jersey at this critical time have created a “perfect storm” for public school educational funding. We face the largest budget shortfall for school financing in at least half a century. The federal, state, and local commitment to fully fund public school budgets has been seriously eroded and the nationwide taxpayer frustration over increased taxes and spending have placed schools at serious risk of becoming underfinanced for 2010-2011 and beyond. As a result public schools nationwide are curtailing programs and cutting staff. According to one national survey by the American Association of School Administrators more than 275,000 teachers risk a loss of employment on July 1, 2010.
New Jersey is a good example of the current economic maelstrom. The recently elected New Jersey governor Chris Christie began a public campaign this winter to discredit the New Jersey Education Association and its membership. Governor Christie then cut educational funding statewide by $820 million. When school budgets were presented for elections in April Governor Christie encouraged taxpayers to turn out in record numbers to defeat ballot initiatives. As a result most of the school budgets in New Jersey were defeated. Following the defeat municipal governments were then empowered to further reduce school funding resulting in unprecedented and deep budget cuts.
In the district of Hopatcong, New Jersey, the above scenario had a dramatic effect on our total school budget for 2010-2011. Couple this with almost two decades of defeated budgets in Hopatcong (school budgets passed only four times in sixteen years) and the cumulative affect is proving to be devastating for our schools. The state reduced its share by 13.2% of the total budget resulting in a formula decrease of $1,700,962. The town council imposed an additional cut of $730,000 to this number resulting in a net loss of more than $2.4 million dollars. The impact will be immediate. Over twenty-four teaching positions will disappear from next year’s workforce in tiny Hopatcong.
Expected increases in required expenditures for 2010-2011 exacerbate these cuts by adding an additional burden of another $2 million to Hopatcong’s school budget. The cumulative effect is a net overall loss of about $4 million to accomplish the mission of our schools. The unprecedented cuts and projected costs will cause the Hopatcong school board to make reductions in positions and programs that will have profound implications for future years. In the past two years alone over forty teaching, operational, and administrative positions have been parsed from our workforce.
The overall impact of these projected cuts to next year’s school budget result in the reduction of the number of teachers available to teach courses, the downsizing of certain programs, the elimination of some sports and activities, and the curtailment of some advanced course offerings for students at the secondary level. Class sizes are expected to increase at all levels from Kindergarten through high school, and the ability of our teaching staff to personalize education for students has been seriously reduced. Activities that extend student learning outside the four walls of the classroom are also negatively affected. It is becoming increasingly harder to preserve the arts, student activities, and athletic programs for students.
The impact of the sudden and serious reductions to school funding may not be known for several years. What is recognized is the profound jeopardy that the reduction in resources and funding has placed our public schools in. The risks are very real that students will not receive the benefits of a comprehensive education they have come to expect. Ironically, New Jersey has built a national reputation on the accomplishments of its public schools with the highest math and language arts test scores in the nation, a dramatic reduction in the minority achievement gap, and the highest graduation rate of all the states.
Missing from this conversation are the realities that schools may not be able to deliver the high quality of services and educational experiences necessary for the future. The state demands a “thorough and efficient” education for each child yet it appears content to provide a “less than complete and effective” amount of funding to accomplish this. Let us not forget that quality public schools are not optional but necessary. We cannot fail to educate all of the children who enter our doors each day and prepare them for a profoundly different 21st century than the one we knew.
Superintendents and school boards will try to preserve as many programs as possible and our outstanding teachers will continue to strive for high outcomes in the years ahead. It is clear that all of us will have to embrace change and adjust to the new economic realities that are destined to alter the face of public education for years to come. What is not clear is our ability to predict the total net impact of all these changes on the people we employ and students we serve. Please know that the leadership of the Hopatcong Public Schools and many others across the state and nation will try our very best to analyze, assess, and adjust to the changing and challenging economic climate ahead for the sake of our children and our future.
New Jersey is a good example of the current economic maelstrom. The recently elected New Jersey governor Chris Christie began a public campaign this winter to discredit the New Jersey Education Association and its membership. Governor Christie then cut educational funding statewide by $820 million. When school budgets were presented for elections in April Governor Christie encouraged taxpayers to turn out in record numbers to defeat ballot initiatives. As a result most of the school budgets in New Jersey were defeated. Following the defeat municipal governments were then empowered to further reduce school funding resulting in unprecedented and deep budget cuts.
In the district of Hopatcong, New Jersey, the above scenario had a dramatic effect on our total school budget for 2010-2011. Couple this with almost two decades of defeated budgets in Hopatcong (school budgets passed only four times in sixteen years) and the cumulative affect is proving to be devastating for our schools. The state reduced its share by 13.2% of the total budget resulting in a formula decrease of $1,700,962. The town council imposed an additional cut of $730,000 to this number resulting in a net loss of more than $2.4 million dollars. The impact will be immediate. Over twenty-four teaching positions will disappear from next year’s workforce in tiny Hopatcong.
Expected increases in required expenditures for 2010-2011 exacerbate these cuts by adding an additional burden of another $2 million to Hopatcong’s school budget. The cumulative effect is a net overall loss of about $4 million to accomplish the mission of our schools. The unprecedented cuts and projected costs will cause the Hopatcong school board to make reductions in positions and programs that will have profound implications for future years. In the past two years alone over forty teaching, operational, and administrative positions have been parsed from our workforce.
The overall impact of these projected cuts to next year’s school budget result in the reduction of the number of teachers available to teach courses, the downsizing of certain programs, the elimination of some sports and activities, and the curtailment of some advanced course offerings for students at the secondary level. Class sizes are expected to increase at all levels from Kindergarten through high school, and the ability of our teaching staff to personalize education for students has been seriously reduced. Activities that extend student learning outside the four walls of the classroom are also negatively affected. It is becoming increasingly harder to preserve the arts, student activities, and athletic programs for students.
The impact of the sudden and serious reductions to school funding may not be known for several years. What is recognized is the profound jeopardy that the reduction in resources and funding has placed our public schools in. The risks are very real that students will not receive the benefits of a comprehensive education they have come to expect. Ironically, New Jersey has built a national reputation on the accomplishments of its public schools with the highest math and language arts test scores in the nation, a dramatic reduction in the minority achievement gap, and the highest graduation rate of all the states.
