With the last Council election seeing the interest of more then 15 candidates, one is to wonder just how many people will be filing petitions for the Board of Education election this Spring. There are three seats open and rumor has it that one of the incumbents will not be running. This year's hot topic will have to be (as mentioned in the previous posts and comments) taxes and who will do what and how. Suposedly the BOE is rolling out a 5% increase(this is after The Record reported several months ago that most Bergen County schools are underfunded, except our Public Schools which is overfunded by millions of dollars). Although 5% might not seem like much, just remember the Board of Education budget is approximately 80 million dollars. You do the math!
As most people are aware, the Council extended an invitation to the Board of Education to use the Teaneck residents of the Financial Advisory Board (FAB) and have a Board of Ed member sit on the FAB as well. Not so well received by some members of the Board of Education. I hear that as a result of the FAB, the President of the Board of Education stopped the monthly meetings with the Council subcommittee all together...you know, the one to work on shared services, save Teaneck tax dollars and better communications amongst our elected officials. As the parent of a public school child, I must say this is Bad for the Council, Bad for the Board of Ed and most importantly, bad for the Teaneck residents.
We should support the candidates that will think out of the box and not rubber stamp inflated budgets prepared by administrators and managers.
48 comments:
I have observed the township budget process involving the town council and manager first hand over four meetings. There, all items have been opened up to examination. So far the 8.5% increase proposed by the manager's original budget has been whittled down a half a per cent through the aggressive efforts of the Mayor and Councilpersons Parker, Feit, Rudolph and Gussen.
What I saw the other evening at the Board of Education presentation by Mr. Donow (who is retiring March 1) was a far less forceful approach by the trustees to examining what is in the Board of Education budget, at least the parts dealt with so far. I hope that as the budget process continues this coming Wednesday night, those of us who come to observe will find many more nitty-gritty questions asked about the specifics of the budget.
I offer this example. When the Board members were told the other night that one position in one non-academic area with four workers was going to be done away with but be replaced in a different area by a jobholder with different skills, no one challenged the need for the new position. Nor did anyone ask whether the department from which the job was being removed still needed three workers.
It seems to me there is a responsibility to ask questions about the inner workings of the system. Only two of the Board members present Wednesday consistently did so.
The reasonable assumption that the education of Teaneck's children is primary to the responsibility of the Board does not preclude a tough effort to find and trim fat.
Another anonymous blogger enters the blogosphere with lots to say and no interest in accuracy. The 5% increase being referred to is the proposed budget. If the this Blogger understood the budget process, he would know that the first draft of the budget is larger than what is eventually passed. He would also know that unlike the town council, there is a state mandated 3.6% cap on the school budget.
The bloggers statement that, “The Record reported several months ago that most Bergen County schools are underfunded, except our Public Schools which is overfunded by millions of dollars,” is also inaccurate. Quoting from the October 21 article, Study shows N.J. schools underfunded by $190M. "In Bergen County, the data show 29 out of 76 districts spent less than the study suggested was appropriate in order to provide a complete education.” It might also be noted that the article concerned a specific report which used tried to compare costs to an undefined “thorough and efficient education”. The article never even uses the Bloggers term overfunded.
As for the FAB, you are correct, the BofE did not agree to violate it's fiduciary responsibilities as state officials by excepting the councils invitation. Legal issues aside, why would the board member want to participate on a FAB appointed by a hostile council who would appoint members known to be hostile to the board.
While its easy to perpetuate the lie that board members rubber stamp budgets, it has never been true.
As for the upcoming election, which board member are you referring to. While I don't know about Henry Pruitt, the other incumbants have their petitions ready to be filed.
Another anonymous blogger enters the blogosphere with lots to say and no interest in accuracy.
Tom Abbot, Why are you so hostile to Henry Frisch? Is there a bad blood between you? There is a Henry Frisch who has lived in Teaneck for 30+ years, is he not who he says he is? If he has made errors can they not be corrected without insult?
I too agree that both the original post and Mr. Frisch paint a partial picture of the Board of Education's budget process. If he had shown enough interest to come to previous workshops in December as well as the beginning of January, he would know that what is being presented to Board members is a systematic review process in all areas of the school budget where some cuts have already been earmarked, and that they were informed last Wednesday that these cuts as well as the state budget cap have already caused the school budget to be reduced to a 3.9% increase so far -- and they aren't done yet. What is more, Board members are putting the children first, making sure that the ACT recommendations are in the heart of this year's budget so that the educational needs of all students can be addressed and achievement-based programs can be implemented.
As for the upcoming election, by all means encourage those who are interested to run in open election for this volunteer position. The dialogue that will result in a challenged election can only benefit the electorate and focus on the serious issues of public education.
The Superintendent has already reported to the Board of Ed that the allegation published in the RECORD last fall about Teaneck being "overfunded" was completely out of left field, and even the state Department of Ed authorities have no idea what criteria were used to come up with that figure...besides that, who says everything published in a newspaper is the "truth"?
I do not believe the comments by Tom Abbott were directed at me but rather at the initial blog item.
With regard to the article about how much education does and should cost in New Jersey published in The Record of last October 21st, I have it in hand and will quote from it. "In Bergen County, the data show 29 out of 76 districts spent less than the the study suggested was appropriate in order to provide a complete education. In Passaic County, eight out of 20 districts spent less. OTHER DISTRICTS SPENT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE; TEANECK SPENT $9.4 MILLION MORE THAN THE ESTIMATE." [I have capitalized part of the quotation.]
