| Author |
Message |
    
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 318
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 11:15 am: |     |
The following appeared in the News-Record on March 4 2004, but was written and sent before the District published its budget and Separate Proposal.
To the News-Record editor:
In a recent letter, Superintendent of South Orange-Maplewood District Schools, Dr. Peter Horoschak, belatedly suggested that the 2004-05 school budget should reflect what "we value most." Unfortunately, given the number of programs, services and activities offered by this school district, such a prioritization cannot be accomplished in the roughly 30 days remaining before the final vote on the budget. For, as witnessed in the past, every item has a vocal constituency capable of filling the board meeting room at the slightest hint of reduction and providing endless hours of anecdotes on the benefits provided. The conclusion is invariably the same: retention or expansion, not reduction or elimination, of the program/service in question is a necessity.
While the expressions of support are sincere, the presentations, if objective at all, are heavily weighted. And, as BOE rules preclude response to public comments, there is a decided lack of effective community interchange much less debate. This is compounded by the fact that such discussions take place in a vacuum outside of the totality of issues facing our communities. Perhaps the surest way to determine a community's values is not by examining the pronouncements of its politicians and interest groups, but by observing the allocations of public and private resources.
In the initial 2004-05 budget proposal, Dr. Horoschak projected that school related property taxes, which have risen 41.7 percent during his six year tenure, must increase by 9 [now 8+%] percent more next year if we are to maintain status quo. At that rate these taxes will double over the next eight ears. At the early February workshop, key Board of School Estimate members found this unacceptable, indicating that they would support a tax increase in the five percent range (double the inflation rate). One is left to assume that the approximately $2.4 million difference between the funding sought by the Administration and that which the BOSE is willing to pay with taxes must be made up with some other funds or result in significant reductions.
For the last several years conventional school board wisdom has held that if the District can only tough it out long enough, the State will provide relief to taxpayers through more state school aid or property tax reform. But this year, the maneuvers in Trenton have silenced even the most ardent believers in this source of salvation. Meanwhile, BOSE members in their role as township or village officials face pressing funding requirements for infrastructure/program spending in the municipal budgets of both South Orange and Maplewood. While the BOE and the Administration have the luxury of pretending the District somehow exists outside of the context of the larger community, BOSE members do not.
Because of the BOSE position on tax increases, rumors are rampant that this or that school program is at risk of being put into the Separate Proposal or eliminated all together. The mere fact that the "real" budget containing these choices will not be made public until next week and decided by the end of March has increased skepticism about the BOE and Administration's commitment to community input. However, if such input is seriously sought, we offer the following suggestion:
New Jersey's education law clearly defines the amount each district may spend for a "thorough and efficient education." This amount is known as the Maximum T&E Budget. In its initial budget the Administration proposed exceeding this state limit by $3 to $4 million through the Separate Proposal mechanism. Because rejected items in the Separate Proposal are not subject to state review, the placement of a program/service in this category carries some risk. This is especially true if the BOSE stands by its 5 percent limit.
Rather than single out particular programs for inclusion in a Separate Proposal while harboring others in the Max T&E budget, we believe that all programs and services not required by New Jersey Core Standards should be treated in the same manner and put on a "pay for use" basis. In this manner the constituents and supporters for each non-required program will have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their personal commitment to the values and activities in question. Below are a few examples of non-required programs/services (or non-required levels of programs/services) which could be funded in part by user fees:
* Courtesy Busing - Currently the District transports students it is not required to between Marshall and Jefferson, South Mountain and the Annex, and to Seth Boyden. The NJDOE specifically allows districts to charge for such services.
* Programs with reduced class size - There are numerous classes/sections throughout the District that the Administration has elected to offer with enrollment levels significantly below the District average for the grade level involved. Examples include Project Ahead, Explorations, the Alternative Program at Montrose and some AP courses. While these programs have merit, they should be provided in class sizes that approximate the District average. To the extent that smaller class sizes are desired by parents of children who utilize these programs, the District should charge for all or part of the incremental cost.
