A meeting of the Hopatcong Borough Zoning Board on June 8, 2011, will set the stage for the installation of a major Public School Solar Initiative scheduled to be operational by the fall of 2011.
The Hopatcong Borough Public Schools will install a solar array in partnership with SP-One, the Spiezle Group, and Sun Edison. The SP-One Group is a leader in the alternative energy arena with over 25 years in energy development and extensive experience with the Federal and local governments. Some of the public sector clients are the United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Agriculture, and the City of Philadelphia. In the private sector clients include IKEA, George Washington University Hospital, UPS, Mobil Oil, Pathmark, and many others. Sun Edison is the largest solar energy service provider in North America and among the fastest growing international solar companies worldwide.
The proposed solar installation on property owned or controlled by the Hopatcong Borough Board of Education will include three Solar Photovoltaic Power Plants interconnected to the Hopatcong School Board, Hopatcong High School, Hopatcong Middle School, Durban Avenue School, Tulsa Trail School, and the Maintenance Complex.
The system will generate over two million Kilowatt Hours of electricity per year. The cost savings will reduce the Board of Education’s cost of electricity from $0.15 to $0.05 per Kilowatt Hour. The annual real savings will be about $175,000 per year or in excess of $3.3 million dollars over the fifteen year period, with no increase in the cost for electricity.
In addition to the savings on the overall cost of electricity, the solar project will provide $585,000 in new or replacement roofing for Durban Avenue School and Hopatcong Middle School. A science curriculum component will be included in future years that includes a job training element. “The overall adaption and conversion to solar power represents a major step forward for the Hopatcong School and Community,” stated Charles Maranzano, Superintendent, “ This project places Hopatcong, New Jersey, in the forefront of progressive School Districts.” Neil Piro is the Hopatcong Schools Facilities Project Manager and Terry Sierchio is the School Business Administrator.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Cuts to Public Education May be Too Deep
TRENTON: NEW JERSEY STAR LEDGER REPORT— State lawyers call last month’s report on school funding cuts a useless and narrow-minded assessment, but advocates for poor students say it’s an incisive condemnation of New Jersey’s failure to support its neediest kids.
The two sides made these arguments in new briefs filed today in the latest installment of the long-running Abbott vs. Burke school funding saga. Both sides are gearing up for the April 20 hearing before the state Supreme Court in a case with far-reaching consequences for the state’s schools and budget.
The Newark-based Education Law Center asks the state’s highest court to force Gov. Chris Christie and lawmakers to spend more on schools. It says the state underfunded schools by $1.6 billion last year and violated the state constitution’s mandate to "provide a thorough and efficient system" of public schools.
The state has pleaded poverty, saying its precarious fiscal situation prevents it from fully funding the formula approved by the court in 2009. It also says the formula is overly generous since it was created right before the economic crash.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE:
• N.J. treasurer lists range of cuts if Supreme Court rules against Christie in schools funding case
• N.J. battle intensifies over funding for themed charter schools
• Christie recruits former N.J. attorney general, Supreme Court justice to defend cutbacks in school funding
• Christie says he's confident about convincing N.J. Supreme Court the state can't afford full aid for schools
• N.J. teachers, labor leaders, parents argue for more education funding at Assembly budget hearing
• N.J. authority reveals approval process for $500M in construction projects at 10 schools
The fault line in today’s briefs is the report from Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, who was asked by the Supreme Court to study the impact of Christie’s budget cuts before justices made a decision in the case. Doyne concluded they disproportionately harmed poor districts, undercutting the state’s argument that funding cuts had been spread fairly.
After the report was released, the state asked Peter Verniero, the former New Jersey attorney general and Supreme Court justice, to lead its legal team. The brief filed by the state today criticizes Doyne’s report as myopic — it did not consider education policies like teacher tenure or the state’s overall fiscal situation — and having "no basis for any real conclusions."
The state also said the review is incomplete because student performance reviews won’t be available until next January, preventing the court from determining whether students were actually hampered by lower funding.
The Education Law Center, by contrast, heaped praise on Doyne’s report, saying it accurately diagnosed spending cuts as a "grave constitutional violation ... The resulting harm to New Jersey school children ... is severe and immediate."
More than one-third of all school districts statewide, which educate nearly three-fourths of all at-risk students, are funded below the formula’s standards, the Law Center said. Schools have cut teaching positions, increased class sizes and reduced student programs.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case could have drastic consequences for the state budget, and Democrats and Republicans alike are bracing for the outcome.
If the court orders more funding, Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff said the state may need to gouge funding for things like Medicaid, property-tax relief and municipal aid.
Some Democrats are pushing for a "millionaires tax" on the state’s highest earners to provide more school funding. Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) criticized the idea, saying the tax would fail to cover all the funding the court may require. "Do the math," he said. "Where are you going to get the rest of the money?"