While it is true no one should believe everything he or she reads in a newspaper (and that often seems the case when a certain local publication is involved), the reputation of the Record stands tall for most long time residents of Bergen County -- and yes, I have been living in Teaneck since 1974.
RE: "BofE did not agree to violate it's fiduciary responsibilities as state officials by excepting the councils invitation."
Tom, perhaps you would enlighten us as to exactly which "fiduciary responsibilities" the diligent members of the BoE would have been violating if they had accepted non-binding input from an advisory board that did not cost the BoE anything.
Henry,
As you have the 10/21 Record article in hand, you know that it also says:
"State officials declined to comment on the methodology or accuracy of the estimates, which officials would describe only as "preliminary" and a "work in progress."
Three months later this hasn't changed. State officials still will not share the methodology it employed, nor the data on which it based its "preliminary" conclusions. Nor will it vouch for the accuracy of this "work in progress."
Needless to say this puts the school administration in an untenable position, as it cannot respond to anything specific. It is much like a defendent in a prosecution being unable to see the evidence against him. How can they answer, much less defend against, a charge that is just hanging out there, unsubstantiated?
As a member of the Financial Advisory Board, I think you have a "fiduciary responsiblity" to apply a higher standard in making judgements than what you'd expect to hear on the street or read in a forum started by an unknown blogger who expects us to take his word that he is the "parent of a public school child." (Is this the same blogger who hijacked AlanSohn's website name?)
Frankly, you don't do much to engender confidence in work of the FAB. Nor does the fact that its chairman has already resigned in protest of the council's heavy-handed attempt to impose its own agenda.
Has he been replaced yet? I shudder to imagine by whom.
Jeff-
I was commenting on what I myself saw, not on what any anonymous blogger said.
There is a burden on the school board to be as careful in its approach to providing a sound education for each child at the minimum cost whether the Bergen Record presents claims suggesting it is not doing so or not.
I have been as diligent in my participation on the FAB as I know how to be and have never missed any opportunity to participate in its work. We have made what I would call a valiant attempt to fullfill our mandate from the Council. It has not been helpful to anyone that the Board of Education has been reluctant to cooperate. From the point of view of Teaneck taxpayers, their tax bill is unitary. A friend of mine has put it that, "It all comes from one pair of pants with two pockets."
The original Chair resigned for what he characterized as personal reasons. His replacement I believe will prove to be an outstanding Teaneck resident.
If we all work together to improve Teaneck's financial health while providing all the best services, neither you nor any other Teaneckers will need to "shudder".
Jeff:
It would be easier to dimiss the 10/21 article if it was not so in line with every other statistical measure of spending by the district. Go to the Dept of Education website, look at the report card and find the material financial categories in which Teaneck is not in the top 10% of peer districcts. Whether we are overspending by 10%, 15%, 17% (as suggested by the article) or more is a secondary point, I am not aware of a single statistical measure by which Teaneck spending is average, much less thrifty.
Isn't of Teaneck's high spending because of cost of living in this part of the state? Aren't teacher salaries higher in Bergen County than Salem county, for example?
Also, Teaneck has a far higher proportion of teachers with advanced degrees and more years of experience, it seems. I could see how that adds up to millions of dollars. I know test scores and 4-year college rates are not the highest, but wouldn't it be even lower if not for the impressive talent in the system now?
Henry --
There is a burden on the school board to be as careful in its approach to providing a sound education for each child at the minimum cost whether the Bergen Record presents claims suggesting it is not doing so or not.
I agree with that. But I don't see what it has to do with the fact that you selectively quoted the Record in regards to a claim that cannot be examined or verified. What about the burden on the board's critics to be fair?
Anonymous at 11:18 --
At least the statistics on the Department of Education website are there to be dealt with. I suggest you throw out the "indictment" of October 15 for its total lack of evidence and concentrate on addressable issues. You don't have to like what they say, but at least the board and administration will have something they can repond to.
Teaneck teacher salaries are at or near the top of Bergen county - depending on how you measure it. For example, the median salary is 15%+ more than a number of surrounding towns.
As to the presence of long ternured teachers with advanced degrees in the system - once a teacher has a few years of experience, has anyone in the personal experience or the experience of their children really found a correlation between either and the quality of instruction?
There is great value to educational experience and scholarship on the part of teachers. There is no point in anyone running teachers in general and Teaneck teachers in particular down for being experienced and knowledgeable.
In order for Teaneck students to get first rate educations they need first rate teachers. What needs to be ferreted out of the system is unnecessary spending outside the classroom.
At the fine public school system in Westchester in which my wife teaches there is far less non-teaching time in the budget than in Teaneck. My many decades of experience in the New York City public system showed me exactly what is wrong when the teacher to non-teacher (administrators et al) ratio is excessive. Not only is there a waste of money, but teachers are kept back from doing the best job they can do. A lean school system that allows teachers to do their job is best from every standpoint.
Henry:
By what criteria, other than than their tensure and degrees, do you form your belief that (1) Teaneck's teachers are "excellent"; and (2) are significantly better than teachers in neighboring districts who are paid significantly less.
I am all for rewarding excellent teachers, but unless there is clear evidence linking tenure (after the first few years) and degrees (again, there are exceptions, the AP English teacher should have a higher degree but not the gym teacher)with excellence, it is not "running down" teachers by criticizing the manner in which they are paid.
Second, what is your basis for the assertion that the teacher/non-teacher ratio is out of whack. The numbers I've seen place Teaneck in the middle of the pack on this one.
I really don't like answering anonymous people.In particular I don't care to respond to claims I am supposed to have made which I have not made. Go back and check.
