Winner- Carmelo Garcia and his so called "Independents":
Bottom Line: Carmelo Garcia and crew got out their vote and the reformers didn't. Such is the reality in Hoboken politics. The "old guard" always gets out their vote and for the reformers it is hit or miss. If 5,500 people had voted in this election the result would have been different. But under a 4,000 vote total is like a death sentence to reform regardless of candidates. Carmelo "Wheeling and Dealing" Garcia and his hangers on of flip-flopping Peter "What are my Orders Pupie, Kiss Beth Mason's Ring and Up Mike Russo's Corrupt Butt" Biancamano and Frances Rhodes "I want my Junket" Kearns pretty much got out their maximum vote 2,250 this election which is on par for previous "old Guard" performances in one-on-one matchups.
Thus, to the victor go the spoils and we are talking about a potential $59 million budget in which he can place many political friends in low-show jobs as a reward for their electioneering efforts. Alas, they will have to wait until next year before they have a chance to take back the majority. Taxpayers: your wallets are safe this year from the graft of a Carmelo Garcia led school board. Curious that Maureen Sullivan voted for him as president this year which most assuredly conflicts with her ideological stance on cutting expenses.
Loser- Fair Elections and Following BOE Policy:
Carmelo Garcia and his team of independents have several key items missing from their ELEC reports. Things like campaign literature, money for campaign "workers" if you can even call them that are still conspicuously absent from them at last check. This disregard for the ELEC rules spills over into BOE policy as well. Take Paula Ohaus for example. Carmello Garcia's political activity on that issue this last month has made a mockery of the Hoboken School Board and his oath to uphold policy. His has been caught red-handed in the past with his fiscal shenanigans and if he should regain the majority next year watch the disregard for rules to go into full swing. The kind of reckless disregard that will get this School in a major multi-million dollar lawsuit one day. Mark my words.
Loser- Kids First:
This may be an arresting development to some but it is time to face facts people. Not enough affluent parents could give a crap about Hoboken's District Public Schools. Sure, a variety of factors led to the poor turnout in this year's school board election including a holiday, no majority really at stake this year, no headliners on the Kids First ticket but the number one killer for this slate was voter apathy. When less than 4,000 people vote in a City Wide election for School Board out of a population of 50,000 the reformers/good governance slates will lose every time. The Slate didn't matter much or did it? Kind of a chicken and egg argument but the result is the same: setback.
Push- "Marauding" Maureen Sullivan:
Anti public school Public School Board member Maureen Sullivan didn't run a slate this year and chose to sit this one out. Her turn is up next year. In Vegas parlance when there is no winner it is called a push. Reformers will get a chance next year to ensure that Maureen Sullivan's slate consisting of her, Liz Markevitch and one other and Kids First compete for votes and give back the voting majority to whoever the "old guard" is sponsoring. Which brings me to my final point: Why bother?
Loser- My interest in School Board Issues:
If enough taxpaying parents in the middle class who can't afford private schools don't exist or care about "District" Public Schools in Hoboken, then why in the hell should I? After all I don't have kids. I did for the right reasons support the continued improvement of Hoboken Schools for the sake of community. Better "District" Public schools to me always meant a better community. However, not enough parents are educated on the issues that face the School Board. Even more importantly, not enough care. As long as that is the case why bother? As long as there is a pop-up school like HOLA where affluent or connected parents can send their children to segregate them from the rest of the students, district schools don't really have a real chance for improvement. How is that for some unreal results? PJ O'Rourke and Maureen Sullivan will be happy campers.
In order to make Public Schools better in Hoboken the kids who are not performing well need to do better and that over time will possibly attract more affluent parents to consider sending their kids to public schools in Hoboken. However that is just a long term possibility and not the most likely of outcomes. Why waste my time? There is always the 2013 Mayoral race to gear up for. My personal time is too valuable to try and help parents that will sell out their children's education for $40 a vote or don't care at all for public schools. Besides the occaisional post on BOE topics I am done here.
That's right, I am done. Finished with the BOE on any kind of substantive basis. Hope that with Carmelo and Crew, should they get the majority back, that the budget goes to $80 million for all I care and test scores plummet. If that doesn't wake anybody up I don't know what will. At least Hoboken will get its money out of the County with the increased jail services.
My comment: By making my last point I am not encouraging people to not be involved in Hoboken BOE matters, I simply saying I have given what I can to public educational causes and refuse to give any more substantial chunks of my time on this area. ◦
Logging you in...
Willow Terrace Mom · 725 weeks ago
So here it is - you give up on education, I give up on you. I can appreciate that you are tired and weary from the fray, but honestly, that is not good enough reason to toss in the towel. So man up, or I and many others like me, are out of here.
You are better than this.
Voice of Reason · 725 weeks ago
Willow Terrace Mom · 725 weeks ago
Grafix Avenger · 725 weeks ago
WT Mom isn't "pretending", her involvement isn't"on and off" and she's the real deal.