Even some Democrats who say Christie’s school funding cuts are unconstitutional are apprehensive about the Supreme Court’s decision.
"I hope the court interprets it fairly, and if the governor is right, then we move forward," Assembly Budget Chairman Lou Greenwald (D-Camden) said. "If he’s wrong, then we have work to do."
New Jersey Star Ledger, April 11, 2011. Jarrett Renshaw contributed to this report.
The two sides made these arguments in new briefs filed today in the latest installment of the long-running Abbott vs. Burke school funding saga. Both sides are gearing up for the April 20 hearing before the state Supreme Court in a case with far-reaching consequences for the state’s schools and budget.
The Newark-based Education Law Center asks the state’s highest court to force Gov. Chris Christie and lawmakers to spend more on schools. It says the state underfunded schools by $1.6 billion last year and violated the state constitution’s mandate to "provide a thorough and efficient system" of public schools.
The state has pleaded poverty, saying its precarious fiscal situation prevents it from fully funding the formula approved by the court in 2009. It also says the formula is overly generous since it was created right before the economic crash.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE:
• N.J. treasurer lists range of cuts if Supreme Court rules against Christie in schools funding case
• N.J. battle intensifies over funding for themed charter schools
• Christie recruits former N.J. attorney general, Supreme Court justice to defend cutbacks in school funding
• Christie says he's confident about convincing N.J. Supreme Court the state can't afford full aid for schools
• N.J. teachers, labor leaders, parents argue for more education funding at Assembly budget hearing
• N.J. authority reveals approval process for $500M in construction projects at 10 schools
The fault line in today’s briefs is the report from Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, who was asked by the Supreme Court to study the impact of Christie’s budget cuts before justices made a decision in the case. Doyne concluded they disproportionately harmed poor districts, undercutting the state’s argument that funding cuts had been spread fairly.
After the report was released, the state asked Peter Verniero, the former New Jersey attorney general and Supreme Court justice, to lead its legal team. The brief filed by the state today criticizes Doyne’s report as myopic — it did not consider education policies like teacher tenure or the state’s overall fiscal situation — and having "no basis for any real conclusions."
The state also said the review is incomplete because student performance reviews won’t be available until next January, preventing the court from determining whether students were actually hampered by lower funding.
The Education Law Center, by contrast, heaped praise on Doyne’s report, saying it accurately diagnosed spending cuts as a "grave constitutional violation ... The resulting harm to New Jersey school children ... is severe and immediate."
More than one-third of all school districts statewide, which educate nearly three-fourths of all at-risk students, are funded below the formula’s standards, the Law Center said. Schools have cut teaching positions, increased class sizes and reduced student programs.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case could have drastic consequences for the state budget, and Democrats and Republicans alike are bracing for the outcome.
If the court orders more funding, Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff said the state may need to gouge funding for things like Medicaid, property-tax relief and municipal aid.
Some Democrats are pushing for a "millionaires tax" on the state’s highest earners to provide more school funding. Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) criticized the idea, saying the tax would fail to cover all the funding the court may require. "Do the math," he said. "Where are you going to get the rest of the money?"
Even some Democrats who say Christie’s school funding cuts are unconstitutional are apprehensive about the Supreme Court’s decision.
"I hope the court interprets it fairly, and if the governor is right, then we move forward," Assembly Budget Chairman Lou Greenwald (D-Camden) said. "If he’s wrong, then we have work to do."
New Jersey Star Ledger, April 11, 2011. Jarrett Renshaw contributed to this report.
Friday, April 1, 2011
High School Musical
On Thursday night, March 31, 2011, I had the honor of attending the Hopatcong High School production of “Me and My Girl” produced and directed by Mr. Joe Ross. Words cannot express my pleasure as I reflect upon a wonderful and marvelous performance by our high school students. This musical set in England in the 1930’s and is full of raw comedy, singing, and dancing. The cast was totally engaging and pulled off a brilliant rendition of this rather tongue-in-cheek musical. There were some vaudevillian aspects of the play that one would think would be difficult to portray by high school students and they handled it with ease. The group tap dances were well executed and the overall impact was fundamentally sound. This is evidence of a well-disciplined troop of young actors and actresses who were clearly focused on producing a quality performance.
The musical aspect of this performance was difficult to accomplish given the book was written in the 1930’s, full of rhythmic challenges and replete with constant key changes. Matt Testa did a very nice job as conductor and teacher of the musical ensemble. The difficulty of connecting the pieces seemed easy as the orchestra segued from segment to segment. There were many key adults involved behind the scenes including Michael Batche and Barbara Fersch, members of the faculty and staff, and a strong parent’s organization.
