| Property Taxes, School Funding issues | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Back to School News of Note
STAR LEDGER EDITORIAL A new school barometer Friday, September 07, 2007 While it may conjure up fears of Big Brother, tracking students from kindergarten through high school, if properly done, ought to improve education. Starting this school year, the names of 1.5 million public school students will be entered into a new computerized central data base that will be used to track test scores, enrollment and other information. The data culled from the program should give parents, educators, researchers and administrators new insight into what works and what doesn't in New Jersey schools. Without individual identifiers, graduation rates are simply abstract numbers. With them, it is possible to know whether the students who entered a high school in ninth grade are the same ones who graduated four years later. In a state with more than 600 school districts, where many children, particularly those in poor districts, move multiple times during their school years, a method to follow them is a valuable tool. Tracking students may help educators discover a link between courses and college success. The long-term value of preschool education might also be better understood. The effectiveness of individual teachers also could be traced. Tracking may even help with more basic concerns. In recent years, there have been several cases of school kids being found abused, neglected or even dead. A tracking system might have alerted authorities to a child who was once enrolled in a school but was no longer enrolled there or anywhere else. Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent every year to educate children. Thousands of state and local employees spend count less hours administering tests and preparing students to take them. All of this is designed to improve student achievement. Yet, until this year, there has been no way to know for sure what was working for individual students. Tracking won't cure all that ails public education, but it represents the basic use of technology that has dominated the marketplace for years and can be of considerable help to schools. If the state is going to test students and insist that they demonstrate proficiency in various subjects, tracking student performance is a logical next step. State set to track almost all students Thursday, September 06, 2007 BY JOHN MOONEY Star-Ledger Staff As most public schools open this week, New Jersey's 1.4 million students are being tracked more than they may realize. State officials announced this month that virtually every public school student has been loaded into a new central database -- each with a secure 10-digit identification number -- that will allow the state to follow enrollment, test scores and reams of other data. Dubbed NJSMART for "New Jersey Standards Measurement and Resource for Teaching," the database is a long time coming in New Jersey and could cost more than $10 million once completed. But for the first time, the system will allow the state and districts to get a better handle on the progress of their students and their programs from year to year, school to school and even district to district. That's something that previ ously wasn't possible in New Jersey's fragmented public education system of 600-plus districts, where children's progress couldn't always be easily tracked from school to school, let alone district to district. "We're down to less than 1 percent or even .1 percent of kids where the data is not yet all cleaned up," state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said late last week of the system's start-up. "But we're ready to go." The tracking of student achievement is required under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, and a majority of states have responded in building statewide data "warehouses" of student information. New Jersey is among the last states to develop the system, first proposing one in 2002 but aban doning it after two years and $1.2 million. Eventually the program was launched anew as part of a wider state system to track schoolchil dren for the recovery of unclaimed federal Medicaid dollars for special education. State officials said the new data system has cost about $5.9 million to develop over the last two years, and another $5 million is budgeted for this fiscal year. There were many early glitches in inputting student information, local officials said, but so far the reviews are encouraging. "The implementation was a hassle, but I think everybody is see ing the benefit in tracking how stu dents are doing over time," said Barry Ersek, interim director of the state superintendents association. "Especially in districts with a lot of student mobility, this is a valuable new tool." The system still has its critics, mainly over the security of student information, which the randomly selected identification number is meant to protect. Within each file is an assortment of so-called "unique student identifiers" for each child, including name, birth date and birthplace. But when the system was first rolled out to districts this spring, some immigrant families worried that the questions about birth place could be used to pry into their immigration status. The American Civil Liberties Union said there could be other breaches of student privacy. Millburn board of education member Joel Reidenberg has been among the most steadfast critics, trying to persuade his board not to join the system. The district even tually did join, along with all other districts in the Garden State. "I have been a bit of a lone wolf on this," said Reidenberg, a Ford ham law professor and privacy ex pert. "Unless you have enough of a groundswell, it's hard. But I just don't think it has been public enough as to what's happening." State officials called security a "top priority" and pointed out an array of measures in place to protect the data, from eight backup generators at the undisclosed host site to a system of physically weigh ing visitors both when they enter and exit the building. "While we have had no issues with privacy or security since the implementation began, we will immediately address issues as they arise," said Jon Zlock, a state Education Department spokesman. John Mooney may be reached at jmooney@starledger.com or (973) 392-1548. STAR LEDGER 99% of N.J. teachers hit 'highly qualified' mark Thursday, September 06, 2007 BY JOHN MOONEY Star-Ledger Staff Ninety-nine percent of New Jersey's public school teachers meet the standards as "highly qualified" as set under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, state officials said yesterday. The state released the latest statistics for every school and district in New Jersey, saying that even in high-poverty schools, more than 97 percent of teachers meet the rules set by the state under the federal law. Two years ago, the rate in these schools was about 86 percent. "Clearly there has been an improvement over the last couple of years, and there's a commitment of districts across the state to meet this goal," state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said. To be deemed highly qualified, a teacher must be fully certified, hold a college degree, and be able to show expertise in the subject he or she teaches through one of a variety of measures. These include college major, performance on a content-area teachers' exam, or meeting the state's broader set of requirements that factor in years of experience and post-graduate study and professional development. The federal Department of Education initially required all states to have 100 percent of their teachers reach the mark by 2006, then extended it to 2007. But with no states yet reaching 100 percent, federal officials have said they will continue