| Author |
Message |
    
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 286
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 8:36 am: |     |
Last night's opening round of the 2004-05 school budget was notable primarily for the information not provided.
Essentially, Super H with advice from the BOE finance Committee (Latz, Frazer & Campbell) laid out the "maintenance budget" that was the cornerstone of the original "Goals & Priorities" document. In budget terms it means no changes in any services or programs. The administration did propose $833,000 in net new spending which includes a ~$500,000 savings by outsourcing the jobs of 21 custodians.
The predicted reduction in class size at Seth Boyden and Clinton was shelved at the last minute because its $1.5 million cost was deemed unrealistic given the fact that as much as $4 million of the proposed $85 million total might have to be handled as a Special Question. Or, put another way, about 7.5% of the possible 9% tax increase is subject to an absolute veto by the Board of School Estimate.
Super H justified not having the exact amounts of the Special Question and T&E budget by stating that the state has not provided its aid numbers yet. As I recall, this was the same excuse for not presenting the initial budget in January. What changed?
The net is that the state numbers will be announced on Feb. 24, leaving the amount and items in the Special Question for the March 1 BOE meeting. One might say that is the date for the presentation of the real budget.
Until then expect a PR blitz by the BOE and administration for what's on the table, while the items for the Special Question are debated behind the scenes. As one cynic noted, the amounts of state aid are already known within a few thousand dollars.
JTL
|
Dad23
Citizen
Username: Dad23
Post Number: 42
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
If there are planned cuts, they better be at central office.
3 assistant supers?
director of assessment?
public relations?
Come on. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1981
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 7:05 pm: | |
fringe, I feel I need explanations dumbed down so that I can understand them here in the Education section. I'm not sure if it's because I'm new to town, though.
OK, so the superintendent didn't deliver a final budget and gave the excuse that he doesn't know how much aid he'll get from the state. Is that right? And you wanted a final budget so people would have enough time to disapprove of it. Is that right? And what do you think he is slipping by the unsuspecting people? What would you do if you had the power of superintendent?
I don't mean to take sides. I'm just trying to get up to speed on what goes on around here.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4523
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
It looks like:
1. The BOE is going to put the burden of the majority of increased spending (and the political flack that goes with either approving the Special Question or denying it) on the Board of School Estimate. I think Fringe predicted this a month or so ago. The BOE appears to have given up on any financial watch dog roll they might have.
2. It may be very hard for the BOSE members, who are members of the the TC in MW and the Village Board in SO to turn down the Special Question because of possible political flack.
3. Therefore it looks like Super H will get a 9.5% increase in the budget (and taxes) instead of the previously expected 6% or so. Brillant politics on his part. Howard Dean could really use him these days. 
4. Question? Is David Huemer still the MW rep to the BOSE? I sort a remember reading he had been replaced by Ian? |
michael
Citizen
Username: Michael
Post Number: 465
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 8:53 am: | |
I believe Mr. Huemer is now an alternate to the BSE.
Tom, no offense, but... it does get to be a bit of a chore to explain the ed situation over and over again to every new MOL reader. In this case, for the quick update, all you need to do is read Bobk's #3.
I suggest looking at the archives, attend some meetings, read the paper etc. I'd be happy to talk to you if you want first hand information.
Private line me your phone #.
Michael |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4526
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 8:53 am: | |
I would like to add, after rereading Fringe's post that the 9.5% increase he mentions may have included the cost of reduced class sizes at Clinton and Seth Boyden. |
bookgal
Citizen
Username: Bookgal
Post Number: 474
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 9:42 am: | |
What? Reducing class size at Clinton and Seth Boyden is still viable? |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 287
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
Those interested in learning about the school budget and process could do worse than reading the four part Budget 101 series found at the SOMSD website.
The Clift Notes version begins with the passage of CEIFA in 1996 as then Gov. Whitman's attempt to control property taxes by limiting school budget increases to essentially 3% per year. HOWEVER, the law provided certain loopholes through which many NJ districts, including SOMSD, have driven 53' eighteen wheelers.
Spending Growth Limitation Adjustments (SGLAs) are a major gap, and the source of much of the above 3% budget growth in this district. SGLAs are granted for items such as enrollment, transportation and special education. They work well in districts that are expanding, but the payback is rough on maturing districts - a topic for the advanced class.
