NJ Left Behind

Sunday Leftovers

2012-01-29T10:36:00.004-05:00

Allamuchy Township Public Schools filed a complaint with the state Council on Local Mandates regarding the new Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying legislation, arguing that it’s an unfunded mandate. (Duh.) The Council just ruled that Allamuchy is right, and that the State Legislature blew it when it approved the law and provided no funds to meet the necessary professional development and increased staffing. (Star-Ledger; press release from Assembly Democrats here.)

Either the legislation will need to be recrafted to streamline the plethora of paperwork and manpower necessary for compliance or the State will need to fund it. Stay tuned.

From the Wall Street Journal: unlike more affluent districts, "New Jersey's poorest school districts were hit hard by the recession and changes in state funding, a one-two punch that led to steep cuts that reached into the classroom, according to a study by Federal Reserve Bank of New York economists."

Check our NJ Future for a discussion of a proposal in Hunterdon County to regionalize its 30 school districts. More here from Star-Ledger.

Some highly-paid NJ school superintendents, now faced with State-issued salary caps, are moving to greener pastures in New York. (NJ Spotlight)

The Courier-Post examines NJ's recent grade on the way we train, evaluate, and award tenure public school teachers (a D-) from the National Center on Teacher Quality.

There's a new advocacy group, Lakewood Unite, with a mission to “monitor inequities and irregularities in the Lakewood School District’s budgeting and procurement process” and “to address the inequities in the Lakewood School District Special Education Program.” (Some back story here.)

The deadline for NJ school boards to move elections to November (and bypass the budget vote on budgets below the 2% cap) is Feb. 17th.

As of Today,

2012-01-27T12:37:00.004-05:00

over 15% of NJ school boards have moved their members' elections to November, choosing to bypass the April budget vote while staying below the 2% mandated cap. NJSBA is keeping count; the tally is currently 91 of our 591 school boards. Deadline is Feb. 17th.

Check out...

2012-01-27T09:33:00.002-05:00

my new piece at NJ Spotlight, "The Charter School Controversy: Much Ado about Nothing." I'll respond to comments shortly.

Quote of the Day

2012-01-26T10:06:00.001-05:00

From Pres. Obama's State of the Union address:

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies – just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

Should NJ Keep Kids in School Til Age 18?

2012-01-26T09:36:00.007-05:00

During President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, he dropped in a proposal that students should not be permitted to leave high school until they either turn 18 or get a high school diploma.

Dana Goldstein, an highly-regarded education reporter, writes in Slate that while Pres. Obama’s proposal was puzzling – he has no power to enforce such a change because that’s a states’ rights thing – his suggestion could “act as an agenda-setter.” There’s much research out there that sticking it out through 12th grade can double a worker’s maximum annual wage, but currently 30 states allow children to drop out at earlier. In NJ, it’s age 16.

According to The Record, a piece of legislation that would move the drop-out age to 18 (sponsored by Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman) has been stalled in the Statehouse for years. NJ’s graduation rates vary wildly. In high-performing suburban districts it often approaches 100%. In poor urban areas it’s far lower. For example, Camden High reported a 2010 graduation rate of 42.1%. It's widely recognized that self-reported school graduation rates are inflated and a new process installed this year will result in lower rates.

From The Record:

In 2010, the state reported a 95 percent graduation rate and 9,283 dropouts, but officials acknowledged there might have been thousands more. Students who stopped showing up were often claimed as transfers, for example, when they had actually quit school.

The available data on graduation rates is notoriously inaccurate, and the state promises to release more precise data within months.

Groundswell of Approval for Moving School Board Elections to November

2012-01-26T09:06:00.005-05:00

Yesterday there were 38 New Jersey school boards that had voted to move their elections to November. Today, just a week after passage of the new legislation, there are 56. Odds are the numbers will continue to increase as boards hold regular business meetings, debate the pros and cons, and pass the required resolution. (Coverage from NJ Spotlight and Trenton Times; here’s a FAQ sheet from the DOE, which includes a sample resolution.)

Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo, who sponsored the bill, said, “When we spend in the state of New Jersey anywhere from $7 to $9 million a year on school board elections, with voter turnout across the state at approximately 15 percent, I think we’re doing a disservice to the residents.”

According to the FAQ sheet from the DOE, boards interested in bypassing budget votes (as along as the budget is within the 2% cap) and moving school board member elections to November should pass the resolution by Feb. 17th. Municipalities have the same deadline, although there are no reports of any taking this action.

Elections in November are non-partisan, although it’s anyone’s guess how that will work out. Much depends on the culture of one’s particular town. Petitions for candidates would have a new deadline of the date of the June primary election. Current members would have their terms extended for eight months, until reorganization in January. Finally,

Unlike an April election, the school board will not incur base costs for the payment of board workers, voting machine transportation, overtime for county election personnel, rental of polling places, or other inherent costs of an election. These costs are already covered by either the state or the county as part of theexisting November general election.

School Boards Move Towards November Option

2012-01-25T12:32:00.002-05:00

From NJ School Boards Association:

As of Tuesday morning, at least 38 school boards had already adopted resolutions to move the date of school board member elections to November 2012 and eliminate the annual vote on proposed school budgets that are at or below the state’s tax levy cap. A large number of school boards are expected to discuss the change in date during upcoming meetings.

NJ's Special Ed Classification Rate and Funding Issues

2012-01-25T10:11:00.003-05:00

Another new analysis, this one based on a report from the U.S. DOE, unpacks discrepancies among states regarding the percentage of children classified as eligible for special education services. The winner (or loser, I suppose) is Rhode Island, which classifies 18.4% of its kids. New Jersey is 5th, with a classification rate of 17.1%. In between are Massachusetts (18%), New York (17.3%), and Maine (17.3%). The states with the lowest classification rates are Texas (8.9%), Idaho (9.5%), Colorado (10.3%), Georgia (10.3%), and Nevada (10.3%).

This report considers the impact of funding models on classification rates, noting that “many states give districts additional money for each special education student or service they provide, which some lawmakers and researchers think encourages over-identification.”

Since the passage of the School Funding Reform Act, New Jersey has used a census-based model. (Earlier coverage here.) Instead of doling out special education aid based on individual need, regardless of district of residence, we now calculate state aid for kids with disabilities based on a percentage above cost-per-pupil. The theory of the census-based model is that we’ll control our special ed costs by discouraging over-classification.

Seven other states use this model. Four of the seven, according to this report, have special ed percentages below the national average. But the three others – Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania – “have among the top six rates in the country.”

There’s other reasons why the census-based model isn’t working for us. Kids who grow up in high-poverty homes tend to have higher rates of disability (although that’s a can of worms) and our vibrant industry of private special education schools may create clusters of children with high-cost disabilities like autism.

Back in November the NJ DOE released a report from an independent consulting firm, Augenblick Palaich and Associates, that tried to assess the effectiveness of our census-based model for funding special education services. The report concluded that our system was “fundamentally flawed” and we’d be better off basing funding on actual need. This new analysis confirms those conclusions.

NCTQ Gives NJ a "B-" for our Teacher Policies

2012-01-25T09:39:00.002-05:00

The National Council on Teacher Quality has just released its state-by-state reports. The reports assess state teacher policies on “teacher preparation, licensure, evaluation, career advancement, tenure, compensation, pensions.”(Long version here; snapshot here.)

So how’d we do? Better than last year, Our overall grade was a B- and last year it was a C. Still, we’ve got a long way to go.

First, the good news. We score well on the rigor of our state academic standards and our “home school regulation burden.” We’re doing pretty well with expanding the teacher pool through alternative routes, although we could improve our standing by accepting part-timers with content knowledge and allowing licensure reciprocity among certified teachers from other states. We are the best state in the country for preparing science teachers. We do well with special education teachers as well. We evaluate teachers annually, as appropriate.

But NCTQ was highly critical of a number of our policies. For example, one of the areas assessed is whether we only admit candidates to undergraduate teacher preparation programs with good academic records. We got a “D” in that area because, like 31 other states in the country, we set a very low bar. From the report:

New Jersey does not require aspiring teachers to pass a test of academic proficiency as a criterion for admission to teacher preparation programs, instead delaying its basic skills assessment until teacher candidates are ready to apply for licensure.

We flatlined specifically on preparing elementary teachers, especially our practice of using the Praxis test to assess content knowledge:

Although New Jersey has adopted the Common Core Standards, the state does not ensure that its elementary teacher candidates are adequately prepared to teach the rigorous content associated with these standards. New Jersey requires candidates to pass the Praxis II general elementary content test, which does not report teacher performance in each subject area, meaning that it is possible to pass the test and still fail some subject areas, especially given the state’s low passing score. Further, based on available information on the Praxis II, there is no reason to expect that the current version would be well aligned with the Common Core Standards.

We don’t require elementary reading and math teachers to demonstrate proficiency in their subject matter, although we fare better with middle school and high school teachers. We also don’t require “that objective evidence of student learning be the preponderant criterion of its teacher evaluations,” although the report notes that Gov. Christie has proposed legislation that would meet that goal.

Most critically, NCTQ takes us to task for our tenure policies. We do not “connect tenure decisions to evidence of teacher effectiveness” and “teachers in NJ are awarded tenure automatically after a three-year probationary period, absent an additional process that evaluates cumulative evidence of teacher effectiveness.”

After each analysis in this report the individual states are given space to rebut or affirm conclusions. In this section, however, “New Jersey recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis."

Quote of the Day

2012-01-24T10:44:00.002-05:00

[I]t really looks to me like there’s a sharp discontinuity between two groups of teachers here. Physical and special education instructors, as well as elementary school teachers, are less intelligent than the average college graduate. The other fields far less so, and in their domain of specialization they seem to be superior to the average college graduate.

That's Razib Khan, who blogs about genetics at Discover Magazine. (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.) Khan crunches more data on the intellectual aptitude among teachers, comparing SAT scores and Praxis test scores, which are used to get teaching certification.

Republican Hopefuls Mention the "E" Word

2012-01-24T09:35:00.003-05:00

Newsflash: at last night’s Republican Debate in Florida (#18, but who’s counting) there was actually a mention of public education. I don’t know if I’m the only one who’s been astounded by the lack of attention paid to America’s schools, No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and all that stuff. Maybe they’re just too busy up there decrying Obama/Romneycare, Bain Capital, Newt’s pals at Freddie Mac, the gold standard, and military action at the Strait of Hormuz.

Anyway, Mitt Romney, who seems to turn a whiter shade of pale at each subsequent debate, was answering a question about the Dream Act, which would give the illegal immigrants the right to stay here as long as they join the army or go to college. Or maybe he was answering a question about whether English should be our “official” language and, if so, whether Americans who spoke a different language would get to have their ballots translated into their native tongue so they could, like, vote and stuff.