Missing from this conversation are the realities that schools may not be able to deliver the high quality of services and educational experiences necessary for the future. The state demands a “thorough and efficient” education for each child yet it appears content to provide a “less than complete and effective” amount of funding to accomplish this. Let us not forget that quality public schools are not optional but necessary. We cannot fail to educate all of the children who enter our doors each day and prepare them for a profoundly different 21st century than the one we knew.
Superintendents and school boards will try to preserve as many programs as possible and our outstanding teachers will continue to strive for high outcomes in the years ahead. It is clear that all of us will have to embrace change and adjust to the new economic realities that are destined to alter the face of public education for years to come. What is not clear is our ability to predict the total net impact of all these changes on the people we employ and students we serve. Please know that the leadership of the Hopatcong Public Schools and many others across the state and nation will try our very best to analyze, assess, and adjust to the changing and challenging economic climate ahead for the sake of our children and our future.
A Superintendent's Perspective on Budget Cuts to Public Education
The economic realities that confront the nation and particularly the state of New Jersey at this critical time have created a “perfect storm” for public school educational funding. We face the largest budget shortfall for school financing in at least half a century. The federal, state, and local commitment to fully fund public school budgets has been seriously eroded and the nationwide taxpayer frustration over increased taxes and spending have placed schools at serious risk of becoming underfinanced for 2010-2011 and beyond. As a result public schools nationwide are curtailing programs and cutting staff. According to one national survey by the American Association of School Administrators more than 275,000 teachers risk a loss of employment on July 1, 2010.
New Jersey is a good example of the current economic maelstrom. The recently elected New Jersey governor Chris Christie began a public campaign this winter to discredit the New Jersey Education Association and its membership. Governor Christie then cut educational funding statewide by $820 million. When school budgets were presented for elections in April Governor Christie encouraged taxpayers to turn out in record numbers to defeat ballot initiatives. As a result most of the school budgets in New Jersey were defeated. Following the defeat municipal governments were then empowered to further reduce school funding resulting in unprecedented and deep budget cuts.
In the district of Hopatcong, New Jersey, the above scenario had a dramatic effect on our total school budget for 2010-2011. Couple this with almost two decades of defeated budgets in Hopatcong (school budgets passed only four times in sixteen years) and the cumulative affect is proving to be devastating for our schools. The state reduced its share by 13.2% of the total budget resulting in a formula decrease of $1,700,962. The town council imposed an additional cut of $730,000 to this number resulting in a net loss of more than $2.4 million dollars. The impact will be immediate. Over twenty-four teaching positions will disappear from next year’s workforce in tiny Hopatcong.
Expected increases in required expenditures for 2010-2011 exacerbate these cuts by adding an additional burden of another $2 million to Hopatcong’s school budget. The cumulative effect is a net overall loss of about $4 million to accomplish the mission of our schools. The unprecedented cuts and projected costs will cause the Hopatcong school board to make reductions in positions and programs that will have profound implications for future years. In the past two years alone over forty teaching, operational, and administrative positions have been parsed from our workforce.
The overall impact of these projected cuts to next year’s school budget result in the reduction of the number of teachers available to teach courses, the downsizing of certain programs, the elimination of some sports and activities, and the curtailment of some advanced course offerings for students at the secondary level. Class sizes are expected to increase at all levels from Kindergarten through high school, and the ability of our teaching staff to personalize education for students has been seriously reduced. Activities that extend student learning outside the four walls of the classroom are also negatively affected. It is becoming increasingly harder to preserve the arts, student activities, and athletic programs for students.
The impact of the sudden and serious reductions to school funding may not be known for several years. What is recognized is the profound jeopardy that the reduction in resources and funding has placed our public schools in. The risks are very real that students will not receive the benefits of a comprehensive education they have come to expect. Ironically, New Jersey has built a national reputation on the accomplishments of its public schools with the highest math and language arts test scores in the nation, a dramatic reduction in the minority achievement gap, and the highest graduation rate of all the states.
Missing from this conversation are the realities that schools may not be able to deliver the high quality of services and educational experiences necessary for the future. The state demands a “thorough and efficient” education for each child yet it appears content to provide a “less than complete and effective” amount of funding to accomplish this. Let us not forget that quality public schools are not optional but necessary. We cannot fail to educate all of the children who enter our doors each day and prepare them for a profoundly different 21st century than the one we knew.
Superintendents and school boards will try to preserve as many programs as possible and our outstanding teachers will continue to strive for high outcomes in the years ahead. It is clear that all of us will have to embrace change and adjust to the new economic realities that are destined to alter the face of public education for years to come. What is not clear is our ability to predict the total net impact of all these changes on the people we employ and students we serve. Please know that the leadership of the Hopatcong Public Schools and many others across the state and nation will try our very best to analyze, assess, and adjust to the changing and challenging economic climate ahead for the sake of our children and our future.
New Jersey is a good example of the current economic maelstrom. The recently elected New Jersey governor Chris Christie began a public campaign this winter to discredit the New Jersey Education Association and its membership. Governor Christie then cut educational funding statewide by $820 million. When school budgets were presented for elections in April Governor Christie encouraged taxpayers to turn out in record numbers to defeat ballot initiatives. As a result most of the school budgets in New Jersey were defeated. Following the defeat municipal governments were then empowered to further reduce school funding resulting in unprecedented and deep budget cuts.
In the district of Hopatcong, New Jersey, the above scenario had a dramatic effect on our total school budget for 2010-2011. Couple this with almost two decades of defeated budgets in Hopatcong (school budgets passed only four times in sixteen years) and the cumulative affect is proving to be devastating for our schools. The state reduced its share by 13.2% of the total budget resulting in a formula decrease of $1,700,962. The town council imposed an additional cut of $730,000 to this number resulting in a net loss of more than $2.4 million dollars. The impact will be immediate. Over twenty-four teaching positions will disappear from next year’s workforce in tiny Hopatcong.
Expected increases in required expenditures for 2010-2011 exacerbate these cuts by adding an additional burden of another $2 million to Hopatcong’s school budget. The cumulative effect is a net overall loss of about $4 million to accomplish the mission of our schools. The unprecedented cuts and projected costs will cause the Hopatcong school board to make reductions in positions and programs that will have profound implications for future years. In the past two years alone over forty teaching, operational, and administrative positions have been parsed from our workforce.
