Multiple metrics will be compiled in new School Performance Report which will replace the School Report cards:

• early childhood literacy
• chronic absenteeism
• 3^rd- 8^th grade reading and math proficiency
• growth scores on state assessments
• AP passing grades,
• ACT and SAT scores, performance on state tests over time, and additional college and career ready data points,
• and high school graduation rates

These reports will enable the NJDOE to categorize schools to enable them to receive the support they need.  Schools will be categorized as Priority, Focus or Reward, and will receive support and interventions based on the findings in their School Performance Report.

New Jersey plans to go beyond assessing school and district performance and will develop additional student-level metrics and analytical tools within its own statewide student-level longitudinal data system. This will include an Early Warning Report that looks at students who are at risk of failing to achieve college-and career readiness. These metrics will begin in first grade and continue until 12^th grade. One such example is attendance rate.

In third grade, when state testing begins, student level proficiency will be added as a metric, and carried forward into fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth and eleventh grades. In fourth grade, student-level growth scores, which measures how much growth a student made relative to his or her academic peers will be added as a metric, and carried forward into fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth grade.

FALL 2011 Update

In 2011, there have been a number of policy developments pertinent to New Jersey state education.

These include the Anti-Bullying legislation that went into law on September 1, multiple bills that have been introduced to change Teacher Tenure, and proposals to alter the Charter School law.

However, it is unlikely that any real action will be taken on either Charter Schools or Teacher Tenure until after the November elections.

New Jersey’s New Anti-Bullying Law Now in Effect

Signed into law in January, school boards, including that of Summit, have adopted new anti-bullying policies.  These policies Read more... officially went into effect September 1^st.   They are based on a requirements and consequences for administrators, teachers and students.  The state sent this document to school districts in April.

New Jersey is considered to have one of the toughest anti-bullying laws in the country. Schools will be rated based on the number of reported incidents, there is required training for students and educators,  districts are required to establish safety teams at each school, principals have to begin an investigation within one day of a bullying episode, and superintendents must provide reports to Trenton twice a year detailing all episodes.

There will also be a statewide Crime Stoppers number to report bullying incidents.

Some districts, in addition to updating their policies, have begun to train personnel and arrange for speakers for students.

Students found to be bullying could be suspended or expelled and administrators who don’t properly investigate complaints can be held accountable.

The bill is not without controversy. The state has not funded the legislation, and in a time of tight budgets, the costs of implementing the law will require cut-backs elsewhere. In addition, there are some who are concerned that current staff members have neither the time nor the resources to look into every complaint and write the necessary detailed reports that are required.

Furthermore, there is some concern that every minor squabble will be labeled a bullying incident.

Will Teacher Tenure be Reformed?

It is Governor Christie’s position that teacher tenure should be given to teachers in as little as three years, which is the current law, but only if the teacher has been “highly rated” by a review board. Christie proposes a 4-tiered evaluation system-highly effective, effective, partially effective, and ineffective.

Education Committee Chairwoman, Ruiz (D- Essex) has received a lot of support for her proposal on teacher tenure. Her proposal would increase the number of years before a teacher would be granted tenure from three to four, and for those teachers who were rated poorly two years in a row, they would be given an opportunity for improvement before they lose tenure.

 Central to the discussion about teacher tenure is the method or methods by which teachers are evaluated.

Acting Education Commissioner Cerf announced on September 1, a pilot program in 11 school districts that would test out new teacher evaluation methods. The pilot program plans on expanding the state’s student database and including the first links of student achievement to specific teachers. Results will not be seen until after the New Year.

More Charter Schools for the State of New Jersey?

Christie  has also continued to say that charter schools should be focused on failing districts, a nuance aimed to appease the growing backlash to the spread of the experimental schools in more affluent suburban communities. This is no small issue, since his administration is about to approve another round of charters.

There are a number of charter school bills making their way through the legislature, including a change that would require districts to seek local approval before they open a charter school. This is a nod to more affluent school districts that are concerned about funding implications for their already high achieving schools.

Another bill, which has been revised many times, is one that would allow public tax dollars to be used to provide for private school scholarships.

None of the proposed changes will have an impact on the applications that are already in process and for those whom approval is currently pending.

Julie Latzer is Senior Vice President of Market Research at Haights Cross Communications, an educational publishing group. She holds master’s degrees from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Cambridge College, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Boston University. Julie and her husband, Patrick live in Summit with their son, Harry, who is in 2^nd grade at the Franklin school.