Grafix Avenger · 725 weeks ago
I adore RG, he's my friend but I am with you 100%. Certainly he is entitled to his opinions. And having campaigned for Kids First and in the City Council race, the disappointment in the majority of folks, many pushing strollers, who were either not registered, non-responsive or felt 'bothered' by the confrontation was truly demoralizing and certainly the BoE results showed it up.
So do we punish the kids in the public schools for that? Abandon them to the 'old guard' so they can start pumping money out of the schools into no-show jobs, low-show jobs and their own pockets? Do we want better educated kids and better schools which benefit the town as a whole?
Sorry, but I can respect your RIGHT to make your own decision, RG without respecting your decision. Whatever it is, whatever it takes we have to wake the dead. The dead above the neck.
HobokenReformer · 725 weeks ago
Willow Terrace Mom · 725 weeks ago
Gardiner4Hoboken 90p · 725 weeks ago
The reform side needs many parents to show up at School Board meetings and perhaps you are one of them but where are the rest? Are parents really afraid to speak up against the tyranny of Paula and crew?
Reform/Good governance got a great turnout in 2009 that propelled them to the majority but I don't see how we get back there again. If anyone had a strategy to get 5,500 people to vote next year in the BOE races then I am all ears.
Willow Terrace Mom · 725 weeks ago
And to be honest, I do not buy your ROI argument - we have not met, but everything you write tells me you are not that cynical.
In terms of showing up to vote and a strategy, my opinion - get the early childhood crowd. They compromise the largest chunk of voters with more to lose than anyone else. They may not be able to make it to a BOE meeting which falls during bedtime, but they do need an outlet and representation. They need eyes and ears at the meetings, because they are too busy brushing teeth and drawing the drapes to be there. But that they do not show up at BOE meetings does not mean thy do not care or are apathetic. It means they are without a means to communicate their needs.
How to put the puzzle together will require some work an thought, but that is where I say to start. Maybe you can start with the mommy blogs and make some new friends. Help put together a babysitting program on BOE meeting night. Make it more doable and they will come. I am volunteering to help if you want it. Just don't go away and ditch it all. We need better than that.
Robert · 725 weeks ago
A couple of points:
1. While Kids First clearly lost this election, they won the prior two and go back only a little longer and they weren't on the map at all. Whether you love them or hate them, this is a major accomplishment in the longer term, if a set back this time. I don't think it's time to throw in the towel for anyone who supports their work and policies. In addition to everything else, this is about roughly one third of our local tax dollars.
2. HoLa admissions are made on the basis of a lottery. While it is a fact that there are children at the school whose parents are "connected" (Garcia, Ramos), and a similarly "connected" board member (Raia), that has no bearing whatever on gaining admission. That said, while it is far from a shoe-in to get into the school, the odds are more favorable at HoLa than at the other charter schools in town. That is because the school is still developing its reputation and has no history. I am sure that is also because of the school's Spanish immersion curriculum, which won't appeal to every parent. Last year's lottery was very competitive for Kindergarten -- but not for 1st or 2nd grade. This year's lottery was much more competitive because the retention rate of the school has proved to be stellar.
I have a child enrolled at HoLa. But I also care very much about who is elected to the Board of Education. Even on a purely selfish level, I care about my tax dollars and I also care about the quality of the BoE schools because HoLa is only K-5. Of course I'd like to think I have non-selfish reasons as well, but at least one of my selfish reasons applies to every resident of this city.
But again, it's up to Kurt whether he wants to spin his wheels on this particular hive's nest!
Gardiner4Hoboken 90p · 725 weeks ago
Parents want to optimize their choice for their children (heck it's their kids afterall) but by doing so weaken the performance of the district schools. Zero sum. The High School right now is too small to offer the variety of programs it would needs to to be more attractive to more affluent parents. And lets face it some parents just don't want their kids in an urban high school setting. Period.
If someone can give me a roadmap out f this conunudrum, I will listen and reconsider. Otherwise it is a waste of time for me personally.
Robert · 725 weeks ago
Again, it's up to you how you spend your time and effort, and I commend all your work. I'm not sure why you feel that Kids First can't again draw the sort of turnout it did in 2009 and 2010, and if nothing else I'm sure you would agree with me in hoping you are wrong. If you feel you can better serve your goals by concentrating on city council and mayoral elections (or taking the night off), however, more power to you.
The question of whether charter schools are beneficial is of course huge. The argument you lay out of zero sum (or less!) is that the charters draw away resources and good students from the general system. That is a reasonable argument, and a particular fear is that if charters draw off students from the Board of Education schools, the end result could be the layoff of teachers while a bloated administration stays in place, and that certainly describes the situation in Hoboken, whether or not charters have contributed to that state of affairs.