* After School and Extracurricular Programs - including athletics, intramurals, clubs, musicals and drama productions, and publications. Again, these activities are worthwhile, but they fall outside the scope of educational necessity as defined by the State. Parents of children who participate in these activities could be asked to defray all or part of the costs (advisors/coaches, equipment, props, etc.) of providing them.
Such a funding scheme may seem extreme. Many will question this suggestion because they will say it unfairly penalizes those who cannot afford to pay. By its nature it will create a hardship for some parents and participating students. But assuming the "we" in Dr. Horoschack's comment refers to the community as a whole, and not separate or preferred constituents, it is a fair way to allocate scarce public resources while allowing private resources the opportunity to fund the additional cost. We recognize that it is unrealistic to expect parents and students to absorb the entire cost of the proposal over the course of a single year. Therefore we would support a phased approach with the percentage of cost to be paid by the user increasing yearly. Additionally, we believe that already existing organizations are capable of raising additional funds and funneling them either to the District or individual families based on need. BOSE alternate Huemer expressed his opinion at the budget workshop that the communities are extraordinarily generous in what they will support. This being the case, the organizations' success in raising additional funds would also be an accurate reflection of what the communities really do value. It would be instructive to see whether those values find a voice only under the compulsion of taxation, or whether they would also would be heard in the marketplace of individual choices.
Were the budget crisis a single year event, the contemplation of such a solution might not be necessary. But even the District projects no relenting of the forces driving its cost increases. No doubt some will see this proposal as being anti-child, anti-education, or just plain mean-spirited. Not true. We merely take a realistic view of what we see facing the citizens of Maplewood and South Orange, and it is not pretty. At some point New Jersey may develop another way to fund education. We certainly hope so, but the communities and BOE should no longer rely on this as a central planning tool. This is a time for action, and we have yet to see any real proposals coming from the Administration or elected BOE members or candidates. The choices before us are clear: (1) accept 9 percent yearly tax hikes for the foreseeable future, and watch more current community members depart (2) shrink or eliminate programs and services using the same capricious model of the last few years, or (3) develop an alternative means of funding all non-required programs/services other than the property tax.
This is one such alternative, we look forward to discussing it or hearing others.
JT Lamkin
J L Nathenson
Maplewood
|
xavier67
Citizen
Username: Xavier67
Post Number: 364
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
"...we believe that all programs and services not required by New Jersey Core Standards should be treated in the same manner and put on a "pay for use" basis."
That's a great idea. Why don't do the same for social security and Medicaid to control their soaring costs (now and in the future). |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 319
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
What strikes me most about this proposal is that after all the years that you have been on the CBAC, all the years you have poured over our district's budgets, all the accusations of poor judgment, mismanagement and shortsightedness you have levelled against the Superintendent and the BOE, and your combined considerable intellect, this is all you could come up with: charging kids for remedial services and advanced placement. |
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 687
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 2:43 pm: | |
Not a bad idea, x-man.
DWM |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 320
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 8:39 am: | |
And you, your candidate(s), or husband's solution for funding the continuing budget crisis is status quo - a 7+% property tax hike each year?
|
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 329
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
You'll have to ask David Frazer for his position; likewise, you can ask the candidates for theirs.
As for me, I have three young children in our schools, whose education ranks third in importance after their health and happiness. Overall, they are getting a wonderful education, delivered by almost uniformly excellent teachers, your wife included. I can't think of anything better to spend my money on.
Having said that, I'm not thrilled that my property taxes are twice what they were when we moved here. Nonetheless, I'm not so myopic that I don't see the connection between the quality of our schools and the market value of my house. I'm sure you understand that connection.
Nickel and diming of the sort you continually propose will result in only two things: property taxes almost as high as they would otherwise be and bad schools. I'm not interested. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 981
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
?