It is worth mentioning that our lead actor, Steven Munoz, did a spectacular job of portraying Bill Snibson in the musical. Steven made his character come to life for the audience by masterfully executing the timing of his lines, the gestures, dancing, singing, and overall comedic interpretation as if he were born to accomplish this task. Such a natural and comfortable role for a high school student does not come easily, yet Steven was brilliant and sold the audience on his every move as an actor. This young man can go places in theatre if he wishes to do so.
I have written extensively about the value and place of the arts in our public schools. Last night’s performance involving perhaps a hundred or more students is a solid affirmation of the philosophy that the arts must remain central in the developing lives of America’s youth. We are a creative and vibrant nation made up of the most diverse population on this earth. The arts allow us to celebrate the differences we possess and integrate them into a meaningful whole. Our young people can only learn the value of appreciating their individual talents and differences through direct experiences and theatre, dance, singing and performing are the perfect avenues for students. Congratulations to the Hopatcong High School Drama Club on a wonderful and fun performance.
The musical aspect of this performance was difficult to accomplish given the book was written in the 1930’s, full of rhythmic challenges and replete with constant key changes. Matt Testa did a very nice job as conductor and teacher of the musical ensemble. The difficulty of connecting the pieces seemed easy as the orchestra segued from segment to segment. There were many key adults involved behind the scenes including Michael Batche and Barbara Fersch, members of the faculty and staff, and a strong parent’s organization.
It is worth mentioning that our lead actor, Steven Munoz, did a spectacular job of portraying Bill Snibson in the musical. Steven made his character come to life for the audience by masterfully executing the timing of his lines, the gestures, dancing, singing, and overall comedic interpretation as if he were born to accomplish this task. Such a natural and comfortable role for a high school student does not come easily, yet Steven was brilliant and sold the audience on his every move as an actor. This young man can go places in theatre if he wishes to do so.
I have written extensively about the value and place of the arts in our public schools. Last night’s performance involving perhaps a hundred or more students is a solid affirmation of the philosophy that the arts must remain central in the developing lives of America’s youth. We are a creative and vibrant nation made up of the most diverse population on this earth. The arts allow us to celebrate the differences we possess and integrate them into a meaningful whole. Our young people can only learn the value of appreciating their individual talents and differences through direct experiences and theatre, dance, singing and performing are the perfect avenues for students. Congratulations to the Hopatcong High School Drama Club on a wonderful and fun performance.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Preserve Arts Education in Public Schools
Difficult budget times for public schools in America are challenging school boards and officials to make significant cuts for educational programs and personnel. There appears to be no single or easy solution available to school administrators when it comes time to sit down and decide what public education can live with or without in future budget years. The challenges we face about funding the specific personnel and specialized programs embedded in our public schools are a subject of much thought and deliberation in board meetings across the country.
During the process for producing a balanced budget at the local school level administrators are typically confronted with identifying increasingly larger expenditures for cost reductions. It becomes very tempting to target one or two specific programs as areas of large cost savings in order to resolve the dilemma of producing a balanced budget. This approach is expeditious and often produces unintended negative consequences. It is much more difficult work to analyze the impact of every singular budget item and then spread these cost savings across many areas contained in local budgets.
Programs that appear to be particularly at risk for targeted budget cuts are those associated with the Fine and Performing Arts: vocal and instrumental music, orchestra, drama, dance, and an array of visual arts courses. These offerings in the Humanities are valuable to the totality of the whole school experience, but in reality are generally perceived to be supplemental to the core curriculum. In fact the fine and performing arts are a critical and necessary component of a comprehensive American education and must remain accessible to the youth of our communities. In order to preserve the arts in our public schools decision makers first must become aware of how the arts impact our human development and second, become convinced that the arts are a worthy investment.
Art and music have been part of mankind from the very beginning of time. Since nomadic peoples first sang and danced in early rituals, since hunters first painted their quarry on the walls of caves, since parents first acted out the stories of heroes for their children, the arts have described, defined, and deepened the human experience. Across the bridge of time, all people have demonstrated an abiding need to construct meaning, in order to connect time and space, body and spirit, intellect and emotion. People have for generations created art to make connections to life, to explain the seemingly unexplainable phenomena, to express joy, wonder, gratitude, or sorrow. The arts are perhaps one of humanity’s deepest rivers of continuity serving as the link that connects each new generation with the one before.
The arts are everywhere in our lives, adding depth and dimension to our personal space and environment. For example music and art have become a powerful economic force in the global economy of the twenty-first century. From the visual creativity of fashion to the designs that comprise every manufactured product, to the richness of traditional and contemporary architecture, to the performance and entertainment industry, the arts have grown into multi-billion dollar enterprises. At an intrinsic level, the arts are each society’s gift to itself, linking hope to memory, inspiring courage, enriching our celebrations, and making our tragedies bearable.