Your phone calls, e-mails, letters to the editor, and rallies let the legislature know that the overwhelming majority of New Jersey residents oppose vouchers.  As a result, the voucher bill, known as the Opportunity Scholarship Act, stalled in the legislature.
 
We anticipate a new voucher bill being introduced in the 2012-13 legislative session, and will keep you informed of what you can do to help stop it. 
 
For-Profit School Management
The Urban Hope Act was signed into law last week.  It creates a pilot program in Camden, Newark and Trenton that allows non-profit organizations to build and operate up to four publicly-funded schools in each district.  The final version of this legislation was much improved from the one first proposed.  However, this program still creates significant opportunities for corruption and abuse that will require careful oversight as the legislation is implemented. 
 
School Funding Formula
The school funding formula is expected to be a major focus in 2012 as the Legislature and the Christie Administration clash over efforts to reduce school funding, particularly in high-poverty districts. 
 
For daily updates on all our issues, please read the Save Our Schools NJ Facebook page (you don’t need a Facebook account do so).

the school has been identified for improvement for the economically disadvantaged and African American subgroups.  Parker writes, “It is important to note that while subcategories can be used to present a statistic, they are not effective in reflecting the efforts of the numerous individuals in these groups who have done very well on the test.  This is particularly challenging when a relatively small number of students make up a subgroup.  Often, one or two students’ results can heavily skew the reported percentage.”

Last year, the “Students with Disabilities” subgroup was identified as one that did not meet AYP in math and language arts.  Over the course of the past year, additional resources were dedicated to this group, and the scores for this subgroup rose by over 10 percent in both content area and AYP was met this year.

When a school does not meet AYP in a certain content area two years in a row, federal law requires that the school report the results and provide supplemental services such as tutoring to income-eligible students.  Eligible students will be notified.

“While the missed indicators only represent a relatively small number of students, we are in the process of developing a plan that addresses the specific indicators missed,” Parker said. 

Today’s newspapers report proposed changes in the No Child Left Behind Law that would give a major overhaul to the law that hasn’t changed much since it was passed by the Bush administration in 2002.  The proposed Senate bill would reduce greatly the role of the federal government in districts like Summit.  A few weeks ago, President Obama said that he would use executive authority to waive some provisions of the law.  Changes proposed by the president and by this bill sponsored by Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa both give some power back to the state to devise their own systems for holding schools accountable for student progress, a power that was assumed by the federal government. 

Requirements that students be tested each year for reading and math in grades three through eight would remain, but no longer in place would be the part of the law that requires accountability for 90 percent of schools to raise the proportion of students showing proficiency each year.  This is the part of the current law that many people object to…the part that forces the teachers to “teach to the test.”  Each state’s worst performing five percent of schools and the five percent with the widest minority achievement gap would still be required to show an increase in student achievement, or risk the loss of federal funding. 

For detailed analysis of the 865-page bill, including those opposed to it who say that it would be a step backward for promoting student achievement and would allow districts to shirk responsibility for delivering quality education to children from low socio-economic homes, see the news stories in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

(and whether we support sending our students to charter schools outside our town at district expense) since these charter schools are funded out of our own school budgets - in other words with our property taxes.

We started a petition about a week ago that is spreading across the state.

We have almost 3000 signatures in 2 weeks but want get to 5000 in the next week.  I am hoping that you will be willing to sign and join our efforts as

well as share this with colleagues and friends.   

This issue effects districts statewide, and the Senate needs to know that we support our public schools and we want local control over charters. Just this year Cherry Hill is finding out how much a charter school can drain from our shrinking budgets, and how much controversy it can bring to a community which usually comes together over our schools.  In East Brunswick, where I live, we have seen nearly a million dollars drained from our budget and a court case that has taken over a year to date and resources we can ill afford to spend on this. 

Please click the link and join us!”

applying to public schools would apply to charter schools. New Jersey’s charter school legislation is intended to:

• increase available choices for students and parents when selecting a learning environment;
• improve student learning and achievement;
• encourage innovative learning methods;
• establish a new system of accountability for schools;
• make the school the unit for educational improvement;
• provide new professional opportunities for teachers.

A charter school, as defined by the New Jersey Department of Education, is “a public school open to all students on a space-available basis that operates

independently of the district board of education under a charter granted by the Commissioner.” A board of trustees authorized by the State Board of Education controls and supervises the school. A private or parochial school cannot convert to a charter school according to the NJ Dept. of Education, but the definition of “convert” is unclear.