I think it is reasonable to expect teachers to be represented by unions and there is a long standing solidarity approach by teachers' unions when it comes to negotiating on behalf of their members. Frankly, no teachers' union will separate out members the way Anonymous would like. His assumptions about Health and Physical Education are not ones with which I would agree. Education is not nor should it ever be babysitting. The more learned teachers are the better.
I would like to see each child taught to the maximum of that child's ability. My concern about lean administration is founded in many decades of experience working in the New York City system and being actively involved with the UFT. Apparently, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein (according to recent coverage in the New York Times) agree with me.
I think it is to be expected that teachers be well paid so that their morale is such that it translates into a desire to educate the children. Teaching is a demanding profession and teachers need to be properly remunerated.
The trustees need to make sure that teachers' loads are fair and that any non-teaching jobs are absolutely necessary. If the Board members do that, I am in full support of them. I would have liked to have seen non-teaching positions challenged by the trustees at last week's meeting and justified by the professional leadership of the schools. I also hope to hear at the next meeting a review of the class sizes and an ascertaining that they are like the fairy tale porridge "just right" -- not too large but also not too small. These are things I would have liked to have gone into together with my FAB partners as part of an effort to help the Board and its managers, had there been cooperation.
I believe the Board has always made it clear that constructive input by township residents are always welcome as they put together their budgets -- it just can't come from an advisory board of the council as the two bodies are statutorily separate by state law. (Glad to know you support well-paid teachers and reasonable class sizes, we are on the same page! I assume you would agree that teacher evaluations and accountability, as well as development and evaluation of curriculum, can only be done by a certain amount of administrators as well...)
mskj-
As an old English teacher, I can only accept "numbers" of supervisors, not "amounts" of them. As to how many you are referring to, I am mystified. One of my hard-earned beliefs, I can assure you, is that over-supervision and over-administration are a common by-product of maintaining too large a body of administrators in need of justifying their existence.
Henry:
Sorry, but I will stay anonymous.
You stated: "In order for Teaneck students to get first rate educations they need first rate teachers. What needs to be ferreted out of the system is unnecessary spending outside the classroom." I assumed that you were implying that Teaneck's teachers were "first rate" (which I took to = excellent) and merited their pay.
Now you are kind of stuck. Either (1) they are first rate/excellent - in which case give me some objective basis for that belief; or (2) they are not, in which case top of the scale salaries have not brought top notch teachers - raising the question if why it pays to continue the current pay pratices.
As to the Unions, I've suggested previously that it is time to take them on. In the current state-wide climate on taxes, I don't think a strike would be their wisest move. Once word comes out that gym teachers are earning about 100K, I don't think they will get much sympathy.
Finally, I don't think that Teaneck needs to solve the question of how we compensate different professions. Are teachers, firefighters and policeman underpaid relative to their sacrifice - you can certainly argue that case. However, there is a market for each of these skillsets and we do not have to be on the top of the scale. It seems to me that teachers from the majority of the towns around Teaneck would have no morale problems with the salaries they would get if they came to Teaneck at 10% less than the currnt scale - it would still be a pay increase for most.
Again, I hate to answer anonymous people.
Unlike Mr. Anonymous (who likes strikes and strife), I understand how the world works. He is in a distopian fantasy world where teachers do not band together into unions and have the means to pick themselves up and switch from school to school. Even if they could do so easily, teachers are by nature unlikely to avail themselves of such footloose behavior. Their success as teachers derives to no small extent from their stability as individuals.
I did not judge the current staff. The tenure process is supposed to weed out inferior and unacceptable teachers at the outset. Those who survive that early process should grow more excellent with time. I can only trust that the professional supervisors of the system have done their job.
Cutting positions that are not needed can be accomplished mainly or completely by attrition. Buyouts can also prune back any excess that should be exposed (and my main point is that there should be close examination of all employment by the Board).
Anonymous' desire to create a war situation in Teaneck startles me (and explains his anonymity). It is frankly depraved to talk that way.
I do not believe professional salaries for individuals with many years experience and education is out of line. Of course, inflation should be the guide for how salaries continue to advance once they have reached a decent level.
Time for new faces on the Board
Maybe one that knows how to manage money....mm ???
Henry:
Sorry, as your "Mr Anonymous," I choose to post anonymously. If a name is critically important to you, call me Bill.
As to some of your other points:
1. Inflation Based Salary Increases - The annual raises in the current contract exceed the rate of inflation of any year since the early 90's. That on top of salaries that are among the highest in State. Is that "out of line"?
2. Tenure and Teacher Excellence - You stated: "Those who survive that early process should grow more excellent with time. I can only trust that the professional supervisors of the system have done their job." If I understand correctly, tenure is awarded after three years of teaching (1) hardly enough time to establish excellence; and (2) more likely an insitution that ensures that mediocrity does not result in termination (since excellent teachers should not really need tenure to retain their jobs). The Bergen Record reported in July of this year that of the 10,000 teachers in Bergen County not one had been fired in the state's tenure-hearing process for at least a decade. BTW, the NJEA (teacher's union) has also consistently rejected merit pay. Based on the performance of Tenaeck's student I do not share your trust in the professional supervisors of the system.
3. Strife - I don't like strife, but I also do not like to be held hostage. There is no economic basis for the Teaneck pay scale. If the Union is willing to agree to real concessions and not insulting jokes like $5 medical copays great. If not, this is a cycle that has to be broken and cutting 10 administrative positions is not a meaningful economic answer. Teaneck survived a teachers' strike in 1982 and could survive another one. However, in the current climate, I am not sure the Union will be as happy with the results.