Music and art bring us face to face with ourselves and with what we sense lies beyond ourselves. The arts are an inseparable part of the entire human journey. If civilization is to continue to be both dynamic and nurturing, its success will ultimately depend on how well we develop the intellectual capacities of our children. All students deserve access to the richness and broad understanding that the arts provide, regardless of their background, talents, or even limitations. In an increasingly technological environment the ability to perceive, interpret, understand, reflect, and evaluate artistic and aesthetic forms of expression is critical to the construction of the individual self and one’s overall contribution to life.
Arts education has emerged as an equal partner in the continuing effort to provide our children with a world-class education. The future role of music and arts programs in America’s public schools depends primarily upon school administrators and boards of educations who must jointly understand the totality of the academic value and aesthetic merits of supporting such programs. Finally, one must not forget the interconnectedness that arts education has to the comprehensive curriculum as a whole, and to the integration of the arts into the well-balanced contemporary society we experience and contribute to as American citizens.
To deprive a generation of fine and performing arts experiences for our children and youth due to the expediency and convenience of large budget cuts would not only be counterproductive but immoral. Each generation that enters the world is integrated by the universal language and appeal of art and music. The arts are the most powerful force for creating a world filled with humanity, compassion, understanding, and mutual respect for the talents that each of us intrinsically possesses as human beings. The contribution that arts education brings to the students of our public schools must not be underestimated and should be preserved in order to ensure the quality and richness of life in contemporary society.
During the process for producing a balanced budget at the local school level administrators are typically confronted with identifying increasingly larger expenditures for cost reductions. It becomes very tempting to target one or two specific programs as areas of large cost savings in order to resolve the dilemma of producing a balanced budget. This approach is expeditious and often produces unintended negative consequences. It is much more difficult work to analyze the impact of every singular budget item and then spread these cost savings across many areas contained in local budgets.
Programs that appear to be particularly at risk for targeted budget cuts are those associated with the Fine and Performing Arts: vocal and instrumental music, orchestra, drama, dance, and an array of visual arts courses. These offerings in the Humanities are valuable to the totality of the whole school experience, but in reality are generally perceived to be supplemental to the core curriculum. In fact the fine and performing arts are a critical and necessary component of a comprehensive American education and must remain accessible to the youth of our communities. In order to preserve the arts in our public schools decision makers first must become aware of how the arts impact our human development and second, become convinced that the arts are a worthy investment.
Art and music have been part of mankind from the very beginning of time. Since nomadic peoples first sang and danced in early rituals, since hunters first painted their quarry on the walls of caves, since parents first acted out the stories of heroes for their children, the arts have described, defined, and deepened the human experience. Across the bridge of time, all people have demonstrated an abiding need to construct meaning, in order to connect time and space, body and spirit, intellect and emotion. People have for generations created art to make connections to life, to explain the seemingly unexplainable phenomena, to express joy, wonder, gratitude, or sorrow. The arts are perhaps one of humanity’s deepest rivers of continuity serving as the link that connects each new generation with the one before.
The arts are everywhere in our lives, adding depth and dimension to our personal space and environment. For example music and art have become a powerful economic force in the global economy of the twenty-first century. From the visual creativity of fashion to the designs that comprise every manufactured product, to the richness of traditional and contemporary architecture, to the performance and entertainment industry, the arts have grown into multi-billion dollar enterprises. At an intrinsic level, the arts are each society’s gift to itself, linking hope to memory, inspiring courage, enriching our celebrations, and making our tragedies bearable.
Music and art bring us face to face with ourselves and with what we sense lies beyond ourselves. The arts are an inseparable part of the entire human journey. If civilization is to continue to be both dynamic and nurturing, its success will ultimately depend on how well we develop the intellectual capacities of our children. All students deserve access to the richness and broad understanding that the arts provide, regardless of their background, talents, or even limitations. In an increasingly technological environment the ability to perceive, interpret, understand, reflect, and evaluate artistic and aesthetic forms of expression is critical to the construction of the individual self and one’s overall contribution to life.
Arts education has emerged as an equal partner in the continuing effort to provide our children with a world-class education. The future role of music and arts programs in America’s public schools depends primarily upon school administrators and boards of educations who must jointly understand the totality of the academic value and aesthetic merits of supporting such programs. Finally, one must not forget the interconnectedness that arts education has to the comprehensive curriculum as a whole, and to the integration of the arts into the well-balanced contemporary society we experience and contribute to as American citizens.