New Jersey currently has over 70 approved charter schools in 15 counties, serving approximately 22,000 students. Charters are granted for a four-year period, and may be renewed for five-year terms. When seeking renewal, the school must undergo a comprehensive review process, including, but not limited to, the submission of a renewal application, site visits, and review of student performance on statewide and other assessments.

16-18 West Lafayette Street ␣ Trenton, NJ 08608 Phone: (609) 989-7766 ␣ Fax: The New Jersey Department of Education states, “a charter school must be open to all students on a space-available basis.”  Should the number of students seeking enrollment exceed the number of spaces available, a random selection process must be used, and preference given to students residing within the district or region. A student waiting list is maintained for the following school year.

Charter schools are required to meet the same academic performance standards for public students, and must outline how the school will meet the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards and Cross-Content Workplace Readiness Skills. They must participate in the statewide assessment programs, and indicate in their application any other assessments that will be used. The New Jersey Department of Education requires that all teachers, administrators, and professional staff must have New Jersey State certification.  At this time, the NJEA (teacher’s union) represents the teachers in about 16% of the charter schools in New Jersey.

Although charter schools operate independently from their district boards of education, they receive their funding (described in the next paragraph) from state and local taxpayers through their district board of education. A district board of education must also provide transportation for charter school students residing in its district under the same terms and conditions for district students attending public schools. A charter school may operate within a “region of residence” comprised of a district or multiple districts identified in the charter school’s application, and must have a physical residence in one of those districts.

Charter schools are funded based on enrollment, with funding flowing from the state, through the district board of education, and to the charter school. School districts pay approximately 90% of their own per pupil cost for each child who resides within their district and who attends a charter school. A charter school is specifically prohibited from charging tuition. It may contract with the district board of education, county educational services commission, or other charter school to provide certain services, such as health insurance, maintenance, or child study teams.           

A key funding point is that charter schools are not eligible to receive state facilities funding and cannot access funds available under New Jersey’s Public School Construction Act. Additionally, they have limits on their ability to borrow funds for their operating or facility needs.

Critics of New Jersey’s charter schools have raised many issues:

• They weaken public schools by taking away good students and involved parents. They may also cause the public schools to have an increase in their percentage of ESL and Special Education students.
• They cost the public schools money, because when a public school pays out 90% of their average per pupil cost lost to a charter school, it may not be able to reduce its overall cost. In other words, losing one, two, or three students in a class does not necessarily mean the public school will be able to reduce their teaching staff or any other expense other than for text books.
• Test data does not support Charter schools’ claims; on average, they do not do better educationally than public schools, even in NYC.
• In many ways charter schools are locally supported private schools operating mostly with public tax support. In fact, it may be possible for existing private and parochial schools to close briefly, and then apply for a charter.
• Why do we need still more school “districts” (which is a way of defining charter schools) when the state is pushing consolidation and shared services? Having a greater number of schools in the state is a way of decreasing efficiency in education and costing the taxpayer more money to educate our children.

The cost to a public school’s budget (the second bullet point above) is becoming a highly contentious issue.  Trenton is working on improving charter schools Authorization Laws. The laws need to take into account the fiscal, financial, and economic effect on town and public schools.

Two charter schools have applied for authorization in Millburn. It may only be a matter of a short time before Summit parents and taxpayers will also have to face the problems discussed in this article.

to helping our schools and students achieve because it provides no operational, curricular, programmatic, or facility improvement. 

The Opportunity Scholarship Act would establish a five year pilot program.  The pilot program would provide scholarship donation tax credits that would be used to fund school vouchers for tuition assistance.  This taxpayer funded voucher plan would enable children from low-income families to transfer from underperforming public schools to the public, private or religious school of their choice. 

The voucher plan would allow corporations to contribute to state run scholarship organizations or funds.  These state run scholarship organizations or funds would then distribute the monies to private and religious schools or to out-of-district public schools in certain cases.  The state treasury, however, would refund each corporate donor’s contribution in the form of dollar for dollar tax credits which would result in the taxpayer subsidizing 100% of the voucher program. 