The overall impact of these projected cuts to next year’s school budget result in the reduction of the number of teachers available to teach courses, the downsizing of certain programs, the elimination of some sports and activities, and the curtailment of some advanced course offerings for students at the secondary level. Class sizes are expected to increase at all levels from Kindergarten through high school, and the ability of our teaching staff to personalize education for students has been seriously reduced. Activities that extend student learning outside the four walls of the classroom are also negatively affected. It is becoming increasingly harder to preserve the arts, student activities, and athletic programs for students.
The impact of the sudden and serious reductions to school funding may not be known for several years. What is recognized is the profound jeopardy that the reduction in resources and funding has placed our public schools in. The risks are very real that students will not receive the benefits of a comprehensive education they have come to expect. Ironically, New Jersey has built a national reputation on the accomplishments of its public schools with the highest math and language arts test scores in the nation, a dramatic reduction in the minority achievement gap, and the highest graduation rate of all the states.
Missing from this conversation are the realities that schools may not be able to deliver the high quality of services and educational experiences necessary for the future. The state demands a “thorough and efficient” education for each child yet it appears content to provide a “less than complete and effective” amount of funding to accomplish this. Let us not forget that quality public schools are not optional but necessary. We cannot fail to educate all of the children who enter our doors each day and prepare them for a profoundly different 21st century than the one we knew.
Superintendents and school boards will try to preserve as many programs as possible and our outstanding teachers will continue to strive for high outcomes in the years ahead. It is clear that all of us will have to embrace change and adjust to the new economic realities that are destined to alter the face of public education for years to come. What is not clear is our ability to predict the total net impact of all these changes on the people we employ and students we serve. Please know that the leadership of the Hopatcong Public Schools and many others across the state and nation will try our very best to analyze, assess, and adjust to the changing and challenging economic climate ahead for the sake of our children and our future.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Economic Downturn Devastates Public Schools
In my prior blogs as Superintendent of Hopatcong Public Schools I emphasized the unusual challenges we face this year as a result of the uncertain economic times. These circumstances cause us to do things as a school board that under normal conditions would not be even thought of. The idea that a massive reduction-in-force is taking place nationwide seems unreal given the potential that 275,000 public school employees may out of work this July 1, 2010 (AASA 5/4/2010). This is unprecedented. The Public Schools of Hopatcong are in a similar position with a serious budget shortfall looming, increased mandated expenses, and other necessary contractual obligations pending.
We anticipated the loss of about twenty-four key positions prior to our budget election. Due to the defeat of the school budget it appears that the governing bodies may reduce the proposed budget even further. Historically and unfortunately, this has been the pattern in Hopatcong. During these difficult budgetary times of increased expenses and state reductions any further cuts will no doubt result in the additional loss of staff members. By extension, the loss of additional teachers will be certain to affect instruction at the classroom level as class sizes rise across grade levels.
According to the American Association of School Administrators (5/4/2010), Projection of National Education Job Cuts for the 2010-2011 School Year, a survey documenting personnel cuts in education found that school systems across the nation are facing serious challenges as a result of the economic downturn. AASA asserts that 82% of school districts reporting will cut or eliminate education jobs by July 1, 2010. The 300,000 jobs saved last year by virtue of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act will likely be reduced by 92%.
According to the Economic Policy Institute every 100,000 education jobs lost translates into roughly 30,000 jobs lost in other sectors due to reduced spending by school districts. Schools have been insulated from the impact of the economic conditions to this date due to the lag in contracts and the variation in their fiscal year - typically from July 1 through June 30. However, when July 1, 2010, rolls around the educational community could find itself short over 300,000 jobs. This will not be a good thing for the American economy nor her schools. Regardless of this fact, over 48 million students will show up for the 2010-2011 school year in all fifty states and we will have to be prepared to teach them.
American schools may be unwillingly entering a new chapter in the long history of public education. The progress that we have made over the past decades may take a back seat as valuable resources shrink or disappear from view. The future remains very uncertain as we attempt to find the means to individualize and customize educational experiences for a wide variety of young people. We must prevail in these uncertain times-our very future depends on it.
We anticipated the loss of about twenty-four key positions prior to our budget election. Due to the defeat of the school budget it appears that the governing bodies may reduce the proposed budget even further. Historically and unfortunately, this has been the pattern in Hopatcong. During these difficult budgetary times of increased expenses and state reductions any further cuts will no doubt result in the additional loss of staff members. By extension, the loss of additional teachers will be certain to affect instruction at the classroom level as class sizes rise across grade levels.
According to the American Association of School Administrators (5/4/2010), Projection of National Education Job Cuts for the 2010-2011 School Year, a survey documenting personnel cuts in education found that school systems across the nation are facing serious challenges as a result of the economic downturn. AASA asserts that 82% of school districts reporting will cut or eliminate education jobs by July 1, 2010. The 300,000 jobs saved last year by virtue of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act will likely be reduced by 92%.
According to the Economic Policy Institute every 100,000 education jobs lost translates into roughly 30,000 jobs lost in other sectors due to reduced spending by school districts. Schools have been insulated from the impact of the economic conditions to this date due to the lag in contracts and the variation in their fiscal year - typically from July 1 through June 30. However, when July 1, 2010, rolls around the educational community could find itself short over 300,000 jobs. This will not be a good thing for the American economy nor her schools. Regardless of this fact, over 48 million students will show up for the 2010-2011 school year in all fifty states and we will have to be prepared to teach them.
American schools may be unwillingly entering a new chapter in the long history of public education. The progress that we have made over the past decades may take a back seat as valuable resources shrink or disappear from view. The future remains very uncertain as we attempt to find the means to individualize and customize educational experiences for a wide variety of young people. We must prevail in these uncertain times-our very future depends on it.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Open Letter to NJ Governor Christie
The following letter was penned by a colleague and fellow superintendent Dr. David C. Verducci, of Glen Rock, NJ public schools. I find the content to be exactly on target regarding the persistent attack on public school teachers and administrators by the recently elected Governor Christie of New Jersey. Please take the time to read through the excerpts below:
“Governor Christie, most people in New Jersey, myself included, agree that the State's financial situation is dire, that the funding process for public schools is broken and needs to be fixed, that pension reform is critical, and that the time to begin addressing these issues is not tomorrow, but now. But where we disagree comes to the fore with regard to how this all came about and how we/should go about fixing it.
