| Author |
Message |
    
Antrim
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:03 am: |     |
A friend of mine bought a house in Milburn last year for 750k and is paying $7000. in taxes. For that she gets one of the best rated school districts. We decided to buy in Maplewood only nine months ago, our taxes are going up to well over $18000. For this we get the lowest rated schools.
I dont understand why this is?
I also know from talking to many in town that if this reval goes through there will be a mass exodus out of Maplewood and the property values, already on the way down, will take a huge nosedive.
This reval is on the brink of ruining this town. I was at the last meeting but stood outside with the hundreds of others that could not get in. I havent seen scenes like that since my College Days. If the TC does not listen to the people they will ruin Maplewood! |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:39 am: | |
I would go to Maplewood schools over Millburn schools anyday. they happen to have the SH mall to keep their taxes down. |
Edcuz
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:49 am: | |
Why would a mass exodus occur? Are there towns in the surrounding area (with easy access to NYC) that have low taxes and low real estate prices? (750K ain't no drop in the bucket)
Of course not. It costs more to live this close to NYC.
The reval may be a painful truth of living in this town, but it may also lead to some good things, like a more active community that will work to get more value for our tax dollars from our schools and government. |
Buzzsaw
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:16 am: | |
Amen, Edcuz!
I hope that everyone stays involved after this is over.
Maybe if people were involved in the first place, there wouldn't have been a huge gap between revals. The pain is not from the reval - but from the long time between the revals. |
Msuewillis
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:45 am: | |
Antrim-- We've been very happy with the school system. We like ethnic and economic diversity, but when you average everything in, schools that are more homogeneous like Millburn usually get higher ratings. My son is doing extremely well by all standards, personal, state, and national.
As Kathy said in another thread a couple of days ago:
A couple of months ago, I tried looking at the data on which NJMonthly bases its
rankings. It comes from the NJ Report Card and is self-reported by the districts. (I
hope that most of what follows is accurate--I'm trying to remember things that I
didn't record anywhere.)
The two categories which seemed to be most responsible for Columbia's poor
ranking were length of the school day and percentage of students passing the
HSPT (or whatever it's called these days--the 11th grade proficiency test). But a
little investigation (and I'm sorry that I haven't had the chance to do more)
suggested that not all districts were reporting on the same basis.
The school day at CHS runs from 8:06 am to 2:46 pm, with a "conference period"
until 3:15. Each day there are four 40-minute periods and four 50-minute periods,
plus homeroom and passing times. For most students, one of the 40-minute
periods is lunch. So our district reported the school day as four 50-minute and
three 40-minute periods, for a total of 320 minutes or 5 hours 20 minutes.
Compared to many other districts, this is low. But spot-checking a couple of
websites (I'm sorry, I don't remember what districts I looked at, although I think
they were in Morris County) suggested that our school day would have been
reported by them as 6 hours--in other words, they included their lunch period as
part of the instructional day. Some schools reported school days as long as 6
hours 40 minutes--on our reporting basis, we'd have to add two more 40-minute
periods per day to get to that! One has to suspect that they are including every
minute from first bell to last as part of "instructional time". So we're being
downgraded because we're honest.
It is also obvious that in the case of the HSPT, we are reporting the percentage
of students who pass it the first time they take it--since virtually every student
passes it eventually. I have no way of knowing how many of the districts that
report 99% passing rates are doing the same.
The point is that NJMagazine takes data that do not start from a consistent basis
to begin with, decides on who-knows-what basis what is relevant and how to
weight it, and produces a "ranking" of high schools that has no factual basis
whatsoever. It appalls me that so many people think that what they come up with
ought to have any influence on how our schools are run. |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 12:05 pm: | |
If anyone else presented information on this board that began, "A couple of months ago, I tried looking at the data on which NJMonthly bases its rankings. It comes from the NJ Report Card and is self-reported by the districts. (I hope that most of what follows is accurate--I'm trying to remember things that I didn't record anywhere.)", they would be laughed at and ridiculed to no end !!!
I think she has a bit more "homework" to do on her allegations before you start referring to it as fact! |
Nohero
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 12:15 pm: | |
U: And your messages always contain only facts, not allegations? 
She made a legitimate point, and one worth considering. Personally, I take NJ Monthly's recommendations as to restaurants, clubs, stores and activities with a grain of salt. Why should their school rankings be held up as gospel? |
Jem
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 12:39 pm: | |
Antrim,
By no means is this district the "lowest rated." Fringe likes to point out our position in relation to schools in the highest socio-economic groupings, but that doesn't mean that we're by any means the lowest rated district in the state, a state, by the way, which in and of itself is rated educationally at the top in the nation.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess what percentage of our juniors pass the HSPT test on the first try?