The opposing argument is that if the general system loses its monopoly and has to compete for resources and students, the end result overall will be improved. What is clear is that in Hoboken over the past generation or so, the enrollment in the public schools plummeted. The problem may be worst at the high school level, and you allude to that, but given that of the charters only one runs through high school and is drawing off at most about 20 children from the potential pool, I do not feel this low enrollment has anything to do other than with how parents who are lucky enough to have options are deciding to vote with their feet.
I would rather see some of my tax dollars support endeavors to try to keep these parents in the public system (including charters) than simply leaving. The wealthiest do not have to leave to get what they want, as there are ample private options for them here and in Manhattan; but other families pack up and go. I feel keeping families like that in Hoboken will serve the greater good of our city, and I think there is an argument that the charters are already contributing to that retention to some degree (but by no means across the board). Hopefully the competition they offer can at the same time exert pressure on the non-charter public schools to improve, which will serve those who are in the Board of Education schools.
At least that is the theory. I have no certainty. But I do know that the Board of Education has needed some serious shaking up. Electing the right board members is one way to address the issue. Charter competition is another approach. Given how challenging it is to elect, and re-elect, the right people to the Board, as you so eloquently describe, it seems to me there is an argument for pursuing other pathways simultaneously.
guest1 · 725 weeks ago
There is no longer a bloated administration.There are 13 total administrators, including the supt, ba, prioncipals asst principals etc...for 1900 or so kids. Though I do believe if the reform majority loses control, we will go back to a bloated administrative system. For perspective,There are 8 admins for 132 kids at Hola.
" in Hoboken over the past generation or so, the enrollment in the public schools plummeted"
Actually, it has decreased exactly the same amount as the amount of students enrolled in charter schools.
guest1 · 725 weeks ago
Actually nationwide studies show that skimming of the students with the most resources for being educationally proserous, has been detrimental to the disctrict schools. The district schools are left with at a high percentage of "at risk"students, which are both costly to educate (driving per pupil costs up) and studies indicate score 20-30 percentage points lower than their financially secure peers. There is a new bill going to the assembly to even the playing field, making it mandatory for all students within a charter school municpality, to be placed onthe charter school lottery, giving each parent the right of refusal.
guest1 · 725 weeks ago
The board of education has had some shaking up. For the first time in the history of Hoboken BOE, they have hired an experienced superintendent with a history of taking underperforming schools and turning them around and provided a budget with the lowest legal levy. Carmelo, Sullivan and Co, , after one month of the supt being here, want him gone. You can expect that, if the reform majority loses next year, we will lose the only superintendent who has a history of turning a district around.
Robert · 725 weeks ago
I think automatic enrollment (or at least opt-out) in charter lotteries is a great idea. All parents in the community should be made aware of the range of possibilities that have been put in place to serve their children. One of the beauties of the public school system (including charters) is that it brings together children from all walks of life.
The Board of Education (by which I meant not just the 9 board members, but the entire institution) has indeed had serious shaking up. I think there is more to come. But a lot of the "shaking" comes from attrition given how tenure works, so it requires time and steadfastness. Arguably, the existence of the charter schools is one factor among many that has contributed to the community pressure that has supported this retrenchment.
Robert · 725 weeks ago
As to administration, I agree and support the recent reductions. I think a legitimate worry anyone should have about ANY cause of declining enrollment is that the Board/administration MAY be to trim teaching staff while letting administrative staff stay.
Also, I don't believe that for a district operating several elementary schools and a high school can possibly function with only 13 administrators. In any case, I am confident that if you compare the cost of administration per child for the Board schools to that of HoLa, you will find the former is the larger number. Many of the HoLa staff are part-time. But that is certainly a valid point that there are in theory greater possibilities of administrative efficiency in a centralized system. Unfortunately, in practice that is often not the end result.
deleted4079745 90p · 725 weeks ago
What the hell is HOLA?
Robert · 725 weeks ago
The Hoboken Dual Language Charter School (HoLa) is an exciting new dual language charter school that opened its doors to students in grades K-2 in September 2010 (a grade will be added each year until the school reaches K-5). HoLa offers a traditional core curriculum through instruction in both Spanish and English to children of all language backgrounds. The program utilizes the well-established Two-Way Immersion approach to dual language education with a range of opportunities for creative expression and experiential learning. Students will become bilingual and biliterate in a culturally diverse and nurturing environment. All families are welcome; no previous exposure to a second language needed! Charter schools are free public schools funded by the State and operated independently of local school districts. After a rigorous application process, NJ Education Commissioner Lucille Davy approved the Hoboken Dual Language Charter School (HoLa) on September 22, 2009.
The academic work carried out in my child's Kindergarten classroom is done 90% in Spanish and 10% in English (or so the curriculum states); by 3rd grade the ratio morphs to 50%-50%.