Anyway, he started talking about a revolutionary program in Massachusetts when he was governor there. Seems that immigrant schoolchildren were enrolled in an English-immersion program for a couple of years and then – voila! – they learned English and transitioned into regular classes. Plus, Romney said, Massachusetts has the best schools in the country.

It’s kind of true. Massachusetts does have great schools, although its achievement gap between poor and rich kids is as big as Jersey’s. But, unlike Jersey, Massachusetts was one of the first winners in Pres. Obama’s Race to the Top competition, reaping $250 million.

That immersion thing? Everyone does that. Romney taking credit for it is like Al Gore taking credit for inventing the Internets. Still, it was nice to hear the “e” word come from a Republican contender, even if his next comments involved something called “self-deportation,” which will no doubt play well with Florida’s Hispanic population.

Christie's Nominees and the Future of NJ's School Funding Formula

2012-01-24T08:47:00.003-05:00

The big NJ education news today is that Gov. Christie nominated two justices for the State Supreme Court, Phillip Kwon and Bruce Harris, to replace Virginia Long and John Wallace. (See NJ Spotlight and ABC News for more detail.) His nominees, if confirmed, would certain add some diversity to the bench. (Right now all the justices are white; Kwon was born in Korea and Harris is black and openly gay).

But the real question is how the new justices would rule when Gov. Christie, as expected, mounts a challenge to the School Funding Reform Act.

Historically, the State Supreme Court has been proactive supporters of NJ’s solution to our segregated and inequitable education system: compensate for the disparity in opportunity between, say, Cherry Hill and Camden by funneling money to our poorest school districts. Depending upon whom you ask, the Abbott solution (named for the first plaintiff, Raymond Abbott, in the original suit filed by Education Law Center) has been either a progressive work in progress or an abject failure.

The original decision was adjudicated in the 1980’s and the Court’s ruling came down in 1991. By that time, Ray Abbott, a poor student in Camden, was in jail for stealing cars and TV’s. He also had a nasty drug habit. In 1990 the New York Times interviewed Abbott and his mom:

''I don't like to play the 'what if' game,'' Mrs. Cherry said. ''I don't blame the Camden schools for the situation my son is in now. He probably would be in the same kind of trouble if he went to the richest school in the world.'' Mr. Abbott, in an interview at the Camden County Jail, said, ''The schools were not responsible. Maybe if they had a better program, I might have gotten more involved and stayed out of trouble. But it was my responsibility, and not the schools', who I hung out with.''

No word on the whereabouts of Mr. Abbott now.

Sunday Leftovers

2012-01-22T08:33:00.003-05:00

Charter School Update: The Courier-Post details the three new charter schools approved for Camden: City Invincible (K-8, 600 kids), Hope Community (K-4, 300 kids), and the Charter School for Global Leadership (9-12, 600 kids).

The Asbury Park Press Editorial Board challenges Gov. Christie to prove that charters are better than traditional public schools:

But what seems to be the central thesis of Christie’s call for reform — that charter schools are better than regular public schools and that good teachers can overcome all obstacles — deserves to be fully debated.

So far, that discussion has not been nearly as rigorous as it deserves to be. The state has been unable, or unwilling, to document how New Jersey’s existing charter schools, some of which have been in operation for well over a decade, have fared relative to other public schools. It is essential the state compile, analyze and share that information with the public and indicate what has worked well in the charter schools, and what hasn’t as more charter schools open each yea

The Press of Atlantic City notes that while Compass Academy Charter School was approved (which will serve Vineland and Millville), four other applications in the area were rejected.

And here's the Star-Ledger's round-up of the eight new charter application approvals.

The Herald News Editorial Board suggests that NJ school boards "give November elections a chance." So far 17 towns are taking that advice, according to the Trenton Times, which quotes Frank Belluscio of NJ School Boards Association: "There is far greater interest in the election change than anticipated, and we expect additional boards to take action (this) week."

Earlier this week Gordon MacInnes suggested in NJ Spotlight that the Urban Hope Act was a conspiracy to bolster patients to Cooper Hospital. (Here's my take.)However, Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (who represents Trenton, one of the three targeted cities) begs to differ: she says in a press release that the Urban Hope Act “was a Democratic bill built not through confrontation, but through consensus with educational experts such as our teachers.. This was, overall, the right approach, and one that I support for the benefit of Trenton’s children.”

John Mooney at NJ Spotlight reviews the six education proposals contained in Gov. Christie's State of the State speech this week, including tenure reform. The Governor also underlined the concession he's made to charter opponents, specifically in high-performing suburban school districts, "pledging to focus on our failing school districts."

Education Law Center has sent a letter to Sen. Teresa Ruiz, Chair of the Senate Education Committee, and Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan, head of the Assembly Ed Committee, demanding an investigation "into the Christie Administration's refusal to address hundreds of emergency health and safety repairs in urban school buildings across the state."

Lakewood Update: From the minutes of a recent Lakewood School Board meeting:

“I’m Aasind Johnson, I am Senior Class President at the high school. It’s common knowledge, that the money that our public Board of Education has seems to go to the private schools. And I have nothing against the private schools, I have nothing against the Jewish Community. I believe in equality for all people.”

Board President Mr. Meir Grunhut – “I hope you have that documented. Don’t get up and start throwing accusations. There’s a budget exact to the penny. How much money goes to public school; how much money goes to non-public schools.You’re here to give a report, and not here to give your opinions.”

Arne Duncan has $550 million in new Race to the Top money and he wants to use it to reward individual districts for implementing education reform principles, like data-driven teacher evaluations, tenure reform, and turning around failing schools. (Politics K-12)

NJ DOE Approves 8 New Charter Schools

2012-01-20T17:30:00.002-05:00

The NJ Department of Education just announced that it has approved eight new charter applications. There were 42 applications in this round. The ones that made the final cut are Charter School for Global Leadership, Hope Community Charter, and City Invincible Charter School in Camden; COMPASS Academy Charter School in Millville, Pittsgrove, and Vineland; Jersey City Global Charter in Jersey City; Newark Prep Charter School and Paulo Freire Charter School in Newark; and Trenton Prep Charter School in Trenton. Here's the press release with all the details, including the names of external reviewers.

Finally, Chris Cerf Gets an Unequivocable Title

2012-01-20T11:11:00.007-05:00

Almost exactly one year ago -- Jan. 18th, 2011 -- Christopher Cerf was sworn in as NJ's Acting Commissioner of Education after his nomination by Gov. Christie. And for the full year his confirmation has been blocked by State Sen. Ron Rice (D-Essex) through an archaic practice known as "senatorial courtesy," which means that the representative of the nominee's place of residence gets to whimsically nix confirmation. This titular purgatory has no impact on the nominee's ability to perform duties of office. Still, it's annoying.

Solution: Chris Cerf has moved from Essex County to Somerset County. The senator there is Christopher Bateman, who says, according to the Star-Ledger, that he expects to sign off on the appointment today. Welcome to New Jersey, Education Commissioner Cerf.

Intradistrict Comparability, Teacher Salaries Included (or not)

2012-01-20T10:22:00.007-05:00

The U.S. Department of Education has just published a report on an issue that permeates discussions of school equity: comparability of state and local expenditures among schools within districts. When educators talk about "school comparability" they usually mean how much different schools within a district spend per student, but with one large variable left out: teacher salaries. Here’s Stephen Sawchuk’s excellent discussion of this missing piece of the pie:

Under the current comparability calculation, districts are allowed to exempt teacher salary differentials. The problem is, however, that factors like high turnover in high-poverty schools result in a concentration of novice teachers in such schools—and therefore, less per-pupil funding overall. The resulting disparities can be quite large in dollar terms.

Dr. Bruce Baker is cited in the Sawchuk piece as explaining that teacher salary comparability is “a very small piece of a much larger equity puzzle.” Certainly, that's true for NJ. After all, our public school structure -- lots of tiny wealthier districts, poor kids mostly segregated in large cities -- renders intradistrict comparability numbers less meaningful. More relevant for us is inter-district analysis -- differences in cost per pupil with a specific focus on teacher salaries. It's widely accepted that wealthier districts attract more experienced (and expensive) teachers. That's why the NJ DOE is trying to push some salary differential so that poor kids get a share of seasoned veterans or/and effective teachers.

Still, the comparability question is interesting to look at, and that’s the focus of the U.S. DOE’s report.

The Feds compiled their data through the auspices of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In order to receive ARRA funds, each school district was required to “report a school-by-school listing of per-pupil education expenditures from state and local funds for the 2008-2009 school year to its state education agency and required states to report these data to the U.S. Department of Education.”

All states complied and were included in the analysis. Except, it turns out, New Jersey.

From the report:

One state (New Jersey) reported expenditure data that included expenditures from federal funds and therefore could not be included in the analyses presented in this report… The data reporting instructions developed to implement this ARRA requirement offered flexibility in defining the expenditures to be reported, in recognition of the challenges for districts and states in compiling these data retroactively. New Jersey interpreted this flexibility as permitting the state to include federal funds in its school expenditure reports. All other states reported that they excluded federal funds from the reported data.

In other words, the Feds instructed state to calculate comparability among districts by omitting money from Federal funds, specifically Title I money, which supplements funding for poor children. But NJ, unlike the other 49 states, included federal money.

The report notes that an additional project on comparability, the Civil Rights Data Collections, will include 7,000 districts across the county and 260 NJ districts. “The Department is following up with New Jersey districts to ensure that their CRDC reporting includes only those expenditures that were made from state and local funds." I.e., we'll follow the rules this time.

Quote of the Day

2012-01-18T17:07:00.003-05:00

Megan McArdle ponders income mobility, specifically that middle-class and upper-class people brook no challenge to their children's current economic strata. The result is that we think of mobility as only going in one direction -- up -- so higher-income parents "pay lip service to mobility, but they work damn hard to make sure that their kids don't get exposed to a peer group that might normalize dropping out and working low-wage, dead end jobs, or going on welfare." She continues,

No matter how deeply ideologically committed you are to public education and income mobility, you will not leave your kid in a high-poverty school where gangs are valorized and college is not--or even in a working class school that will close off the chances for admission to Harvard. You'll agitate against zoning that would bring poor people in (though of course, not because of the poor people, it's just that, you know, the character of the town is quiet single family houses and the infrastructure won't support multi-family plus we don't really have the social services here and they'd be much better off in Camden, actually.) With other like-minded parents, you'll take over the school and reshape its priorities to match those of the upper-middle class. Or you'll move to a different school system, naturally talking about the enrichment programs rather than the more affluent, education-focused peer group you're buying for your kids.

The one thing you will not say--unless you are isolated in a rural area with exactly one school and no critical mass of similar parents--is, "Oh, well, I guess the best we can hope for is a third-tier state school." It is no accident that the middle class bits of the New York City school system have managed to hijack the best resources for themselves, in the process building a pretty good public school system which exists cheek-by-jowl with a very lousy one.