to demand at least progress toward the goal. Of the estimated 1,300 teachers still short of the mark in New Jersey, state officials said they are mostly special education teachers who work with students across disciplines and need more time to meet the requirements in each subject area. Still, six years since the federal law's enactment, its mandates for teachers face rising scrutiny nationwide. A recent federal study found wide disparities in states' require ments and questioned how effective the rules have become in en suring teacher quality. Davy voiced her own skepticism yesterday when asked whether the 99 percent rate in New Jersey means there are virtually no substandard teachers. "Whether or not a teacher has met the definition of highly qualified has nothing to do with the outcomes of the students in the classroom," she said. The state's full report may be found online at http://www.nj.gov/ education/data/hqt/07/. North Jersey, the Bergen Record Long way to go for property tax reform Thursday, September 6, 2007 By WILLIAM G. DRESSEL Jr. AROUND THIS TIME last year, the four special joint committees of the Legislature's historic Special Session for Property Tax Reform were preparing their final reports. They set the stage for final action on a number of important bills, and the special session deserves much credit. The tremendous concentrated efforts of legislators, the governor and all of their staffs have yielded a solid foundation for future progress toward property tax reform. But much still remains to be done. Every taxpayer understands New Jersey's chronic overreliance on property taxes. When we look at the statistics, the scope of the problem can be intimidating. According to the 2000 Census, New Jersey's median property tax bill ($4,047) was the highest among the 50 states -- more than one-third higher than second-place Connecticut ($2,961). According to New Jersey Future, we are second in overall reliance on property taxes (46.1 percent of total state and local revenue) -- topped only by New Hampshire. Among states that collect sales, income and property taxes, only in New Jersey do property tax collections exceed sales and income tax collections, combined. A constellation of interconnected public policy actions and inactions, by officials at all levels of government, brought us to this point. And no simple answer will solve this complex crisis. Elected officials at the local level have been dealing with the property tax crisis on a daily basis for many years. Their fellow citizens rely on them to deliver vital life-enhancing and life-sustaining services. Yet the only reliable revenue source allowed to them by the state of New Jersey is the property tax. We have known that we have needed reform for a long time. And we appealed for action, time and time again, to a long series of state administrations and Legislatures. Citizens convention It was only after decades of inaction on real, sustainable property tax reform that we came to call for a citizens convention for property tax reform. But in lieu of that, state policymakers opted for the historic special session. Developments in municipalities this summer highlight two of the shortcomings of that option. First, we have seen one of the unintended consequences of the session's widely touted 4 percent levy cap. That legislation arbitrarily limits the amount of revenue that school districts, counties and municipalities can raise through the property tax. It fails, however, to account for – let alone limit -- increasing costs beyond the control of local elected officials. One of those costs is the state-imposed obligation that requires a municipality with a local public library to annually dedicate to the municipal library a sum equal to 33 cents per $1,000 of the total assessed value of all local properties. True, the 4 percent levy cap will slow the growth of the property tax burden. And the 33 cents per $1,000 of the total assessed value mandate will ensure a generous level of funding for the local library. But taken together, they will limit the investment that local elected officials can dedicate to public safety, public health, youth programs, senior services and other vital priorities. In future years, the rate of growth for mandated library contributions could exceed the rate of growth of the levy cap. And that would compel actual disinvestments in other critical local public programs and services. Insufficient state aid Second, we have seen the results of insufficient state aid for property taxpayers. On one level, it directly relates to the state's decision to reduce its commitment to extraordinary aid by $9 million this year. Every year, applications for such aid exceed available resources. The $9 million cut will mean that fewer municipalities will get any of this emergency funding and that those that do get funding are more likely to get less than they need. No matter how much you think government should spend, no matter where you think money is needed or money is wasted, the simple fact of the matter is that there has to be a fairer way of raising it. The central concern of New Jersey taxpayers remains the tough revenue issue, which was not addressed. In addition to a new school funding formula, our state's leading policymakers still need to deal with that, to fulfill the promise of truly progressive property tax reform. William G. Dressel Jr. is executive director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. STAR LEDGER EDITORIAL The tax relief mirage Tuesday, September 04, 2007 The next few months should prove just how successful the Legislature and Gov. Jon Corzine have been in attacking property taxes. It was this time last year that legislators -- at the governor's prodding -- declared they were serious about reducing the state's reliance on property taxes to pay for schools and local government operations. Promises of substantial changes in the way the state raises and spends money were more abundant than zucchini at farm stands. In February, lawmakers pronounced themselves satisfied, touting a 20 percent property tax rebate for most homeown ers and assuring us that tight new budget caps would limit property tax increases to 4 percent. With Labor Day gone and the fall campaign for control of the Legislature about to get under way, voters can expect to hear about how much better off New Jersey's taxpayers are. Don't believe it. Let's review what drives spending: personnel costs. A preliminary look at recent teacher contracts shows about half the 200 that expire this year have already been signed, generally coming with annual salary increases of 4.6 percent. It isn't likely that number will budge much when all of them are settled. Then there will be salary adjustments for police, firefighters and other government workers. Don't be surprised if, when the numbers are all in, the statewide average rise in property taxes mirrors that of past years -- in the 6 to 8 percent range. Apparently, many school boards, mayors, council members and freeholders view that 4 percent cap as a suggestion rather than a mandate. School enrollment increases, debt payments, unexpected jumps in health care costs and pension contributions are all outside the cap. School districts also can appeal to the education commissioner for waivers in ex traordinary circumstances. If the education commis sioner grants cap exemptions willy-nilly and if lawmakers cave in every time a mayor pleads for more state aid to cover expenses, the battle will be lost. Based on past performance, it's hard to be optimistic. Rebate checks averaging $1,051 will arrive in the next month or so, but those checks aren't worth as much as they seem. The average property tax bill last year was $6,170, and the average rebate will be $1,051. But if that tax bill increases by even 6 percent -- the low end of predictions -- the average homeowner will be paying $370 more in taxes, reducing the rebate to $681. On top of that, a family earning $108,263 is paying an extra $253 in sales tax because it was raised from 6 percent to 7 percent last year. That money goes to the rebate program. Bottom line: That $1,051 check is really more like $428. Can anyone in Trenton understand why voters may feel they've been taken yet again? STAR LEDGER COLUMN: Higher benefits mean ... higher taxes Tuesday, September 04, 2007 Read my lips: No new benefits. That's what I'd like to hear some politician say on some bright day in the future. The first President Bush famously got himself into trouble by promising no new taxes and then breaking that promise. But it would have been equally bad if he'd kept the promise. It's not as though he would have shrunk the size of government. He would simply have let it continue to grow while borrowing the money to pay for the new services. Politicians of both parties pull this stunt, especially here in New Jersey. That's why we're more than $100 billion in the hole when you consider public debt and unfunded liabilities for pensions and health benefits for retired public employees. But the Corzine administration keeps promising new services: more free preschools, more full-day kindergarten and even some form of universal health care. Oh, yeah. It's going to cut property taxes, too. Well, the only way to accomplish that goal would be for Corzine to take the pledge. He should promise that no new benefit for either the public or for public employees will be created until he gets the state's finances under control. That would be historic. Instead, the state keeps adding to those benefits and therefore to the tax burden. An excellent example of this problem was the unanimous decision last month by the state Public Employee Relations Commission in a contract dispute between Ringwood in Bergen County and the local chapter of the PBA. In that decision, a PERC arbitrator decided to grant lifetime health benefits to retired police as part of a contract settlement. "It's not normally done. It's just not done," Ringwood borough manager Ken Hetrick told me. The purpose of PERC arbitration is to forge a compromise between the two sides in a public employee labor dispute. If the town offers a 4 percent raise and the union wants a 6 percent raise, the arbitrator might settle on a 5 percent raise. But in this instance the arbitrator simply picked a new benefit out of the air and gave it to the union. Under the prior contract, the borough made a $2,000 annual payment to each retiree in lieu of health benefits. But adding the retirees and their families to the town's health plan will cost upwards of $15,000 a year, said He trick. The Ringwood cops are no doubt wonderful people and entirely deserving of this benefit. But the unfunded liability for similar benefits is huge, both for the state and municipalities. A recent report estimated the state has an un funded deficit of $69 billion for retiree health benefits. Of that, $11 billion is owed by municipalities. That municipal portion has to come from higher property taxes, says Bill Dressel of the State League of Municipalities. As part of that vaunted property tax "reform" package enacted earlier this year, the state put a 4 percent cap on property tax increases. Sounds good, says Dressel. "But these pension costs are outside the cap," he said. "That means property taxes are going to go up." They'll be going up even more quickly if the precedent from the Ringwood decision carries over to contract settlements in other towns. Dressel pins the blame on Corzine for the failure to address the ballooning cost of benefits. During the recent legislative battle over property tax reform, "he kept saying to us, 'You gotta be tough at the bargaining table,'" said Dressel. But then Corzine himself caved in to the unions with that infamous letter to Senate President Richard Codey and Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts in which the governor threatened to veto any bills that included cuts in pensions or benefits. And Corzine did nothing to curb the PERC arbitrators, who continually issue decisions that ratchet property taxes up, Dressel said. Dressel's got a solution, though: If the state wants to require more benefits, let the state pick up the cost. The towns will be happy. The unions will be happy. Everyone will be happy -- except for Corzine. He'll face an even bigger deficit every year as he tries to balance the budget. The Ringwood Borough Council will decide this evening whether to appeal the decision. But the decision has already had an effect on negotiations in other towns. In another Bergen County town, Bo gota, Mayor Steve Lonegan said he was recently on the verge of concluding a contract with the police union when the union got word of the Ringwood decision. "We were dotting the i's and crossing the t's when all of a sud den they said, 'PERC is giving away medical benefits for life,'" said Lo negan. At that point, the cops decided they'd take their chances with a state arbiter. You certainly can't argue with their decision -- unless of course you're a governor who has pledged to deliver property tax reform. Paul Mulshine may be reached at pmulshine@starledger.com. To comment on this column, go to NJVoi ces.com. STAR LEDGER Paterson, Jersey City districts in flux State education commissioner reserves action on fate of superintendents Tuesday, September 04, 2007 BY JOHN MOONEY Star-Ledger Staff State Education Commissioner Lucille Davy told the state Board of Education she has no plans to reappoint Paterson Superintendent Michael Glascoe next year, but added her decision could change if quick progress is made. According to an e-mail sent to state board members on Friday, Davy also said she would decide on Jersey City superintendent Charles Epps' future "in concert" with that city's local school board, one of the first steps in the state ceding control of the district. With Newark superintendent Marion Bolden expected to step down in 2008, Davy's latest announcement on Paterson and Jersey City portends possible leadership changes in each of the state's three largest districts, which are now all under state control. Glascoe's uncertain fate was no secret even to his supporters in recent weeks, especially after Davy this summer appointed a fiscal monitor to the Paterson schools and then last month issued a critical monitoring report that did not recommend any return of local control as yet. A top administrator in Fairfax County, Va., schools before coming to New Jersey, Glascoe was appointed to the post in 2005. But Davy, in her letter to Glascoe, said her decision was not necessarily final, and she would revisit it early next year. The early notice that Glascoe may not be rehired was required under his contract, presumably to give him time to find a new job. Davy listed several areas where she was looking for progress, including student achievement, the implementation of a new curriculum, and relations with the teachers union, community groups and the fiscal monitor himself. "If you are amenable, I would like to reconsider this decision in February 2008, and determine at that time whether to offer you a contract for continuing as state district superintendent," Davy wrote Glascoe. Efforts to contact Davy for further comment yesterday were unsuccessful. District spokeswoman Laura Constable yesterday confirmed that Davy also called Glascoe with the news on Friday morning. Constable said Glascoe was not commenting further this weekend, but she and other district officials expressed disappointment with the decision. "I was devastated to hear the news, because of the enormous work he'd done against tremendous obstacles," Constable said, citing