S1872 significantly increases the number of eligible students and the kinds of schools eligible for vouchers.  It is estimated that this bill would enable more than 280,000 students to qualify for vouchers especially after its first few years.  Students, however, would qualify for vouchers if they were merely residing in a school district with a chronically failing school and not just attending a failing school.  Furthermore, students who are currently attending charter, private, and religious schools are also eligible for vouchers. 

To finance the vouchers, S1872 would transfer $360 million of state funds to the pilot program that could otherwise have been allocated to public schools statewide.  These funds would shift from our state’s public schools to many private and religious schools.  S1872 would allocate $90 million of the scholarship’s funds strictly to students who are already attending private and religious schools.  Moreover, this amount can increase by the amount of the $270 million allocated for current public school students residing in a school district with at least one failing school that goes unused.  

The major adverse impact of the voucher plan is the caps it places on the annual amount for which the state or the voucher student’s parents could be compelled to pay to the voucher student’s chosen public, private or religious school.  These caps are $6,000 for kindergarten through eighth grade students and $9,000 for high school students.  This would result in voucher payments not only falling short of average tuition charges at the overwhelming majority of public, private and religious schools as well as much further below average per pupil costs but also forcing many participating public, private and religious schools to close. 

Many Catholic schools are already financially distressed while some are failing due to their challenges in making revenues meet or exceed expenses despite rather Spartan budgets.  Moreover, the amount by which the per pupil cost exceeds the cap would be transferred to the local taxpayers in the host public school district who would be forced to make up the difference by paying higher property taxes!  The urban school districts from which most voucher students are expected to transfer would also suffer because they would lose state enrollment-based aid as well as experience a possible degradation of test scores which would lead to No Child Left Behind penalties. 

Vouchers will create overcrowding, congestion, and financial burdens for those school districts receiving voucher students if these districts are unable to refuse voucher students especially for capacity reasons.  These burdens will deteriorate the quality of education and the level of student achievement in receiving districts which could easily result in many host district taxpayers leaving the host community. 

S1872 does not address what discretion if any host school districts might have in being able to determine whether or not to accept voucher students.  If a host school district is unable to prevent voucher students from enrolling even if it lacked the capacity then it could be forced to expand, acquire or construct additional facilities to accommodate the voucher students.  Even if some of these facility additions were temporary such as acquiring trailers or redesigning cafeterias into classrooms, the host district would be bear the full expense!  Furthermore, because the state will make voucher students essentially the “free agents” of the statewide school system, these free agents could depart before the beginning of the following school year leaving the host district with significant unused or under utilized facilities along with the incremental expense!   

There is no guarantee that enrollment increases due to voucher pupils would be equally distributed among schools or by grade level within a receiving school or district.  Expensive intra-district busing may be a likely outcome.  Also, as a result of potential state requirements for the host district to provide inter-district as well as intra-district transportation, vouchers would impose significant transportation costs on districts which do not own or operate a fleet of buses. 

S1872 provides no deadline by which voucher students must enroll in the new school of their choice whether public, private or religious.  Without a deadline by which voucher students must register with their new school or district, it will become absurdly difficult for a school business administrator to determine the true enrollment level, especially the number of special education pupils, upon which the budget is built.  In addition, the Opportunity Scholarship Act provides no requirement for voucher students to remain in their new school or district for any length of time.  Because voucher students could leave for another school or district at any time during the school year, this will add significant complexity to the proper management of a school or district’s finances and operations.   

A major unanswered question is whether the parents of voucher students would be able to vote on the operating budget and in the election for the board of education members of the host public school district once their children attend its public schools.  Would the parents of voucher students also be able to serve on the board of education of the host public school district once their children attend its public schools?  The extent to which the parents of voucher students can participate in the democratic process of the host district remains an open question.    

Our state and federal governments have consistently under funded but over mandated education especially special education and Title 1 while increasing accountability standards on public schools.  Limited state and federal funds should be invested, therefore, in public schools rather than private and religious schools that are not subject to the same accountability standards.  Furthermore, the school voucher proposal contradicts the “thorough and efficient” education provision of our state constitution protecting all of New Jersey’s children.  S1872 would violate the “thorough and efficient” clause because it will undermine many urban schools and overcrowd many suburban schools while forcing many participating private, religious as well as public schools to lose money on each voucher because the voucher does not cover the per pupil cost for these schools. 

Our public schools were founded just as was our nation on the separation of church and state.  The school voucher proposal would violate the provision of the United States Constitution which prohibits legislation that favors one or more religions or religious groups.  In addition, private schools might possibly accept voucher students selectively such as through arbitrary methods.  Moreover, private schools unlike their public cousins can fail students.  What would be the process for dealing with those voucher students who flunked out or were otherwise dismissed from private schools? 