November School Board Election Update

2012-01-18T13:17:00.003-05:00

From the Assembly Democrats' press release:

The law establishes two procedures for allowing a school district to move its annual school election to the November general election.

The first procedure would be via a question presented to the voters in a November election. The referendum would be prompted by a petition signed by not less than 15 percent of the voters who voted in the district during the last preceding presidential election.

The second procedure allows the election to be moved to November upon the adoption of a resolution by the board of education or governing body of a municipality. Regional school districts, like local school districts, can move their school elections to November through a simple vote of the regional school board.

If the district's annual school election is moved to November, then the district's board members will be elected in November and take office at the beginning of January.

Also, here's a podcast from NJ School Boards Association, "Is Moving School Elections To November Right for Your District?"

A Few Other Charter School Grades

2012-01-18T13:05:00.005-05:00

From the new report, "Measuring Up to the Model: A Tool for Comparing State Charter School Laws":

In the category "Adequate Access to Capital Funding and Facilities,"

New Jersey law allows for substantial funding disparities by some charter schools relative to regular district schools caused by the exclusion of charter schools from state adjustment aid payments. Under New Jersey law, local districts must pass along funding to charter schools in 12 equal installments starting on July 15th and thereafter on the 15th of each month and must make certain additional aid payments in 20 equal installments. The law requires local school boards to provide transportation or aid in lieu of transportation for K-12 students attending charter schools. In a recent national study of charter school funding (Charter School Funding: Inequity Persists, 2010), New Jersey charter schools were receiving on average $12,908 per pupil, while traditional public schools would have received $19,782 for those students. As a result, the state's charter schools were receiving $6,874 per pupil - or 34.7% - less than what the traditional public schools would have received for those students. This figure includes all sources of funding, and analysis reveals significant inequities for both operational and capital funding (see component #19 for information on capital issues). (1 point out of 9)

But for the category "Clear Student Recruitment, Enrollment, and Lottery Procedures,"

New Jersey law provides that charter schools must provide open enrollment to any student in the state.New Jersey law requires that a lottery be held if applications exceed available seats. The law provides a mandatory preference for students from the local district and returning students enrolled in the previous school year. The law provides an optional preference for siblings of enrolled students. Under New Jersey law, admissions policies of New Jersey charter schools must, to the maximum extent practicable, seek enrollment of a cross section of the community's school age population, including racial and academic factors. (2 points out of 4)

NJ's Flunks Charter School Test

2012-01-18T12:44:00.008-05:00

The new report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, "Measuring Up to the Model: A Tool for Comparing State Charter School Laws," drew this response from Julia Sass Rubin, head of the anti-suburban-charter organization Save Our Schools-NJ:

New Jersey's charter school law is better than those in places like Florida which allow for-profit charter school management companies - which has lead to significant abuse and corruption. But we're right up there with the worst in the country in terms of how undemocratic our approval process is.

Really? Let’s take a closer look.

The NAPCS report has 20 categories, with different points eligible for each field. The top 10 states are (in order) Maine, Minnesota, Florida, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Indiana, Colorado, New York, California, and Michigan. Out of the 42 states with charter school laws, New Jersey ranked 32nd, garnering 92 points out of 208.

We did well in a few categories: we have no caps on the number of charter schools allowed within the state, we allow charter school conversions, and “the state law includes some of the model law’s provisions for transparent charter application, review, and decision-making.”

But Ms. Sass Rubin’s criticism – that “we’re right up there with the worst in the country in how undemocratic our approval process is” – is, well, not true.

But she has an agenda, and that’s the passage of Assembly Bill 3582, a piece of legislation that would require all aspiring charters to submit themselves to a public vote. It’s a bad idea – I’ve written of it elsewhere (here and here). Senator Sweeney says he won’t bring it to the floor and Gov. Christie says he won’t sign it. Nevertheless, SOS-NJ has made this bill its rallying cry in its crusade to halt the incursion of charter schools into wealthy communities. The fact that the bill would also halt development of charters into districts with terrible schools is not a problem for SOS-NJ. Their constituents don’t live there anyway.

But enough carping. Ms. Sass Rubin’s comments refer to a field of the survey called “Multiple Authorizers Available.” In other words, the best charter school laws give aspiring charters a variety of possible agencies to give the go-ahead: state boards of education, local school boards, colleges, universities, independent charter school boards. For example, the #1 rated state, Maine, does this:

Maine law provides that any local school board (or a collaborative of local school boards) may become an authorizer by issuing a request for proposals. In addition, the law allows charter school applicants to apply directly to the State Charter Schools Commission. The law provides that only the Commission can approve virtual schools.

That was worth 6 points out of a possible 12. New York got the full 12. Here's its rules:

Under New York law, applicants can apply directly to a district board of education, SUNY, or the State Board of Regents. SUNY and the State Board of Regents have statewide chartering authority.

Three states do give local boards a lot of authority in the charter approval process (and I’m assuming that SOS-NJ would settle for this, given that a school board functions as a representational democracy). Those states get low marks from NAPCS.

In Kansas, the local school board has to approve a charter and then it goes to the state board of education. (3 points out of 12.)

In Maryland, local school boards are the only authorizers, but the state DOE can authorize the restructuring of a non-charter as a charter. (3 points.)

In Virginia, local school boards are the only authorizers “and there is almost no authorizing activity in the state.” (0 points.)

Illinois is interesting. School boards can serve as authorizers, but there’s an appeals process that goes to the State Charter School Commission. Plus, if 5% of voters petition a school board because they’re unhappy that the local board denied a charter application then the board must submit the question to the voters. It’s the inversion of SOS-NJ’s idea: in Illinois, the voters get to overturn a “no” from a local board. (6 points.)

For the record, NJ got 3 points because we only allow charter schools to be authorized by the Ed. Commissioner (although there’s a proposed bill – with good prospects – that would increase authorizers to colleges and universities).

SOS-NJ can spin the NAPCS report all they want, but the bill they are supporting has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with the desire for representatives of suburban school boards to create laws designed to protect them from costs associated with sending kids to charters.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that; after all, boards need to protect revenue. But the charter wars in NJ have devolved into a zero-sum game. Either you’re a winner (if, as a local school board, you stymy the establishment of a charter in your neighborhood) or you’re a loser. Right now, the politics of this skirmish widen the gulf between our impoverished districts and our wealthier ones. The provincial nature of our school system -- 591 districts wildly fighting to protect their turf -- and our funding mechanism only exacerbate the division. This dynamic makes it all about the adults and leaves the quality of the education -- whoever the provider -- out of the equation. In this zero-sum game, the kids lose.

Quote of the Day

2012-01-17T16:23:00.002-05:00

From Gov. Christie's State of the State speech today in Trenton:

"Let’s face it: more money does not necessarily lead to a better education," Christie said. "Today, in Newark, we spend $23,000 per student for instruction and services. But only 23% of ninth graders who enter high school this year will receive high school diplomas in four years. Asbury Park is similar: per pupil costs, at almost $30,000 a year, are nearly 75% above the state average. But the dropout rate is almost 10 times the state average. And math S.A.T. scores lag the state average by 180 points.

"It is time to admit that the Supreme Court’s grand experiment with New Jersey children is a failure," the Governor added. "63% of state aid over the years has gone to the Abbott Districts and the schools are still predominantly failing. What we’ve been doing isn’t working for children in failing districts, it is unfair to the other 557 school districts and to our state’s taxpayers, who spend more per pupil than almost any state in America."

More here from PolitickerNJ. Complete transcript here.

Christie Signs School Elections Bill

2012-01-17T16:14:00.002-05:00

Gov. Christie signed Bill 4394 today. This bill gives municipalities or school boards the ability, through a resolution, to move school board member elections from April to November. Alternatively, 15% of voters in a particular community can sign a petition, which would also move elections. If any of these three parties exercises the option, then school budgets that come in below the 2% cap would not be subject to a vote.

Emo Philips: " I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code. "

2012-01-17T11:14:00.004-05:00

David Sciarra, Executive Director of Education Law Center, claims that NJ’s Schools Development Authority, responsible for school building construction, has “not started or completed one single school project," including "replacing boilers, roofs." Politifact rates his statement “False” because “[h]undreds of emergency repairs proposed by school officials have not been approved yet, but the authority has substantially completed other projects during the past two years, including work in Newark and Camden.”

Now Gordon MacInnes , former Asst. Commission for the NJ DOE in charge of Abbott Implementation, has a screed in NJ Spotlight in which he accuses the State Legislature of colluding with George Norcross to “sneak” the Urban Hope Act through earlier this month. According to Mr. Macinnes, Norcross "worked a stealth deal with the Corzine administration” to create Cooper University Hospital in Camden. The Urban Hope Act, which allows non-profits to build up to 12 schools in Camden, Newark, and Trenton, is another piece of the conspiracy. Camden’s school buildings are falling apart and now new ones can be built, which would help the city and, presumably, increase business at the hospital.

The point seems to be that SDA is flush with cash and perfectly capable of building schools. It has $2 million of bonding capacity, writes MacInnes, and “[m]oreover, SDA projects $250 million more for salaries and such over the next five years!” So SDA is part of the conspiracy too -- it could build away if it wanted to but it’s under the thumb, one presumes, of Norcross and those evil legislators who voted for the Urban Hope Act.

In other words, the Urban Hope Act is a scheme to allow those evil non-profits to conspire with Norcross to thwart the activity of SDA, which would have to be a willing participant in this conspiracy. MacInnes: “My guess is that George Norcross invented Urban Hope, worked it out with the governor and legislative leadership, and sprang it on the world in December to transform Cooper's shabby neighboring school with a gleaming new facility. Another guess is that some experienced educational nonprofit is standing by ready to pounce as soon as applications are available.”

As far as the educational prospects for kids in Camden, sometimes a little conspiracy is a good thing.

Will Gov. Christie Sign the Bill Moving School Board Elections?

2012-01-17T10:47:00.001-05:00

Gov. Christie may not sign the bill that gives school boards, municipalities, and residents the option of moving school board member elections to November and bypassing budget votes on budgets that come in below the state-mandated 2% cap.

According to the Asbury Park Press, Gov. Christie prefers legislation that would move all elections to November and that the current bill allows “special interests” to “pressure school boards and municipalities not to move the election.” Also, “[a]dministration officials have quietly expressed concerns about the logistics and costs of holding two sets of school elections, not to mention the inconsistencies that could confuse voters.”

Do Charter Schools Sacrifice Non-Charter Kids?

2012-01-17T10:14:00.008-05:00

Dr. Bruce Baker has a good blog post up called “NJ Charter School Data Round-Up” in which he compares demographics between NJ charter schools and traditional schools in high-poverty urban areas and considers the policy implications. He discusses problems with scalability, and that charters in cities like Newark “continue to serve student populations that differ dramatically from populations of surrounding schools” when one examines eligibility for free/reduced lunch, special education enrollment, and students still learning English.