gains in three quarters of the district's test scores in 2007. Paterson school board President Andre Sayegh called the decision "totally unjust," especially in light of his own board's 6-1 vote of confidence for Glascoe at its last meeting. "The commissioner has disregarded us, an elected board," he said. The picture is not as clear with Epps, who has been Jersey City's superintendent since 2000. After nearly two decades of state operation, the district is expected to regain some local control in the next year following a more positive monitoring report this summer, and Davy said she wanted to work with the local board in deciding the next superintendent. "I haven't spoken to her, but I think that's a good thing," said board president William DeRosa yesterday. "This contract issue is hovering over the district, and we do want some clarification on where it is heading." John Mooney may be reached at jmooney@starledger.com, or (973) 392-1548. September 4, 2007 NEW YORK TIMES school District Has Dress Code, and Is Buying the Uniforms, Too By WINNIE HU ELIZABETH, N.J., Aug. 30 — Many public schools are supplying their students with an ever-growing list of essentials that go far beyond textbooks to include scientific calculators, personal laptops and free breakfast. Now they are dressing them, too. The Elizabeth school district has spent more than $2 million since January 2006 to buy navy blazers, khaki pants, polo shirts, gym shorts and even socks as part of a new policy to put all its students in uniforms. The district, which serves mostly poor and minority families, has outfitted more than 9,000 students — nearly half its enrollment — so far as it phases in the uniforms a few schools at a time over five years to spread out the cost. “They’re just getting another school supply; that’s how we see it,” said the Elizabeth superintendent, Pablo Muñoz, noting that schools had long provided uniforms for athletic teams, choirs and marching bands. “If we expect high-quality academic achievement in the Elizabeth schools, not only do we need the staff and the materials, the kids need their uniforms.” But some critics have questioned whether the district should be getting into the clothing business while schools are facing budget cuts and state lawmakers are under pressure to reduce property taxes. Jerry Cantrell, president of the New Jersey Taxpayers Association and a former school board president in Randolph, said that while he did not oppose school uniforms, he considered it “overkill” to provide them free to every student. “Spending taxpayer money across the board for even those who can afford it is going above and beyond,” Mr. Cantrell said. “If we’re ever going to get a handle on the out-of-control tax situation in New Jersey and elsewhere, you have to focus on where the spending is and prioritize it.” As schools across the country have moved toward stricter dress codes, some parents have objected to the cost of buying the prescribed outfits, typically solid-color shirts and khaki pants or skirts. Earlier this year, an Indiana couple who sued over a school dress code contended that it violated not only their children’s constitutional right of free expression, but also the guarantee of a free public education. Increasingly, some urban districts have responded by asking for community donations, organizing used-clothing drives and carving out money from their budgets. For instance, the Hartford school district has spent about $32,000 — some of it donated — to help 1,000 poor students buy uniforms. Similarly, the West Contra Costa district in California, near Oakland, used $49,000 from its budget last year to provide uniforms to poor students. Here in Elizabeth, district officials said that most of their students could not have afforded to buy the uniforms. About 80 percent of the students are poor enough to qualify for free and reduced-price lunches. Many are from immigrant families in which the parents speak limited English. District officials said the money for the uniforms came from the district’s $400 million budget, but said that it was not taken from academics. The district contracted with a clothing company, American Wear, to take the students’ measurements and provide them with two complete outfits for classes as well as gym clothes. Kindergarten and prekindergarten students receive an additional class outfit that can be kept at school as a change of clothes. The district plans to pay for only the first set of uniforms for every student (currently 15 of the district’s 31 schools have the dress code). After that, parents and guardians become responsible for buying additional uniforms, and for making alterations or replacing lost items as needed. (Prekindergartners or students who transfer from other districts will also get free starter sets.) District officials said that parents can opt out of the dress code, but few have done so. Andrea Torres, a machine operator who is a single mother, said she usually spent at least $300 on back-to-school clothes for her 8-year-old son, Jordy Mora. But this year, she is buying him only sneakers, since the school has provided the rest. “It’s a lot of money,” she said. “I’m going to pay bills and buy myself clothes.” Mr. Muñoz, who took over as superintendent in 2005, said that buying the uniforms not only took pressure off parents, but also ensured that there was a “uniformity to the uniforms.” In previous years, he said, some schools adopted dress codes only to abandon them because not all the students participated. Mr. Muñoz said he had received no complaints about using district money for this purpose; rather, he has heard from dozens of parents with children at schools the program has yet to reach who are eager to get the free uniforms. At the Robert Morris School, fittings for the 400 elementary students took place in June, with additional sessions throughout the summer. The first of the new uniforms arrived the last week in August in 84 cardboard boxes that were stacked in the school gym. Pink signs marked “girls” and “boys” were taped to the doors. “You’re going to look so grown-up,” Christine Wawer, a first-grade reading teacher, said as she handed Stephanie Rodriguez, 10, an eight-pound plastic bag with neatly folded shirts, skorts (combination skirt and shorts), sweatshirt, sweat pants, gym shorts and a cardigan. Stephanie, who favors jeans and T-shirts, said she would no longer have to worry about what to wear to school in the morning. “I wanted the uniforms because then no one can criticize you if you’re not matching,” she said. The uniforms also passed muster with Jessica Roman, a stylishly dressed 9-year-old, who had opposed the dress code because she feared that the standard-issue clothes would be ugly. After inspecting them, she concluded that they were “not really that bad” even though she would have preferred brighter colors like pink and aqua. “It’s a good idea because we don’t have to waste as much money on clothes,” Jessica said. “We can use the money on other stuff for back-to-school.” Jessica’s younger sister, Catherine, 4, never had any doubts. She woke up three hours early that morning because she was so excited to pick up her uniform, only to be told that it had not yet arrived. Asked if she was disappointed, she nodded. Thomas O’Donnell, the principal, said that he knew of only one parent who had considered opting out of the dress code and not accepting the uniforms because she thought that parents should buy them, and not the school district. She changed her mind, he said, after he assured her “it wasn’t money being taken away from instruction.” While the free uniforms are only for students, most of the school’s teachers plan to show their support for the dress code by donning their own navy golf shirts and khaki pants and skirts this fall. Ten teachers volunteered their time to unpack the boxes and give out the uniforms. “When you put money on a child’s person, they know someone values them enough to spend money on them,” said Faith Palamar, a teacher at the school. “It’s a direct investment in children.”