I've looked at the data in the NJ Monthly report too. Here's some food for thought:
(Please recall that we're talking about a total of 309 schools, of which Columbia ranks overall 136) If you sort the NJ Monthly data by number of graduates attending 4-year colleges, Columbia is number 49, way ahead of many of the schools ranked in the top 75.
If you sort by number of graduates attending 2-year colleges, from fewest to most, in consideration that a high number of kids going on to community colleges is not necessarily a sign of a particularly successful high school program, Columbia ranks number 75, with schools like Millburn, Livingston, Princeton, Cherry Hill, etc., much higher up on that list, which makes sense because those communities are more uniform socio-economically.
Many of the schools in the NJ Monthly top 75 send graduates numbering in the high 60's to high 70 percent to 4-yr colleges. We send 77% of our graduates to 4-yr. college and a total of 93% of our graduates go on to higher education. |
Kayceecee
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:05 pm: | |
Well you can keep Millburn! And from what I hear, if you don't live in the Short Hills area of town your children are viewed as the "poor kids" in the high school. I think the schools in this town are very good and I'm sending my children to them. Many people complain about the schools and don't even know the facts. |
Harold
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 9:49 pm: | |
Ah, jealous,jealous, jealous.... |
Bobk
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:43 am: | |
I have to add my two cents to this discussion, especially concerning our schools in Maplewood/South Orange.
The key number quoted in this thread is that 77% of the kids who graduate from Columbia go on to four year colleges with most of the rest going on to other types of continuing education. Many of these students go on to highly selective schools.
My daughter, a senior, and many of her classmates already have early acceptances at top schools including Brown, The University of Chicago, Oberlin, etc.
In addition, going to a school that is racially and economically diverse will be a advantage when they get out in the "real world" and are working with people from all backgrounds. |
Fringe
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 1:57 pm: | |
The New Jersey Report Card is compiled by the State Department of Education using data it generates internally and receives from the districts. Financial items, enrollment and class time are among the former. All test scores, including SATs are calculated by the Dept of Ed to avoid fluffing by the districts. The state reports only the HSPT results for first -time takers, and these are the numbers used by "NJ Monthly" for its comparisons. In addition, the Dept of Ed calculates its own SAT results using figures sent directly to it from ETS.
For whatever reason, in its last two Test Score presentations SO-M has chosen to report HSPT results using the combined passing rates for the Fall and Spring administrations of the examination. Likewise, the SAT results reported are not in sync with those reported by the state.
JTL |
Fringe
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 2:07 pm: | |
Comments of a local citizen before the school board in Spring 2000.
I'm sitting in front of you this evening with two goals in mind. The first is to thank you and the second is to take you to task. You see, I am at
the same time both a very satisfied parent, and a very dissatisfied citizen and taxpayer. On the one hand, my son is presently completing his senior year at Columbia and has had a superb 4 years. He is one of a relatively small group of excellent students whose academic needs have been more than amply met. He has had wonderful, committed, ngaging teachers and an abundance of challenging classes to choose from. He is about to set off on the college
adventure, (I might add at one of America's finest small colleges) and in many ways I have this District to thank for that. I am very sincere in saying that.
On the other hand, I am profoundly dismayed by the abjectly dismal performance of Columbia High School on standardized test results in comparison to other schools in our District Factor Group. Let me recap the results from
the State Report Card that Dr. Barker utilized in her report: In ranking the mean SAT scores for the class of 1999, Columbia finished 55 out of 56 on the Verbal, 56/56 on Math. For mean HSPT (High School Proficiency Test) scores,
56/56 on both the Reading and Math sections, and 54/56 on Writing. Now we all understand that standardized tests have some serious flaws, and we all recognize that our District has some unique factors which make relative performance a challenge. But for Columbia to finish dead last or nearly dead last out of 56 high schools in the District Factor Group is simply unacceptable.
Think about that for a moment. It's truly shocking. On the only objective comparative measures available, Columbia shows as the very worst high school in the State of New Jersey in our socio-economic grouping. That just doesn't
work for me . . . and it shouldn't for you. There are those who say we're in the wrong District Factor Group. But even if you move us down one tier to the next DFG, we'd still finish near the bottom. The picture, by the way, is similar for the middle schools with respect to the GEPA (Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment.)