That's interesting what you say about children of politicians historically attending Catholic school (and I don't doubt it). There is no magic about the Garcia and Ramos children getting into HoLa, however. The lottery last year (for the school's inaugural year) was not competitive for 1st and 2nd grade (only for Kindergarten was it competitive). The Ramos and Garcia children are in the upper grades, so it was only a matter of filling out the same admission application any Hoboken resident could have done with the same success. In this case, there really was not cheating; hopefully that won't change as time goes on. Has there been allegation that anything underhanded has happened with the other local charter schools in this regard?
I don't know if Ramos and Garcia were approached to see if they would consider enrolling their children; I think that's quite possible given that Frank Raia is on the school's Board of Directors. I do not know where these children were previously enrolled.
Given the diversity of opinion about the place of charter schools in public education, it is a legitimate issue on which to question Carmello Garcia if he runs for re-election to the Board of Education.
deleted4079745 90p · 725 weeks ago
Why Spanish for the language immersion school? Which dialect?
Robert · 725 weeks ago
Why Spanish? The reasoning is that it is the second most common language spoken is the US, and one of the most widely spoken languages in the world.
The question about dialect is an interesting one, and one which I discussed with the HoLa board president because I was curious and also because of what I observed in my child's pronunciation. The answer I got is that each teacher is told to speak the language as is natural to her or him. The principle is that if the Spanish is spoken well and clearly (and that has to be the presumption or the teacher was poorly chosen), that the variations in pronunciation will simply be part of the process that allows the children to understand all spoken Spanish. The teachers at HoLa are from Europe and Latin America; the lead teacher in my child's classroom is from Colombia while the assistant teacher is from Galicia. It sounds like a potential train wreck -- but amazingly, it's not.
The analogy was made to me that all English speaking people naturally grow up able to understand other English speaking people, whether they are from Hoboken, Boston, or Birmingham (US or UK). It may take some extra effort to understand sometimes, but we all adjust naturally and generally with ease.
All of that said, the board president acknowledged that she has encountered some very strong alternative opinions on this matter.
deleted4079745 90p · 725 weeks ago
The anaolgy you were offered is deeply flawed. All English speakers do not understand each other easily if at all. To wit, the English spoken as cockney? The Outer Hebrides? The Ozark Mountains?
Given the high demand for Mandarin, Arabic and Russian translators and that proper English is the international language of business, French is the international language of diplomacy and Spanish is the language of - my housekeeper - I suggest to you another nefarious motive for choosing Spanish as the second language for HoLa, especially with what you describe as very relaxed if non-existant language standards. Los ninos pobres!
Robert · 725 weeks ago
Another fact: While I'm glad of my knowledge, faults and all, of French and Portuguese, there is exactly one language other than English that would be useful to me in understanding the world surrounding me on a daily basis, and that is Spanish. I'd be quite glad to have better ability to communicate with your housekeeper than I am currently able. And my child already can, no matter where your housekeeper learned Spanish because the immersion language standards deal directly with that by exposing the student to a variety of sounds. If that is not a high educational standard, I don't know what is. (I am an adjunct lecturer in my "spare" time and my wife is a full-time university professor; we know something about educational standards, and take them very seriously.)
I've done just fine understanding Cockney and Ozark Mountains speech. (I can't say I've experienced the English of the Outer Hebrides, at least knowingly.) Yes, it takes extra effort, and I do have to internalize some issues of pronunciation and turns of phrase, and I won't claim instant fluency -- far from it. But it's the same language. I can't respond in the local style, I wouldn't even try, but that's not the point. The bottom line is that the speakers find a way to readily understand each other. Parachute any of us there, and in short order you're fine. Not the case if you dropped me in a small town in China.
As to whether Mandarin (by the way, a new Mandarin immersion charter is being started in Princeton) or other languages would be "better" choices, I think they are all important, excellent choices. One advantage of Spanish is that I'm not utterly useless in the educational process because I can sound out words (my child relishes correcting my pronunciation -- and all the Spanish-speaking housekeepers, nurses, and college professors who have encountered my child's accent marvel at its clarity!) and scrape by understanding a good deal of it at the current level. I'll be left in the dust very soon -- I'd better be! -- but it's nice for now. If it turns out my child has a particular knack for languages, already being bilingual is shown to be an ideal path to being trilingual. Also, once my child is done at HoLa, it will be entirely simple to maintain and further develop skill in the language; there is essentially a guarantee (assuming the teaching is good) that my child will function bilingually for life. Not true were the new language any of the others you cite.
Assuming the U.S. isn't colonized by China
taithbedwenarian 62p · 725 weeks ago
A dear friend of mine grew up in trilingual household. He never bragged about how many languages he knew (but a professional linguist...), saying he knew the fundamentals of a few dozen. His sister said he was fluent in 64. His expertise was Polynesian and Celtic. His native tongues were English, French and Russian. He knew Ojibwa, Cree, Tsgalgi and could talk to folks from those tribes.