The other major loophole is the Special Question/Separate Proposal. This is perhaps the most controversial part of CEIFA. Essentially, districts may submit items/programs not deemed to be necessary for a thorough education separately to the approving entity. Items approved become part of the base budget in following years.
Prior to 1996, districts could appeal rejections of budgets to the NJ Commissioner of Education. In over 98% of such cases, the original budget was reinstated, disenfranchising the voters or BOSE. The 1996 legislation continues this practice for a district's base (T&E) budget, but not for Separate Proposals. In the latter case, items rejected by the voters or in this district the BOSE are appealable only to the municipal authority - again the BOSE. Such appeals have a far lower chance of success. Hence, in districts that rely on this mechanism, the real budget battle is on what gets put out for possible rejection.
In his Groundhog Day budget, Super H sidestepped this central reality by claiming that he could not calculate CAP without the state aid figures that will not be available until 24 Feb. If there is anyone who believes SOMSD will be getting a substantial increase, I'd like to talk about a bet. Nevertheless, at one point he did say that this year's SQ may be $4 million. To those thinking in larger government budget terms that may not seem like much. But here its about 5% of the total budget, and has the potential to cause major upheaval if the stated goal of maintaining all existing programs and services is to be met. Items such as elementary foreign language, varsity sports, CHS electives, and a host of others might be and have been on the table. In past SQs Super H has shown a willingness to play hardball and has placed popular programs on the block - daring the BOSE to reject. Cooler heads on the BOE have forced him to retrench. But the political climate in both towns is markedly different this year, with the school budget becoming a major political football. As this politicization involves some central BOE members, Super H may be emboldened to tough it out.
The simple fact is that until the list of SQ items is made public on 1 March, talking about the details of the 2004-05 budget is a futile exercise. As this is written, meetings are being held behind closed doors, special interest groups are lobbying and the political impact is being assessed on the inclusion or exclusion of various items. For those with a child in the district, February is not the time to be sitting in.
As for the class size reduction proposal, while certain BOE members continue to press for it, it does not fit into the "maintain existing programs and services" that has been selected as this year's administration message. There was a mention at the meeting of next year.
JTL
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1985
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
michael, no offense taken whatsoever. Of course it's burdensome to fill us in. If you feel inclined to do so, I appreciate it. If you don't, I'll try to figure things out myself.
fringe, thanks very much for the followup. The amount of reading I have to do just to understand this stuff is daunting. But I suppose the difference between most places and SO/M is that we have this web site, putting the stuff in reach. When it's out of reach, it's out of mind, and people like me were blissfully unaware. This is a real improvement, even though it feels difficult at times. I'm glad I have the opportunity to understand this stuff.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Joan Auer
Citizen
Username: Joan
Post Number: 27
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
Does anyone know what the criteria were for choosing Seth Boyden and Clinton for reduced class sizes as opposed to the other elementary schools? On the last 4th grade NJASK test Tuscan had a lot more partially proficient students than either Clinton or Seth Boyden. |
bookgal
Citizen
Username: Bookgal
Post Number: 475
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
I suspect because they are title 1 schools. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4533
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Also, as far as scores are concerned Tuscan has a significant special ed population, which tends to reduce scores. Seth Boyden and Clinton don't have special ed programs. |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 956
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
Clinton has the largest number of ESL students. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 923
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
Doesn't Clinton have ALL the (elementary) ESL students? |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4537
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc3.php?c=13&d=4900
The above is a link to the State NCLB numbers for our District for last year. The disagregated numbers for this year are not available anywhere I can find.
Interestingly, or maybe mysteriously, the Clinton report shows the there are too few Limited English Proficiency students to report. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1277
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
The NCLB report for elementary schools is just for 4th grade, which is how the number of ESL students can be too low to report. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 883
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
"Seth Boyden and Clinton don't have special ed programs."
? Clinton has at least one special needs (emotionally disturbed) class.