In any other setting . . . in either the business, government, or not-for-profit sectors . . . in any other setting that kind of relative performance
would be grounds for demotion or dismissal. So I think there's a serious question as to whether your response to the set of issues facing the District is adequate to the task at hand. I may yet be proven wrong, but my guess is that your working philosophy and policies will not yield the desired results. There are many fine teachers and administrators who work their hearts out
here and I do not fault them. Indeed they deserve better results than these. It is you who are primarily responsible for this continuing debacle, not so much because of what you've done as because what you've neglected to do.
You have failed to do the one thing that would have had the most significant impact, mainly, in a focused and purposeful way to significantly raise the bar on expectations with regard to performance, effort, and commitment . . .
across the board, without exception, and on the part of both students and their parents. Your continuing failure to ask . . . no, to require . . . that students work much harder and longer, and with greater seriousness of purpose, and that parents get themselves meaningfully plugged into the process on a regular basis, and that both groups feel a heightened sense of
responsibility about the outcomes, is undermining any chance that this District can
achieve real success. As a result of this continuing lapse of real leadership, you
are letting down your students, their parents, your employees, and the citizens of Maplewood and South Orange.
Let me leave you with one further thought: Approximately 2500 homes have been purchased in Maplewood and South Orange in the past 4 years. Assumedly most of those buyers are still here, and assumedly a large number of them have young children. I think it's also safe to assume that most of them are
blissfully unaware of these comparative test score results. I want you to imagine for a moment a hypothetical full page ad in the News Record addressed specifically to those people, calling to their attention the relative ranking
of Columbia and the middle schools, and asking them if that's what they had in mind when they bought here. I want you to contemplate that hypothetical scenario and then ask yourself how in good conscience you'd possibly be able
to reassure them. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 6:24 pm: | |
Ucnt, My intention was not to provide "information" to support some sort of alternative ranking of Columbia High School, but only to suggest that a healthy skepticism be employed when looking at any such ranking.
Just because someone arrays a bunch of numbers into a grid and creates some sort of ordering from them, doesn't mean that the numbers, or the ordering, have any kind of validity.
Fringe, Does Jim know you're posting his remarks on this board? He tells me he tries to avoid the place himself :-) |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 8:26 pm: | |
Thanks for the lesson teach !
Where would we all be without your wisdom ! |
Damellon
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:32 am: | |
Face it, the reason why we are in this mess is that the "TC" did a sloppy job with the reval. Apparently it was nobody's job to oversee the process. This is unacceptable representation. How the members of the TC can go around all puffed up and full of themselves the way that they do is beyond me. I want them - out of my house, out of the pool, out of the library, out of the school district (especially!!!) - and out of town hall!! I beg of all of you out there to please consider taking a closer look at the other candidates that may represent us more appropriately during the next election!!! |
Tracks
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 4:46 pm: | |
Damellon... did you have to put the same post on here so manytimes? I assume you are planning on running since you are obviously more qualified than anyone on the TC, the BOE or any other elected position in NJ. |
Damellon
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 7:23 pm: | |
I don't think I boasted about my qualifications as much as I wanted to vent my dissapointment in a string of issues that have been haunting our town. That was very nasty of you to make such a dig. (Also very defensive.) I hope you are not also on the committee. That is exactly the type of attitude that turns people off. One never knows, it seems like the same members are posting over and over again under several names(?) I believe that especially the reval was an example of sloppy work. There should have been no surprise - to anyone! And on that same note, it is time for all of us to stop being lazy and take note of the candidates that have more time to represent us. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 9:07 pm: | |
I know I'm going to hate myself right after I post this. I just know it.
Damellon:
"it is time for all of us to stop being lazy and take note of the candidates that have more time to represent us"
Translate, willya? Just what are you saying here?
Jerry |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 8:44 am: | |
Jerry,
Please refer to the posting about compulsive posters. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 2:32 pm: | |
Actually, Damellon your's is the type of attitude that turns people off! |
Ffof
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 4:41 pm: | |
I dunno, Damellon's kinda growin on me. He (she)'s got a way of saying things over and over that must make them true!!! |
Tracks
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 5:14 pm: | |
Sorry you thought I was being nasty Damellon, but it is really annoying to see you put the same posting on here over and over without once making a positive suggestion. |
Beach
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 9:42 pm: | |
Hey, maybe Damellon IS running for TC this year! Maybe now Ellen Davenport will get on the board and start ridiculing the latest victim to have the audacity to run against them!
Ellen, don't forget to ask Vic and Jerry to show you the microphone trick! GREAT tactic that's sure to make you a winner! |
|