STAR LEDGER EDITORIAL A new school barometer Friday, September 07, 2007 While it may conjure up fears of Big Brother, tracking students from kindergarten through high school, if properly done, ought to improve education. Starting this school year, the names of 1.5 million public school students will be entered into a new computerized central data base that will be used to track test scores, enrollment and other information. The data culled from the program should give parents, educators, researchers and administrators new insight into what works and what doesn't in New Jersey schools. Without individual identifiers, graduation rates are simply abstract numbers. With them, it is possible to know whether the students who entered a high school in ninth grade are the same ones who graduated four years later. In a state with more than 600 school districts, where many children, particularly those in poor districts, move multiple times during their school years, a method to follow them is a valuable tool. Tracking students may help educators discover a link between courses and college success. The long-term value of preschool education might also be better understood. The effectiveness of individual teachers also could be traced. Tracking may even help with more basic concerns. In recent years, there have been several cases of school kids being found abused, neglected or even dead. A tracking system might have alerted authorities to a child who was once enrolled in a school but was no longer enrolled there or anywhere else. Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent every year to educate children. Thousands of state and local employees spend count less hours administering tests and preparing students to take them. All of this is designed to improve student achievement. Yet, until this year, there has been no way to know for sure what was working for individual students. Tracking won't cure all that ails public education, but it represents the basic use of technology that has dominated the marketplace for years and can be of considerable help to schools. If the state is going to test students and insist that they demonstrate proficiency in various subjects, tracking student performance is a logical next step. State set to track almost all students Thursday, September 06, 2007 BY JOHN MOONEY Star-Ledger Staff As most public schools open this week, New Jersey's 1.4 million students are being tracked more than they may realize. State officials announced this month that virtually every public school student has been loaded into a new central database -- each with a secure 10-digit identification number -- that will allow the state to follow enrollment, test scores and reams of other data. Dubbed NJSMART for "New Jersey Standards Measurement and Resource for Teaching," the database is a long time coming in New Jersey and could cost more than $10 million once completed. But for the first time, the system will allow the state and districts to get a better handle on the progress of their students and their programs from year to year, school to school and even district to district. That's something that previ ously wasn't possible in New Jersey's fragmented public education system of 600-plus districts, where children's progress couldn't always be easily tracked from school to school, let alone district to district. "We're down to less than 1 percent or even .1 percent of kids where the data is not yet all cleaned up," state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said late last week of the system's start-up. "But we're ready to go." The tracking of student achievement is required under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, and a majority of states have responded in building statewide data "warehouses" of student information. New Jersey is among the last states to develop the system, first proposing one in 2002 but aban doning it after two years and $1.2 million. Eventually the program was launched anew as part of a wider state system to track schoolchil dren for the recovery of unclaimed federal Medicaid dollars for special education. State officials said the new data system has cost about $5.9 million to develop over the last two years, and another $5 million is budgeted for this fiscal year. There were many early glitches in inputting student information, local officials said, but so far the reviews are encouraging. "The implementation was a hassle, but I think everybody is see ing the benefit in tracking how stu dents are doing over time," said Barry Ersek, interim director of the state superintendents association. "Especially in districts with a lot of student mobility, this is a valuable new tool." The system still has its critics, mainly over the security of student information, which the randomly selected identification number is meant to protect. Within each file is an assortment of so-called "unique student identifiers" for each child, including name, birth date and birthplace. But when the system was first rolled out to districts this spring, some immigrant families worried that the questions about birth place could be used to pry into their immigration status. The American Civil Liberties Union said there could be other breaches of student privacy. Millburn board of education member Joel Reidenberg has been among the most steadfast critics, trying to persuade his board not to join the system. The district even tually did join, along with all other districts in the Garden State. "I have been a bit of a lone wolf on this," said Reidenberg, a Ford ham law professor and privacy ex pert. "Unless you have enough of a groundswell, it's hard. But I just don't think it has been public enough as to what's happening." State officials called security a "top priority" and pointed out an array of measures in place to protect the data, from eight backup generators at the undisclosed host site to a system of physically weigh ing visitors both when they enter and exit the building. "While we have had no issues with privacy or security since the implementation began, we will immediately address issues as they arise," said Jon Zlock, a state Education Department spokesman. John Mooney may be reached at jmooney@starledger.com or (973) 392-1548. STAR LEDGER 99% of N.J. teachers hit 'highly qualified' mark Thursday, September 06, 2007 BY JOHN MOONEY Star-Ledger Staff Ninety-nine percent of New Jersey's public school teachers meet the standards as "highly qualified" as set under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, state officials said yesterday. The state released the latest statistics for every school and district in New Jersey, saying that even in high-poverty schools, more than 97 percent of teachers meet the rules set by the state under the federal law. Two years ago, the rate in these schools was about 86 percent. "Clearly there has been an improvement over the last couple of years, and there's a commitment of districts across the state to meet this goal," state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said. To be deemed highly qualified, a teacher must be fully certified, hold a college degree, and be able to show expertise in the subject he or she teaches through one of a variety of measures. These include college major, performance on a content-area teachers' exam, or meeting the state's broader set of requirements that factor in years of experience and post-graduate study and professional development. The federal Department of Education initially required all states to have 100 percent of their teachers reach the