What follows, then, are concrete suggestions for remedying this crisis situation without decimating our public schools. These ideas are designed to form the basis of a larger plan to place the state on firmer fiscal ground. Simultaneously, the implementation of the roadmap outlined below is also intended to build up our weakest schools with out driving our very best public school districts -institutions which could serve as models of "how to do it right'-into an inevitable downward spiral.
Make us -ALL of the stakeholders here-a partner in the process. This first item is the most important of all. Please stop talking ill us! Talk to us! We are not the enemy! Make us a partner in the endeavor to fix New Jersey. From the superintendent of schools to the part-time cafeteria worker, the overwhelming majority of us who spend our professional lives in the public schools are hard-working people who want to see children succeed. Building a coalition with the educational community for the betterment of the common good will not happen if you simply continue to dictate the terms of change. We have a lot of good ideas. We can help you accomplish your goals. We also want things to be different, but true systemic change will not take root if the only tools you use are blunt instruments that punish instead of encourage. We are people of intellect who want to be treated as such, not like the victims of a school-yard bully. Governor, I think you will find a very receptive audience among educational professionals and the citizens-at-Iarge if you simply approach the whole situation differently. Leaders don't just demand or dictate. They build consensus through persuasion and reason. Change this dynamic and you have a chance to change things even beyond your own greatest aspirations.
New Jersey's fiscal problems did not occur overnight and should be fixed over a period of time. Consider the case of an individual who doesn't use credit responsibly and gets into financial trouble. Should the person be required to pay back his or her debt at such a rate (i.e., in time and amount) that he or she could no longer afford food &shelter? Doesn't it make much more economic good sense to phase in controls that will get the system onto the right track -and then keep it there-over a period of time? Sustained change needs time. It is not accomplished overnight, or in our case, one or two budget years. As it stands now, all that is happening is that districts, in an effort to avoid the dismemberment of their school districts, are in many cases just shifting the burden. In Glen Rock, we are very sensitive to the financial condition of our residents. Since we won't burden them with a school tax rate any higher than it absolutely must be, my only choice is to make drastic cuts in staff programs. No matter how you slice it, no matter how it is portrayed politically, kids WILL be hurt by what you are doing and how you are doing it. Students know this, and Governor, please give kids a bit more credit. Our students, like those who staged a walk-out recently in Cliffside Park, are not "pawns" of teachers or administrators, no matter how much more palatable it might be to believe. Our kids are Vibrant, intelligent people who think for themselves, see what is really happening, interpret their own experiences, see things clearly, and, il1 short, are seething with anger over the cuts that THEY will be forced to endure.
Stop demonizing public school teachers and administrators! I have been a professional educator for almost thirty years and along the way teachers somehow stopped being thought of as a noble breed. What is fascinating to me is that this transformation over time roughly corresponds to the timeframe of professional educators actually beginning to earn a livable wage. In the early 1970s, my first teaching job paid $5,000 with no benefits! For years teaching salaries were so bad that in 1985 Governor Kean had to sign the Teacher Quality Employment Act into law, guaranteeing teachers a minimum salary of $18,500! At the time, more than 80% of New Jersey's teachers made less than that amoul1t. Benefits and a decent pension were the only inducements available to encourage good teachers to stay in the profession over the long term. Look at tenure for superintendents, abolished in 1992. Despite the warnings of the New Jersey Association of School Administrators, this created a system of "free agency," forcing up salaries for a position that requires decades of training and experience in a wide range of fields. The long and short of it is when salaries began to rise to a level approaching something like a "livable wage," and the true cost of a quality educational product became more widely known and understood, things changed. These days, many of those who are now demanding teacher salary cuts conveniently forget that in boon times we were not the ones who received huge cash end-of-the-year bonuses. Further, our teachers and administrators are "giving back." Glen Rock's union contracts already have an employee pay component for health benefits. Tuition reimbursement programs and the like are already tightly regulated. We do not get paid overtime. We do not fly to work in helicopters or chauffeur-driven cars. Teachers and administrators are not in the top one percent of wage earners (and this even includes well-paid superintendents!) who make over $400,0001 While deserving the merit of full and fair consideration, pay freezes are not a panacea. Ultimately, what it will serve to do is to drive the "best and brightest' out of the education field completely. Where will our schools be then? Incidentally, Governor, do you pay for your own health benefits or do benefits for you and your family come as a perk of being a state employee, albeit an elected one? If this is the case, why has no one heard you speak of your own voluntary pay-back? I think everyone would certainly love to see some of your leadership by example.
Amend the proposals to repair the State's Pension System so that the "fixes" are more equitable to everyone concerned. Governor Christie, as teachers and as administrators, we have paid our share of pension costs for all of these years; we simply did not have a choice as it was deducted automatically from our paychecks. It was the State which did not. Not only didn't Trenton pay its share but it raided the pension system for cash and then promptly "took a bath" as the markets tanked and the huge fund of cash -OUR MONEY, PAID FOR BY OUR HARD WORK!-was lost in the markets through highly dubious investments such as the financial instruments known commonly as derivatives. Teachers and administrators were not responsible for this investment fiasco. Neither did we have any say when Trenton unilaterally raised our contributions from 5°1o to S1J2°/0 to make up, in part, for its own shortfall and poor decisions. We don't "double-dip" into the pension system. We never asked for the formula change a few years back which increased pension costs. Most importantly, why are legislators who take advantage of double-dipping (as well as lawmakers who serve on a part-time basis) and in the pension systems grandfathered when public school employees with 25+ years of service are not? What ever happened to what is "good for the goose is good for the gander?" To paraphrase George Orwell (a writer whose work I first explored in a public high school English class, by the way), it seems that when it comes to New Jersey lawmakers, some animals are, in fact "more equal than others." This is fair, how?
Enhance the size of the State's fiscal pie through increased revenues and eliminate the many absurdly wasteful and expensive subsidies that Trenton doles out. For starters, reinstate the "Millionaires Tax" on the top one percent of wage earners. I thought we were in a crisis. Most of us would probably agree that if an individual is in this top 1%, you are probably not in a bad way financially despite how it might personally feel to you. This would solve the 2010-2011 state aid problem in one fell swoop. Second, get rid of subsidies and "tax-incentives'! (read giveaways) to rich business owners who are making or stand to make multi-millions of dollars off the backs of school children. Xanadu. The Prudential Center. Atlantic City Casinos. These three areas alone have cost New Jersey, literally, hundreds upon hundreds of millions.