To deprive a generation of fine and performing arts experiences for our children and youth due to the expediency and convenience of large budget cuts would not only be counterproductive but immoral. Each generation that enters the world is integrated by the universal language and appeal of art and music. The arts are the most powerful force for creating a world filled with humanity, compassion, understanding, and mutual respect for the talents that each of us intrinsically possesses as human beings. The contribution that arts education brings to the students of our public schools must not be underestimated and should be preserved in order to ensure the quality and richness of life in contemporary society.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Case Against Merit Pay in America's Classrooms
There is an imperative underway by political leaders to further quantify and justify teacher compensation via a system known as meritorious pay (merit pay) based primarily upon student test score outcomes and data. While this may sound impressive and logical to the average citizen it actually is a practice borrowed from industry that has very little transferability to education. We need to be very careful about what may become the latest “trend” in education as defined by the objectives of politicians and the federal “Race to the Top” competitive federal funding grants for public education.
The first point that deserves attention is the misguided thought that somehow teachers are holding back on the very best educational practices they deliver due to their desire to earn more money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having worked with teachers for four decades in public education I can attest firsthand to the dedication and excellence that each teacher brings to work every day. The overwhelming majority of teachers in our country give 200% or more so their children can benefit from excellent instruction.
Next it should be noted that except at the very earliest stages of a child’s education our students are exposed to more than one teacher at a time. In fact, by senior year in high school our children may have been exposed to multiple teachers for multiple years. Last time I counted all of the teachers who had contact with my son or daughter over their school years the number was in the seventies per child.
So which one made the critical difference during let’s say the course of a year? Who deserves the merit pay increase or bonus? Was it the English teacher, science teacher, social studies, math, drama, art, music, technology, gym, computer, foreign language, business or vocational teacher? At what precise time did the magical “aha!” moment take hold? How much merit pay should we associate with this cognitive advancement and when did it occur?
Third we should consider that more than a decade of research indicates merit pay systems are not effective or reliable predictors of student outcomes. Two studies in particular from Vanderbilt University and from Nashville, Tennessee, concluded that there was very little if any correlation between meritorious bonuses and the achievement of students. The Nashville studies concluded that $15,000 bonuses to middle school mathematics teachers made no difference in overall student achievement levels.
Finally, until we have in place valid and reliable methods for the evaluation of teachers that are multidimensional and longitudinal in scope, that rely on the professionalism and long-term contribution of teachers to the profession, and do not depend on classroom observation as sole sources of ratings for teachers we should not leap into the maelstrom of merit pay. Let us explore this further as it deserves our full attention.
The more important goals for the evaluation of teachers are developmental in scope. Valid and reliable teacher evaluation models provide a formative and summative feedback loop, develop excellence in the specialization of each teacher, and account for the individual differences in the areas of expertise for each segment of teaching and learning. Most evaluation systems fail to recognize the value of teaching professionals in the fine or performing arts, movement education, vocational education, or other specialized elective subjects. Professional development should remain the overall priority for teacher evaluation along with the legally defensible mechanisms for hiring, retaining, and perhaps remediating low performing or dismissing ineffective teachers.
To suggest that the current systems are in place for scientifically diagnosing the merits of teaching and assigning bonus pay based upon standardized test scores representing only a snapshot of teacher performance in science, math, social studies or English diminishes the profession as a whole. What’s needed is a motion picture of both teacher performance and student outcomes that encourage excellence in educational attainment across the broad spectrum of subject matter taught in public schools across America. I agree that reform in the area of student outcomes is needed but will argue that merit pay holds little hope for fixing the complexities that need to be undertaken in our schools.
The first point that deserves attention is the misguided thought that somehow teachers are holding back on the very best educational practices they deliver due to their desire to earn more money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having worked with teachers for four decades in public education I can attest firsthand to the dedication and excellence that each teacher brings to work every day. The overwhelming majority of teachers in our country give 200% or more so their children can benefit from excellent instruction.
Next it should be noted that except at the very earliest stages of a child’s education our students are exposed to more than one teacher at a time. In fact, by senior year in high school our children may have been exposed to multiple teachers for multiple years. Last time I counted all of the teachers who had contact with my son or daughter over their school years the number was in the seventies per child.
So which one made the critical difference during let’s say the course of a year? Who deserves the merit pay increase or bonus? Was it the English teacher, science teacher, social studies, math, drama, art, music, technology, gym, computer, foreign language, business or vocational teacher? At what precise time did the magical “aha!” moment take hold? How much merit pay should we associate with this cognitive advancement and when did it occur?
Third we should consider that more than a decade of research indicates merit pay systems are not effective or reliable predictors of student outcomes. Two studies in particular from Vanderbilt University and from Nashville, Tennessee, concluded that there was very little if any correlation between meritorious bonuses and the achievement of students. The Nashville studies concluded that $15,000 bonuses to middle school mathematics teachers made no difference in overall student achievement levels.
Finally, until we have in place valid and reliable methods for the evaluation of teachers that are multidimensional and longitudinal in scope, that rely on the professionalism and long-term contribution of teachers to the profession, and do not depend on classroom observation as sole sources of ratings for teachers we should not leap into the maelstrom of merit pay. Let us explore this further as it deserves our full attention.