Mr. Frisch:
Twice you have referred to the Board of Ed's lack of cooperation with the FAB. Can you be more specific? Are you simply referring to the unwillingness to go along with the council and participate as members of the FAB or are there specific requests for information that the FAB has made that the Board or School Administration has refused.
Perhaps as a FAB member you could explain a little more about how you see its role with regard to the BofE. For example, do you believe the FAB mandate includes making educational recommendations? Do I read correctly that you believe that the FAB should have a role in making recommendations about class sizes?
You’ve also implied that based on what you’ve personally observed; the school board has not been careful in its approach “to providing a sound education for each child at the minimum cost.” Is this based on regular attendance at Board meetings and workshops?
For those very few who might not know, I do not agree that the school board’s job is to provide a “sound education for each child at the minimum cost”. The school board’s primary obligation is to provide the best possible education for each child.
To "Bill"
1.Inflation is a proper basis for raises once a bargaining unit has reached a fair wage.
2.If you are correct, the focus should be on improving the supervision. However, that does not mean the teachers are not doing their best.
3.Wake up. For some reason you are quite bitter and seem to believe slavery for teachers would improve the educational process. $100,000 after many years service is a reasonable professional level. Attorneys just out of law school are getting $200,000 in this metropolitan area. As for “merit pay,” it is universally known by teachers to be based on favoritism and is consequently never taken up by teachers. No one in his right mind chooses to start a war or a strike; it seems as if you want to bring home to Teaneck the domestic equivalent of the war in Iraq. The children, their parents and everybody else in town would not be happy with the results of a strike.
To Tom-
I am "simply referring to the unwillingness to go along with the council."
I do wonder about class sizes. Last night I heard that eight positions will be added for the coming year to maintain class size caps. The sizes in grades 5 and 6 were mentioned as being 21 and in grades 1-4 as being under twenty. I would have liked to have heard questions asked by the Board about these caps. I would like to know what the middle school and high school caps are. I would like to know whether these caps are negotiated into the contract or are otherwise arrived at. Assuming the Board is asking these questions at other times and posesses the answers, it needs to share that information with the tax paying public. I see the FAB as a tool to help the Board in its responsibilities. Last year the Council was uncomfortable not having specific information with which to make the cuts called for by the voters in their rejection of the school budget. The offering of cuts to sports seemed to provide the council with an area that would merely enflame the overall situation. Interestingly, the Superintendent stated last night that he was able to pursue the ACT initiative without new money because he had "found" 1.1 million dollars merely by making adjustments to the old budget.Does that mean there was fat last year that could have been brought to the council instead of sports? Wouldn't a careful study by the Board together with FAB have been able to "find" money?
I have been to three workshops and watched one meeting that was televised at home.
Do you believe that the best possible education (which I too am clearly interested in providing) should come at any cost? Is your utopianism so great that you have no concern for the taxpayers whatsoever?
Mr. Frisch:
The Board of Ed meeting on Wednesday night was a workshop meeting for Board members. Board members ask questions to further understand the subjects being discussed. Given that the Board set the class caps and has discussed the issue in great depth repeatedly over at least the two decades, there was no need to ask the administration any of your questions.
The board meeting ran about three hours ending after 11PM, If the board members had stopped to grill the administration on every issue on which they already had the information, they would have been there all night. As you left someplace around 9:30, you would still not have the answers to which you feel entitled.
If you actually wanted answers to your questions about the class caps, it would not have been difficult to get them. You could have stayed till the end of the meeting and cornered one of the exhausted board members who would have answered any question just to get you to let them go home to sleep. Having left and missed the best part of the nights presentations, you could still email the administration or a board member with your questions. They would have cooperated even knowing you are a member of the FAB.
Your last post has another little tidbit. You said, ‘Interestingly, the Superintendent stated last night that he was able to pursue the ACT initiative without new money because he had “found” 1.1 million dollars merely by making adjustments to the old budget.’ It’s hard to believe anyone paying attention would come to this conclusion from what the Superintendent said.
The Superintendent did not say the ACT initiative could be pursued without new money. What he said was that of the money needed for the new programs planned for the ACT initiative, 1.1 million dollars could be “found” amongst programs that would be replaced. Unfortunately I don’t recall the full amount budgeted for the ACT Initiative changes. As you did not understand it last night let me try to illustrate it further.
I assume you left before the presentation on the proposed changes to the High School Social Studies programs. (It would be mind boggling to think you came to your conclusion having seen it.) The current Social Studies program requires one year of Global History and two years of US History. Freshman generally take Global history – either College Prep or Honors. Students than can continue in the two year US History College Prep track or choosing the Honors Track a three year program including two years of AP US History.
One of the suggestions of the ACT initiative was the creation of a two year US History Honors track that would fall between the College Prep track and the AP track. Those who made the suggestion felt that many students in the College Prep track are capable of doing more rigorous work but are not quite ready for the rigor of the AP track. An honors track would fill this need. In addition to the ACT recommendation over the years many students had also complained that the College Prep course was not challenging enough but that the AP class was beyond them.
By now you may wonder what this has to do with the budget. We’re getting there. Currently there are between 500 and 600 students in the college prep track and maybe 60 (total guess) in the AP track. Assuming the honors track is created and a third of the students opt for it total number of classes will stay the same. Assuming the cost of this program had been $300,000 originally and the new ACT initiative honors program cost $150,000; it would not require $150,000 in new funding. The cost of the existing tracks would go down to $200,000 and of the $150,000 budgeted for the ACT only $50,000 would be needed. The other $100,000 would be “found” in the reduction. This is not “fat” as you suggest. I hope I’ve made this a little clearer to you though I believe the presentation last night was a lot clearer than I can be.