If the question is how to improve the quality of education statewide, then the answer is not found within the Opportunity Scholarship Act.  We should oppose the passage of S1872 because it will adversely impact our students and schools statewide while exposing homeowners to the risks associated with vouchers.  Taxpayers resemble investors because they want their major asset, their home, to appreciate in value.  Home owners have a vested interest in the success of their local schools because they strive to offset risks such as those posed by vouchers to their property’s value which can not be easily diversified.  

dates, useful links, and guest columns.  We rely on input from our members, so if you read an article of interest that you think would be helpful to our members, please send me the link to post.  Similarly, let me know if you would like to pen a guest column.

In November, Speak Up Summit members traveled to Rutgers for the Garden State Coalition of Schools conference investigating how the teacher’s union, the state, special education interests, charter schools, school administrators, and school boards could collaborate.  The goal of the conference was to investigate how these divergent groups could “stay focused on quality education in the face of a host of challenges.” 

We hosted a well attended community conversation on a Saturday morning in January, with Superintendent Nathan Parker and Assistant Superintendent Julie Glazer.  This was attended by parents, community members, district administrators, teachers, department heads, and members of the Board of Education and Common Council.  Discussion included curriculum updates, budgetary concerns and a general “state of the district.”   

Currently we are making plans for another set of Candidates’ Forums, one for the mayoral race and the other for Common Council candidates.  Co-sponsored by The League of Women Voters and The Alternative Press, the October 29 events will be an opportunity for candidates to discuss and debate educational issues and other matters impacting Summit. 

As advocates for the city’s public schools, Speak Up Summit believes that an excellent school system is central to maintaining property values and to preserving our city as a superior place in which to live, work and raise a family.  We work to help ensure that our public schools remain competitive with the best districts in the state in terms of key educational benchmarks, including facilities, class size, classroom technology, curriculum development, extracurricular activities and, in turn, scholastic achievement.  We believe that public school excellence can and must be maintained in a financially responsible fashion.  This education must be provided for the children of all residents; the diverse student populations our schools enjoy should be reflected both in our curriculum and in the educational support services provided. 

Speak Up Summit will continue to explore the issues and their potential effects, and will work with the PTAs/PTOs, Board of Education, Common Council, the Garden State Coalition and other local and state organizations to lobby for funding and legislative improvements in Trenton and right here in Summit.  Speak Up Summit works to help drive public policy to benefit our community.  We will continue to identify opportunities for public input, and will remain vigilant in our concern for the quality of our public school education. 

Please join us on May 24 at 7:30 pm in the Summit High School media center for our own reorganization meeting.

In June 2010, LWVNJ came out against the first version of the voucher bill and wrote an op-ed in opposition. Since then the bill has been “tweaked” and on Thursday, January 20 the new version of the bill was released from the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. LWVNJ testified in opposition at that committee hearing. On Thursday the voucher bill is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee, and again the League will testify in opposition. If the bill makes it to the floor, LWVNJ says they will issue action alerts asking people to contact their state representatives in opposition.

We left with a sense that overall communication should be this assemblage’s top priority, as each faction pushed its own agenda even as they vowed to continue discussions with each other.

Most distasteful, but possibly not most surprising, was the response from Governor Christie’s representative-Gregg Edwards, the policy director and acting chief of staff for the Department of Education-who actually fell asleep on the dais.  What kind of message does this send to the hundred plus people in the room and to their constituents?  GSCS members of the four percent of state districts represented at this meeting included superintendents, principals, board of education members, human resources professionals, teachers and parent activists.  Each attended this meeting to learn, among other things, how the state and the school districts can “work together for the sake of New Jersey’s schools and children.”

But not everything was symbiotic.  There was animosity and finger pointing.

John Mooney, a moderator of the panel and the founder and education writer of NJ Spotlight said there exists a “toxic relationship” between the NJEA and the governor.

One parent from Scotch Plains remarked that our schools are great now, but that they won’t be in ten years.  She asked Edwards to tell the governor that “total annihilation is not victory.”  “If you want the public on your side, you have to start making nice,” she said.  “It’s broke and you have to fix it.”

A member of the West Morris Board of Education said that the governor needs to downsize the rest of government, not just education.

