| ||||||||||||
Star Ledger Editorial - Teacher tenure: It's time to end Newark's antiquated tenure system
April 10, 2009
The Rev. Reginald Jackson, head of New Jersey's Black Ministers council, thinks teacher tenure covers up failure and hurts children by making it hard to fire incompetent instructors. He stood on the steps of the Statehouse recently and called for changes to the current tenure rules that grant a teacher a job for life after just three years.
Advocates and educators statewide have been calling for a reform to teacher tenure rules for some time. Clifford B. Janey, who took over the troubled Newark school system last year, is among them. He said last month tenure has become a big obstacle in getting rid of bad and ineffective teachers in his district.
And while grumbling about teacher tenure is nothing new, Janey has outlined a plan to replace the antiquated system. He seeks to put in place a program where a team from Seton Hall University would evaluate Newark teachers and identify their strengths and weaknesses.
Janey's plan to end teacher tenure and hold teachers more accountable is a good idea. He's confident he can get the nearly 5,400-member Newark Teachers Union to go along, and union president Joseph Del Grosso has signalled he's open to increasing teacher accountability.
Tenure is not necessary for a school system to attract and keep quality teachers. It's not even necessary to protect good teachers from being fired unjustly. Teachers would benefit more from better training, support from administration, rewards for good performance and a fair, impartial evaluation system.
Teachers need to do their jobs or go home. But all teachers -- especially those who work in the state's most challenging school districts -- will need much more support if they are to do the best job they can.
Without that, teacher tenure is destined to be replaced by teacher turnover
|
| |
|
| |
|
Accounting for a $2.2B difference in budget's bottom line GOP questions why Corzine figure excludes federal stimulus money Sunday, April 12, 2009 BY JOHN REITMEYER STATEHOUSE BUREAU Gov. Corzine's new budget is listed at $29.8 billion, but it spends $32 billion. Confused? So are a bunch of legislators who want to know how Corzine's new spending plan can officially be set at $29.8 billion even though the budget clearly lists another $2.2 billion in federal stimulus money that will be spent by the state during the upcoming fiscal year. David Rosen, budget and finance officer for the nonpartisan state Office of Legislative Services, tried to explain the difference to lawmakers during a politically charged legislative hearing last week by saying Corzine's number can be interpreted another way. "If you wanted to add the $2.2 billion onto the $29.8 billion and say we're really spending $32 billion, I couldn't quarrel with that," Rosen told Republican lawmakers who are questioning the Democratic governor's accounting. "It does have the effect of making our spending look smaller than it effectively is." To average taxpayers, the total spending amount in the new state budget means little. A specific program may get caught in the balance, but the essence of what state government does is the same. School districts will still receive state aid, hospitals will continue to treat anyone who walks though the doors and State Police cars will continue patrolling New Jersey's highways. But the lower budget number has political value for Corzine, who is up for re-election this year along with the full state Assembly amid the worst economic conditions in recent memory. The governor can highlight his work on state finances if spending is lower this year than the $31 billion budget enacted during his first year in office in 2006, said Brigid Harrison, a Montclair State University political science professor. "I think it comes down to one kind of basic measure where the governor can go in and say, 'Look, I didn't grow the budget,'" she said. Corzine, who is already highlighting the lower spending total at public events on the new budget, is able to avoid counting the stimulus money as a state expenditure thanks to the time-honored New Jersey tradition of keeping dozens of spending items "off budget." Federally funded programs, revolving funds and dedicated revenues are all generally kept off budget in New Jersey. About $45 billion will be spent by the state during the new fiscal year when all off-budget expenditures are counted. Not every state allows off-budget accounting, but Democratic and Republican governors have been doing it for decades in Trenton with little resistance. State Treasurer David Rousseau said this year's treatment of the stimulus funding -- $1.06 billion for Medicaid reimbursements and $1.09 billion for state school aid simply follows the practice of putting federal money off budget. "Everything that's been done in this budget in the accounting for the federal money is the exact same way federal money has been accounted for in Democratic and Republican administrations," Rousseau told the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee last week. "The Medicaid money, the federal match, has always been an off-budget match," he said. The treasurer reached back to the 1990s to find a precedent for putting the school aid in the off-budget category. "Some day, some governor who doesn't have to worry about the politics of it can go and bring everything on budget," Rousseau said. "We all know, if Jon Corzine had brought every single thing on budget, people would be criticizing him now saying he grew the budget from this to that." But Assemblywoman Alison Littel McHose (R-Sussex) told Rousseau that the accounting is "disingenuous" and "deceptive." "You are sitting here telling us this is all hunky-dory, what's happening in the budget, and I respectfully disagree," she said the day of the committee's hearing. "I think by using the off-budget numbers, I think it gives the impression that spending is down more than it is," she said. "I really think it is unfair to the residents of New Jersey." Not so, said committee chairman Louis Greenwald (D-Camden). "We're not taking it and misusing it in some capacity," Greenwald said "This is how it was intended to be used." Assemblyman Joseph Cryan (D-Union) said, if anything, the stimulus money makes up for years of underfunding by the federal government. Most federal aid formulas effectively punish the state for its high incomes -- "in the vernacular, we get screwed," Cryan said -- but New Jersey is getting a better percentage than its population warrants this time. "The bottom line is here we're finally getting some dollars that we're due," said Cryan, who is also chairman of the state Democratic Party. That argument misses the point, said Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon (R-Monmouth). "The debate isn't the wisdom of whether we should take this money or not," he said. "It's how should we account for it?" Statehouse bureau reporter John Reitmeyer may be reached at reitmeyer@northjersey.com. | |