(I’ve skipped mention of a few of the specialized courses like Latin American history and African American History in a hopeless attempt at brevity.)
So far I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really didn’t understand this and did not just seize on anything you could find to inflame the tax paying public against the Board and the school budget.
[to be continued]
Mr. Frisch:
[continued]
You are not the first to use statements like, “Assuming the Board is asking these questions at other times and possesses the answers, it needs to share that information with the tax paying public.” The board makes many attempts to inform a generally disinterested public. These include the open workshops that you have attended, the television broadcasts of the regular meetings, information on the website (included videos of some meetings), flyers and letters to parents, announcements and articles in the Suburbanite … and lest it be overlooked a willingness on the part of both the Board members and the administration to provide any information requested (barring legal restraints.) Perhaps you could suggest additional approaches. Hopefully you can also suggest ways to fund them.
On the matter of cooperation with the FAB, the Board made it quite clear that while it would not participate, it would fully cooperate in any request the FAB made for information as it would with the request of any citizen of Teaneck.
The President of the Board left no doubt that every member of the Board objected to the FAB as proposed by the Council. The council majority has been totally disinterested in the Boards view. This steadfast refusal to consider any opinion but their own has led to a schism between the Council and the Board. One might almost think that it was planned that way.
You said, “I see the FAB as a tool to help the Board in its responsibilities.” The Board members were elected to fulfill their responsibilities. Just as the council is entitled to appoint advisory boards if it feels it needs help to fulfill its responsibilities, the Board can and does appoint advisory boards (or committees) as it sees fit. It does not fall under the jurisdiction of the council which, despite the majority’s feeling of omnipotence, has no jurisdiction over the Board. Even in the rare case where the council gets to reduce the budget after a budget defeat, the Council has no say as to what gets cut and any cut it makes can be appealed to the state. If the Council chooses to appoint advisors to educate themselves on the Board’s budget process in preparation for such an event it may do so, but they don’t need to have a committee with a Board member to do so.
Henry:
You ended with questions ... "Do you believe that the best possible education (which I too am clearly interested in providing) should come at any cost?"
Of course not. A near meaningless question when "any cost" is so all inclusive.
and ... "Is your utopianism so great that you have no concern for the taxpayers whatsoever?"
Clever and even more meaningless. Not only do we have the all inclusive "whatsoever" but the undefined variable of whatever you might mean by my "utopianism". Given that the answer of "no" is almost tautological.
Tom-
Since you utilize the word “exhausted” to describe the School Board members, I will agree that the overall impression the Board members (with the notable exception of Dr. Walser) make is of exhaustion. When I contrast what I see from them with what I see at meetings involving the youthful Council, it strikes me that the exhausted Board of Ed should probably make way for a younger more vigorous set of trustees.
Your discussion of the “found” ACT money avoids dealing with the fact that there was “found” money in last year’s budget. My point was that if such money could be found, the Board should not have gone to the Council with absurd cuts. Since we have two pockets to our one pair of pants as tax payers and all seventeen candidates in the past council election pledged to control taxes if elected, the Board should have understood the great sensitivity of this issue at a time when tax inflation in Teaneck far outstrips the inflation rate each year.
Your assumption that I was not present for Marisa King’s presentation about the social studies program is incorrect. It was during Ms. King’s presentation that long time Board member Angeli stated, “Most of us have no idea what Foundations is,” with reference to a program that we were told is not new. If there was, as you claim, much interaction between the Board and the professional supervisors prior to this meeting which was not for questions so much as for presentation, why was Ms. King not apprised earlier of the prior history of a Women’s piece to the Foundations program years before she got to Teaneck? Nothing in the interaction between the Board and Ms. King suggested your view of the proceedings.
In so far as what was presented, I discussed the high school social studies program with my wife when I got home. She has for many years taught social studies at Croton-Harmon High School, a public school in Westchester (and a very good one that this week produced one of the twelve Intel Finalists from New York State). Ms. King claimed the American History AP is a two year program. My wife points out, it is a one year course (which in Croton is given in the junior year).
More importantly, the overall concept of isolating different groups of students, with the exception of AP, is just not done at Croton. An excellent education in social studies there is provided to all students in totally integrated classes. Whether a student is special education or a genius, he/she studies in one class. Even calling what is the lowest track in the Teaneck High School social studies program “College Prep” does not fool anyone. Separating students out with tracking cannot help in what Board member Dr. Pruitt calls in his excellent article in yesterday’s Record “raising aspirations for academic excellence.”
You have asked for my suggestions. In Croton, every voter is provided with full printed information on every item in the budget. Since I am not interested in adding to expenditure, I will not ask for voluminous printing to be done. But I do believe all the information about the budget, including class size rules, ought to be provided on line. If it already exists there, I have not been able to find it.
Why you would say the Council lacks interest in the Board’s views puzzles me when all the evidence I see points to the reverse being the case. I believe the Council wishes to keep failure of school budgets in the “rare” category you allude to. They feel that they have plenty on their plates and would have nothing less than grateful appreciation for the Board’s doing its job.
There was no unused money "found". If you were there through the history presentation and don't understand this than I would recommend that you resign from the FAB as you do not understand how budgets work. I suspect the real case is that you don't give a damn how they work and your only purpose in attending Board meetings is to look for anyway you can to criticize the board in hopes that the board budget will be defeated again.