An eighth grade teacher from West Windsor/Plainsboro said she was speaking for the attendant members of her district, which included a principal and the superintendent, when she said that they were “victims” of the governor and said that he was “slinging arrows.”  What had to be done to get him to the table to start listening, she asked.  She attended the November teacher’s convention this year, and was disappointed that Christie had directed the acting education commissioner Rochelle Hendricks not to address the teachers during the annual professional development workshops. 

Christie had criticized vehemently the teachers’ union with a well-publicized attack on convention attendees, accusing them of going to the convention just to “party.”   A video of his comments to Trenton school children about the convention and his accusations toward the “greedy teachers union” - and not his $1.3 billion in state aid cuts - causing the lack of classroom supplies they were suffering and the NJEA rebuttal can be viewed here.   

Obviously, communication with the state is broken; what will it take to repair?  I question why the governor’s office did not use the GSCS forum as an opportunity to address the dysfunctional relationship that exists between the state and the schools. Many of the speakers and audience members referred to the “kumbaya” moments taking place on the panel between, say, the teacher’s union and charter schools, or school administrators and school boards.  Several groups vowed to continue specific discussions with each other.  Why didn’t the state at least try to make an outward appearance of trying to participate? 

As GSCS Executive Director Lynn Strickland noted, “The administration needs to work on real bills to cut costs.  The public needs to understand what is happening.”  Those districts that rely on tax levies are horrified with the hard two percent cap, she said.  “We have to make demands on Trenton to make them get their acts together,” she said.  “We are heading for a crash.”

Hang on and stay tuned.

Joining me at the GSCS forum were Speak Up Summit members and former Summit Board of Education Presidents Eleanor Doyle and Dr. Phil Eisner, and Speak Up Summit Vice President Laura Coburn.  Also in attendance from Summit were Superintendent of Schools Dr. Nathan Parker, Director of Human Resources Dr. Ken Shulack, and Board of Education President Jack Lyness.  (And Summit resident Superintendent of Millburn Schools Dr. James Crisfield.)

The panel included Lynn Strickland of the Garden State Coalition, Vincent Giordano of the New Jersey Education Association (representing the teachers’ union), and Gregg Edwards, the governor’s current Chief of Staff on assignment to the Department of Education.  Also on the panel were Marie Bilik of the New Jersey School Boards, Carlos Perez of New Jersey Charter Schools Association, Richard Bozza of the  Association of School Superintendents and Brenda Considine of the New Jersey Special Education Funding Coalition.

The panel discussion was moderated by journalists Tom Moran of the Star Ledger and John Mooney of New Jersey Spotlight who laid out three broad issues for discussion:  funding (including funding for special education), accountability and choice.

In their opening remarks, each member of the panel endorsed a plea to Mr. Edwards in the Governor’s office for more dialogue and collaboration to address and attempt to resolve the very significant issues facing education in the state.  Panel members made repeated references to the toxic relationship between the Governor and members of the education community and argued the importance of working together to solve problems rather than communicating through the press.

On the issue of funding, everyone expressed deep concerns with the looming 2% cap on property taxes on top of last year’s significant cuts in state aid - which are likely persist in the next state budget.  The Governor has already indicated that if any additional dollars are spent on education, they will go to higher education, leaving the public schools with little choice but the implement further staff and program reductions.   While the Governor has promised a “Tool Kit” to aid municipalities and schools in this cost reductions, the only tools proposed thus far have been ways in which to suppress labor costs.  Not surprisingly, the representative from the teachers’ union objected to labor taking the brunt of the cuts pointing out that the average teacher contract settlement, statewide, is down to a 1.91% average increase.

On the issue of accountability, Mr. Bozza, representing the Association of Superintendents made a plea for the teachers’ union to lead the way in defining what accountability means.  While many point to the inequity in basing evaluations on test scores alone, there seemed to be agreement that it is in the best interests of the teachers to lead the way in defining a method for determining the quality of educators.  Mr. Giordano suggested that accountability must be assessed in the context of shared responsibility - not only the responsibility of the teacher to deliver competent instruction, but the accountability of the students to come to school ready to learn, accountability of the school administration, parents and politicians. 

One area where there seemed to be agreement was the area of tenure.  Arguing that tenure does not equal a lifetime job guarantee (but rather protection from unreasonable dismissal based on personal or political motivations), Mr. Giordano admitted that the process for dismissing non-performing teachers was cumbersome, takes too long and is too expensive.  By the end of the forum, Ms. Bilik of the School Boards and Mr. Giordano of the teachers’ union agreed to meet and begin the development of a streamlined process for teacher dismissals. 