Fringe has not nickle-and-dimed the budget at all, as far as I can tell. He and Nathansen have in fact proposed some pretty large and radical changes. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 838
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
You are not going to make substantial changes in the budget until you address salaries and benefits. They make up the vast majority of the budget. |
Dad23
Citizen
Username: Dad23
Post Number: 56
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 6:44 pm: | |
They make up the vast majority of any budget anywhere. |
jln
Citizen
Username: Jln
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 10:30 pm: | |
Ms. Depalma,
Mr. Lamkin and I made a suggestion which undoubtedly will seem extreme to many. Indeed it seems extreme to us. It was not borne of meanness, stinginess, a dislike of children, or a dislike of education. It was, rather, borne of a realistic view of what this community can afford given all of the claims on our limited revenue base. Those claims include not only the needs of the School District, but also the needs of the Municpality. Our logic was as follows:
The State of New Jersey has defined the amount of funding necessary to equitably and fairly provide for a thorough and efficient education for all children. That amount, which is referred to as the Max T&E Budget, might be thought of as the reasonable responsibility of the taxpayers, whether via a local property tax or via the state income tax which is the source of state aid to the District. Funding over the Max T&E amount should be thought of as providing for extras, the luxuries so to speak, which people should be able to choose (and pay for) according to their tastes or beliefs. Over the years this District has regularly shown itself to be incapable or unwilling to restrain its educational appetite to the amount which the State has defined as necessary to educate our children. It has been incapable or unwilling to manage its affairs in a way that would have provided a good education at a reasonable cost. That would be fine, provided that the excess amounts are funded by those whose appetites are being sated, i.e. either the parents who demand the extras for their children, or by generous individuals (of whom you may be one) who are voluntarily willing to contribute to the cause. Mr. Lamkin and I have no quibble with doing our fair share to fund a reasonable amount of educational services for the children of this community. The State has defined that amount. We do, however, object to the use of compulsion to force all citizens to finance the excessive and undisciplined appetites of a vocal and well organized minority. |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 333
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 11:46 pm: | |
Mr. Nathenson -
One problem I see with your comments is that "Max T&E" has no meaningful relationship to the actual cost of providing our children with a "thorough and efficient" education. I’m sure you know that Max T&E was a device created by the Whitman administration to artificially hold down local school spending. It basically says that a "thorough and efficient" education can be provided to children by simply increasing last year's budget by 3%, plus a few add-ons. As far as I know, there has never been any meaningful analysis of the real costs of providing a minimally adequate education.
"Max T&E" is arbitrary. If you compare it to the actual annual increases in certain aspects of the budget, it’s insane to think we can live within the 3% “Max T&E” increase. Last year, for example, health benefits increased by 29%; wages increased by 5%; special education costs continued to grow through the roof. How can you make the argument that those of us who understand our inability to live within Max T&E in light of these soaring costs have “excessive and undisciplined appetites?”
I appreciate your effort to think outside the box. But please don’t presume that you’re the only one watching the store.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4935
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 5:09 am: | |
My things are getting quite frosty in here. Chilly for March. 
The basic situation is that the members of the BOE, with a few exceptions, have been subverted by Super H and his merry band. The job of Super is both an educational and fiscal one. However, here the incumbent views it only as educational, since he has no roots in the community. At least part of the job of the BOE is also fiscal. I don't think the BOE has done a very good job here. The Administration has been allowed to propose budgets in a very tight time frame that doesn't allow the BOE and the CBAC time to study them in any detail and look for and eliminate the 'pork", and I can assure you that there is a lot of pork. Most private companies have a budget process that starts four to six months before implementation.
The result is proposals such as those by Nathanson and Lamkin, which are more frutstration than anything else.
Next year the Administration should be required by the Board to have a budget on the table six months before the BOSE vote to allow time for a meaningful review. I also support bringing in a major accounting firm to review the budget and the operations of the SOMSD, even though there would be a substantial one time expense for this, which hopefully wouldn't be included in the cap number in the future.
South Orange and Maplewood, already with near the highest taxes in the state, will not be able to remain viable, desireable communities if spending isn't controlled. |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 335
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
A couple of things. Mr. Nathenson and Mr. Lamkin probably know as much or more about the budget as anyone in the community. Interestingly, their article doesn't propose cuts, only a different way to finance some components of the budget, you know, the "extras": remedial classes, advanced placement classes, etc.