My understanding at the end of last year was that it was South Mountain and Seth Boyden that had no special ed classes. However, both schools evidently have special ed students. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 930
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 8:52 pm: | |
Some special ed students are in mainstream classes (often with an aide), while others are in separate special ed classes. There are no such separate classes at South Mountain and Seth Boyden from what I understand. I think that I have heard that the rationale for this at Seth Boyden is because of focus on implementing the Demonstration program and lack of additional space to also house separate special ed classees. The school appears to be at or very close to capacity, so I assume that adding such a class would reduce the number of transfer students that could be accepted. I don't know what the rationale is at South Mountain (perhaps something to do with having a split campus?) |
bookgal
Citizen
Username: Bookgal
Post Number: 476
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
Marshall/Jefferson is effectively a split campus and we have special ed classes at Marshall. |
andream
Citizen
Username: Andream
Post Number: 11
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 8:58 am: | |
I was told by one administrator that Nancy Murray refused to allow portables at South Mountain. Therefore, they have no room for special ed classes. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 814
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 10:39 am: | |
Horoschak is up to the usual tricks. The Superintendent uses every excuse in the book not to give a final budget until the last moment possible. Then he places very sensitive programs up for special questions, knowing full well the BOSE is a rubber stamp for the Superintendent and the BOE. I believe David Huemer said last year that he would approve whatever they wanted.
There is no accountability for the Superintendent or the BOE. The members of the Finance Committee should be embarassed that a final proposal is not on the table. First they use the snowdays as an excuse to delay the budget presentation. Then the excuse that final state funding figures are not available.
Present a budget proposal with estimated state numbers and make adjustments accordingly. This way there will be enough time for people to look over the budget and ANALYZE it.
Ah, but they don't want to give people time to analyze because this will increase their chances of getting what they want. Once a program is in the budget it is very difficult to take it out and the Super and BOE know this. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 424
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
The whole process is out of control. I listened to the replay of the BOE meeting last night. In response to a question, Dr. H. said he was responding to a request by "certain" members of the BOSE to "tell us what you need." I assume that the"certain" members were the South Orange members of the BOSE who last year told the BOE that they woud approve anything. So in other words, it's a circle where the BOE lets the BOSE make the budget, and the BOSE (or at least "certain members" of the BOSE) tells the superintendent to put in anything he think he needs. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2009
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 11:52 am: | |
So are you saying that Dr. H asks for money he doesn't need? What does he do with that money?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 425
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 12:01 pm: | |
In most other municipalities in N.J., the school budget is voted upon by the residents. Even in the top-rated school districts, the BOE works toward coming up with a budget that maintains the quality of the schools, but at the same time trys to come up with a tax increase that is justifiable. In those communities, the voters don't just tell the super or BOE to put in everything and it will be approved. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1278
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
That same attempt to negotiate a budget that maintains the quality of the schools while coming up with justifiable tax increases takes place here too.
As I understand it, telling the superintendent to come up with a budget based on what he believes he needs, is telling him to focus on the first part of that negotiation, (maintaining the quality of the schools) which is his job and area of expertise.
It is also clear to all parties that the assessment of need must be cognizant of the tax stress and funding constraints we face. That's why we are not seeing requests for increased funding for state-of-the-art computer labs, a new pool, full day kindergarten, or even smaller class sizes in the primary grades, or all sorts of other things that we might "need" to maintain a top notch 21st century school system.
The proposed budget includes about a $6 million dollar increase, the overwhelming majority of which (over $5 million) simply covers the rising costs of salaries, benefits, utilities and other essential operational expenses.
Then there's about $660 K in cuts, (custodial services and building administration) and a several additions (mostly technology upgrades, HS staff, special ed child study teams, and security guards at CHS) for a net increase of about $800 K.
We can analyze these choices all we want, and argue about what "extras" we can or should cut to make a dent in that $5 million but none of that will change the fundamental situation, or prevent us from repeating the scenario year after year with fewer and fewer candidates for "extras" to cut.
This is not about a superintendent's runaway wish list or tax and spend BOSE members.
|
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 815
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
This would be like Congress telling the President we will give you whatever you want in the Federal Budget. It's madness.
The BOSE is there to represent the citizens of Maplewood and South Orange. To tell the Superintendent that they will vote for whatever he presents is irresponsible. Each proposal must be assessed on its own merits. The BOSE should not be telling Horoschak to "tell us what you need."
Jfburch, one of the reasons the salary/benefit costs are rising so much is that the teachers union does not have to pay for any of their healthcare costs. How could the BOE possibly approve a contract like this? |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1279
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
Well, not having been party to the contract negotiations, I can't really answer your last question.
