| Author | Message | ||
     Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2719 Registered: 10-1999  |
Thanks for this information. Your willingness to get details like this is not only helpful, but a real public service. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4312 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fringe, thank you for the information. I will work my way through your chart. Unlike the rest of us when there is an anomaly, for lack of a better word, in the data, you look into it instead of just speculating. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1819 Registered: 5-2001  |
Does anyone know if the 70 "retained" students is a 'normal' number? Or is cracking down on those who need to stay back a new directive? When my sophomore (class of 2006) got her class ranking from her guidance counselor this year, it said that her 9th grade rank was out of a class of 533 students (coincidentally the same as 8th grade enrollment for class of 2007). THe chart says 493 for that class last year. Is the difference the number of sp ed students? Although it doesn't seem right to include them in a ranking. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 272 Registered: 5-2001 |
To put this somewhat back on track, I belive the data shows that while enrollment has leveled off, the make-up of the enrollment - especially at CHS has and continues to change. During the early 70's the district was able to handle a much larger enrollment with fewer staff, but as the Retained Students figures and the growing number of Remedilal class sections indicate, the educational level of the current student body is not what it was. The administration/board has used lower class sizes (about half the level 4 class size) as the primary method to teach these students. As a result, the entire environment at CHS has slipped. At the last BOE meeting, Mr. Bethiel questioned the efficacy of the current strategy. Both he and Mr. O'Leary came close to suggesting that if the administration intends to divert even more money for these students in the 2004-05 budget it must provide either proof or benchmarks that tie performance to spending as part of its proposal. Almost but not quite, and since they were in the minority, don't look for it on Jan 26. On the enrollment thread I said that 22 of the 70 retained students in this year's 9th grade were new to the district last year. I checked the administration statistics and found that 49 students were listed as new to the 9th grade at 15 October 2001 (SY 2001-02). The data taken together show that nearly half of those new students ended up being retained. As district resources stretch to the breaking point - and the number of folks who have left suggest that may have already happened - the issue of fiscal responsibility in the context of viable programs will continue to grow. Perhaps we will hear more about it during the upcoming BOE campaign. JTL | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 302 Registered: 9-2003  |
Is there a pattern to the 49's background? Do the 22 come from a remedial background or with lower test scores, etc. Wondering if early intervention, at the point they start 9th grade, would be useful. In the elementary school case, for example, when we moved here and registered our daughter, we had to supply test scores, report cards etc. towards addressing her placement/needs. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 584 Registered: 5-2001 |
How about a Guantanamo School for our illegal educational combatants? A boot camp with a skyline view of Manhattan. Let's use the South Mountain Reservation as a "reservation" for our illegally enrolled, educationally challenged students, their enabler relative confederates, jfburch and the ethical culturelistas. Or, perhaps Maplewood and South Orange should contribute reparations directly to Irvington and New Ark. What about a educational residence amnesty, one time only? Or, adopt an illegal, and feel good about yourself. DU-CM | ||
| michael Citizen Username: Michael Post Number: 460 Registered: 1-2002 |
Getting back to the title of this thread The BOE's philosophical split on fiscal responsibility- I find myself shaking my head again. I don't get it. Yes, I do get it in the sense that at some point or another in all of our careers we have probably been asked to come up with our - "if money were no object, what would you want in order to do your job more effectively" - wish list. We dutiful submit the list and maybe, maybe if we are lucky we get one small item on the list because as everyone knows, money is an object. So why are some members of the BOE and the BSE still playing this game? What's the point ? Of course they MUST consider cost and the tax impact!!! And they already do !!! SO, those that say they don't believe they are charged with that responsibility and that board members should not consider the financial impact of items presented to the BSE are just plain full of it!! Otherwise why not include New Facilities, class sizes of 8, new textbooks for everyone on and on and on... every year? We sure as heck could benefit from these things. But the "pie in the sky" budget does not get presented. Why, because they know darn well the town can't afford it and it will be rejected. So, these BOE members are disingenuous in what they claim to be philosohical differences and they continue to play games. My hypothesis is that there is no philosophical split. but there's plenty of posturing, politics and inflated egos along with a huge helping of extraordinarily unrealistic, out of touch, in power for too long, administrators, board members and BSE members that need to be sent a message. "You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting" Support the Maplewood/South Orange Ministry of Propaganda (otherwise known as the CCR) | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 261 Registered: 3-2003 |
Why not impose a two term limit on the BOE? Six years, that is. How do we do that? | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1807 Registered: 1-2003  |
I happened to hear Governor McGreevey on 101.5FM last night. Pretty odd, because I'm not usually in the car at 7:30pm, and I rarely turn on that station. McGreevey said it's up to towns and school districts to figure out how to cut costs. He is pushing a bill that will help towns consolidate services. That's all he offers in the way of property tax reform. He said that NJ spends more [per student] on education than any state. He seemed to believe that we spend less per student than other states in the classroom. In other words, the extra money goes to administration. If this is the case, how did we get to this point, and is there a rationale for it? More importantly, is there a solution in sight? Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1831 Registered: 5-2001 |