The panel then discussed the issue of charter schools.  Carlos Perez laid out the rationale for charter schools as meeting the “needs and wants” of students where such needs and wants are not being met by the public schools and argued that charters are significantly underfunded - getting only 60-70% of their costs from the state.   Several superintendents in the audience argued that while charters may fill a need in certain urban communities, there is no rationale for charters in districts which are meeting performance requirements.  Districts are obligated to send 90% of the district’s per pupil cost for every child in the district who attends a charter.  Yet, sending a pupil to a charter does not enable the district to reduce its expenses unless there is a critical mass of students leaving  the school - a critical mass unlikely to be achieved in any single grade.  Thus, the public school retains its fixed costs while being required to send 90% of the district per pupil cost to the charter.

the following items specific to the schools:

• Allowing districts to impose the “last best offer” in contract negotiations under certain circumstances.
• Reform in the selection of arbitrators for union contracts.
• Requiring arbitrators to consider impact of union contracts on property taxes
• Pension benefit reform
• Cap sick leave and carry forward of vacation for current employees
• Set criteria for County Superintendent review of contracts : salary limitations; pupil contact time per day; minimum number of hours; etc.
• Permitting County Superintendents to require certain shared services

Certain of these bills are included in the Pending Legislation Chart attached.

2.       Federal  Education Jobs Act - New Jersey received $268 million  from the federal government under this federal program providing $10b to school districts nationwide.  The funds must be used for salary expenses and must be spent by September 30, 2012.  The NJ  DOE announced today that it would be distributing the funds per the school funding formula.  Summit will receive $85.7K.

Other Tri County Districts’ distribution:

Chatham  — $99.1K                          Millburn — $99.3K

Madison —   $52.6K                          Livingston — $142.9K

Springfield - $48.9K                         Scotch Plains/Fanwood -  $149.3K

Berkeley Hts - $66.4K                     Cranford —  $110.8

New Prov. -   $49K                           Westfield - $154.7K

3.        Interdistrict Public School Choice Program - signed into law on September 9, 2010, this law makes permanent a pilot program and expands the number of “choice” districts in each county.   Under this program, interested New Jersey school districts can apply to become “choice” districts, i.e., a district which designates specific open seats in which they will accept non-resident students at the expense of the state.  It does not appear that there is any requirement that a district apply to be a “choice” district.

4.        Superintendent Pay Cap -   The Governor has directed the DOE to promulgate rules which will restrict  Superintendents’ salaries according to the following:

Student Enrollment                        Maximum Salary

0 - 250                                                  $120,000

251 - 750                                             $135,000

751 -  1500                                           $150,000

1501 - 3000                                         $165,000

3001 - 10,000                                     $175,000

Over 10,000                                        Subject to separate rules

The DOE expects to issue these rules by the end of September.               

It is currently unclear whether the DOE has the authority to promulgate these rules without legislative action.  According to the NJ School Boards Association, the state Attorney General has provided its opinion that this will require legislative action.  However, a representative of the NJ Association of School Administrators understands the DOE to believe that it has the authority to promulgate these rules.  It is likely that the DOE will go ahead based on its interpretation of the law and await legal challenge.

NJ ranks ninth lowest in the nation in the percentage of school funds spent on administration (National Center for Education Statistics); In 2008, the average salary of school superintendents in New Jersey was $4,000 less than that of states in the mid-east region when considering regional costs of living adjustments (American Institutes for Research).

See attached Pending Legislation chart which includes certain of the bills pending before the Senate and Assembly Education Committees and which need to be followed.  Numerous other bills are pending, but do not appear to be a priority on either Committee’s agenda at this time.

Eleanor Doyle is a long time Summit resident who has served in many volunteer positions related to education. She is one of the founding members of Speak Up Summit.   Her most recent position was member of the Summit Board of Education where she was president in 2007-8 .  Eleanor is a partner in The Law Office of Doyle & Doyle where she specializes in technology law and real estate.