But, there are also some technical complications on the health benefits issue--namely that the district is in the NJ state plan--which provides a very large employee pool and thus lower costs--and that plan prohibits requiring union members to pay for part of their costs.
The district could go private (and has done so at some points in the past), but costs would probably be higher (because of the much smaller pool) and they would probably be more volatile--subject to sudden and sharper increases. It's possible and maybe even likely that a private plan would cost the district as much or more as the state plan
*and* have teachers paying for a portion. And, while misery (i.e. the rest of us) loves company, that wouldn't make sense. |
michael
Citizen
Username: Michael
Post Number: 467
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 7:56 pm: | |
I believe the "tell us what you need" comment was from former BSE member, Huemer.
Gee, what a wonderful world this would be if everything that everyone "needed" could be had, regardless of cost or effectiveness.
Time for a reality check.
And speaking of politics …
|
Southorangemom
Citizen
Username: Southorangemom
Post Number: 66
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 8:06 pm: | |
I think it's most interesting that today's News Record states the only cuts at the administrative level are for one half of an administrative FTE for a savings of $166,688.
Think how much better off we would be if more administrators were axed.
And what about the merit pay that the top level administrators give themselves????? What line of the budget does that fall into?
SouthOrangeMom |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 426
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 8:07 pm: | |
I've been told by pm that the "tell us what you need" comment was made by Huemer. This was Dr. H's response when Rogers Campbell asked him how he came up with a 9% tax increase. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 816
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 8:36 pm: | |
Please vote in the upcoming BOE elections.
Change is necessary to stop the madness. |
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 1:05 am: | |
Everybody, if Huemer asked Peter H to "tell us what you need," you can be sure it was by way of asking for a prioritized wish list for critical consideration, NOT by way of saying to Peter H. that the latter could have whatever he wanted. Huemer is no fool. He is an excellent public servant who wants to make sure that our schools are top-notch, and I'll back him on that. But he is not on the BOSE this year.
Nobody who followed Maplewood politics last year should assume that the BOSE is likely to give Peter H. everything he'll ask for. Have you all forgotten that now, Mayor Profeta along with Ian and Ken can together veto any separate proposal? My understanding, at least, is that it takes four votes on the BOSE to pass a separate proposal, and South Orange only has three.
I would predict a very serious battle over the separate proposals this year, amounting to a game of chicken. Peter H., as said on this post, will probably put in the separate proposals all those items he can justify treating as beyond "efficient and essential" that are also very hard to cut, e.g. varsity sports, foreign languages, etc. If I were Mayor Profeta, I would tell Peter that if he does not cut at least $1 million in adminstration -- curriculum supervisors, PR consultants, assistant superintendents for curriculum, confidential secretaries, etc. -- then no separate proposal will be passed. Peter will say: you wouldn't dare. Fred will say: I would. Hopefully they will compromise on some serious cuts in administrators who are not helping the education of our children much (I would exempt the Science supervisor from this if possible!), and agree to fund the remaining necessities for classroom instruction, for an overall tax increase of less than 7% rather than 9%. I think this would be eminently reasonable, and I hope for such a result.
PS they can leave finding new money for reducing elementary class sizes and a new published LA curriculum for next year, after the revolution in the Board elections. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 429
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 8:01 am: | |
John: I don't know if you attended or saw the BOE meeting. The particular exchange between Rogers Campbell and Dr. H. probably says a lot about Dr. H. Maybe the BOSE should really be upset with Dr. H. for trying to lay-off the blame on them. Dr. H. first said "the BOSE" told him. When Rogers Campbell raised his eyebrows and asked "the BOSE?" Dr. H. backpeddled and said "certain members." |
michael
Citizen
Username: Michael
Post Number: 468
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
quote:Candidate (for higher office) Huemer had the night's closing line, encouraging the BOE to step up its PR to older citizens by stating that "the community is extraordinarily generous in what it will support."
Fringe
From the "The debate is about who will leave"
Huemer is no fool, politically. John has that right , however, it's not a matter of generosity. It's financially unrealistic for many. A 9% or9% + tax increase from ed. alone would be a sure sign of an impossible road ahead and would either force many out now, keep many away, or be the start of an exodus
To say, "tell us what you need", shows a lack of empathy and an certain absence of reality. It was the wrong message.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page