The more important goals for the evaluation of teachers are developmental in scope. Valid and reliable teacher evaluation models provide a formative and summative feedback loop, develop excellence in the specialization of each teacher, and account for the individual differences in the areas of expertise for each segment of teaching and learning. Most evaluation systems fail to recognize the value of teaching professionals in the fine or performing arts, movement education, vocational education, or other specialized elective subjects. Professional development should remain the overall priority for teacher evaluation along with the legally defensible mechanisms for hiring, retaining, and perhaps remediating low performing or dismissing ineffective teachers.
To suggest that the current systems are in place for scientifically diagnosing the merits of teaching and assigning bonus pay based upon standardized test scores representing only a snapshot of teacher performance in science, math, social studies or English diminishes the profession as a whole. What’s needed is a motion picture of both teacher performance and student outcomes that encourage excellence in educational attainment across the broad spectrum of subject matter taught in public schools across America. I agree that reform in the area of student outcomes is needed but will argue that merit pay holds little hope for fixing the complexities that need to be undertaken in our schools.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
NJASA's Rich Bozza on Superintendent Pay Cuts
The Daily Record published this report on December 21, 2010, by Rob Jennings worth considering:
Gov. Chris Christie wouldn't last a
month as a school superintendent, a New Jersey
Association of School Administrators official jibed
Monday in charging that Christie's proposed salary
cap is both bad policy and a violation of state law.
In a meeting with the Daily Record editorial board,
NJASA Executive Director Richard Bozza - a former
Montville schools superintendent - said the
proposed cap would lead to massive turnover and
discourage prospective administrators from seeking
the top jobs.
Bozza said the state Legislature, not the Department
of Education, is responsible for setting salaries. He
accused Christie of not adequately considering the
potential ramifications on educational leadership,
arguing that top performers would be recruited by
districts in other states.
Referring to Christie's argument that no
superintendent has a tougher job than the governor
and therefore should not make more than his
$175,000 annual salary, Bozza countered that
Christie couldn't hack it as a local schools chief in
even the smallest of districts.
"If any superintendent acted the way he did, he
wouldn't last a month on the job," Bozza said when
asked about Christie's condemnation Nov. 9 of
Parsippany Superintendent Lee Seitz as a "poster
boy" for greed.
"No superintendent could get up in his or her
community and point fingers at people and degrade
them and still be kept by their school board,
because they expect more professional behavior,"
Bozza said of Christie, who has also criticized
Chatham Superintendent James O'Neill for similarly
seeking a contract extension beyond his proposed
cap.
Bozza's association filed an amicus brief last month
supporting the Parsippany school board's appeal to
the state Appellate Division seeking court-ordered
approval of Seitz' disputed contract extension,
which would bring his annual salary to $234,065
by the 2014/15 school year.
Christie's spokesman, Michael Drewniak, reacted
that Bozza's perspective is jaded by his position.
"His self-interest in on full display in his
comments," Drewniak said. "We are happy to be
defending the public and New Jersey taxpayers in
court, if that's what it takes, on this."
Bozza declined to say Monday whether his group
would eventually file a lawsuit challenging the
proposed caps, which would not take effect until
Feb. 7 and range from $125,000 in small districts to
$175,000 in large districts.
Acting Education Commissioner Rochelle Hendricks,
in the wake of the Seitz controversy, has ordered all
districts not to renegotiate any contracts expiring
after Feb. 7 unless the new terms complied with the
caps.
"It's not just a cap. It's a salary cut for 70 percent of
the people if they continue their employment," Bozza
said.
Bozza took issue with Christie's accusation that
school boards, such as Parsippany, renegotiating
ahead of the effective date are circumventing the
cap.
"There is nothing wrong or illegal about what
school boards are doing," he said.
Gov. Chris Christie wouldn't last a
month as a school superintendent, a New Jersey
Association of School Administrators official jibed
Monday in charging that Christie's proposed salary
cap is both bad policy and a violation of state law.
In a meeting with the Daily Record editorial board,
NJASA Executive Director Richard Bozza - a former
Montville schools superintendent - said the
proposed cap would lead to massive turnover and
discourage prospective administrators from seeking
the top jobs.
Bozza said the state Legislature, not the Department
of Education, is responsible for setting salaries. He
accused Christie of not adequately considering the
potential ramifications on educational leadership,
arguing that top performers would be recruited by
districts in other states.
Referring to Christie's argument that no
superintendent has a tougher job than the governor
and therefore should not make more than his
$175,000 annual salary, Bozza countered that
Christie couldn't hack it as a local schools chief in
even the smallest of districts.
"If any superintendent acted the way he did, he
wouldn't last a month on the job," Bozza said when
asked about Christie's condemnation Nov. 9 of
Parsippany Superintendent Lee Seitz as a "poster
boy" for greed.