Second, a chief complaint by people who dislike the budget process is that the administration starts its budget process using the prior year's budget, i.e., the "maintenance budget." Well, that means most of this year's budget has been publicly available for many years, and, therefore available for public scrutiny for many years.
Now that you've assured us that there is a lot of "pork" in the budget, why don't you tell us what it is? I'm sure even Mr. Nathenson and Mr. Lamkin, the administration's primary critics, would love to hear about your findings. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4936
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 7:41 am: | |
Annette, the information publically available isn't in enough detail for just about anyone to make hard conclusions. In order to do that one has to dig deeper and deeper.
Your point that each years budget builds on the last years budget is very telling. We should go with a "zero based" budgeting process which makes each manager start with no budget and has to justify every dollar. This works. Our company went to this method a few years ago and recognized 20% savings, without significantly reducing staff. Hell, the budget mavens even found my ten percent slush fund!!
As I said before, given the BOEs lack of fiscal oversight and apparently little or no attempt on the part of the Administration to control expenses I would support a one time expenditure to have the district and its spending reviewed by a major CPA firm.
|
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 324
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
I think one of our points is that everything in the has some constituency that believes the item essential. In the descision path, the BOE can choose to placate all groups and fund all items - Maintenance Budget. Given that all board members recognize that there will be no meaningful help from Trenton in the next 2 years, this necessarily means that the BOE believes that most current residents can afford the 8-% property tax increase, and as Messrs. Latz and Frazer have opined, too bad for those who cannot.
The more difficult process requires some thoughtful analysis in determining what level of tax support the communities can provide. In the vacuum created by the BOE, this is left to the BOSE. The question we raise is whether the BOSE or BOE, should they decide to participate, should choose between non-T&E programs for cuts or whether all such programs should bear the pain equally. We are of the latter persuasion only because the politics involved in the first will be extreme, but if the communities want to go through some real priority setting - we're game.
As posted elsewhere, at Monday's meeting Rogers campbell elucidated a decision model that I will use and refer to in the future as the Campbell Model. Applying it to an alternate position to ours posted above reflecting the BOE majority -
What do we want - status quo
How will we pay for it - with property tax increases
How will we measure it - not stated.
JTL |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4938
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
Please don't get me started on the 'who will leave" subject. We have lived here over 25 years and when we retire in a couple of years there is no way we can justify paying what will then be over $20,000 in taxes to continue to live in a town where we put down roots, raised two kids and made a hell of a lot of friends.
Can we afford it, yeah, but there are other things we want to use the money for. 
XXXOOO
Goner Bob |
crabbyappleton
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 11
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:29 am: | |
and then some young newbie couple with elem kids will move in, but be afraid to stay after 5th grade and then move to westfield or millburn or basking ridge or millington or such. Bursting elem schools and then rotting hs. that is depressing. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
The citizens of both towns vote for the BOE (very soon, in fact.) If you believe that the BOE is not meeting their fiscal responsibilities then vote for candidates who you believe will better serve these interests. But please don't sacrifice our children's education to "send a message". That is what will happen if the Separate Proposal (or at least a good portion of it) is voted down.
Some members of the BoSE have arbitrarily chosen a figure of 5% as the limit of increase they are willing to fund. That figure was chosen without regard to what programs might need to be cut or which ones could be offered for that amount. As currently proposed, I understand that if this figure is modified to 7%, the critical programs (including elementary world languages, enrichment, instrumental music and Project Ahead) will be funded. At 5%, I believe that all of the programs mentioned and a number of others will be cut, with the exception of Project Ahead at Title I schools.
Yes, our taxes are too high, but our schools are one of our most precious assets and South Orange and Maplewood "will not be able to remain viable desirable communities" if we reduce their quality such that they are no longer seen that way.