Categorizing a question by Ms. Angeli as indicating that no one on the board had any clue about the curriculum is just stupid. I did not claim that board members discussed every detail with course supervisors in advance. You simply misrepresent my point to make yours. I said board members ask for information they don't have not for information they already know. They also have the good sense to allow professionals to develop course curriculums. They don’t practice the micro-management that you applaud in the young councilmembers.
As for your view that since,
"the overall concept of isolating different groups of students, with the exception of AP, is just not done at Croton." It is just not material. A quick check shows that Croton is a much smaller school with a total school population of 438 in 2005. It is also a more homogeneous school. The 2005 graduating class had 91 students of whom 78 were white, 3 black, 7 hispanic. With a population that size they cannot offer the range of courses given in a larger school like Teaneck.
The Board does its job and doesn’t need the oversight of a council that can barely handle theirs. But have no fear, the Board will soon rectify the problem of the Board's youth and ignorance by appointing a Financial, Quality of Life, and Underdevelopment Board. The FQU will have 5 Board appointed members and will expect the council to appoint one council member and one other member. While the application process has not started, the inside word is that it will be headed by Ron Schwartz and cochaired by Sandy Loft. I expect full cooperation from the board.
Tom-
You have begun to attack me in a most ad hominem fashion. That is obviously uncalled for.
I have made it clear that I do not want to see the budget defeated. I would like to see it made so strong that it would not be defeated.
As for my being "stupid", what can I say other than that I do not agree and I would allow those who pay attention to what I say make the call.
If all decisions are to be left to professionals, as you urge, why do we elect Board of Education members and/or Council members? Is there no serious oversight responsibility? Is your idea of the democratic process one that elections of trustees should be merely pro forma? One reason I have long urged moving the school board election from the busy holiday season in April to November is that the current --expensive-- election serves that cynical pro forma view. I now fear the legislature will bow to the interests you seem to agree with and not make the change.
Of course, I didn't find the Board to have a problem being too youthful. Again, I think you should read me more carefully. I think they are too "mature." The two people you feel will help them are also far from youthful.
You also don't seem to understand that the problem of sending weaker students the message that they cannot learn together with their peers in one classroom transcends issues of school size.
Since you utilize the word “exhausted” to describe the School Board members, I will agree that the overall impression the Board members (with the notable exception of Dr. Walser) make is of exhaustion. When I contrast what I see from them with what I see at meetings involving the youthful Council, it strikes me that the exhausted Board of Ed should probably make way for a younger more vigorous set of trustees.
People who are involved in the BoE typically have children. In addition, children + full time job either = no time to volunteer or the appearance of 'exhausted' at 11:00 pm. I guess the retired members w/ grown children could have taken a nap during the day to prepare......
Contrast that with 'youthful' council - no kids, own their own business or otherwise have flexible schedules.
The apparent disinterest or apathy of most of the township population could just be attributed to 'exhaustion'
Pardon me if I do not have time to educate myself on years of conversations that took place in board meetings (televised or otherwise) where things were discussed before, or read every report and parse every detail and analyze every number.
If someone asks a question - its probably because they do not know the answer. If someone is trying to particpate, but can't do all the research, I think the attitude could be more welcoming.
For those reasons, I enjoy reading the blogs, but for those reasons as well, I am offput by the inferred suggestion that I don't have the right to ask a quesiton because I haven't done my homework.
Mr. Frisch:
I disagree. The ad hominem attack was called for. If you are determined to persist in the blatant lie that the Board “found” more than a million dollars that could have been cut from the budget, you should be removed from any board that represents Teaneck.
You have not made it clear that you don’t want to see the budget defeated. I suspect that any budget that the Board could pass will not meet your criteria for a “strong” budget.
I did not call you stupid. I called a statement you made stupid, but then you know the difference and presented it that way for effect.
Having tired of misrepresenting the board, you’ve moved on to misrepresenting me. I made a statement that, “They also have the good sense to allow professionals to develop course curriculums.” You’ve translated that into, “If all decisions are to be left to professionals, as you urge…” Who do you think you’re fool with this kind of crap?
While you asked the questions to score points rather than for answers, I’ll start with, “… why do we elect Board of Education members and/or Council members?” The Council is a municipal body elected to set policies for the municipality (town) and oversees the municipal administration and management of the town. The actual administration and management is placed in the hands of a town manager. The Board of Education is a state body elected to set policy for the school district and oversees the administration and management of the district. The actual responsibility for administration and management is placed in the hands of a superintendent of schools. Both bodies are created according to NJ statutes and must operate according to said statutes. They are independent governing bodies and neither has jurisdiction over the over.
Next, “Is there no serious oversight responsibility?” Of course – see the above. “Is your idea of the democratic process one that elections of trustees should be merely pro forma?” Of course not, but then the questions were not asked for any other reason than to create the impression that I hold these foolish views.
You end the paragraph with, “I now fear the legislature will bow to the interests you seem to agree with and not make the change.” More crap. Moving on to guilt be association? Making up a view for me to hold and trying to associate me with these nefarious “interests”. Very clever!
Then there is, “You also don't seem to understand that the problem of sending weaker students the message that they cannot learn together with their peers in one classroom transcends issues of school size.” While you are correct that I disagree with your point view, I was not commenting on that aspect by pointing out the size of the Croton-Harmon school. You brought Croton-Harmon into the subject by way of comparison to illustrate your point. I was pointing out that it was a bad comparison because of size and demographic characteristics. The splitting out of the AP course does not support your view either. Is the message to the “weaker students” not the same if the course is labeled AP?