The comments to his post are worth pondering.

One note on the data: it was pointed out to me by a charter school leader in one of our successful charters that charter schools are far more likely to accurately report eligibility for free and reduced lunch, a metric that people use to gauge a student’s economic background and one that everyone agrees lacks oversight. Need an example of traditional districts’ abuse of free/reduced lunch data? Look at Elizabeth Public Schools, here and here.

Anyway, here’s where Dr. Baker comes out on the value of high-performing charters in NJ’s poorest cities:

We should recognize, for example, that schools like Robert Treat or North Star Academy may be showing high outcomes but are doing so largely as a function of serving very different populations than others around them. Further, there may be nothing wrong with that if they are truly doing well by the kids they serve. [Emphasis his own.] That may just be their appropriate niche. We just can’t pretend that this model of success can be spread city wide or statewide. And, it may be inappropriate to encourage these schools to serve more representative populations. Perhaps they should stick with what they are good at. As a result, it may be more reasonable for charters like North Star or Robert Treat to establish similar niche schools in other New Jersey cities rather than pretending they can expand dramatically in the same cities and still maintain their current level of achievements.

That conclusion -- that charter schools in poor failing districts serve an important purpose -- is one that's acquiring consensus, and currently being advocated in the NJ State Legislature. See today’s NJ Spotlight for more on this, which also reviews a new report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. That report, released yesterday, evaluates states’ charter school laws and ranks NJ 31st out of 42nd overall. According to Spotlight, a proposed charter school law that would require a community vote before approval (a bill fiercely backed by the anti-suburban-charter group Save Our Schools) is limping towards a compromise bill that would limit that community vote to towns with high-performing traditional schools. In other words, Princeton and Cherry Hill residents get a say but Trenton and Camden residents don't.

Back to the comments on Dr. Baker's post. The respondents worry that the presence of high-performing charter schools, like Robert Treat and North Star (both in Newark) leads to “having those kids benefit at the expense of others.” Another commenter worries about “how the loss of highly motivated parents/students has effected [sic] the traditional public schools…It seems to me that we have set up the traditional public schools for eventual failure!” Finally, Dr. Ed Fuller comments,

My major concern–and echoed by some researcher friends that are very pro-charter–is that the systematic segmentation of urban students into new charters, magnets, early college schools, etc has resulted in a further concentration of lower-performing students in particular schools that do NOT receive any additional money, support, resources, etc and are subject to the devastating effects of high educator turnover, school closure/.reconstitution/re-opening thru federal/state turnaround efforts. In essence, the reform of school choice (charters, magnets, early college, STEM Academies) has enacted a pernicious system of Last Children Left Behind (LCLB). No one seems to really care about such kids and their parents are either not knowledgeable enough or simply don;t have the time to advocate for their schools.

The argument they’re making against charter schools in poor urban areas (which Dr. Baker is not making) is that the kids who don’t go to charters are left in increasingly bereft circumstances.

That’s no doubt true. Parents – particularly those with knowledge and time – make educational choices for their children. For wealthy parents that might mean enrollment in private school. For religious parents with some disposable income that might mean enrollment in parochial ones. For those parents lucky enough to live in a county with a great public magnet school, that might mean filling out an application to Bergen Academies. Parents in Newark most likely don’t fall into any of those categories. Their only choice is enrollment in a chronically failing traditional school or a charter school.

These respondents argue that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The absence of the students enrolled in Robert Treat or North Star leads to a higher concentration of lower-performing students in Newark Public Schools, or an increase in kids without proactive parents (which may be the same thing). So the health of the traditional district is threatened by choices that informed parents make for their kids and that’s too high a price.

Of course, it’s hard to imagine that Dr. Fuller would send his kid to Newark’s George Washington Carver School, where 19% of 8th-graders passed the state assessment test in math and 34% passed the state assessment in language arts. In comparison, at Robert Treat Academy, the charter school highlighted by Dr. Baker, 96% of 8th-graders passed the state assessment in math and 92% passed language arts.

Then again, Dr. Fuller doesn’t live in Newark.

It’s fine to worry about the decline of Newark’s traditional public schools. What’s not so fine is to suggest that we should sacrifice the education of children with a way out in the hopes of stemming that decline. Those are kids there, not data points.

Sunday Leftovers

2012-01-15T10:32:00.008-05:00

Tom Moran in this morning's Star-Ledger sets the mood in Jersey City:

This was lottery night at Learning Community Charter School in Jersey City. The K-8 school had 30 openings to fill. The problem: Roughly 1,000 families applied to fill them. Hundreds of them streamed into the auditorium to watch the process live, even though results soon would be posted online.

Legislation passed this year that requires NJ’s school board members to get finger-printed has hit some, er, implementation issues. After 186 board members were declared ineligible to serve this week, “The Star-Ledger found that more than a dozen people no longer served on their respective boards, having resigned for various reasons over the past eight months. And in at least one case, a man identified as a school board member for a Newark charter school had never been a board member there, a spokeswoman for the school said.” Here's a press release from Assembly Democrats asking Comm. Cerf to extend the Dec. 31st deadline. He did: it's Jan. 27th.

The School Development Authority, the state agency charged with funding emergency repairs in NJ’s poorest school districts, is neglecting its mandate, according to Education Law Center. In Trenton, for example, the building and grounds director for Trenton Public Schools told the Star-Ledger, “This is a shell game. What happens is that an ‘emergent project’ becomes an emergency project, and when it becomes an emergency project the onus is on the district to find the money to fix it. I’m fighting tooth and nail to try and abate the violations before we get fined.” Here's ELC's press release.

Speaking of Trenton, the school board there is debating whether to pay a search firm $20K to find a new superintendent. Its interim, Ray Broach, retires in June. The Trenton Times looks back on Trenton’s last search: “ Rodney Lofton, the man who got the job, stepped aside in Oct. 2010 in the face of mounting criticism after a state audit uncovered waste and fiscal mismanagement in the district's special education department. Lofton, who earned $180,000 and had 18 months left on his contract when he stepped down, was paid $88,000 as part of a separation agreement that December.”

NJ Spotlight reports on a challenge by Allamuchy Public Schools to the state’s new Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying legislation. Allamuchy is asking the state’s Council on Local Mandates to declare that the new law is an “unfunded and therefore unconstitutional mandate.” Also check out Spotlight's profile of Peter Shulman, the DOE's new Chief Talent Officer, who is "leading the teacher quality component of Gov. Chris Christie’s and acting commissioner Chris Cerf’s education reform policy."

Check out Maria Pella's blog on the state of the Plainfield Public Schools; she's been on a roll lately. For example, she requested, through OPRA, the minutes of a Plainfield Board of Education Executive Session and received it with no redactions. Surprised? You should be: executive sessions are confined to items that are privileged, like personnel, negotiations, litigation. Instead, the board deliberated privately on public matters like improving instruction, electives at the high school, textbook availability, and the interim superintendent's explanation that "if we don't continue with assertiveness on improving, we may be in jeopardy of a take-over of our district by the State, which is happening all over New Jersey."

The Wall Street Journal details Gov. Christie’s plans to challenge the School Funding Reform Act, which includes nominating two state Supreme Court justices. Also in his education plans:
• Pass a package of education bills that address teacher tenure, merit pay and scholarships
• Cut income taxes this year or next, if the fiscal situation allows
• Provide more support for higher education.

As goes the U.S., so goes Britain?: A piece in the Telegraph notes that “at present, head teachers in maintained schools find it almost impossible to get rid of under-performing teachers, so great is the power of the teaching unions…only 18 teachers in the UK has been struck off for incompetence by the General Teaching Council in the past 40 years.”

Legislative Committee Update

2012-01-13T11:28:00.000-05:00

Capital Quickies has a scorecard on the reorganization of the State Assembly. Regarding the Education Committee, James Beach from Cherry Hill replaces Jim Whelan and Michael Doherty replaces Thomas Kean Jr. Shirley Turner will be Vice Chair.

Doherty is a champion of the nonsensical Fair School Funding Act, which would allot $7,481 per pupil regardless of need. Dr. Bruce Baker has a cogent explanation of its inanity.

Quote of the Day

2012-01-13T10:33:00.009-05:00

Yesterday Gov. Christie signed the Urban Hope Act, which allows non-profits to build, manage, and operate up to four “renaissance” schools in three districts: Camden, Newark, and Trenton. Here’s a statement from the Trenton’s mayor Tony Mack:

The City of Trenton administration opposes the amendment adding Trenton, New Jersey to the Urban Hope Act (Assembly Bill 4426, Senate Companion Bill 3173).

The bill, which is scheduled for action in the Assembly and Senate today, if passed, would finally give parents another option to educate their children to prepare them for a knowledge-based economy. The administration learned that Trenton is included in the bill from stakeholders—mostly vastly overpaid administrators—who fear that years of doing absolutely nothing to educate our mostly Black and Latino children in a creative, effective and measurable way would finally be exposed.

Oops. No, that was a send-up from a blogger who goes by Catalyst. Here’s the real press release from Mayor Tony Mack, who indignantly objects to the passage of the bill (signed yesterday by Gov. Christie) which allows non-profits to build, manage, and operate up to four “renaissance” schools in Newark, Camden, and Trenton.

After carefully reviewing information provided by the Trenton Education Association, which is included generally in this press release; [sic]the administration is opposed to this initiative. First, limited school funding will follow the participating students to the proposed renaissance schools. Leaving many Trenton residents without guaranteed employment, the renaissance schools will promote the privatization of workforce. Second, the bill permits the School Develop Authority [sic] and districts to transfer public funded items like facilities and land to private entities. Trenton Public Schools currently have initiatives in place to improve our schools. The passage of this amendment would deplete vital resources for the initiatives.

Compare Mayor Mack’s response to officials in Camden who, according to NJ Spotlight, are at least reconciled to the idea that, as Camden board president Susan Dunbar-Bey put it, “Change is going to take place, whether we like it or not.”

Of course, there’s politicians and then there’s Tony Mack. For details, check out this recent column by Kevin Manahan, who describes the “bungling, corruption, cronyism, defiance and downright stupidity by the Trenton mayor in his first 20 months.” Mack's gone through eight business administrators and four police directors, although there's no word on turnover of press release editors.

Advocates for the Trenton’s inclusion in the Urban Hope Act, including Trenton’s representative in the Legislature, Bonnie Watson Coleman and Reed Gusciora, can count Mack’s opposition as confirmation that they did the right thing.

Wither Goest A 4394?

2012-01-12T16:17:00.003-05:00

NJ Spotlight is tweeting that Gov. Christie may not sign A 4394, the bill that gives school boards/local residents the right to move school board member elections to November and bypass an April budget vote as long as the budget increase is within the 2% cap.