I'm sure he was very gifted, but I'm also sure his ear was not locked into one set of sounds. He never developed those filters you start making when you are about 6.
deleted4079745 90p · 725 weeks ago
Robert · 725 weeks ago
And how is teaching Spanish in a way that leads to the learner to being able to understand and be understood by all 500,000 million (give or take) speakers of the language a "lack of standard"? It is precisely the opposite, though it may not be the standard you feel is the best choice (and you wouldn't be alone; as I alluded in a prior posting this is definitely controversial and recognized as such by HoLa).
In my opinion, cloistering the children in one "chosen" "correct" version of any language is would be a limiting choice of standard, and would be less likely to attain the goals of this school (love those goals, or hate them).
The standards being used at HoLa were developed from those of successful teaching as carried out by established dual-language schools and immersion programs on an international level. This is not being done by the seat of the pants.
I am well aware of the curious history of HoLa, initially as an intended sort of subsidiary of the Board of Education. (I believe their model was P.S. 75 in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, which I gather is recognized as very successful.) I was highly skeptical of that plan in this community at that time, and I suspect that in retrospect the school's founders probably feel functioning as a charter is more appropriate.
There is no question the school has been offered serious support by members of the community who are not exactly beloved by most of the readers of this blog. Yet I know the founders were delighted to have Dawn Zimmer at the ribbon cutting, and very pleased to see Ravi Bhalla (and, yes, Tim Occhipinti and Beth Mason) at a recent major fund raising event.
But I recognize that, as with any local institution, paid for with our tax dollars, and intended to serve our children, careful and skeptical eyes should keep watch. Perception is indeed critically important, and good questions such as yours deserve clear answers. It is the onus of HoLa's advocates to address that scrutiny head on.
deleted4079745 90p · 725 weeks ago
Robert · 725 weeks ago
This does not include "Spanglish," though of course children will naturally do some mixing as they learn (when this happens, the school's standard -- I discussed this with the board president and have witnessed it in action -- is that the teacher repeats the complete sentence back in Spanish and encourages the child to do so in turn).
What the program does not do is elect one or another regional form of the language as "correct." The standard is that the teachers are native or "near native" in Spanish fluency. This term "near native" has an educational definition, "able to speak, read, and write the language as an educated native speaker." (The current HoLa teachers are all native.)
[Actually, one clarification: At the third grade level forward, the curriculum is 50% Spanish and 50% English. The standard is that as there are two classrooms for each grade, the two teachers co-teach all the students in the grade; one teacher is the English language teacher and the other the Spanish language teacher. Thus all students study equally under both of the two teachers on a daily basis, covering all the normal academic subjects appropriate to the grade as established by New Jersey standards. This affords the school considerable flexibility in its hiring to acquire the best faculty.]
What this is not about is teaching the Spanish equivalent of what linguists call "Black English Vernacular" or "African American Vernacular English," known more popularly as "Ebonics." I think this may be your concern. The teachers are proficient, and the standard is proficiency, in standard Spanish. (Probably a good way to think about it is the way good newscasters speak, who must be easily understood by everyone.)
The standard is that students will learn to speak, read, and write with proficiency in both languages. Indeed, the goal is that the children exactly attain "near-native" fluency -- again, "able to speak, read, and write the language as an EDUCATED NATIVE SPEAKER" (emphasis added). In Spanish AND English!
For those who feel the Spanish of a well-educated Colombian is inferior to the Spanish of a well-educated Castilian, or vice versa -- HoLa is not the school for you!
guest1 · 724 weeks ago
-Garcia didn't need to be "approached" to enroll his child in Hola... he ran kicking and screaming after his attempt to make it a segregated school within the public school failed..
-This is a recent article that might provide insight http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/assembly...
that the state granting charters has been found to be unconstitutional,as it is the local municipality who bears the financial burden for charter school costs, not the state.
Robert · 724 weeks ago
In any case, given the 90% formula, there is an argument that it's by some standpoint a bargain for the Board of Education -- that 10% they keep goes into the general coffers. (Theoretically it covers administrative expenses. From what I can tell, that would comprise the robocalls I get when school is called off on snow days.) And there is no doubt that this formula means the charter schools must do with less -- or find charitable support to make up the difference or supplement.
No doubt correct as regards Carmello Garcia! For what it's worth, at least this would indicate that when he supported HoLa as a BoE "subsidiary," he really did think it was a good idea and a good educational choice for his child.
Truly, the only point I have been trying to make as to Garcia and Ramos is that they absolutely did not need to play any games with the lottery process. (Or, if you insist -- they didn't NEED to play games with the process. Which I confess brings to mind the 79 absentee ballots miraculously found by the county clerk the day after the Cammarano/Zimmer runoff -- "vote" Cammarano didn't actually need to "win.") If their children were in Kindergarten, the appearance of possible impropriety would be easier to support.