mark by 2006, then extended it to 2007. But with no states yet reaching 100 percent, federal officials have said they will continue to demand at least progress toward the goal. Of the estimated 1,300 teachers still short of the mark in New Jersey, state officials said they are mostly special education teachers who work with students across disciplines and need more time to meet the requirements in each subject area. Still, six years since the federal law's enactment, its mandates for teachers face rising scrutiny nationwide. A recent federal study found wide disparities in states' require ments and questioned how effective the rules have become in en suring teacher quality. Davy voiced her own skepticism yesterday when asked whether the 99 percent rate in New Jersey means there are virtually no substandard teachers. "Whether or not a teacher has met the definition of highly qualified has nothing to do with the outcomes of the students in the classroom," she said. The state's full report may be found online at http://www.nj.gov/ education/data/hqt/07/. North Jersey, the Bergen Record Long way to go for property tax reform Thursday, September 6, 2007 By WILLIAM G. DRESSEL Jr. AROUND THIS TIME last year, the four special joint committees of the Legislature's historic Special Session for Property Tax Reform were preparing their final reports. They set the stage for final action on a number of important bills, and the special session deserves much credit. The tremendous concentrated efforts of legislators, the governor and all of their staffs have yielded a solid foundation for future progress toward property tax reform. But much still remains to be done. Every taxpayer understands New Jersey's chronic overreliance on property taxes. When we look at the statistics, the scope of the problem can be intimidating. According to the 2000 Census, New Jersey's median property tax bill ($4,047) was the highest among the 50 states -- more than one-third higher than second-place Connecticut ($2,961). According to New Jersey Future, we are second in overall reliance on property taxes (46.1 percent of total state and local revenue) -- topped only by New Hampshire. Among states that collect sales, income and property taxes, only in New Jersey do property tax collections exceed sales and income tax collections, combined. A constellation of interconnected public policy actions and inactions, by officials at all levels of government, brought us to this point. And no simple answer will solve this complex crisis. Elected officials at the local level have been dealing with the property tax crisis on a daily basis for many years. Their fellow citizens rely on them to deliver vital life-enhancing and life-sustaining services. Yet the only reliable revenue source allowed to them by the state of New Jersey is the property tax. We have known that we have needed reform for a long time. And we appealed for action, time and time again, to a long series of state administrations and Legislatures. Citizens convention It was only after decades of inaction on real, sustainable property tax reform that we came to call for a citizens convention for property tax reform. But in lieu of that, state policymakers opted for the historic special session. Developments in municipalities this summer highlight two of the shortcomings of that option. First, we have seen one of the unintended consequences of the session's widely touted 4 percent levy cap. That legislation arbitrarily limits the amount of revenue that school districts, counties and municipalities can raise through the property tax. It fails, however, to account for – let alone limit -- increasing costs beyond the control of local elected officials. One of those costs is the state-imposed obligation that requires a municipality with a local public library to annually dedicate to the municipal library a sum equal to 33 cents per $1,000 of the total assessed value of all local properties. True, the 4 percent levy cap will slow the growth of the property tax burden. And the 33 cents per $1,000 of the total assessed value mandate will ensure a generous level of funding for the local library. But taken together, they will limit the investment that local elected officials can dedicate to public safety, public health, youth programs, senior services and other vital priorities. In future years, the rate of growth for mandated library contributions could exceed the rate of growth of the levy cap. And that would compel actual disinvestments in other critical local public programs and services. Insufficient state aid Second, we have seen the results of insufficient state aid for property taxpayers. On one level, it directly relates to the state's decision to reduce its commitment to extraordinary aid by $9 million this year. Every year, applications for such aid exceed available resources. The $9 million cut will mean that fewer municipalities will get any of this emergency funding and that those that do get funding are more likely to get less than they need. No matter how much you think government should spend, no matter where you think money is needed or money is wasted, the simple fact of the matter is that there has to be a fairer way of raising it. The central concern of New Jersey taxpayers remains the tough revenue issue, which was not addressed. In addition to a new school funding formula, our state's leading policymakers still need to deal with that, to fulfill the promise of truly progressive property tax reform. William G. Dressel Jr. is executive director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. STAR LEDGER EDITORIAL The tax relief mirage Tuesday, September 04, 2007 The next few months should prove just how successful the Legislature and Gov. Jon Corzine have been in attacking property taxes. It was this time last year that legislators -- at the governor's prodding -- declared they were serious about reducing the state's reliance on property taxes to pay for schools and local government operations. Promises of substantial changes in the way the state raises and spends money were more abundant than zucchini at farm stands. In February, lawmakers pronounced themselves satisfied, touting a 20 percent property tax rebate for most homeown ers and assuring us that tight new budget caps would limit property tax increases to 4 percent. With Labor Day gone and the fall campaign for control of the Legislature about to get under way, voters can expect to hear about how much better off New Jersey's taxpayers are. Don't believe it. Let's review what drives spending: personnel costs. A preliminary look at recent teacher contracts shows about half the 200 that expire this year have already been signed, generally coming with annual salary increases of 4.6 percent. It isn't likely that number will budge much when all of them are settled. Then there will be salary adjustments for police, firefighters and other government workers. Don't be surprised if, when the numbers are all in, the statewide average rise in property taxes mirrors that of past years -- in the 6 to 8 percent range. Apparently, many school boards, mayors, council members and freeholders view that 4 percent cap as a suggestion rather than a mandate. School enrollment increases, debt payments, unexpected jumps in health care costs and pension contributions are all outside the cap. School districts also can appeal to the education commissioner for waivers in ex traordinary circumstances. If the education commis sioner grants cap exemptions willy-nilly and if lawmakers cave in every time a mayor pleads for more state aid to cover expenses, the battle will be lost. Based on past performance, it's hard to be optimistic. Rebate checks averaging $1,051 will arrive in the next month or so, but those checks aren't worth as much as they seem. The