That's not a total surprise: Gov. Christie's desideratum was a bill that moved all school board member elections to November, not just the ones where the boards were afraid that their budgets would fail to pass muster with voters. The current bill on the Governor's desk makes the requisite genuflection towards local control, but will most likely result in cash-strapped towns -- where budgets often fail to pass -- moving elections to November, while more monied towns say, "thanks, but no thanks." Not exactly the direction that Gov. Christie and Comm. Cerf, all hot under the collar for equity, foresaw.

GOP Candidates: Where's the Education Beef?

2012-01-12T15:53:00.008-05:00

Is it just me or does it seem that during this Republican Presidential Primary process there’s an astonishing lack of attention directed at education? When’s the last time you heard a question on this topic during the endless series of debates?

While the candidates are largely ignoring education issues, PoliticsK-12 has a quick overview of their respective views, noting that Ron Paul cast one of the few votes against the original No Child Left Behind legislation, Jon Huntsman made an effort to evade NCLB while governor of Utah, and Rick Santorum recently said that President Obama’s preoccupation with higher education is snobbish elitist malarkey because auto mechanics do just fine. For follow-up see The Quick and the Ed, which has a chart that shows that upgrades of automobile technology now require that mechanics possess sophisticated computer skills, usually acquired at post-secondary trade schools or colleges.

Meanwhile the Republican candidates rail against federal oversight and wax passionately for local control. If we extrapolate from that stance to the education arena, the GOP field is united in its disdain for ESEA/NCLB and Race to the Top and also shares a distaste for the Common Core Standards that are intended to ensure that kids in Mississippi have a similar course content to kids in Massachusetts.

(This animosity towards the Federal government fades away when the discussion veers towards red meat issues like abortion and gay marriage. Then it’s “Feds, come right in.”)

It’s Ron Paul’s isolationism brought home, a sort of Tea Party-tinged antagonism towards standardization, at least when the overseer is the Feds. While none on the GOP roster join Paul in his call for “Bring the troops home right now,” they’re united in a “bring the authority home right now” mentality, with home in this case being individual states. So one could assume that they’re all big supporters of Governor Rick Perry’s ability to choose Gail Lowe for Chair of the Texas State Board of Education, who is on record opposing medically accurate information about pregnancy in textbooks and favors “dumbing down the state’s public school science curriculum by voting to include unscientific, creationist criticisms of evolution in science textbooks and curriculum standards.”

Jon Huntsman, the most moderate of the candidates, published an editorial earlier this month in the Concord Monitor which sends the same message:

My administration will seek to transform and modernize our education system by ending the current one-size-fits-all approach and instead focusing our efforts on how best to serve individual communities, individual schools and individual students.

This means, first and foremost, restoring local control. States and local districts are laboratories of innovation, and Washington must empower them to meet the unique needs of their students.

I was the first governor to reject the unnecessary federal overreach of No Child Left Behind - which imposed a multitude of burdensome mandates and regulations on states - and as president I will seek its full repeal.

This is where I get stuck. We’re going to do major liposuction on the U.S. Department of Education (which all GOP candidates call for in a belated swoon towards Sarah Palin) and repeal NCLB and Race to the Top because Washington is broken and the Feds are losers. Instead, we’re going to depend on individual states to set their own set of educational priorities because state capitols are such bastions of oversight and local state legislators and officers are united in their fervor to do what’s best for schoolchildren.

In New Jersey, we're epicures of home rule, the "zip code is destiny" mantra that informs our public school infrastructure. Kids in Camden and Trenton and Paterson press their faces to the bakery window of high-performing neighboring school districts, and that's as they'll get. They might have a choice word or two to share with the tea-sipping pundits on the dais enraptured by the siren call of local control.

Two Education Bills Sail Through NJ Legislature

2012-01-10T10:11:00.004-05:00

To no one’s surprise, the NJ State Legislature approved two education bills on the docket last night: the Urban Hope Act and legislation that allows local districts to move school board elections to November. Here’s coverage from the Star-Ledger, NJ Spotlight, My Central Jersey, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Here’s the Assembly Democrats’ press release.

The Urban Hope Act (S 3002), sponsored by Senator Donald Norcross, passed the Senate on a 35-3 vote and the Assembly 56-17. The bill allows private companies to build and manage up to twelve schools in Camden, Trenton, and Newark. The bill was backed by NJEA. (See posts below.)

The school elections bill, A 4394, sponsored by Assemblymen Lou Greenwald, Paul Moriarty, and Wayne DeAngelo, passed the Senate by 34-3 and the Assembly by 62-11. The bill sets up a procedure by which school districts where budgets come in under the 2% cap can choose to bypass the budget vote and move school board member elections the general election in November. This change would have to approved by either 15% of the community or through a vote by school board members. (Unlike a previous incarnation of the bill, municipalities have no say.) The commitment by the board and/or community would be for four years. Writers of the bill hope to increase voter turnout – usually no more than 15% in April – and save as much as $12 million a year.

Gov. Christie is expected to sign both bills.

NJEA's Position Signals Strength

2012-01-09T09:49:00.007-05:00

Bob Braun of the Star-Ledger castigates NJEA’s leadership for “joining forces with archenemy Gov. Chris Christie and the powerful Camden County Democratic machine of George Norcross” when it backed the Urban Hope Act, likely to pass today in this last day of the lame duck session of the NJ State Legislature. Braun derides NJEA’s “weakness or cynicism” for its support of the bill that would allow up to 12 new schools in Camden, Newark, and Trenton “once the bill was amended to guarantee bargaining and tenure rights for teachers in privately managed schools.”

Writes Braun,

The union’s flip-flop shatters the unity of a coalition that has consistently opposed the Christie administration’s efforts to bring privatization to public education. It left spokesmen for some of those groups literally speechless.

"You have to ask the union about that,’’ said David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center. Sciarra continues to oppose the bill, likely to be passed today, the last day of the legislative session. The law center is financially supported by the NJEA.

"It was an NJEA deal,’’ said Joseph Del Grosso, president of the Newark Teachers Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (AFT). "They blatantly sold Newark out.’’

Braun was told privately by union officials that “it had no choice but to support the bill” because NJEA leaders are gambling that the bill’s passage will derail the Opportunity Scholarship Act (the voucher bill) and efforts towards tenure reform.

This depiction of NJEA’s strategy as some sort of Faustian bargain is so old school. (See here for my coverage of this last week.) The Urban Hope Act has been significantly altered to protect union bargaining rights. Jersey City, originally one of the three cities included in the bill, is off the table, a meaningful concession. Should NJEA now lobby against a bill that places higher value on the “unity of a coalition” rather than improving school conditions for some kids in Camden, Newark, and Trenton? Should NJEA remain mired in the sort of kneejerk anti-reform rhetoric that deprives poor children of improved educational conditions?

The decision on the part of NJEA’s leaders to support the Urban Hope Act signals strength, not to mention an encouraging learning curve. Also hopeful is its willingness to separate itself from ELC, which remains truculent and rigid. The union's willingness to compromise is no betrayal of the cause (and surely no threat to ELC's funding); instead, it's a recognition of the growing consensus among New Jerseyans that the needs of our poorest schoolchildren outweigh political and historical considerations.

Sunday Leftovers

2012-01-08T10:17:00.004-05:00

Gov. Christie explains why the State Legislature passed health and benefits contributions reform legislation but then failed to pass meaningful education reform: "I think they just became politically exhausted after pension and benefits reform," Christie said. "Even though we had some areas of agreement in May and June, I think they just became politically exhausted and said 'No, I can't do any more, Governor, I'm sorry. We can't take any more risks. We can't anger anyone else. We can't threaten anyone else. We're just tired and we need to go run for re-election.'" (Courier-Post)

"Some 350 school board members across New Jersey must resign their positions immediately," reports the Star-Ledger, "after failing to complete a criminal background check now mandated by state law, a Department of Education official said." More coverage here from NJ Spotlight and here from Press of Atlantic City. The Trenton Times says school board members deserve a grace period to comply.

The Press of Atlantic City doesn't like the Urban Hope Act.

Edweek's State EdWatch blog focuses on Education Law Center's objections to NJ's waiver application to get a bye on No Child Left Behind strictures. ELC is protesting our application because there wasn’t adequate input from stakeholders; it also objects to the classification of some districts as “Reward Schools,” which means that some money could go to functional districts. Also, according to EdWeek, “State officials also acknowledge that some of the policy ideas they included in their waiver plan—such as private-school choice—will require legislative approval.” (You saw it here first.) NJ officials concede that some public comments "were cut off because they exceeded the size allowed through the website."

The Courier-Post comments on the “audacious lies” in Camden Public Schools over the frequency of violence and vandalism.

For the 2010-2011 school year, the Camden school district reported to the state that there were just 35 incidents of violence, vandalism or weapons possession among its 13,800 students.

But according to the mayor’s office, city police responded to 249 incidents of violence in Camden’s schools. And those police numbers are probably just the tip of the iceberg. How many incidents of violence and bullying go completely unreported or the reports are tucked away and forgotten? Many, we suspect.

NJ Spotlight examines how the NJ DOE plans to spend the $37,848,434 in Federal money we won through Race To The Top. $19 million will go directly to districts that qualify for Title I funding and exhibit buy-in to reforms like data-driven teaching evaluations.

An A.P. piece running in both the Star-Ledger and the Record examines the (mixed) effectiveness of the No Child Left Behind, which is approaching its 10th year of implementation.

According to the Daily Record, the Parsippany School District has overpaid Superintendent Lee Seitz by almost $38K over the last 18 months. “The district gave Seitz a new contract a little more than a year ago, after the state proposed a salary cap for superintendents but months before it was implemented. The contract paid Seitz $220,565 this school year, up from the previous contract’s $212,000 salary and $43,065 more than the $177,500 allowed by the cap.”

From Jeremy Rosen at the Courier-Post: “A New Jersey court has ruled that a state Open Public Records Act request triggered the release of an Evesham student’s disciplinary record — a decision that could open a door for parents to check whether public school officials are consistently keeping kids safe.”

Here’s a Star-Ledger update on the “corrupt enterprise” that is the Elizabeth School Board.

Andrew Sullivan points to a study comparing U.S. schools to those in Finland and has this comment:

But for all the talk of equity and non-competitiveness in Partanen's piece, this key sentence is skipped over rather quickly: "A master's degree is required to enter the profession, and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country."

Quote of the Day

2012-01-06T12:30:00.001-05:00

The New York Times analyzes a new study that asserts the value of value-added teacher evaluations:

Elementary- and middle-school teachers who help raise their students’ standardized-test scores seem to have a wide-ranging, lasting positive effect on those students’ lives beyond academics, including lower teenage-pregnancy rates and greater college matriculation and adult earnings, according to a new study that tracked 2.5 million students over 20 years.