It is the Georgia Supreme Court that just ruled that the Georgia Charter School Commission.
http://www.ajc.com/news/state-supreme-court-disba...
The process in New Jersey remains in force. Also, note from the above article that the charter granting process in Georgia has been bifurcated. The vast majority of charters have been granted through a process involving local school board approval; these are unaffected by the ruling. A small number were approved by the state charter commission without local school board approval; it is these that are affected. The New Jersey process is entirely different. I am not aware that it is in danger on a constitutional level, but interested to know if there is a case being developed.
The article you link doesn't address that matter (it gets a mention in the comments section, however). But it is a relevant article I was interested to read. It's also I think a confusing article. (Note: your link seems to have an extraneous comma at the end.)
To clarify: The Assembly committee voted to send a raft of charter-related bills to the Assembly for debate. One of the bills would potentially put the brakes on new charters by requiring local communities to approve new charters by vote; another would presumably encourage charters by allowing private and parochial schools to convert (the later after removing religious content from their curricula). Two other bills would give the charter granting power to public universities and these institutions would codify various accountability measures. This article (by the same author as the one you linked) does a better job of describing the bills:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/nj_assem...
guest1 · 724 weeks ago
That is ridiculous.The formula : charter school students will be paid 90% of the pp cost- the district doesn't get ANY money for the charter school student.
In addition, the district MUST pay for special education costs for the charter schools and required transportation for the charter schools. This is not disagragated from the district costs and shows as a district cost. So not only does a charter school cost more than 90%, due to the highest costs covered by the boe, they cost the local taxpayer more because 90% of charter funding comes from municipality vs the 58% that a district studnet costs the municipality.
the charter school is required to pay for it's facilities, which makes the value of the 90% considerably less.
You're joking right? $4 per month for facilities- The BOE wishes it spent $4k pm on facilites. There are strict standards for district schools to follow regarding facilites, as well as vendor protocols , sports programs etc...
Robert · 724 weeks ago
1. Funding. My research contradicts your understanding. According to the New Jersey Department of Education website, the "district of residence" (i.e., the child's district) pays the charter school 90% of the per-pupil "program" cost it spends on the average student. In addition the district will pay over to the charter any "categorical aid attributable to the student, provided the student is receiving appropriate categorical services, and any federal funds attributable to the student." Categorical aid includes special needs funding, a lot of which is paid by the state. Read the cited language carefully: If the local district receives outside funds for categorical aid for a specific student, that money goes to the charter to administrate. As is the case with the local district, the charter makes up the difference. Thus, if it costs $80,000 to pay for the special education needs of a child, and the state grants $50,000 and there is $5000 from the federal government, the charter gets that $55,000 -- and has to make up the remaining $35,000. Exactly what the local district would have to do, by the way. Here's a link to the NJDOE website to substantiate: http://www.state.nj.us/education/chartsch/cspa95....
Since the local district is paying out 90% of what it would itself spend on a given child for "program" costs, it therefore retains 10%. That means that the per-pupil funding available for the local district to spend increases. (Think of it this way: A local district spends $20,000,000 on "program" costs. The district has 1000 students. The average per student is $20,000. A charter is granted and 100 of the district's students enroll. The charter received $18,000 per student from the local school board, or $1,800,000. That leaves the school board with an $18,200,000 from its program budget. But the district spends $20,000 per student so that means $18,000,000. The remaining $200,000 goes into the district's coffers, theoretically for "administrative" costs. I realize it's not all so cut-and-dry in the real world, but that is the theory. It is possible - likely - that a district's average program costs could rise because of the loss of students to a new charter. The question is how the math works out. But 10% doesn't seem excessive on its face to me.
Also, given that it is theoretically less expensive per-pupil to pay the administrative costs of a larger district than one shrunk by the number of students in the charter, there is a case for the district retaining this 10% for that reason alone. I would simply comment that while I agree with the theory of economies of scale, life frequently doesn't come out that way, and I think the Kids First members of the Hoboken Board would agree with that given the efforts they have poured into staffing issues.
Continued...
Robert · 724 weeks ago
2. Facilities budget. I'm not aware that, for example, the Board of Education is paying rent for use of the Hoboken High School building. Please let me know if the case is otherwise. By contrast, all New Jersey charter schools however are required to locate and pay for their space. Therefore, the term "program" budget. The charters' public funding consists solely of that 90% cited above (and categorical aid). Do the math -- since a charter must rent or buy its facility, it either has to use some of its public money or find private money to pay the cost.