average property tax bill last year was $6,170, and the average rebate will be $1,051. But if that tax bill increases by even 6 percent -- the low end of predictions -- the average homeowner will be paying $370 more in taxes, reducing the rebate to $681. On top of that, a family earning $108,263 is paying an extra $253 in sales tax because it was raised from 6 percent to 7 percent last year. That money goes to the rebate program. Bottom line: That $1,051 check is really more like $428. Can anyone in Trenton understand why voters may feel they've been taken yet again? STAR LEDGER COLUMN: Higher benefits mean ... higher taxes Tuesday, September 04, 2007 Read my lips: No new benefits. That's what I'd like to hear some politician say on some bright day in the future. The first President Bush famously got himself into trouble by promising no new taxes and then breaking that promise. But it would have been equally bad if he'd kept the promise. It's not as though he would have shrunk the size of government. He would simply have let it continue to grow while borrowing the money to pay for the new services. Politicians of both parties pull this stunt, especially here in New Jersey. That's why we're more than $100 billion in the hole when you consider public debt and unfunded liabilities for pensions and health benefits for retired public employees. But the Corzine administration keeps promising new services: more free preschools, more full-day kindergarten and even some form of universal health care. Oh, yeah. It's going to cut property taxes, too. Well, the only way to accomplish that goal would be for Corzine to take the pledge. He should promise that no new benefit for either the public or for public employees will be created until he gets the state's finances under control. That would be historic. Instead, the state keeps adding to those benefits and therefore to the tax burden. An excellent example of this problem was the unanimous decision last month by the state Public Employee Relations Commission in a contract dispute between Ringwood in Bergen County and the local chapter of the PBA. In that decision, a PERC arbitrator decided to grant lifetime health benefits to retired police as part of a contract settlement. "It's not normally done. It's just not done," Ringwood borough manager Ken Hetrick told me. The purpose of PERC arbitration is to forge a compromise between the two sides in a public employee labor dispute. If the town offers a 4 percent raise and the union wants a 6 percent raise, the arbitrator might settle on a 5 percent raise. But in this instance the arbitrator simply picked a new benefit out of the air and gave it to the union. Under the prior contract, the borough made a $2,000 annual payment to each retiree in lieu of health benefits. But adding the retirees and their families to the town's health plan will cost upwards of $15,000 a year, said He trick. The Ringwood cops are no doubt wonderful people and entirely deserving of this benefit. But the unfunded liability for similar benefits is huge, both for the state and municipalities. A recent report estimated the state has an un funded deficit of $69 billion for retiree health benefits. Of that, $11 billion is owed by municipalities. That municipal portion has to come from higher property taxes, says Bill Dressel of the State League of Municipalities. As part of that vaunted property tax "reform" package enacted earlier this year, the state put a 4 percent cap on property tax increases. Sounds good, says Dressel. "But these pension costs are outside the cap," he said. "That means property taxes are going to go up." They'll be going up even more quickly if the precedent from the Ringwood decision carries over to contract settlements in other towns. Dressel pins the blame on Corzine for the failure to address the ballooning cost of benefits. During the recent legislative battle over property tax reform, "he kept saying to us, 'You gotta be tough at the bargaining table,'" said Dressel. But then Corzine himself caved in to the unions with that infamous letter to Senate President Richard Codey and Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts in which the governor threatened to veto any bills that included cuts in pensions or benefits. And Corzine did nothing to curb the PERC arbitrators, who continually issue decisions that ratchet property taxes up, Dressel said. Dressel's got a solution, though: If the state wants to require more benefits, let the state pick up the cost. The towns will be happy. The unions will be happy. Everyone will be happy -- except for Corzine. He'll face an even bigger deficit every year as he tries to balance the budget. The Ringwood Borough Council will decide this evening whether to appeal the decision. But the decision has already had an effect on negotiations in other towns. In another Bergen County town, Bo gota, Mayor Steve Lonegan said he was recently on the verge of concluding a contract with the police union when the union got word of the Ringwood decision. "We were dotting the i's and crossing the t's when all of a sud den they said, 'PERC is giving away medical benefits for life,'" said Lo negan. At that point, the cops decided they'd take their chances with a state arbiter. You certainly can't argue with their decision -- unless of course you're a governor who has pledged to deliver property tax reform. Paul Mulshine may be reached at pmulshine@starledger.com. To comment on this column, go to NJVoi ces.com. STAR LEDGER Paterson, Jersey City districts in flux State education commissioner reserves action on fate of superintendents Tuesday, September 04, 2007 BY JOHN MOONEY Star-Ledger Staff State Education Commissioner Lucille Davy told the state Board of Education she has no plans to reappoint Paterson Superintendent Michael Glascoe next year, but added her decision could change if quick progress is made. According to an e-mail sent to state board members on Friday, Davy also said she would decide on Jersey City superintendent Charles Epps' future "in concert" with that city's local school board, one of the first steps in the state ceding control of the district. With Newark superintendent Marion Bolden expected to step down in 2008, Davy's latest announcement on Paterson and Jersey City portends possible leadership changes in each of the state's three largest districts, which are now all under state control. Glascoe's uncertain fate was no secret even to his supporters in recent weeks, especially after Davy this summer appointed a fiscal monitor to the Paterson schools and then last month issued a critical monitoring report that did not recommend any return of local control as yet. A top administrator in Fairfax County, Va., schools before coming to New Jersey, Glascoe was appointed to the post in 2005. But Davy, in her letter to Glascoe, said her decision was not necessarily final, and she would revisit it early next year. The early notice that Glascoe may not be rehired was required under his contract, presumably to give him time to find a new job. Davy listed several areas where she was looking for progress, including student achievement, the implementation of a new curriculum, and relations with the teachers union, community groups and the fiscal monitor himself. "If you are amenable, I would like to reconsider this decision in February 2008, and determine at that time whether to offer you a contract for continuing as state district superintendent," Davy wrote Glascoe. Efforts to contact Davy for further comment yesterday were unsuccessful. District spokeswoman Laura Constable yesterday confirmed that Davy also called Glascoe with the news on Friday morning. Constable said Glascoe was not commenting further this weekend, but she and other district officials expressed disappointment with the decision. "I