Dramatically scale back the N.J.A.S.K. I H.S.P.A. standardized testing program and do so immediately. Want to give me, as a superintendent of schools, tools that I could use (and would be happy to do so!) to Significantly reduce the local tax burden? Here is an important example. Specifically, immediately drop four of the seven years of state testing that are now required of all public schools, but particularly for those districts designated as "high achieving" by your own Department of Education. Students who can score an 85% passing rate year-over-year do not need to have instructional time wasted with over-testing. The solution is elegantly simple: return to the former system of testing in grades four, eight, and eleven. It is educationally valid, statistically reliable as a measure of student progress (assuming a sound standardized instrument), and millions upon millions upon millions of dollars cheaper! I assure you, sir, that Pearson Corporation, the State's test publisher, doesn’t need the money anywhere near half as much as we do!
Cut over burdensome unfunded mandates NOW! While the goals of these mandates are, in many cases, laudable, they are expensive to administer and require very substantial amounts of tax-payer dollars, running into the tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars when taken en toto. Just a few examples include bilingual education, "Right to Know" laws, bio-hazard training, radon testing, overboard anti-bullying and anti-violence & vandalism program and reporting requirements, "Pest Management" (i.e., bugs), school security overregulation, standardized testing, and many, many, many more. The elimination of the regulatory requirements of just the programs mentioned have the potential to plug a very large part of our budget deficit.
Reduce the rate of health care increases in the State Health Benefits programs. Reign in Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield's 20%-35% annual increases and your financial worries for New Jersey will be well on their way to being solved forever. How can we possibly be expected to stay within a spending cap of 2.5% in 2011-2012 and not destroy our school systems unless there are cost-containment efforts that are external to the individual school districts.
Place schools in New Jersey on a level playing field. For one, stop subsidizing the per-pupil costs of the students attending the Bergen Academies. The audited per-pupil expenditure is well over $20,000 per student per annum. Who even knows what the true costs are? Most public schools are somewhere in the neighborhood of half that amount. Secondly, stop the approval of charter schools in communities with high-achieving schools; save these approvals for failing school districts that need it. There is absolutely no reason to believe, for example, that a recent Charter School application filed from Bergen County will provide greater educational opportunities than its public counterparts, when the proposed school would almost exclusively from Fair Lawn, Paramus, Glen Rock, and Ridgewood. Schools in communities such as these do nothing, in the end, but siphon off public funds from these local school districts (which we should not forget is paid by the local taxpayer) and simply subsidizes private, and often religiously-based, schools. As I read recently, "Charter schools are, in most cases, for-profit operations that do not always make the right decisions for children based on education standards. They make decisions that affect their bottom line and in so doing the quality of education suffers." Governor, give public schools a fair chance. Either take away the unfunded mandates outlined above and/or require charter schools to operate in the same regulatory environment that we do. Now that would be fair.
Use positive incentives not negative inducements to promote change. This costs so very little -in some cases nothing-and has the potential to profoundly change the system. Go back to our example of the individual who over-used his or her credit cards. Doesn't it make more sense to set up tighter controls (on both future credit and repayments) on the individual instead of everyone? Is it fair for the credit-card issuer to place punitive credit controls on individuals who are responsible and meet their financial obligations? Do the same for public school districts. Provide some regulatory relief to those of us who consistently demonstrate that we play by the rules and get the job done well. For once try rewards instead of punishments. From the standpoint of school districts that are doing well, all we ask is that Trenton and the Department of Education leave us be in order that we can continue to do well. Let us just do our jobs. Concentrate your scarce resources on those places that need it. That would certainly save everyone time, energy, and most of all, money!”
What do you think? Thanks for reading this.
“Governor Christie, most people in New Jersey, myself included, agree that the State's financial situation is dire, that the funding process for public schools is broken and needs to be fixed, that pension reform is critical, and that the time to begin addressing these issues is not tomorrow, but now. But where we disagree comes to the fore with regard to how this all came about and how we/should go about fixing it.
What follows, then, are concrete suggestions for remedying this crisis situation without decimating our public schools. These ideas are designed to form the basis of a larger plan to place the state on firmer fiscal ground. Simultaneously, the implementation of the roadmap outlined below is also intended to build up our weakest schools with out driving our very best public school districts -institutions which could serve as models of "how to do it right'-into an inevitable downward spiral.
Make us -ALL of the stakeholders here-a partner in the process. This first item is the most important of all. Please stop talking ill us! Talk to us! We are not the enemy! Make us a partner in the endeavor to fix New Jersey. From the superintendent of schools to the part-time cafeteria worker, the overwhelming majority of us who spend our professional lives in the public schools are hard-working people who want to see children succeed. Building a coalition with the educational community for the betterment of the common good will not happen if you simply continue to dictate the terms of change. We have a lot of good ideas. We can help you accomplish your goals. We also want things to be different, but true systemic change will not take root if the only tools you use are blunt instruments that punish instead of encourage. We are people of intellect who want to be treated as such, not like the victims of a school-yard bully. Governor, I think you will find a very receptive audience among educational professionals and the citizens-at-Iarge if you simply approach the whole situation differently. Leaders don't just demand or dictate. They build consensus through persuasion and reason. Change this dynamic and you have a chance to change things even beyond your own greatest aspirations.
New Jersey's fiscal problems did not occur overnight and should be fixed over a period of time. Consider the case of an individual who doesn't use credit responsibly and gets into financial trouble. Should the person be required to pay back his or her debt at such a rate (i.e., in time and amount) that he or she could no longer afford food &shelter? Doesn't it make much more economic good sense to phase in controls that will get the system onto the right track -and then keep it there-over a period of time? Sustained change needs time. It is not accomplished overnight, or in our case, one or two budget years. As it stands now, all that is happening is that districts, in an effort to avoid the dismemberment of their school districts, are in many cases just shifting the burden. In Glen Rock, we are very sensitive to the financial condition of our residents. Since we won't burden them with a school tax rate any higher than it absolutely must be, my only choice is to make drastic cuts in staff programs. No matter how you slice it, no matter how it is portrayed politically, kids WILL be hurt by what you are doing and how you are doing it. Students know this, and Governor, please give kids a bit more credit. Our students, like those who staged a walk-out recently in Cliffside Park, are not "pawns" of teachers or administrators, no matter how much more palatable it might be to believe. Our kids are Vibrant, intelligent people who think for themselves, see what is really happening, interpret their own experiences, see things clearly, and, il1 short, are seething with anger over the cuts that THEY will be forced to endure.