There are people who are obviously exercised about the deal HoLa cut with the Boys & Girls Club. The deal is that HoLa pays about $4,000 per month. It is also paying the cost of renovating the building (including an expansion about to get underway) to make it suitable for school use. That cost is considerable. But I think HoLa did cut a good deal; HoLa certainly thinks so. If it can be shown there was malfeasance or illegality in cutting that deal, it should be so pursued. But I have seen no evidence supporting that thus far. (That said, I agree that scrutiny is absolutely appropriate.) If one assumes for the moment that nothing untoward has been done, then the argument can be made that HoLa has found an efficient way to use seriously underutilized space while saving money that can be spent for education.
As a sidebar, do you remember the matter of the $532,000 in back rent the Hoboken Charter School paid off to the Board of Education about a year and a half ago? That was for about three years of rent. I bring that up only to substantiate that Hoboken Charter was evidently spending about $150,000 a year for use of a Board-controlled building. Two points from that:
1. That's a substantial amount of money that Hoboken Charter needs to balance against things like teacher salaries with their 90% public funding.
2. If you take the roughly $50,000 per year HoLa is spending on rent, and add in the renovation cost, the spread is probably still of substance, but not so extraordinarily dramatic. Here's a reminder about the $532K if you like to visit with ghosts: http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2009/12/ho...
Also, do not confuse rental costs with the cost of paying for maintenance, janitorial staff, etc. Guess what? Charters have to pay for those things, too, again from that same 90% of what the district schools are using ONLY for "program" costs. Even if some or all of a district's maintenance costs comes under "program" costs, there is nothing here that works in favor of charter schools. Charters have to follow all the same state-mandated protocols any district must when it comes to vendors and the like. They have the same responsibilities as local districts. If on the other hand, a local district has created needless and inefficient policies that cause it extra expense, that only underlines one reason for supporting the establishment of charter schools that will choose not to saddle themselves with such inefficiencies. If the standards are worth the cost, then they are good. Each district or charter must decide that.
Continued...
Robert · 724 weeks ago
3. Granting of Charters. Again, I think some confusion here. The court case you are citing was before the Georgia Supreme Court, and the finding was that the charter commission the State of Georgia had established was unconstitutional because the court's interpretation of Georgia statute states is that only local districts may grant charters. Traditionally, charters in Georgia (and thus cumulatively about 90% of charters granted) had been done with the approval of local school boards. But the court found that the state charter commission was a different an unconstitutional process according to Georgia statute.
But we live in a federalized governmental system, and the statutes of Georgia, and the rulings of the Georgia Supreme Court do not apply here. New Jersey statute is different from Georgia statue in the matter of charter schools. The process in New Jersey has always been that the state grants charters.
Now, you may feel that's wrong, and you could make a very good case for that on a moral basis at least (but not everyone will agree), but it is the established method. If you or anyone else is aware that the law is systematically being broken, then a suit should be filed. That's what happened in Georgia and the court (voting 3-2, so this wasn't slam-dunk) found that to be the case. In arguing the case, it is possible that attorneys will cite the Georgia case, but they will have to make a good argument that the court should take it into consideration. But the court has no such obligation.
The other course of action is for the legislature to change the statute.
But let's think about the potential consequences of change. If I understand correctly, in Georgia, approval is required from the local school board, which is not the same thing as a local plebiscite. How would you feel if over the past 20 or so years decisions had been made by the Hoboken Board of Education on this matter? As to the proposal now before the New Jersey Assembly to require a local vote on a charter: How would you feel about that having been the practice over the past 20 years in Hoboken?
Do not misinterpret: I do not mean to say I think the New Jersey charter system (or the New Jersey ANYTHING system) is anywhere near perfect. (I'd say, "Wow, what a mess.") But I do think there is a case to support state control over granting charters because if one idea of these ventures is to try different forms of innovation (and if you read the New Jersey statute governing charters, innovation is a particular goal), then to place the matter before the local Board of Education seems problematic. (Nothing's wrong here, move along!) And I think taking a vote of the district's population seems questionable because, after all, we don't vote that way on whether the local Board should open up a new school, either. We are a representative democracy, and it has to be carefully considered what individual issues of this sort are appropriate for referendums, and which are not. (If you love referendums, "Go West, young man!") Voting is great, don't get me wrong, but too much voting can be counterproductive. Witness our local elections that seem to come up virtually weekly. Not good. And an endless ballot (see "Go West, young man!")? Not good, at least not good for me.
But I agree there is an argument for the demonstration of some degree of local support for a charter. It's an important topic worthy of debate.
guest1 · 724 weeks ago
I guess we will just have to disagree.
I believe this is representational of Taxation without Representation and I believe this will become a mjor issues as more charters open. Again, of no fault of the presently operating charters.
guest1 · 724 weeks ago
absolutely untrue.
of paying for maintenance, janitorial staff, etc. Guess what? Charters have to pay for those things, too,
Not anywhere in the same category. One expamle: Charters do not have ot maintain 100 year old burners requiring 2 employees round the clock to watch them. Nor do they have to fix/replace said machinery upon breakage. Nor do they have to follow union contracts/rules . Nor are they bound to go for rfps to fix said item. All is the paid within the cost of hte rental-
Robert · 724 weeks ago
guest1 · 724 weeks ago
guest1 · 724 weeks ago
Robert · 724 weeks ago
This is distinct from saying that the state gives EXTRA money to the Board. I think that may be what you had the impression I was saying. But it's not.
guest1 · 724 weeks ago
No charter school in NJ was granted by a local school board or put on the ballot for approval.