"No superintendent could get up in his or her
community and point fingers at people and degrade
them and still be kept by their school board,
because they expect more professional behavior,"
Bozza said of Christie, who has also criticized
Chatham Superintendent James O'Neill for similarly
seeking a contract extension beyond his proposed
cap.
Bozza's association filed an amicus brief last month
supporting the Parsippany school board's appeal to
the state Appellate Division seeking court-ordered
approval of Seitz' disputed contract extension,
which would bring his annual salary to $234,065
by the 2014/15 school year.
Christie's spokesman, Michael Drewniak, reacted
that Bozza's perspective is jaded by his position.
"His self-interest in on full display in his
comments," Drewniak said. "We are happy to be
defending the public and New Jersey taxpayers in
court, if that's what it takes, on this."
Bozza declined to say Monday whether his group
would eventually file a lawsuit challenging the
proposed caps, which would not take effect until
Feb. 7 and range from $125,000 in small districts to
$175,000 in large districts.
Acting Education Commissioner Rochelle Hendricks,
in the wake of the Seitz controversy, has ordered all
districts not to renegotiate any contracts expiring
after Feb. 7 unless the new terms complied with the
caps.
"It's not just a cap. It's a salary cut for 70 percent of
the people if they continue their employment," Bozza
said.
Bozza took issue with Christie's accusation that
school boards, such as Parsippany, renegotiating
ahead of the effective date are circumventing the
cap.
"There is nothing wrong or illegal about what
school boards are doing," he said.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Reform and Reinvention of Education in America
I read with interest an article by Federick M. Hess "The Same Thing Over and Over" in November 10, 2010, Education Week. Thought my readers would like to sample an excerpt that lays out an intelligent foundation for the need to change the way we do things in public education. What do you think?
FREDERICK M. HESS is the director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington, and the author of the new book The Same Thing Over and Over: How School Reformers Get Stuck in Yesterday’s Ideas (Harvard University Press).
"It took more than three centuries after the first statutory education laws were adopted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1647 and 1652, until we actually got 90 percent of American students to show up in school every day. It’s hardly surprising that a system which spent centuries struggling to get students off the street and into schools, where they would be provided with minimal instruction, wasn’t built to educate every student to a high level.
This problem isn’t unique to education. Plenty of once-dominant private ventures—from Pan Am to Bethlehem Steel—have struggled to reinvent themselves when labor markets, technology, and customer demands have changed. Unable to refashion themselves, many have given way to younger, more agile competitors. Because that Darwinian process does not play out by itself in schooling, structural reform is essential to creating the room where problem-solving can happen.
We often seemingly fail to appreciate how much has changed since common-school and Progressive reformers shaped our schools in their battles to Americanize youths and get them out of the factories and in front of literate teachers.
Since the Progressive Era ended 75 years ago, our expectations have skyrocketed, with policymakers today insisting that all students need to master skills once thought the province of the elite. The expectation that our schools would mold students into “republican machines” has given way to an emphasis on diversity and tolerance, reducing the premium on homogeneity. The pool of available careerist teachers has dramatically shrunk as new opportunities have opened to women, even as professional mobility increased and the pool of educated professionals interested in teaching grew. And the ability of new technologies to assess student mastery, facilitate instruction, and enable virtual schooling has undergone a revolutionary expansion.
We’re hardly the first to be uncomfortable with change. While skeptics of technology today fret about the fate of the book, it was once books and the printing press that were feared by educators who worried that students would learn the wrong things, if left to read on their own. It was Sir Roger L’Estrange who wondered in the 17th century “whether more mischief than advantage were not occasion’d to the Christian world by the invention of typography.”
Reformers get swept up in enthusiasms and manias rather than in problem-solving. While some reformers tout mayoral control as a solution, the real challenge is the primacy of serial geographic monopolies that require every district to meet every need of every child—making it enormously difficult to do anything all that well. A century ago, this model was a best practice, as when people bought their tractors and their toothbrushes from Sears, Roebuck and Co. Today, however, coordination of provision is no longer a major challenge, enabling an array of providers to focus on the high-quality, cost-effective provision of particular goods or services.
Reformers wax enthusiastic about merit pay, while leaving intact notions of the teacher’s job description, school staffing, and the organization of instruction. Indeed, today’s “cutting edge” merit-pay strategies depend utterly on teachers’ retaining sole instructional responsibility for a group of students in a tested subject for 180 days. Rather than viewing pay reform as a tool for rethinking teaching, reformers wind up layering merit pay atop industrial-era pay scales.
Reformers celebrate alternative certification and extended learning time, yet seem to take for granted the primacy of colleges of education and the notion that all students necessarily require a standardized school year with a bureaucratically specified number of days and hours. Such assumptions learn nothing from promising ventures like San Diego’s High-Tech High School or New York City’s School of One.