I am not opposed to seeking alternate sources of funding, but I believe that usage fees are a last resort that should be considered very carefully, if at all, since they discriminate against those who are unable to afford them. Putting in place some form of financial assistance does not completely resolve this problem since the line would have to be drawn somewhere and, furthermore, there would be non-trivial costs involved in administering such assistance. |
mellie
Citizen
Username: Mellie
Post Number: 426
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
annettedepalma - stop being an apologista. the budget process is poor. it is not about emotive "cuts" - it is about demonstrating fiscal responsibility -which the District and the BOE need to do a lot better.
Example: Dr H found $500k in savings on maintenance: no service cuts, just cost cuts. That's a good thing. He found it though in order to put more stuff under CAP - not to reduce our tax burden - that's bad. His employer is me and you -and this kind of thing should have been done years ago.
But if the discussion can only evolve as far as - what would you cut (as opposed to how would you deliver quality education with no tax increase) then we will be forever perpetually adolescent in this regard.
There is nothing wrong with attacking the numbers from 10 different directions; there is everything wrong in assuming there is nothing to be done.
I am in the former, you the latter. We need your help to engage in a more meaningful discussion than "what would you cut" |
lumpynose
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 790
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
The hostile attitude about questioning a multi-million dollar budget is what bugs me.
If I pulled this last minute budget nonsense on such a macro level to make it hard to digest, I would be fired. It seems to some that Dr. H can do no wrong and that we are the problem. |
Dad23
Citizen
Username: Dad23
Post Number: 57
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:26 am: | |
sac,
I just dont' buy it.
I don't buy that project ahead goes on the separate proposal and 3 asst. super's go under T&E.
I don't buy that instrumental music is on the separate proposal but 2 business ADMINISTRATORS (not counting 7+ other business office employees) are under T&E.
I don't buy that extracurricular stipends are on the separate proposal and a director of planning is under T&E.
I don't buy that 2 high school teachers are on the separate proposal but a communications coordinator is under T&E.
This super has cut everything that impacts teaching and teachers and nothing that impacts him. He has kept central office nice and soft while teachers have large class sizes and less curric. and building administrative help.
If the separate proposal is defeated (whole or part), watch how fast building schedules would change to allow teachers to pick up project ahead classes.
Nope, I don't buy it for a second.
BOSE, hold strong. Hold firm. Play tough. Don't blink in his game of chicken.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 470
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
The problem is that we see the same nonsense budget proposals year after year.
As parents, we want our children to have instrumental music, world languages and the enrichment program. We do not want these sacrificed to pay for administrators that don't improve our children's education, or for incremental benefits in other programs, no matter how praiseworthy they may be.
We need a Board that understands this, and can make their employees understand it too. |
jln
Citizen
Username: Jln
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:07 am: | |
Ms. Depalma,
The Max T&E amount may be arbitrary, but the 3% annual increase plus an extra 1% or so for the Spending Growth Limitation Adjustments still outpaces the rate of inflation plus the growth rate of enrollment. So in a pinch, we ought to be able to cope. You posit Mr. Lamkin and I as experts on the the budget, but I don't believe one needs to be an ardent student of these matters to arrive at some intelligent working hypotheses. If we choose to continue to fund 100% of the benefits for District employees and their families, if we choose to provide courtesy bussing, if we choose to provide small class sizes (despite the fact that many of us grew up in classes of 30-35 with no discernable negative impact), if we choose to send 100+ special ed students to private schools at $40,000 per (rather than work hard to provide reasonably comparable in-District services in conjunction with other Districts),etc. etc. etc. . . . well then it should be no surprise that we find ourselves in a deep budget hole. The problem with this BOE and this Administration is that they never learned or are stubbornly ignoring the First Law of Holes. Maybe you've never heard of the First Law of Holes. It goes like this: WHEN YOU'RE IN ONE, STOP DIGGING! |
happyman
Citizen
Username: Happyman
Post Number: 119
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Montagnard,
You said it ALL in just one paragraph! Thank You. Are any of the BOE members out there listening. |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 336
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
bobk,
If the budget is not detailed enough for you to make "hard conclusions," then how can you CONCLUDE with certainty that there's "pork" in it? |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 337
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
Mr. Nathenson,
The general rate of inflation is immaterial. The relevant rate of inflation is the increased costs of the goods and services that the school district purchases, and the rate of inflation for these (see above) has been dramatically higher than the general rate of inflation.