Georgia has found that it is unconstituional for a state to approve charter schools. Taxpayuers are forced to pay for something in which, they have no representation. The commissioner of education is not elected. Charter school boards are not elected by the taxpayers who pay for their service.
Not to place blame on charters as this is a loophole issue that was not "thought out" and must be closed.
Taxation without Representstion.
guest1 · 724 weeks ago
Robert · 724 weeks ago
The first I learned of the ruling was through your posting, and I greatly appreciate that. For those interested, there was a piece in the NY Times which takes up the question of the larger implications of the ruling: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/education/17geo...
I'm sure we can agree that this is a topic that will remain controversial for a long time.
Hullabaloo · 725 weeks ago
We need to get the message across to those that don't have kids that the school is their business and they should not feel like they don't have the right to voice their opinion and vote.
If this group was more involved, I bet there would be more chatter about consolidating with another district. It would lower admin costs, the cost per pupil. Kids from other areas want to come here anyway so at least we get some money. How can we continue to run a high school that is made for 2,000 with only 500 kids in it? Has anyone paid attention to the Cartel? We have too many districts.
If we made the first move we could make sure, the high school was here in Hoboken. By eliminating a high school elsewhere and the administrative jobs that went with it, we would give Hoboken a more prominent voice in the County, reduce the cost per pupil while having more money dedicated to the classroom rather than heating the building or paying for a new roof.
p1ywood 98p · 725 weeks ago
I respectfully grant Mr Gardiner this moment of doubt, pain, and resignation with the caveat that if he doesn't snap out of it soon I'm having him sent straight back to Reform school. Peace, brothers and sister.
Gardiner4Hoboken 90p · 725 weeks ago
nice try · 725 weeks ago
Help hoboken · 725 weeks ago
ss1959 · 725 weeks ago
guest1 · 725 weeks ago
Instead,it would seem, many in the community would prefer to have a board who is willing to ignore laws and recieve special "favors", ultimately leading to a bloated budget and mulitple audit and legal violations.
Gardiner4Hoboken 90p · 725 weeks ago
Look at what Scott Siegel said regarding attendence. Parents and non-parents are not involved enough. Proves my point about the lack of interest.
Can't Stand Beth · 725 weeks ago
ss1959 · 725 weeks ago
p1ywood 98p · 725 weeks ago
What so they think this is? Anyway?
OLDNEWCOMER2 · 725 weeks ago
guest1 · 725 weeks ago
the lowest legal tax levy is less emphasis on cutting boe taxes? See this is exactly the problem.....You cannot get any lower than lowest.
uninspiring aagenda to improve education?
an entirely new curriculum implemmentation
entire new administration
replacing 4 out of 5 principals
replacing 30 or more teachers
providing lapr tops to every 7th and 8th grader
before and afterschool tutoring
curriculim, lang arts, math and special ed staff developers
new text books and science kits
teaming up with colleges, in the fall
AP classes in the fall
sat and hspa prep
all while providing hte lowest legal tax levy..
REALLY??
guest1 · 725 weeks ago
guest1 · 724 weeks ago
Charter schools were sold to the public with the notion that they could do more with less. 20 or so years later, the vast majority of charter schools not only do not outscore their district school scores, they want the same to underscore.
Charters can no longer claim the "more with less" and it seems the mantra has changed to "provide options" or "alternatives to learning" , "create competition" or "break the strangle hold that unions have on education". And we want the same amount of money to do so.
With an overwhelming track record indicating that charters are failing to meet their intended mission of surpassing distrcit school scores with less,it has proven to the public that this "trial" has not met their objectives, yet they want more charters? Why?
guest1 · 724 weeks ago
There are a few successful charters who have met the charter goal (after more than 10 years in existance) , but in most, if not all ,of those cases, the fundraising aspect puts those charters equal to or far above the district budgets (pp). It also shows a segregation of student populations. The current law coming before the assembly should alleviate the segregation issue.
What has come of this? The states are jumping for joy as they pay far less for education than they were required. The children in charter schools must inhabit classrooms that are subpar. The parents of charter school studnets must constantly fundraise in order to maintain their schools at bare minimum levels. Is this the state's expectation for school children? Personally, I find the state's vision for charer schools to be disgraceful and an insult to every child and parent who attends charters. The state is saving no less than 30% of their costs whenever a charter opens up. If they believe in Charters, the state should help to fund them.