Urban Hope Act: Trenton Jumps In and ELC and NJEA are On the Outs

2012-01-06T11:52:00.006-05:00

One other education bill looks likely to pass through the NJ State Legislature at its last session on Monday: the Urban Hope Act. It’s undergone considerable changes just since yesterday (see post here). John Mooney at NJ Spotlight has a great write-up, and points out that the bill is now more about allowing private firms to construct school buildings and less about expanding school choice.

The biggest change in the bill since yesterday is the elimination of Jersey City as one of the three sites for construction. Trenton will jump into the slot and the other two sites will remain as Newark and Camden. (Trenton already has some lovely new school buildings – in fairness, built by SDA -- although Trenton Central High is an eyesore.)

Two items here. First, as originally conceived, the Urban Hope Act was more than legislative approval for non-profits in three cities to contract with for-profit entities to construct school buildings. In NJ’s waiver application to the Feds for a loosening of the punitive measures of ESEA/NCLB, there’s specific reference to the Urban Hope Act as one of the “additional legislative strategies” that will “lead to substantial improvements in our Priority and Focus Schools.” Under this section of the waiver application the NJ DOE lists “comprehensive educator effectiveness legislation,” changes to charter school laws, and passage of the Opportunity Scholarship Act. The section concludes,

And the Urban Hope Act would encourage the development of new, high-performing schools in the State’s five lowest performing school districts. In combination, these bills would do a great deal to provide disadvantaged families with an immediate exit strategy while the State and districts work to improve performance in Priority Schools.

Of the bills cited only one has passed: the one that allows private or parochial schools to convert to charters. OSA and teacher effectiveness bills are delayed at least until the next legislative session. It’s great that Trenton, Camden, and Newark may actually see some progress in school construction (particularly Camden), but a new building doesn’t have a lot to do with “high performing schools.”

The second item that’s emerged through the politics of the Urban Hope Act is the first wedge issue in some time between NJEA (NJ’s teacher union) and the Education Law Center, which historically are in lockstep. (It doesn’t hurt that Vince Giordano serves as both NJEA’s Executive Director and ELC’s trustee.) After changes in the bill reassured NJEA’s leadership of member job security, it voiced full-throated support for the bill. ELC, however, remains irate and, according, to the Star-Ledger, is threatening court action. David Sciarra, Executive Director of ELC, warned, "Such transfers of these taxpayer-funded assets could very well run afoul of state and federal law.”

NJEA’s leaders have wised up: they’re not going to the mat on every issue and declining to die on hill after hill. As they choose their battles more carefully they gain credibility. ELC’s management might want to study up on NJEA’s new political strategy. Does ELC really want to be in the position of obstructing new school buildings for Camden’s kids?

November School Board Elections Moves Forward

2012-01-06T10:23:00.003-05:00

As the New Jersey State Legislature’s lame duck session limps to a close, two education bills have a shot at passage on Monday: A 4394, which would give school boards and communities the option of moving elections to November, and the Urban Hope Act.

The first bill has been effectively tweaked, per efforts by the NJ School Boards Association. In its original form the legislation allowed for three different groups to move elections from April to November: the local school board, 15% of the community, or the municipal government officials. This last version (here’s a press release) eliminates the prerogative of town councils.

NJSBA also wanted to separate two parts of the bill: the part that eliminated school budget votes if the proposed budget came in under the 2% cap, and the part that moved the election of school board members to November (during the general election). That separation didn’t fly, however, and Gov. Christie probably wouldn’t have signed it anyway. As currently written, it’s a matter of whether school boards are enticed enough by the carrot –- no budget votes! – to accept the stick – November elections that are less easily controlled and will garner a higher turnout.

One of the co-sponsors of the bill, Assemblyman Lou Greenwald, said,

Politicians and pundits have talked about doing this for years, but special interests and inertia have prevented progress on this important issue--until today. Empowering towns to move their school elections to November will give voters better control of their local finances while saving property taxpayers the costs of holding yet another local election.

NJ's Urban Hope Act Divides ELC and NJEA

2012-01-05T11:49:00.008-05:00

How pissed off is Education Law Center over the proposed Urban Hope Act, the fast-tracked bill that would (in its most recent incarnation) build a few new schools in Camden, Newark, and Jersey City?

This pissed: ELC is accusing the Christie Administration of using the bill to shut down the School Development Authority (SDA), which “has stranded 52 major school facilities projects…in which taxpayers have already invested over $300 million.” And that’s not all. Fumes ELC on its Facebook page,

In addition, the SDA has refused to address hundreds of emergency health and safety projects in some of the oldest, most dilapidated school buildings in the state, forcing thousands of students and teachers to endure dangerous, unsafe and unhealthy conditions every day. Even worse, the SDA has spent close to $90 million in taxpayer funds over the last two years to support almost 300 employees, many of whom are highly paid, along with office space and other overhead, while the agency has not completed, or even started, one major construction project. The waste of taxpayer funds at the SDA since January 2010 amounts to a scandal of unprecedented proportions.

Deep breaths, everyone. The Urban Hope Act (here’s background from NJ Spotlight) was originally proposed by State Senator Donald Norcross and Assemblyman Angel Fuentes, both of Camden. Its intent was to turn over our worst schools to private management, somewhat like the Renaissance Program in Philadelphia (just across the river from Camden).

The Christie Administration apparently felt confident enough of the bill’s passage to include it in its waiver application to the U.S. D.O.E. for a bye on ESEA benchmarks. Over the last few months the bill’s been considerably toned down and now would simply allow four new school buildings to be built in Camden, Newark, and Jersey City, would hold all schools to the same accountability standards, and would protect teachers' right to organize. The bill is expected to pass through the Assembly Budget Committee today and come to the floor of the Legislature on Monday, the last day of the lame duck session.

The compromises are enough to bring NJEA’s leadership around. Here’s a just-released statement from NJEA President Barbara Keshishian:

The Urban Hope Act is an innovative effort to improve educational outcomes for children in some of our most challenging educational settings. NJEA supports this legislation because it allows for innovation while providing meaningful public accountability. It is a creative expansion of public school choice that uses public funds to support public education. “We appreciate the opportunity to work with the sponsors of this legislation. This bill ensures that employees in the proposed Renaissance schools will have all of the rights of other public school employees, which will help create a climate of innovation and creativity in the classroom.

Obviously not everyone’s on board. Count ELC as primary opponents and add in the anti-surburban charter school organization Save Our Schools-NJ, which apparently fights any matter that offends their (mis)conception that private entities are an assault on the purity of public education. Here’s SOS-NJ’s most recent Facebook posting:

RED ALERT! NJ Senate Poised to Enhance Corruption of Public Education...this awful bill could be law by the second week in January…This is major league public education privatization and a recipe for corruption and abuse, being snuck through the legislature at the end of the Lame Duck Session.

Here’s the thing. ELC is right: school buildings in Camden (and Newark and Jersey City and lots of other impoverished Jersey towns) are rife with “dangerous, unsafe, and unhealthy conditions.” SDA delays are scandalous.

But how do you go from there to the conclusion that new buildings would result in “students housed in safe and educationally adequate schools”? Safe? Sure, if by safe you mean the sheetrock’s not crumbling. But educationally adequate?

Camden’s high school students attend classes in dreadful buildings and desperately need facilities where the sheetrock isn’t crumbling and the toilets don't leak. But will such necessary improvements lead to “educationally adequate schools,” as ELC promises? In 2010 80.7% of Camden High’s juniors and seniors failed the state assessment in language arts (an 8th grade level test). So many of them failed the math portion that the NJ DOE data field has an asterisk for all levels. Average SAT scores are 330 in math and 340 in verbal. No Advanced Placements courses are offered. The graduation rate is reported to be 42.1%, although that number will drop this year once the State no longer allows district to self-report.

The kids at Camden High need a lot more than new buildings. ELC must know that, yet it indulges in rhetoric that belittles the intelligence and intentions of its stakeholders. Is it feeling betrayed by NJEA’s willingness to work with the Christie Administration? Is it feeling territorial about school construction? And does anyone there really believe that all the kids need in Camden (and Jersey City and Newark) is some new drywall and a plumber?

NJ's Extremely Segregated Special Education System

2012-01-04T13:38:00.009-05:00

Earlier this week I commented on Dr. Bruce Baker’s description of New Jersey’s historical preference for the “extreme segregation” of poor minority kids into chronically failing school districts. According to Dr. Baker, we’d rather pay sky-high school taxes than compromise hallowed district boundaries.

New Jersey also chooses to segregate another cohort of children: those with disabilities. In all fairness, there’s historical reasons for our exclusionary habits. In 1975, in the wake of the Civil Rights Act, the federal government passed legislation mandating that local school districts must educate children with special needs. (That legislation is known as I.D.E.A., or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.) But NJ was way ahead of the curve: our State Legislature enacted a law way back in 1911 requiring public schools to offer programs for handicapped children, and those programs were originally conceived as taking place outside of traditional classrooms.

(For a great overview of this issue see New Jersey School Board Association’s 2007 report, “Financing Special Education in NJ.”)

This original conception of the best way to education special needs kids spurred the growth of NJ’s industry of private special education schools, which currently number about 200. (ASAH, a non-profit that represents these schools, is a great resource.) Also, the NJ State DOE created Special Services School Districts, one per county, which continue to provide programming (academics, plus all necessary therapies) for kids with disabilities.

Finally, this historical precedent of segregation was buffeted by NJ’s educational infrastructure. With 591 separate school districts, some tiny, it can be an impossible task to assemble a suitable cohort of kids with similar disabilities to justify a classroom. Sometimes it’s just easier and more cost-effective to send those kids to out-of-district placements. And some children, especially those with more severe disabilities, are most suitably educated in restricted settings.

Our progressive and well-intended history, however, runs afoul of a different conception regarding the needs of children with disabilities as articulated in I.D.E.A. From NJSBA’s 2007 report:

The U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Programs cited New Jersey for having the highest proportion of students with disabilities in separate settings (both public and private). New Jersey also has the fourth highest classification rate in the nation. In response to the federal agency’s concern about New Jersey’s progress toward educating special education students in the least restrictive environment, the state changed its funding formula in 1996 to one designed to provide the same aid regardless of the setting in which the services were delivered. In spite of this alteration in funding, there has been no change in the proportion of students in separate settings nor has there been any appreciable change in the classification rate.

In other words, NJ’s has been cited for unduly segregated children with disabilities from typically-developing children. This is a violation of Federal law.

We’ve made some progress over the last few years. According to the most recent NJ DOE data, in 2010 NJ’s local school districts sent 14,615 kids to public and private out-of-district placements, out of a total disabled population of 199,205 kids. That’s better than 9.9% -- close to 8% -- but it’s still higher than any other state in the country.