Stop demonizing public school teachers and administrators! I have been a professional educator for almost thirty years and along the way teachers somehow stopped being thought of as a noble breed. What is fascinating to me is that this transformation over time roughly corresponds to the timeframe of professional educators actually beginning to earn a livable wage. In the early 1970s, my first teaching job paid $5,000 with no benefits! For years teaching salaries were so bad that in 1985 Governor Kean had to sign the Teacher Quality Employment Act into law, guaranteeing teachers a minimum salary of $18,500! At the time, more than 80% of New Jersey's teachers made less than that amoul1t. Benefits and a decent pension were the only inducements available to encourage good teachers to stay in the profession over the long term. Look at tenure for superintendents, abolished in 1992. Despite the warnings of the New Jersey Association of School Administrators, this created a system of "free agency," forcing up salaries for a position that requires decades of training and experience in a wide range of fields. The long and short of it is when salaries began to rise to a level approaching something like a "livable wage," and the true cost of a quality educational product became more widely known and understood, things changed. These days, many of those who are now demanding teacher salary cuts conveniently forget that in boon times we were not the ones who received huge cash end-of-the-year bonuses. Further, our teachers and administrators are "giving back." Glen Rock's union contracts already have an employee pay component for health benefits. Tuition reimbursement programs and the like are already tightly regulated. We do not get paid overtime. We do not fly to work in helicopters or chauffeur-driven cars. Teachers and administrators are not in the top one percent of wage earners (and this even includes well-paid superintendents!) who make over $400,0001 While deserving the merit of full and fair consideration, pay freezes are not a panacea. Ultimately, what it will serve to do is to drive the "best and brightest' out of the education field completely. Where will our schools be then? Incidentally, Governor, do you pay for your own health benefits or do benefits for you and your family come as a perk of being a state employee, albeit an elected one? If this is the case, why has no one heard you speak of your own voluntary pay-back? I think everyone would certainly love to see some of your leadership by example.
Amend the proposals to repair the State's Pension System so that the "fixes" are more equitable to everyone concerned. Governor Christie, as teachers and as administrators, we have paid our share of pension costs for all of these years; we simply did not have a choice as it was deducted automatically from our paychecks. It was the State which did not. Not only didn't Trenton pay its share but it raided the pension system for cash and then promptly "took a bath" as the markets tanked and the huge fund of cash -OUR MONEY, PAID FOR BY OUR HARD WORK!-was lost in the markets through highly dubious investments such as the financial instruments known commonly as derivatives. Teachers and administrators were not responsible for this investment fiasco. Neither did we have any say when Trenton unilaterally raised our contributions from 5°1o to S1J2°/0 to make up, in part, for its own shortfall and poor decisions. We don't "double-dip" into the pension system. We never asked for the formula change a few years back which increased pension costs. Most importantly, why are legislators who take advantage of double-dipping (as well as lawmakers who serve on a part-time basis) and in the pension systems grandfathered when public school employees with 25+ years of service are not? What ever happened to what is "good for the goose is good for the gander?" To paraphrase George Orwell (a writer whose work I first explored in a public high school English class, by the way), it seems that when it comes to New Jersey lawmakers, some animals are, in fact "more equal than others." This is fair, how?
Enhance the size of the State's fiscal pie through increased revenues and eliminate the many absurdly wasteful and expensive subsidies that Trenton doles out. For starters, reinstate the "Millionaires Tax" on the top one percent of wage earners. I thought we were in a crisis. Most of us would probably agree that if an individual is in this top 1%, you are probably not in a bad way financially despite how it might personally feel to you. This would solve the 2010-2011 state aid problem in one fell swoop. Second, get rid of subsidies and "tax-incentives'! (read giveaways) to rich business owners who are making or stand to make multi-millions of dollars off the backs of school children. Xanadu. The Prudential Center. Atlantic City Casinos. These three areas alone have cost New Jersey, literally, hundreds upon hundreds of millions.
Dramatically scale back the N.J.A.S.K. I H.S.P.A. standardized testing program and do so immediately. Want to give me, as a superintendent of schools, tools that I could use (and would be happy to do so!) to Significantly reduce the local tax burden? Here is an important example. Specifically, immediately drop four of the seven years of state testing that are now required of all public schools, but particularly for those districts designated as "high achieving" by your own Department of Education. Students who can score an 85% passing rate year-over-year do not need to have instructional time wasted with over-testing. The solution is elegantly simple: return to the former system of testing in grades four, eight, and eleven. It is educationally valid, statistically reliable as a measure of student progress (assuming a sound standardized instrument), and millions upon millions upon millions of dollars cheaper! I assure you, sir, that Pearson Corporation, the State's test publisher, doesn’t need the money anywhere near half as much as we do!
Cut over burdensome unfunded mandates NOW! While the goals of these mandates are, in many cases, laudable, they are expensive to administer and require very substantial amounts of tax-payer dollars, running into the tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars when taken en toto. Just a few examples include bilingual education, "Right to Know" laws, bio-hazard training, radon testing, overboard anti-bullying and anti-violence & vandalism program and reporting requirements, "Pest Management" (i.e., bugs), school security overregulation, standardized testing, and many, many, many more. The elimination of the regulatory requirements of just the programs mentioned have the potential to plug a very large part of our budget deficit.
Reduce the rate of health care increases in the State Health Benefits programs. Reign in Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield's 20%-35% annual increases and your financial worries for New Jersey will be well on their way to being solved forever. How can we possibly be expected to stay within a spending cap of 2.5% in 2011-2012 and not destroy our school systems unless there are cost-containment efforts that are external to the individual school districts.
Place schools in New Jersey on a level playing field. For one, stop subsidizing the per-pupil costs of the students attending the Bergen Academies. The audited per-pupil expenditure is well over $20,000 per student per annum. Who even knows what the true costs are? Most public schools are somewhere in the neighborhood of half that amount. Secondly, stop the approval of charter schools in communities with high-achieving schools; save these approvals for failing school districts that need it. There is absolutely no reason to believe, for example, that a recent Charter School application filed from Bergen County will provide greater educational opportunities than its public counterparts, when the proposed school would almost exclusively from Fair Lawn, Paramus, Glen Rock, and Ridgewood. Schools in communities such as these do nothing, in the end, but siphon off public funds from these local school districts (which we should not forget is paid by the local taxpayer) and simply subsidizes private, and often religiously-based, schools. As I read recently, "Charter schools are, in most cases, for-profit operations that do not always make the right decisions for children based on education standards. They make decisions that affect their bottom line and in so doing the quality of education suffers." Governor, give public schools a fair chance. Either take away the unfunded mandates outlined above and/or require charter schools to operate in the same regulatory environment that we do. Now that would be fair.