Bill Number:      S435/A3218

Sponsors:            Sen Turner;       Asm Caputo

Description:       Substitute Teacher Limitation:  Limits amount of tame vacant teaching position can be filled by a substitute

Status:                  3/11/2010 Passed in the Senate

                                9/16/10  Referred to Ass Ed Cmtee

                                10/14/10 On Ass Ed Cmtee Agenda

Bill Number:      S1070/A460

Sponsors:            Sen Turner;      Asm Diegnan

Description:       Superintendent Model Contract:  Requires that districts use a model contract developed by Commissioner of Education when employing superintendent.

Status:                  2/4/10 Referred to Sen Ed Cmtee    

                                9/16/2010 Reported out of Assembly Cmtee w/amendments; 2nd reading

                                See also A-3169 - Permits high performing districts to be monitored every 7 years

Bill Number:      S1872/A2810

Sponsors:            Sens Lesniak/Kean;        Asm Fuentes

Description:       Opportunity Scholarship Act:   provides tax credits to entities providing scholarships for low income students to attend private schools.

Status:                  5/13/2010 Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee                    6/24/2010  Transferred to Asm Commerce and Economic Development Committee    

Bill Number:      S1940/A272

Sponsors:            Sen Van Drew, Ruiz;          Asm Albano, Ramos, Deignan, Riley       

Description:       Collective Bargaining Offset  Requirement:  Requires that the monetary equivalent of any wage or benefit concession agreed to by a collective bargaining unit

Status:                  10/14/10 On Sen  Ed Cmtee Agenda

Bill Number:      S2021/A-3248

Sponsors:            Sens Kean/O’Toole          Asm Rumana, Scott 

Description:       QSAC Waiver:  Permits a waiver for high performing districts from the State system for monitoring (QSAC)

Status:                  6/3/10 Referred to Senate Education Cmtee             

9/20/10 Referred to Assembly Education Cmtee

Bill Number:     S2071/A3218

Sponsors:         Sens Ruiz/Turner;  Asm Caputo

Description:     Temporary Teacher Limitation:  Limits amount of time a vacant teaching position can be filled by certain teachers employed in a temporary capacity

Status:            6/28/2010 Passed in Senate                    

 9/16/10 Referred to Ass Ed Cmtee                                             

10/14/10 On Ass Ed Cmtee Agenda

Bill Number:      S-2204/A3148

Sponsors:            Sen Rice; Asm Wilson

Description:       Criminal Background Checks:  Requires workers on school facilities construction projects to undergo criminal background checks.

Status:                  7/19/10 Referred to Sen Ed Cmtee                                               

9/13/10 Referred to Ass Ed Cmtee

Bill Number:      S2220/A3211

Sponsors:            Sen Sarlo ;                    Asw Casagrande

Description:       Sick Leave and Vacation Limitations:  Limits certain unused sick leave pay and vacation leave carry-forward; limits sick leave use by new public employees before retirement

Status:                  9/13/2010 Reported out of Sen Ed Committee w/ amendments; 2nd reading in Senate

Bill Number:      S2228/A1691

Sponsors:            Sen Rice ;  Asm Burzichelli

Description:       Activity Fees Prohibition:  Prohibit boards of ed from charging fees for extracurricular activities

Status:                  1/12/10  Referred to Ass Ed Cmtee                                  

9/13/10 Referred to Sen Ed Cmtee  

Bill Number:      S2261/A2623     

Sponsors:            Sens  Smith, Kyrillos;        Asm Chivukula

Description:       County Governance:  Provides a county governance structure for counties in which the voters approve the establishment of a county administrative school district to take over governance and operation of the public schools in the county.  Eliminates local control.

Status:                  5/6/10 Referred to Assembly Education Cmtee               

9/20/10 Referred to Senate Education Cmtee       

Bill Number:      S2310/A3283     

Sponsors:            Sen Doherty ;                   Asm O’Scanlon, Chiusana

Description:       Governor’s “Tool Kit”:  Imposes 2% cap on all “economic issues” defined to include interalia collective negotiations agreements 

Status:                  9/30/10  Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee         

10/7/10 Referred to Assembly State Government

Bill Number:      A3338

Sponsors:            Asm McKeon

Description:       Special Ed Cost Adjustment:  Provides an adjustment to school district tax levy cap for increases in special education costs per pupil in excess of $40,000 that exceed such prior year costs by more than 2%.

Status:                  10/7/10 Referred to Asm Ed Cmtee

Bill Number:      A3344

Sponsors:            Asm McKeon

Description:       QSAC:  Permits high performing school districts to be monitored every seven years

Status:                  10/7/10 Referred to Ass Ed Cmtee