The ramifications of this segregation play out in all sorts of ways.

Let’s look just at the financial effects of NJ’s predilection for educating children with disabilities in restrictive environments.

When NJSBA released its report four years ago, NJ had 230,000 children classified as eligible for special education services, about 15% of our total school population. The costs for educating those children for the years studied in the report were about $3.3 billion per year. (It’s higher now.) The great bulk of those costs were tuition to out-of-district public and private placements – our most restrictive environments – and transportation to those schools.

[For a different assessment, look at ASAH’s cost analysis, also published in 2007. It concludes that, in fact, private special ed schools are cheaper than in-district options because private schools have to include pension, social security, health benefits, facilities construction, and debt service in tuition costs. ASAH argues that public school misrepresent their per pupil costs by not incorporating these expenses.)

For example, according to ASAH, in 2005-2006 the NJ DOE reported per annual per pupil costs for non-disabled kids of $13,169. But if you factor in other expenses it was really $18,083. Using those adjustments, ASAH estimates that the cost per pupil for kids placed in private special ed schools in 2005-2006 was really only $44,944 per year. County Special Services school districts cost $59,306 per year per child and regular in-district placements were $54,103 per year.

ASAH concedes that it hasn’t included transportation costs into those numbers and that “further study is warranted.”]

The devil, as always, is in the details. Here’s the NJ DOE list of approved tuition rates for private special education schools for 2010-2011. The lowest tuition, $32,758 per year, is at Community School in Bergen County, which serves kids with Attention Deficit Disorder and minor learning differences. The highest tuition rates are for schools that serve kids with autism, who often require one-on-one instruction. For example, Garden Academy in Essex County has a tuition of $111,903 per year, Princeton Child Development Institute in Mercer comes in at $95,675, and Somerset Hills Learning Institute (Somerset) is $113,936 per year. (These numbers don’t include summer tuition for Extended School Year, a mandated program for kids with significant disabilities, which generally cost between $6K to $10K per summer. Transportation adds on another $5 - $10K.)

The costs for these 8% of classified children placed in out-of-district placements is almost 40% of our total expenditures on special education.

There's wide variation among districts on the numbers of kids sent to out-of-district placements.

For example Trenton Public Schools sends 6% of its total enrollment of 11,564 kids – or 620 children – to out-of-district placements. That’s 6% of all their kids, not 6% of their classified kids, and about 37% of their special ed population. The cost of that segregation this year is $37.3 million, which doesn’t include transportation costs. This is a lower figure from previous years because the district is valiantly trying to create adequate in-district programming. (More here.)

But in the Montgomery Public Schools, a wealthy suburban district about 15 miles north, only 55 kids out of a total enrollment of 4,637 are sent out-of-district. That’s less than 1.5% of their total school population and about 10% of their special education population.

(For a closer look at these patterns, see the recent report prepared for the NJ DOE by Augenblick Palaich and Associates, which examines some demographic inequities within our special education system. Here’s my commentary on the APA report.)

In the end we spend lots of money to place kids with disabilities in restrictive environments – sometimes because their needs require out-of-district placements but sometimes because it’s the way we’ve always done business. It’s not that different than the way we educate our kids who are afflicted with a different kind of burden: poverty. One could argue that our Abbott districts – those 31 impoverished cities -- are just another form of out-of-district placement, or at least a form of extreme segregation of that bars poor children from high-achieving schools with loads of opportunities for motivated kids.

Of course there's a world of difference between a normal healthy child who happens to live in a poor family and a child with a diagnosis of autism or Down Syndrome or a behavioral disorder. Sure, they both require extended (and expensive) services that go beyond the typical 6-hour, 180 day school slot. Sure, they both require targeted instruction, smaller student-teacher ratios, and family outreach. Sure they both require exceptional teachers with special training so that educational needs are met and, as they say in the special ed world, potential is maximized.

But the educational delays engendered by poverty can be overcome. The educational delays engendered by genetics or developmental disorders (barring miracles on Lifetime TV) are here to stay. In NJ, we choose to exercise the option of, in Dr. Baker's phrase, "extreme segregation" for both groups.

There's mounds of literature, mostly from the "education reformy" groups (to borrow another of Dr. Baker's terms), that emphasize the moral, political, and educational insults to typical children deprived of high-quality classrooms and successful peers. (Hasn't gotten Jersey very far along the road of integration. Don't get me started.) But what about the effects on the segregation of kids with special needs? We know our current system of extreme segregation costs a lot. But what does it mean for the 199,205 classified New Jersey children?

Please pipe in.

350 NJ School Board Members Miss Deadline

2012-01-04T10:17:00.002-05:00

The deadline’s just passed for NJ school board members to complete criminal background checks, per new legislation. The Record reports that more than 350 members (out of a total of about 5,500) “are now in violation of the new law.”

Twelve board members have thus far been disqualified based on previous convictions. According to NJ School Board Association, members could be booted for crimes ranging from murder to drug possession.

We're #1! (At Least in School Spending)

2012-01-04T10:05:00.001-05:00

The National Education Association has released its “Ranking and Estimates of the States 2010 and Estimates of School Statistics 2011.” According to NEA’s data, in 2010 New Jersey placed first in the nation in “expenditures per student” with annual costs of $16,967. Also-ran New York State was next with $16,922, tailed closely by Vermont and Rhode Island. States with the lowest annual expenditure per student were Arizona, Utah, Mississippi, and Nevada. Idaho came in dead last with $7,875.

New Jersey was only 4th in the nation regarding teacher salaries at an average of $65,130 per year, outflanked by New York, Massachusetts, and California. Lots more detail in the report for the data-hungry.

ELC Protests our ESEA Waiver Application

2012-01-03T15:20:00.002-05:00

NJ’s Education Law Center has just released a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan requesting that NJ’s application for a waiver from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (or NCLB) be deferred. (Here’s our application and here’s some commentary.)

According to ELC, the NJ Department of Education failed to make the waiver application public and also failed to solicit adequate input from stakeholders per waiver conditions. From the letter, dated Dec. 22nd:

Instead on Nov. 3 the NJDOE released only a “draft outline” of the application that failed to contain most of the crucial details on the waiver proposals. The State provided only a brief five-day period, including a weekend and a state holiday, for public content.

ELC then sent a letter to Comm. Cerf requesting that he delay the submission of our waiver application til February. The DOE sent in the application anyway. In addition, ELC objects to the DOE’s failure to include some of the public comment that was received (including ELC’s: big oops, if true). The letter also criticizes our application’s lack of attention to “critical issues” like teacher evaluations, college and career-ready standards, and the needs of students with disability and English Language Learners. Other objections include a reallocation of Title I funds and the dependence of NJ’s waiver plans on yet-to-be-passed legislation, like the Opportunity Scholarship Act, tenure reform, and the closing of chronically failing schools.

Quote of the Day

2012-01-03T09:15:00.001-05:00

Christie and Cerf have become a bad cop, good cop duo in dealing with the NJEA. For now, Christie has stopped issuing political fusillades against the union during press conferences, while Cerf has been talking with NJEA leaders about policy changes.

The NJEA has also reversed course and met to talk with George Norcross. Last spring, the NJEA launched a series of ads against Norcross, and he responded by holding a news conference to blast the union. “To some degree, the NJEA has seen the light,’’ said Lynne Strickland, who represents suburban school districts as executive director of the New Jersey Coalition of Schools. “To move forward with their own positions, they recognize they need to be at the table.” (Asbury Park Press.)

OSA Update

2012-01-03T09:11:00.001-05:00

According to a Star-Ledger poll, New Jerseyans favor the passage of the Opportunity Scholarship Act by a margin of 57.18% to 42.82%. OSA would offer “opportunity scholarships” to poor children who are assigned to several school districts (the number is in flux) that have failed to provide adequate education for decades. Traditional school districts would get to keep up to $10K annually per student who transfers out.

Also see today’s NJ Spotlight, which points to Assemblyman Lou Greenwald, the new Democratic majority leader, who is “a growing voice in the ear of Assemblywoman Sheila Oliver” and “has especially taken the lead on the Opportunity Scholarship Act, the school voucher proposal that is as close as ever to passage in one form or another.”

NJ's "Extreme Segregation" of Poor Schoolchildren

2012-01-02T14:27:00.006-05:00

Here’s Dr. Bruce Baker, Professor at Rutgers Graduate School of Education, in an A.P. interview with Geoff Mulvihill, on what New Jersey can do to combat some of the inequities of our public system of education:

The alternative [to pouring more money into NJ’s poor school districts] is if you can actually break up concentrated poverty and have kids more integrated and better mixed across settings, you can reduce the costs of getting to the same outcomes. But typically what you find in the political dynamic is that people are much more willing to pay the price of extreme segregation than to actually move forward on desegregation.

He’s right, of course. Historically we’ve been willing “to pay the price of extreme segregation” in order to maintain our wildly inefficient and inequitable public school system. While there are some efforts around the edges to increase access of poor kids to high-performing schools (like the Interdistrict Public School Choice Program), our devotion to local control and insularity drives school costs.

Absent some strong-willed Legislative effort to open up suburban schools to poor minority kids, the only fair remedy, argues Dr. Baker, is increasing school funding. “To raise the outcomes in that kind of setting requires substantial investment in early-childhood, substantial investment in class-size reduction — kind of layering on all of the possible strategies to make things work.”

Or at least the strategies that are politically palatable.

Are New Jerseyans taxed out enough to entertain the idea of allowing poor minority kids into their suburban oases? Nope. Dr. Baker speculates that if we take the state aid already allocated to school funding and "target it more aggressively" towards poor districts, "[m]any towns that lost state aid would raise their property taxes more as they do and seem willing to do invariably anyway. ... They're willing to vote more taxes on themselves and maybe complain about it the next day."

How depressing. There's no limit to what wealthy New Jerseyans will pay to maintain segregated schools, so equitable access is a lost cause.

A couple of other noteworthy points from the interview. Dr. Baker points to the inequity in NJ’s school children’s access to highly effective teachers.

If you look at the biggest differences between the schools that are doing well and the schools that are doing poorly, there may be differences in teaching quality. There may be differences in skill-set of the teachers who are sorting themselves among the more and less desirable schools. We have evidence from a number of years of studies of teacher labor-market behaviors in disadvantaged, high-needs, high-minority, high-poverty settings. Teachers will avoid those settings to begin with and they'll leave those settings when they can.

He also criticizes NJEA’s leadership for belittling the impact of teacher effectiveness in its efforts to combat some of the educational initiatives of the Christie Administration: “It’s, certainly, I don't think, an effective form of messaging [on the part of NJEA officials]. I think any organization of teachers ... has to be viewing themselves as possibly having an effect. I do think the message comes out that way. I think that's problematic.”