On to “Of course, I didn't find the Board to have a problem being too youthful.” A typo on my part which I’ll presume you didn’t notice. I used Board instead of Council. A corrected version:
The Board does its job and doesn’t need the oversight of a council that can barely handle theirs. But have no fear, the Board will soon rectify the problem of the Council's youth and ignorance by appointing a Financial, Quality of Life, and Underdevelopment Board. The FQU will have 5 Board appointed members and will expect the council to appoint one council member and one other member. While the application process has not started, the inside word is that it will be headed by Ron Schwartz and co-chaired by Sandy Loft. I expect full cooperation from the board.
Could one of the Bd of Ed defenders comment on the ratio of teachers, non-teaching supervisors and supportive staff to students currently vs back in the day(when the reputation was great & enrollment was 500-600 per grade).
Henry and Tom, you are more alike than you think. Each of you defend entities that are failing Teaneck.
Henry, your defense of teachers' salaries and quality in the absence of any supporting information might make you popular with the UFT but by supporting tenure, rejecting merit pay ("universally known by teachers to be based on favoritism and is consequently never taken up by teachers" - every other segment of our economy thrives on merit pay, but school administrators are the only managers that can't be trusted to engage in favortism"), and failing to explain why Teaneck teachers are paid significantly more than those in neighboring towns, you do little to ensure that Teaneck students get excellent teachers and that Teaneck pays competitive salaries without overpaying.
Similarly, Tom seems intent on defending the BoE at all costs and rejects the notion that any outside input might help the BoE do its job better. Now this might be understandable, except that as it stands now, student achievement in Teaneck is average at best and the cost of education is at/near the top of the State by most objective measures. Based on the current situation, the wisdom and judgement of the BoE is far from beyond question and it should be seeking outside input since its multiple long serving members have not been able to tackle these issues. Like Henry, Tom's position does little to ensure that Teaneck students achieve the most they can and that Teaneck taxpayers carry a reasonable educational tax burden.
The primary focus of all educational policy must be the student. Next should come a focus on the one adult who matters in the education of the student "within the school building" -- the teacher. (Obviously the teacher is merely the parents' assistant, since it is the parents who bear primary responsibility for their child's education.)The job of the supervisor is to assist the teacher in educating the student. Too much administration leads to mischief making by the supervisors and waste of taxpayer dollars. Ideally there ought to be only one Principal and one assistant principal in a building. And large numbers of centrally located bureaucrats are also part of this problem. How many supervisors does your dentist or personal physician require?
Education is a cooperative venture on the part of the in-building teachers. Experienced teachers help their junior colleagues. This is in the interest of the student.Would you want to create an environment where one teacher had an incentive to sabotage your child's education by creating a situation where your child's teacher "failed" so that the first teacher could be rewarded? Thus merit pay interferes with the education of the student.
Contrary to Anonymous' claim, merit pay is not universal. The major law firms employ a scale system in which all associates are paid alike for the reason that competition would prevent lawyers from assisting each other in serving the clients. Who believes that the so-called merit pay employed by the owners of baseball teams results in automatic results?
Why Anonymous keeps harping on teachers' salaries is beyond me. There is no huge difference from other districts. I understand that class size and number of administrators can impinge on the total cost of our school budget but do not believe any rational person can argue that professionals responsible for the education of their children should be demoralized and forced to neglect their primary responsibility to Teaneck's children performing moonlight activities.
Besides, if Anonymous really thinks this putting down of teachers will happen following his declaration of war in the form of inducing a strike, he had better start using his name to rally his troops. I doubt he'll show his identity.
Henry:
First, you really have to get over your name hang-up. Second, a dose of facts would be helpful - "There is no huge difference from other districts" is simply not true. The median teacher salary in Teaneck is 15%+ higher than most of the surrounding towns. If you do not think that is a good measure, look at Teaneck's total cost of instruction per student - this is a factor of teacher salary and benefits and class size. Since Teaneck has pretty average class size, the fact that Teaneck ranks in the top 10% on this measure (actually think it might be in the top 5%)is a atttributable to teacher's salaries. Their Union is excellent. Town residents need an equally effective advocate and the BoE has not served that role - just see the last contract.
You keep on harping on class size and administrators. Your focus on class size is difficult to understand given multiple studies that show a correlation between small class size and educational achievement. Putting that aside - Teaneck is average in both classroom size and student/adminstrator ratio. Yet, many other districts with similar numbers seem to be able to provide educations as good or better than Teaneck far more cost effectively. Teachers' salaries and benefits are more than half of the budget. You simply cannot make Teaneck Public Schools more costy effective in a meaningful way without tackling teachers' salaries/productivity.
Also, fyi, lockstep salary scales for young attorneys is a major problem for law firms. Most find ways to add bonuses and other incentives to their stars and once they make partner, compensation is far from lockstep. In your old stomping ground, NYC, Chancellor Klein end-run the Union and raised private funds to provide merit bonuses. The early results have been pretty encouraging.
Look Anonymous, I refuse to get over my disgust with your taking radical positions that cannot lead anywhere behind a mask. If you think the people of Teaneck want to declare war on the teachers without a general to lead them you are smoking strong stuff. Either someone tests the waters about such a nonsensical proposition or he shuts up about it. Your cowardice is due to the impossibility of your position. So you get over it.
If the salaries are half the budget, as you claim, why won't you consider working on the other half? I think that is the side where change can happen.