We are a dense state but have over 500 districts. Essentially, each town has its own system. If anything, M/SO is ahead of other districts in that we are already consolidated - imagine if both Map and SO each had its own elem schools and own high school! Now that would be a lot of administration! | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 340 Registered: 9-2003 |
Wouldn't consolidation be helpful in terms of $$? Duplication of depts etc. Probably would reduce some middle mgt jobs at the districts. Wouldn't it/couldn't have the effect of elminating the Abbott schools/districts if you consolidated well? | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1814 Registered: 1-2003 |
Yes, it could help a lot. Towns fractured a lot in the 1850's so badly that the state had to enact a law to put an end to it. Last night, McGreevey bemoaned the fact that there has been one consolidation of two towns in the last thirty years. I'm not sure which town he's speaking of. I think it's Edison. I think at the root of it is that people don't want to give up local control, and I don't blame them. But the cost might be high to having small towns. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1244 Registered: 6-2001 |
I think McGreevy's approach is a bit of a dodge. Yes, consolidation would save some money--though the estimates I've seen cover an enormous range between the high and the low. How much that might mean per student, or in terms of property tax reduction, I am not sure, but my guess is it would be modest, and consolidation is a one-time fix, so after whatever initial savings it brought, costs would continue to rise. So, he's not wrong necessarily, but a) it's not clear how much that would save and b) it doesn't address the fundamental problems of minimal state funding for education and over-reliance on property taxes. In terms of per pupil costs--it's not quite fair to compare to the national average. I think (and I'll try to find it) that taking into account cost of living, NJ is closer to the middle of the pack. The highest per student costs tend to be in states with high cost of living and generally strong education systems. Sure, we could get our per pupil costs down but we'd have to be content with a California quality system or have teachers willing to work for Iowa wages. Finally, ffof is right about SO/M being ahead--we are actually among the larger K-12 districts in the state and by some measures, we are pretty close to the "right" size. There are nearly 50 K-12 districts with fewer (sometimes a lot fewer) than 1800 students and another 100+ with 1800 to 3500, and a bunch of very small K-8 districts. So there's certainly room for consolidation and that wouldn't have to eliminate local control--which we still have in the two towns. The Abbott districts tend to be in the largest cities and are already quite large and I can't imagine the politics of trying to consolidate them into neighboring suburban districts. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4406 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think the Gov should take a look at the education bueracracy that has grown up in Trenton. The sense I get is a lot of the new management positions in our district are to serve the educrats in Trenton. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 341 Registered: 9-2003 |
Really dumb question: So what generally does NJ do with state taxes that some might consider out of whack with other states? If not spending on education, ??? I'm used to a state with no sales tax, but a higher income tax. I'm getting out of my league, here, in asking this, but is there any non-partisan sense of where the money goes? Is there more bureaucracy? Greater policing needs? More social and public service needs? Per capita, against a comparable state in terms of demographics and cost of living. Is NJ more like NY or CT, and what do they do. On the face of it, seems like tons of town/county/state government offices, people, etc. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1817 Registered: 1-2003 |
bobk, as I said at 11:11 today, that's what the governor said last night: that there are too many administrators eating up the school budgets. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1245 Registered: 6-2001 |
Here's one source of some comparative national education data: http://www.miedresearchoffice.org/nationalfacts.htm | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1246 Registered: 6-2001 |
And there's this data on revenues and expenditures, from the National Center for Education Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/list_tables2.asp#c2_9 | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1247 Registered: 6-2001 |
And a quick look at table 167--Total and current expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary education, by function and state: 1999-2000--on the NCES site (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt167.asp) shows that General Administration and School Administration (columns 8 and 9) is indeed higher in NJ than the national average and higher than almost any other state. BUT, the overall amounts for that are small compared to the rest of expenditures so that bringing NJ admin costs in line with the rest of the nation would save a few hundred to five hundred dollars per student--not a huge dent in the total. So, while it is true that administration expenditures are relatively high in NJ, reducing them will not solve our problems (though it might be a small part of a solution.) | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1249 Registered: 6-2001 |
One more take on this--from the NJ School Boards Association, with clear cites of data sources--with some interesting numbers both on levels of administration and issues of consolidation: http://www.njsba.org/PI/Education_by_the_Numbers.htm Highlights: numbers of administrators have been held flat as numbers of teachers and students rose NJ ranks 45th out of 50 states in state contributions to school funding And even the smallest--single school--districts are keeping their per student spending in line with state averages |