Out-Of-District Placements in Trenton

2011-12-24T14:53:00.004-05:00

This morning’s Trenton Times highlights a new initiative from Trenton Public Schools to try to lessen the expense of educating children with disabilities. Currently Trenton sends 750 kids out-of-district (out of a total enrollment of 11,564 kids) to either private or county special ed placements. The total bill from out-of-district placements for those kids came to $38.8 million last year. After efforts from Interim Superintendent Raymond Broach and State Fiscal Monitor Mark Cowell, out-of-district placements dropped to 620 kids this year, at a projected cost of $37.3 million, or about $60,000 per child per year. (It’s not apparent from the article whether that figure includes transportation, which can add another $5-$10K per year.)

To try to control costs Trenton will reopen a shuttered school (Luiz Munoz-Rivera School) and create an in-district program for kids with behavioral problems. It’s a great idea, and the board and administration (not to mention the Fiscal Monitor) deserve props for proactivity. But it’s not just about money. Think about it: are 6% of Trenton’s students so significantly disabled that they need to be placed in segregated and restrictive placements?

There’s lots of factors that contribute to NJ’s high rate of out-of-district special ed placements. We classify a large number of kids as eligible for special education service (about 15% in NJ; the national average is between 9% and 10%). We have a plethora of small districts (591) and that makes it particularly difficult to assemble cohorts of kids with similar disabilities in order to comprise a classroom. There’s a sentiment among some parents that private school placements offer superior programming and therapists. Certainly in districts like Trenton an out-of-district placement is a ticket out of the generally bleak public school system.

Most significantly, we overclassify minority kids. A Harvard study published in 2007 notes that “school districts nationwide continue to improperly and disproportionately place minority students in special education classes.” In New Jersey in particular (as well as Florida, Alabama, Delaware, and Colorado) “the number of African-American students identified as mentally retarded was more than three times that of white students.”

Also check out this study from the NJ Center of Developmental Disabilities: "Where are We Now? Still Segregated in NJ."

How Peaceful is Camden?

2011-12-23T11:12:00.004-05:00

The Courier-Post is all over Camden Public Schools’ failure to accurately report incidents of violence and vandalism. (See earlier story here.) Each year, per state mandate, districts file reports with the State DOE listing rates of violence and then the State reports out to the Legislature. While there has been a 6.4% increase in violent incidents (some of this, no doubt, attributable to the new Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying legislation), Camden Public Schools appears to be a land of milk and honey: there were only 29 incidents all of last year and only 35 for 2010-2011.

Among other districts in the area “almost 30 districts reported more violent incidents than Camden – including Audobon, Cherry Hill, Cinnaminson, and Washington Township.”

So how does Camden’s reported serenity – just 35 incidents all year -- align with reality? In 2010-2011 “Camden police officers responded to 308 such incidents involving students, according to police records obtained Wednesday. That’s 273 more cases than Young’s administration cared to report and perhaps several hundred more than actually happened because police don’t respond to every incident.”

Due to the discrepancy the State will now launch an investigation.

The responsibility for the fictional tranquility in the Camden Public Schools is on its Superintendent, Bessie LeFra Young, who is out on medical leave and not returning phone calls from either reporters or School Board members.

Under-reporting of violence and vandalism isn’t all that’s wrong with Camden. At Camden High, for example, only 21% of its students graduate by passing the state assessment, an 8th-grade level test. Average SAT’s are 330 in math and 340 in verbal. Not a single kid took an Advanced Placement course in 2009. 71% of its 9th-graders actually show up for school. According to state data, 23% of Camden High’s kids drop out – and that information is self-reported and may be as misreported as its violence and vandalism rates.

The Courier-Post’s Jeremy Rosen predicts that Camden Public Schools may be taken over by the State based on its failure to meet benchmarks on QSAC, which rates districts on instruction, personnel, operations, fiscal management and governance. A reliable source (well, editor of the paper and former Camden school board member) told Rosen that the Camden’s QSAC report was leaked and predicted that it will score less than 50% on instruction, personnel, operations and governance. Districts are required to score 80% on each section.

Will a state takeover help Camden’s school kids? Who knows. Doesn’t seem like it can get much worse.

Five NJ Education Winners Among Top 100

2011-12-23T10:05:00.005-05:00

PolitickerNJ Powerlist of 2011, which recognizes the 100 most powerful people in New Jersey politics, is hot off the press. Here’s the education-related winners:

#3: George Norcross, Democratic “power broker” and champion of the Opportunity Scholarship Act and expansion of charter schools, particularly in Camden. Also recognized as “Winner of the Year” because “his entire South Jersey stable of politicians won their races” on Election Day.”

#28: David Sciarra, Executive Director of the Education Law Center, lauded for his take-down of Gov. Christie’s education funding cuts in Court this year.

#33: Chris Cerf, still “Acting” Commissioner of Education because of Sen. Ron Rice’s recalcitrance but undaunted, particularly in light of today’s announcement that NJ has (finally!) won $37.9 million in the federal competition Race To The Top to improve teacher and principal evaluation systems. (See Star-Ledger, Courier-Post, NY Times.)

#69: Reverend Reginald Jackson, head of NJ’s Black Ministers Council and supporter of public school choice and OSA. (Here’s a recent piece he wrote for NJ Spotlight.)

#92: Barbara Keshishian, President of NJ Education Association: “It was obviously another tough year for Keshishian and the NJEA, as members watched Christie and Senate President Sweeney tag-team to undermine NJEA and other union leadership and secure greater contributions for public-sector workers to their pension and healthcare benefits. But with nearly 200,000 members it’s still one of the biggest unions in the state.”

NJ Legislature Not Expected to Pass Ed Reform Bills

2011-12-20T14:21:00.004-05:00

WHYY is reporting that "New Jersey lawmakers are not expected to enact education reform proposals at next month's final meeting of the current legislative session." Bills that sought to reform teacher tenure and install merit pay are apparently off the table. There's no word (that I've heard) on bill that change charter school laws or give school districts the option of moving elections to November.

Abbott Preschools in Plainfield; the Straw Horse of Private vs. Public

2011-12-20T11:13:00.012-05:00

I’d like to revisit a post from last week. In that post, “OSA [Opportunity Scholarship Act]: The False Dichotomy of Public and Private Schools,” I examined a statement by Julia Sass Rubin, spokesperson for Save Our Schools-NJ, which is lobbying against OSA and for public votes on new charters. In the statement Ms. Rubin said that OSA “would be funded directly from public school budgets. So it would absolutely take money out of the public school system to transfer to private and religious schools."

In that post I looked at her statement in the context of the full-day preschool programs offered in Abbott districts, where traditional public districts pay private and religious preschools to run early childhood education programs for 3-5 year-olds. I concluded that there wasn't that much difference between the proposal embedded in OSA and the NJ’s highly-regarded system of out-sourcing preschools for kids in Abbott districts.

In response to the post, Ms. Rubin commented,

As the Education Law Center has pointed out to you on numerous prior occasions, the publicly-funded pre-school program is tightly regulated and functionally run by the public school system. The private schools that would be the recipients of diverted public school dollars under the voucher scheme are completely unregulated -- lacking in standards and prone to abuse, exploitation and discrimination.

Okay. That’s fair. Our Abbott preschools are not “voucher schemes” but “tightly regulated and functionally run.” (Not sure how to square Ms. Rubin’s disdain for the NJ DOE’s ability to regulate charter schools and their deft touch with regulating preschools, but whatever.) Let’s look at these laudatory preschool programs in Plainfield, one of NJ's 31 improverished Abbott district.

In 2011 Plainfield Public Schools sent 1,433 children to 16 preschools. The total preschool budget is about $19.8 million, or about $13,840 per child per year. Recently the DOE’s Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance completed a fiscal review of four of these 16 preschools. Note that the reviews have no bearing on the curriculum of what may be stellar early childhood education programs.

The four preschools reviewed were Faheemah’s Child Care Center, Precious Steps Child and Development Center, King’s Daughters Day School, and B’s Nurturing Neighborhood. Fiscal irregularities were found at all four.

At Faheemah’s Child Care Center, described as “a non-profit organization owned by Faheemah El-Amin who serves as owner and full-time director,” Ms. El-Amin did not receive a salary for three quarters but instead paid her son the Director’s Salary. Rent for facilities wasn’t paid on time. Also, expenditure variances revealed that “the provider has not utilized current, accurate, complete, and reliable information. The use of inaccurate information impacts the fiscal component of the preschool education program.”

At Precious Steps Child and Development Center “DOE employees were compensated incorrectly,” teaching assistants were required to work a 50-hour work week (they’re supposed to follow the same contract provisions as Plainfield Public Schools), and a custodian received “unauthorized vendor payments.” According to the report,

The provider lacked the internal controls necessary to maintain accurate financial reporting of the DOE funded transactions.

At King’s Daughters Day School “the provider’s 2009-2010 budget planning worksheet and comparison to the actual expenses revealed an expenditure variance of $20,274.00” and “the provider appears to be non-compliant with contractual staffing standards…”

At B’s Nurturing Neighborhood, run by Beatrice Martin and her son William, there were two general ledgers that didn’t reconcile with each other. Ms. Martin holds two mortgages which expired in June 2008, and the payment invoice submitted to the district “did not reconcile to any other supporting mortgage loan agreement.” Also, “the district expressed serious concern related to the documentation to support the teachers’ and the teacher assistants’ health coverage.”

What does this all mean? Simply that the distinction drawn by Ms. Rubin and Education Law Center between the use of private/parochial preschools for young children in Abbott districts -- "functional" and "tightly regulated" -- and the use of private/parochial schools for older kids -- "a voucher scheme" -- is not so meaningful. Or at least not in Plainfield.

That’s not an argument for or against OSA, but merely a recognition that NJ's public education system already draws on a mix of private and public resources to educate children and some are more functional than others. The distinction betwen private and public institutions to educate children in NJ is not meaningful, merely a straw horse straddled by foes of school choice. Our energies could be put to better use by accepting the complexities of a spectrum of options potentially available to poor children in districts like Plainfield.

Quote of the Day

2011-12-19T09:35:00.003-05:00

"In some ways, the story behind why [Christopher Cerf] is still only 'acting' makes him sound like a bad-ass," said Joe Williams, executive director of Democrats for Education Reform in New York City. "For a guy who wants to break china and get things done, that's not a terrible problem to have."

From today's NJ Spotlight, on why Cerf, a full year after his appointment by Gov. Christie for the top NJ DOE slot, has yet to be confirmed by the State Senate because Sen. Ronald Rice is exercising his "senatorial courtesy." Reminiscent of recess in elementary school yards, the sort of "you've got the cooties" antics, no? Maybe Cerf can slap Rice with a Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying charge while Sen. Rice holds his breath until his face turns blue and make the whole Senate look infantile. No wonder people are fed up with government.