Salaries and productivity are completely separate issues. You keep harping on teachers salaries achieved after many years service. That merely shows an unreal sense of what is going on in this area for professionals active in the work force.
Furthermore, I would like you to help me flesh out the actual teacher loads since you claim to know these. How many students does each teacher teach in the departmentalized grades? Is it at 25 per class in the high school? I don't know this and neither Tom nor you nor anyone else has stepped forward with this information. Are all high school teachers teaching five classes? As far as class size goes, I personally have lots of experience and can tell you that high school teachers can handle 34 in a class but would rather see the number lower. Not every small class is best. Too small a class can be as detrimental in its own way to good pedagogy as too big.
There is no merit pay in the New York system.Law firm bonuses are also across the board.
But again, unless you come forward or can bring someone else forward to lead your war on teachers, you are merely blowing the smoke of your chosen substance.
Mr. Frisch you said:
I don't know this and neither Tom nor you nor anyone else has stepped forward with this information.
Perhaps you could explain why I or anyone should have come forward with this information. If you had asked, I would have told you what you already know. The proper source for this information is the school administration. Unfortunately, they can't guess the information that you want, but if you ask I am sure they would provide it.
Henry:
Given the level of venom you seem capable of spewing at someone you do not even know, I shudder to think what you would do against a named target. This blog is a debate of ideas and unless anonymous posting creates confusion as to whether one or more people are posting (do not believe that to be the case here), I do not see much of a difference between named and anonymous posting.
In addition, there seems to be no limit to your factual errors. I personally heard Chancellor Klein described the merit program he had instituted with private funds and the early success it has spawned. As to law firms, although not widely publicized, bonuses are far from uniform and that does not even take into account the negative incentive system law firms employ by annually telling significant number of associates that they are unlikely to make partner. Further, few management experts would described the lockstep pay scale of law firms as a particularly effecive model - it really is a tradition based anachronism.
However, your most amazing observations center around class size & teacher productivity. When I spoke of increased productivity, I was talking about things like after school activities. Right now, teachers get paid extra for things like advising the debate team. At 100K per year for 9 months work and incredible benefits, that should be reconsidered. However, your belief that the educational experience of students in a class with 34 students equals that of a class with 25 students is astounding. While I have no doubt you could "handle" 34 students, I would actually prefer them taught. Study after study confirms the value of smaller class size and if you give me the choice of cost control by holding the line on teachers' salaries or increasing class size, the choice is clear.
Anonymous-
Here's the UFT position.
"Merit-pay plans have not been reliably linked to improved student outcomes. The data are just not there. Nor does the route to developing and retaining talented teachers lie through shortcuts and cheap fixes."
What you heard Klein say does not mean there is merit pay in NYC. Since I did not say 34 is equal to 25, I wonder about your accuracy in reporting what Klein said.
You have in no way answered my statements about your anonymity. Please tell us about your personal experience with merit pay as a payer or payee. How did it help you with your employees or as an employee?
From the NYT of Sept 5: "When it comes to teachers, the city has taken steps toward merit pay, allowing ''master teachers'' to earn more money by mentoring less experienced colleagues. Mr. Klein attracted 102 new math, science and special-education teachers by offering housing subsidies of up to $14,600." Sounds like merit bonuses to me. This is on top of the even more extensive merit based program put in place for some principals. Then again, I guess you can't trust the Times either.
Given the achievement levels in the NYC school system, I really would not cite UFT positions as reflecting anything but the positions of a very effective Union looking out for the well-being of its members.
Anonymous-
You didn't answer my question about your experience with merit pay and instead offered the quotation below that proves to me you don't understand what merit pay is.
"When it comes to teachers, the city has taken steps toward merit pay, allowing 'master teachers' to earn more money by mentoring less experienced colleagues."
This is obviously a shifting from relying on supervisors to assist inexperienced teachers to peers doing the job -- an excellent idea which is not merit pay. Rather it is the sort of above-and-beyond payment you bemoaned in an earlier post. Someone chose to call it a step toward merit pay because it was in his interest to make people like you think merit pay was being implemented.
The main thing New York City has done in recent contractual practice has been to move staff salaries much closer to being competitive with the surrounding area. Teachers in NYC are now in many cases earning more than supervisors. The city has wisely undertaken a starve-the-beast policy with its bloated administrative staff. This is an excellent step.
You guys should all go on The Factor or something....
Henry, while the Board of Ed has used retired "master teachers and principals" in the past to mentor younger ones, the NJ Dept. of Ed now prevents public school districts from tapping into this valuable resource. Currently employed teachers are being paired with younger ones where possible, but often this involves other expense. It's a good example of the state tying local district's hands by regulations and mandates.
Is the "other expense" of using peers to mentor anywhere close to the cost of supervisors doing it? In Croton they have no department heads, no supervisors other than the single assistant principal and principal for the whole school. The teachers take care of everything themselves, including the Regents exam process. When I taught at Bronx Science we were burdened with a principal, three assistants, plus department heads for every subject. Then the central board and the local board provided more supervisors to try to spoil the broth.
Why are you so hostile? The "other expense" I referred to could be anything from release time to the cost of substitutes. The building administrators often do act as mentors for teaching staff, as part of their job. Teachers' hours are more defined by their contract (classroom time, prep time, etc.), and that of course doesn't include the work they bring home with them as well. I just find it a shame the state prevents districts from tapping the resources of retired master teachers.
Sorry if you are a different anoymous. It is hard to tell when people don't identify themselves. I have no disagreement with utilizing retired teachers. And I certainly hold no brief for all the mandates imposed by the state.
Post a Comment