Use positive incentives not negative inducements to promote change. This costs so very little -in some cases nothing-and has the potential to profoundly change the system. Go back to our example of the individual who over-used his or her credit cards. Doesn't it make more sense to set up tighter controls (on both future credit and repayments) on the individual instead of everyone? Is it fair for the credit-card issuer to place punitive credit controls on individuals who are responsible and meet their financial obligations? Do the same for public school districts. Provide some regulatory relief to those of us who consistently demonstrate that we play by the rules and get the job done well. For once try rewards instead of punishments. From the standpoint of school districts that are doing well, all we ask is that Trenton and the Department of Education leave us be in order that we can continue to do well. Let us just do our jobs. Concentrate your scarce resources on those places that need it. That would certainly save everyone time, energy, and most of all, money!”
What do you think? Thanks for reading this.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The New Jersey Budget Dilemma in Public Education
Overview
On March 16, 2010, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie delivered a historic speech demanding serious if not unprecedented budget cuts in response to the lagging economic conditions. There are serious implications for New Jersey public schools as we expect an $820 million reduction in state support for education. In order to help offset budget reductions, the Governor proposed additional legislative changes as follows:
1) A proposal that would require all employees to contribute a percentage of salary to their health benefits;
2) A proposal that would assist districts in contract negotiations by helping to sustain the last best offer;
3) A proposal that would affect pensions for anyone retiring after August 1, by proposing changes to the way pension benefits are calculated, and also by requiring contribution to health benefits for retirees.
Please note that these proposals would require legislative approval and therefore are not certain to be passed (but are likely to be passed in some form or another).
The Governor has also proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would require voter approval that would reduce the current 4% tax levy cap to 2.5%. This reduction would not only affect school districts, but also municipalities and the state budget as well.
Implications for Suburban School Districts
The Governor made no apologies for his stance and was clear about the need to halt the spending in New Jersey. We applaud him for demonstrating fiscal restraint at a difficult period of time, but are very concerned for the disproportionate means utilized to calculate funding cuts to localities that depend upon a significant portion of state aid for operational purposes. Hopatcong ranks 2nd of forty-nine area school districts in the percent of state aid to the district (38% of total budget). Eighty per cent of our school budgets account for salaries and benefits with the balance toward supplies, transportation, energy costs, maintenance, etc. Any reduction in state aid will have a devastating impact on our overall bottom line for 2010-2011.
The problem with the approach that the New Jersey Governor has outlined is that suburban districts like Hopatcong will suffer the lion’s share of budget cuts. Over the past several years the Hopatcong School District exercised serious restraint and cut its administrative team by 1/3 and implemented several other significant cost saving measures.
In the past two years Hopatcong’s budget has only grown by a little more than 1% in 2008 and less than ¼ of 1% in 2009 while expenses have increased by 22%. The gap promises to be much wider this year as our funding tanks into the negative digits (thanks to the state funding cuts). On the other hand, expenses in fuel, electric, textbooks, supplies, maintenance, health insurance, buildings and grounds insurance, liability insurance, paper, ink, pencils, crayons, markers, out of district tuitions, services for special needs children, charter school expenses, and yes, salaries & benefits continue to rise.
The only way to produce a balanced budget when you are operating as lean and mean as possible (as Hopatcong is) is to reduce expenses. The only expenses that can be controlled will result from the dismissal of employees. We have no ability to increase the revenue stream. So if Governor Christie and the New Jersey State Legislature impose a 2.5% tax cap on localities, every school district in the state that depends on state aid will begin a process of lay off employees to balance budgets. (Remember the effect of Proposition 13 on California’s public schools?) We are not empowered to reduce the number of days we operate, we cannot suspend the thousands of state mandates imposed on us, we cannot decide not to teach anyone, we cannot reduce services to our student population of special needs for example.
The Governor and Legislature assumes that there is excess in school budgets and thus we can afford to cut 5%, 10%, 15% or even 20% of our budgets. But this is where they are absolutely wrong. Every penny Governor Christy is determined to extract from our state aid budget will find its way to the classroom. This means that our teachers will have classes much larger in future years, they will have less resources with which to practice their craft, they will be accountable for more results, and will have to work with less technology. But the same number of students will enter our classrooms with the same needs as they always have. So, how can we produce the same results with less funding, less resources, or with less teachers?
If we cut our budget input and in balance were able to cut our product output this would make sense. But the Governor wants to cut input (revenue) and expects the same output (results: number of students taught, number of days worked, exceptional state test scores, etc.) without regard to consequence. Let’s use a business model: If one cannot produce a balanced equation (input vs. output) and revenues do not match expenditures the only logical choice is bankruptcy. That is the cumulative effect of the current state reductions and may be where public education is heading.
I agree that the State of New Jersey must restrain spending but object to the “quick fix” that will certainly take its toll on the children of public education. A much more mature approach will be to reduce expenses incrementally over time and not place our most valuable resource at risk: our children.
The Hopatcong School Board will continue its analytical and thoughtful options as more budget information is revealed. Our business team is doing an excellent job of complying with all state regulations and mandates and produces accurate and accountable public records that are recognized by our auditors as exceptional. We will produce a balanced ledger as we finish out the 2009-2010 school year, as we have done every year for the past several decades. Unfortunately, the state has not been as fiscally responsible as school districts have over the years. The State of New Jersey is about to change the face of public education in forever.
One last thought for Governor Christy and the State Legislature: The teachers are not the enemy- you are. Our teachers are hard working individuals who have pursued multiple college degrees and thousands of hours of professional development in order to work in an honorable profession of service to our community and to America. They deserve to be compensated adequately, to have health benefits, to look forward to retirement, and to raise families. For years the teachers of this country were underpaid and expected to produce exceptional results when the whole of society was failing American children.
The American teaching force endured and persevered many decades as undervalued and underappreciated professionals in our society. They negotiated their status into a highly respectful professional and competitive one over the years. I respect all of them for their achievements in American education.