The new decade ought to loom as a dynamic and enormously creative era addressing our educational challenges. We’ve set heroic goals, are constructing remarkable tools, and have an opportunity to rethink the very shape of teaching, learning, and schooling.
Yet we once again find ourselves rehashing tired debates between public school “defenders” and self-described “innovators.” On the one side are those who insist we cling to the rhythms of schoolhouses erected to sanitize Catholic immigrants. On the other are Race to the Top enthusiasts promising that data systems and more impassioned school leaders, along with a dollop of “science,” will set matters straight.
We don’t need “innovation” or to “protect” public schools. The truth is far simpler, and more frustrating, than that. Yesterday’s structures are ill-suited for today’s ambitions. Rethinking them is not an attack or a solution; it is just the inevitable precursor to crafting better answers to today’s challenges."
FREDERICK M. HESS is the director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington, and the author of the new book The Same Thing Over and Over: How School Reformers Get Stuck in Yesterday’s Ideas (Harvard University Press).
"It took more than three centuries after the first statutory education laws were adopted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1647 and 1652, until we actually got 90 percent of American students to show up in school every day. It’s hardly surprising that a system which spent centuries struggling to get students off the street and into schools, where they would be provided with minimal instruction, wasn’t built to educate every student to a high level.
This problem isn’t unique to education. Plenty of once-dominant private ventures—from Pan Am to Bethlehem Steel—have struggled to reinvent themselves when labor markets, technology, and customer demands have changed. Unable to refashion themselves, many have given way to younger, more agile competitors. Because that Darwinian process does not play out by itself in schooling, structural reform is essential to creating the room where problem-solving can happen.
We often seemingly fail to appreciate how much has changed since common-school and Progressive reformers shaped our schools in their battles to Americanize youths and get them out of the factories and in front of literate teachers.
Since the Progressive Era ended 75 years ago, our expectations have skyrocketed, with policymakers today insisting that all students need to master skills once thought the province of the elite. The expectation that our schools would mold students into “republican machines” has given way to an emphasis on diversity and tolerance, reducing the premium on homogeneity. The pool of available careerist teachers has dramatically shrunk as new opportunities have opened to women, even as professional mobility increased and the pool of educated professionals interested in teaching grew. And the ability of new technologies to assess student mastery, facilitate instruction, and enable virtual schooling has undergone a revolutionary expansion.
We’re hardly the first to be uncomfortable with change. While skeptics of technology today fret about the fate of the book, it was once books and the printing press that were feared by educators who worried that students would learn the wrong things, if left to read on their own. It was Sir Roger L’Estrange who wondered in the 17th century “whether more mischief than advantage were not occasion’d to the Christian world by the invention of typography.”
Reformers get swept up in enthusiasms and manias rather than in problem-solving. While some reformers tout mayoral control as a solution, the real challenge is the primacy of serial geographic monopolies that require every district to meet every need of every child—making it enormously difficult to do anything all that well. A century ago, this model was a best practice, as when people bought their tractors and their toothbrushes from Sears, Roebuck and Co. Today, however, coordination of provision is no longer a major challenge, enabling an array of providers to focus on the high-quality, cost-effective provision of particular goods or services.
Reformers wax enthusiastic about merit pay, while leaving intact notions of the teacher’s job description, school staffing, and the organization of instruction. Indeed, today’s “cutting edge” merit-pay strategies depend utterly on teachers’ retaining sole instructional responsibility for a group of students in a tested subject for 180 days. Rather than viewing pay reform as a tool for rethinking teaching, reformers wind up layering merit pay atop industrial-era pay scales.
Reformers celebrate alternative certification and extended learning time, yet seem to take for granted the primacy of colleges of education and the notion that all students necessarily require a standardized school year with a bureaucratically specified number of days and hours. Such assumptions learn nothing from promising ventures like San Diego’s High-Tech High School or New York City’s School of One.
The new decade ought to loom as a dynamic and enormously creative era addressing our educational challenges. We’ve set heroic goals, are constructing remarkable tools, and have an opportunity to rethink the very shape of teaching, learning, and schooling.
Yet we once again find ourselves rehashing tired debates between public school “defenders” and self-described “innovators.” On the one side are those who insist we cling to the rhythms of schoolhouses erected to sanitize Catholic immigrants. On the other are Race to the Top enthusiasts promising that data systems and more impassioned school leaders, along with a dollop of “science,” will set matters straight.
We don’t need “innovation” or to “protect” public schools. The truth is far simpler, and more frustrating, than that. Yesterday’s structures are ill-suited for today’s ambitions. Rethinking them is not an attack or a solution; it is just the inevitable precursor to crafting better answers to today’s challenges."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)