The teachers’ salary and benefits package is driven by the market. Want to diminish the teachers’ compensation below market? We will lose talented teachers and fail to attract others.
I agree it’s a good idea to bring special ed students back into the district and the district has started doing that this year. But meeting special ed students’ needs - which are far ranging and complicated - is a long term project.
The so called “courtesy bussing” is to support integration, a goal I would think you would endorse as a leading member of the CCR.
If anything, the one thing that would drive young families out of town faster than rising taxes is elementary classes with 30-35 students. As a practical matter, at least at Tuscan, many rooms are already crowded with 24 students in them.
Maybe we can use the hole we’re in as a foundation to build a school with 35-student classrooms. Call the bond counsel. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:33 pm: | |
I found this an interesting look at the rising costs of education, especially the back to back 8% and 9% increases and the need to pay teachers at market rate, and soaring healthcare costs as the drivers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/education/10tuition.html
March 10, 2004
Tuition Hits $26,000 for New York City's Private Schools
By JANE GROSS
Tuition at New York City's elite private schools is at or near $26,000 for the coming school year, with average increases as high as 9 percent and a growing number of schools charging the same price for kindergarten as for high school.
...
Brearley, which includes all fees in the tuition, will hit $26,200 in the lower grades for the 2004-05 school year and $26,700 in the upper school for an average increase of 8.9 percent, on top of a 7.9 percent increase this year. Marymount's increase was 8 percent, to $24,100, after a 9 percent increase in 2003-04.
...
The schools uniformly attribute the increases to efforts to improve teachers' salaries and benefits, especially in light of a substantial pay increase for the city's public school teachers two years ago and soaring health care costs. And private school parents generally seem to accept that rationale.
|
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 350
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:51 pm: | |
JLN raised special ed and a $40,000 cost per student to send them to out of district schools.
I remember that gov florio and the state mandated special ed at district level and didn't fund it.
I also remember that the School CBAC in 96 or 97 found that our school district was providing special education services at a level way over what the state mandated. And at a very high tax cost to us.
Well, this info seemed to embarrass the admin and instead of cutting back prudently, the admin and BOE got defensive.
Looks like special Ed is still costing a pretty penny.
|
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 326
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 8:00 am: | |
My focus is how to pay for increasing expenses - not whether the increases are justified or not. There is no argument here that much of the budget crisis is related to increased teacher salaries. The question is - are there other methods that can be used to raise the funds necessary to pay these increases. If not, the primary alternatives seem to be cut the workforce or increase property taxes.
If candidate Burch, by her post above, is suggesting that the answer is to raise property taxes, I applaud her for at least taking a position - something the other candidates seem loathe to do. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 8:40 am: | |
Not a position statement, fringe, rather a data point on the rising costs of education. |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Reflective, the special ed mandate comes from federal law, not Florio law. And, while Congress originally approved 40% funding for this mandate, they have never actually gotten near 20% in all these years. Pretty cynical if you ask me. Just as cynical as requiring all the NCLB testing and not funding that either. Where is this money supposed to come from? The command is to do more with less or they'll pull what little funding they do provide. Disgusting.
Cathy |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 329
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 7:38 am: | |
Well, then I withdraw my applause until candidate Burch can enunciate a position. Her post then begs the question - what is her and the other candidates' position on funding the school budget? Rely only on property taxes and state/federal aid or has any of them a creative idea?
Or shall we be left to infer their thoughts from data points they post, but claim no ownership in. |
bpaandco
Citizen
Username: Bpaandco
Post Number: 92
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 11:15 pm: | |
FWIW- One substantial reason I moved away from S0/M was taxes. More than half of my mortgage payment was for taxes every month. As a single mom, it hurt every year when my new mortgage statement came in and my budget had to find another 100 or so a month to pay for the house.
I suggest attending Board Meetings whenever possible, electing strong, intelligent and informed Board members and to stay on top of the increasing budget, as without a doubt, SO/M will tax themselves out of their diversity.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page