No other society on earth can educate the diverse population that exists in these United States in public schools. We are a heterogeneous mix of the world’s population and the diversity of individualism is the greatest challenge in America’s classrooms. When critics of American education make international comparisons they would be wise to remember this.
American education has been the envy of the world and over the course of the last hundred years our country has led the world into the 21st century. When foreign dignitaries visit American schools they wonder and marvel at the level of differentiation that exists and variations in our learners. We have excelled at leveling the playing field for children from all walks of life in our public schools.
When state or local officials publically discredit our teachers for the excellent work that they do and then decide to summarily dismantle public education they need to be aware of the damage that they will do-now and in the future.
On March 16, 2010, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie delivered a historic speech demanding serious if not unprecedented budget cuts in response to the lagging economic conditions. There are serious implications for New Jersey public schools as we expect an $820 million reduction in state support for education. In order to help offset budget reductions, the Governor proposed additional legislative changes as follows:
1) A proposal that would require all employees to contribute a percentage of salary to their health benefits;
2) A proposal that would assist districts in contract negotiations by helping to sustain the last best offer;
3) A proposal that would affect pensions for anyone retiring after August 1, by proposing changes to the way pension benefits are calculated, and also by requiring contribution to health benefits for retirees.
Please note that these proposals would require legislative approval and therefore are not certain to be passed (but are likely to be passed in some form or another).
The Governor has also proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would require voter approval that would reduce the current 4% tax levy cap to 2.5%. This reduction would not only affect school districts, but also municipalities and the state budget as well.
Implications for Suburban School Districts
The Governor made no apologies for his stance and was clear about the need to halt the spending in New Jersey. We applaud him for demonstrating fiscal restraint at a difficult period of time, but are very concerned for the disproportionate means utilized to calculate funding cuts to localities that depend upon a significant portion of state aid for operational purposes. Hopatcong ranks 2nd of forty-nine area school districts in the percent of state aid to the district (38% of total budget). Eighty per cent of our school budgets account for salaries and benefits with the balance toward supplies, transportation, energy costs, maintenance, etc. Any reduction in state aid will have a devastating impact on our overall bottom line for 2010-2011.
The problem with the approach that the New Jersey Governor has outlined is that suburban districts like Hopatcong will suffer the lion’s share of budget cuts. Over the past several years the Hopatcong School District exercised serious restraint and cut its administrative team by 1/3 and implemented several other significant cost saving measures.
In the past two years Hopatcong’s budget has only grown by a little more than 1% in 2008 and less than ¼ of 1% in 2009 while expenses have increased by 22%. The gap promises to be much wider this year as our funding tanks into the negative digits (thanks to the state funding cuts). On the other hand, expenses in fuel, electric, textbooks, supplies, maintenance, health insurance, buildings and grounds insurance, liability insurance, paper, ink, pencils, crayons, markers, out of district tuitions, services for special needs children, charter school expenses, and yes, salaries & benefits continue to rise.
The only way to produce a balanced budget when you are operating as lean and mean as possible (as Hopatcong is) is to reduce expenses. The only expenses that can be controlled will result from the dismissal of employees. We have no ability to increase the revenue stream. So if Governor Christie and the New Jersey State Legislature impose a 2.5% tax cap on localities, every school district in the state that depends on state aid will begin a process of lay off employees to balance budgets. (Remember the effect of Proposition 13 on California’s public schools?) We are not empowered to reduce the number of days we operate, we cannot suspend the thousands of state mandates imposed on us, we cannot decide not to teach anyone, we cannot reduce services to our student population of special needs for example.
The Governor and Legislature assumes that there is excess in school budgets and thus we can afford to cut 5%, 10%, 15% or even 20% of our budgets. But this is where they are absolutely wrong. Every penny Governor Christy is determined to extract from our state aid budget will find its way to the classroom. This means that our teachers will have classes much larger in future years, they will have less resources with which to practice their craft, they will be accountable for more results, and will have to work with less technology. But the same number of students will enter our classrooms with the same needs as they always have. So, how can we produce the same results with less funding, less resources, or with less teachers?
If we cut our budget input and in balance were able to cut our product output this would make sense. But the Governor wants to cut input (revenue) and expects the same output (results: number of students taught, number of days worked, exceptional state test scores, etc.) without regard to consequence. Let’s use a business model: If one cannot produce a balanced equation (input vs. output) and revenues do not match expenditures the only logical choice is bankruptcy. That is the cumulative effect of the current state reductions and may be where public education is heading.
I agree that the State of New Jersey must restrain spending but object to the “quick fix” that will certainly take its toll on the children of public education. A much more mature approach will be to reduce expenses incrementally over time and not place our most valuable resource at risk: our children.
The Hopatcong School Board will continue its analytical and thoughtful options as more budget information is revealed. Our business team is doing an excellent job of complying with all state regulations and mandates and produces accurate and accountable public records that are recognized by our auditors as exceptional. We will produce a balanced ledger as we finish out the 2009-2010 school year, as we have done every year for the past several decades. Unfortunately, the state has not been as fiscally responsible as school districts have over the years. The State of New Jersey is about to change the face of public education in forever.
One last thought for Governor Christy and the State Legislature: The teachers are not the enemy- you are. Our teachers are hard working individuals who have pursued multiple college degrees and thousands of hours of professional development in order to work in an honorable profession of service to our community and to America. They deserve to be compensated adequately, to have health benefits, to look forward to retirement, and to raise families. For years the teachers of this country were underpaid and expected to produce exceptional results when the whole of society was failing American children.
The American teaching force endured and persevered many decades as undervalued and underappreciated professionals in our society. They negotiated their status into a highly respectful professional and competitive one over the years. I respect all of them for their achievements in American education.
No other society on earth can educate the diverse population that exists in these United States in public schools. We are a heterogeneous mix of the world’s population and the diversity of individualism is the greatest challenge in America’s classrooms. When critics of American education make international comparisons they would be wise to remember this.
American education has been the envy of the world and over the course of the last hundred years our country has led the world into the 21st century. When foreign dignitaries visit American schools they wonder and marvel at the level of differentiation that exists and variations in our learners. We have excelled at leveling the playing field for children from all walks of life in our public schools.
When state or local officials publically discredit our teachers for the excellent work that they do and then decide to summarily dismantle public education they need to be aware of the damage that they will do-now and in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)