was devastated to hear the news, because of the enormous work he'd done against tremendous obstacles," Constable said, citing gains in three quarters of the district's test scores in 2007. Paterson school board President Andre Sayegh called the decision "totally unjust," especially in light of his own board's 6-1 vote of confidence for Glascoe at its last meeting. "The commissioner has disregarded us, an elected board," he said. The picture is not as clear with Epps, who has been Jersey City's superintendent since 2000. After nearly two decades of state operation, the district is expected to regain some local control in the next year following a more positive monitoring report this summer, and Davy said she wanted to work with the local board in deciding the next superintendent. "I haven't spoken to her, but I think that's a good thing," said board president William DeRosa yesterday. "This contract issue is hovering over the district, and we do want some clarification on where it is heading." John Mooney may be reached at jmooney@starledger.com, or (973) 392-1548. September 4, 2007 NEW YORK TIMES school District Has Dress Code, and Is Buying the Uniforms, Too By WINNIE HU ELIZABETH, N.J., Aug. 30 — Many public schools are supplying their students with an ever-growing list of essentials that go far beyond textbooks to include scientific calculators, personal laptops and free breakfast. Now they are dressing them, too. The Elizabeth school district has spent more than $2 million since January 2006 to buy navy blazers, khaki pants, polo shirts, gym shorts and even socks as part of a new policy to put all its students in uniforms. The district, which serves mostly poor and minority families, has outfitted more than 9,000 students — nearly half its enrollment — so far as it phases in the uniforms a few schools at a time over five years to spread out the cost. “They’re just getting another school supply; that’s how we see it,” said the Elizabeth superintendent, Pablo Muñoz, noting that schools had long provided uniforms for athletic teams, choirs and marching bands. “If we expect high-quality academic achievement in the Elizabeth schools, not only do we need the staff and the materials, the kids need their uniforms.” But some critics have questioned whether the district should be getting into the clothing business while schools are facing budget cuts and state lawmakers are under pressure to reduce property taxes. Jerry Cantrell, president of the New Jersey Taxpayers Association and a former school board president in Randolph, said that while he did not oppose school uniforms, he considered it “overkill” to provide them free to every student. “Spending taxpayer money across the board for even those who can afford it is going above and beyond,” Mr. Cantrell said. “If we’re ever going to get a handle on the out-of-control tax situation in New Jersey and elsewhere, you have to focus on where the spending is and prioritize it.” As schools across the country have moved toward stricter dress codes, some parents have objected to the cost of buying the prescribed outfits, typically solid-color shirts and khaki pants or skirts. Earlier this year, an Indiana couple who sued over a school dress code contended that it violated not only their children’s constitutional right of free expression, but also the guarantee of a free public education. Increasingly, some urban districts have responded by asking for community donations, organizing used-clothing drives and carving out money from their budgets. For instance, the Hartford school district has spent about $32,000 — some of it donated — to help 1,000 poor students buy uniforms. Similarly, the West Contra Costa district in California, near Oakland, used $49,000 from its budget last year to provide uniforms to poor students. Here in Elizabeth, district officials said that most of their students could not have afforded to buy the uniforms. About 80 percent of the students are poor enough to qualify for free and reduced-price lunches. Many are from immigrant families in which the parents speak limited English. District officials said the money for the uniforms came from the district’s $400 million budget, but said that it was not taken from academics. The district contracted with a clothing company, American Wear, to take the students’ measurements and provide them with two complete outfits for classes as well as gym clothes. Kindergarten and prekindergarten students receive an additional class outfit that can be kept at school as a change of clothes. The district plans to pay for only the first set of uniforms for every student (currently 15 of the district’s 31 schools have the dress code). After that, parents and guardians become responsible for buying additional uniforms, and for making alterations or replacing lost items as needed. (Prekindergartners or students who transfer from other districts will also get free starter sets.) District officials said that parents can opt out of the dress code, but few have done so. Andrea Torres, a machine operator who is a single mother, said she usually spent at least $300 on back-to-school clothes for her 8-year-old son, Jordy Mora. But this year, she is buying him only sneakers, since the school has provided the rest. “It’s a lot of money,” she said. “I’m going to pay bills and buy myself clothes.” Mr. Muñoz, who took over as superintendent in 2005, said that buying the uniforms not only took pressure off parents, but also ensured that there was a “uniformity to the uniforms.” In previous years, he said, some schools adopted dress codes only to abandon them because not all the students participated. Mr. Muñoz said he had received no complaints about using district money for this purpose; rather, he has heard from dozens of parents with children at schools the program has yet to reach who are eager to get the free uniforms. At the Robert Morris School, fittings for the 400 elementary students took place in June, with additional sessions throughout the summer. The first of the new uniforms arrived the last week in August in 84 cardboard boxes that were stacked in the school gym. Pink signs marked “girls” and “boys” were taped to the doors. “You’re going to look so grown-up,” Christine Wawer, a first-grade reading teacher, said as she handed Stephanie Rodriguez, 10, an eight-pound plastic bag with neatly folded shirts, skorts (combination skirt and shorts), sweatshirt, sweat pants, gym shorts and a cardigan. Stephanie, who favors jeans and T-shirts, said she would no longer have to worry about what to wear to school in the morning. “I wanted the uniforms because then no one can criticize you if you’re not matching,” she said. The uniforms also passed muster with Jessica Roman, a stylishly dressed 9-year-old, who had opposed the dress code because she feared that the standard-issue clothes would be ugly. After inspecting them, she concluded that they were “not really that bad” even though she would have preferred brighter colors like pink and aqua. “It’s a good idea because we don’t have to waste as much money on clothes,” Jessica said. “We can use the money on other stuff for back-to-school.” Jessica’s younger sister, Catherine, 4, never had any doubts. She woke up three hours early that morning because she was so excited to pick up her uniform, only to be told that it had not yet arrived. Asked if she was disappointed, she nodded. Thomas O’Donnell, the principal, said that he knew of only one parent who had considered opting out of the dress code and not accepting the uniforms because she thought that parents should buy them, and not the school district. She changed her mind, he said, after he assured her “it wasn’t money being taken away from instruction.” While the free uniforms are only for students, most of the school’s teachers plan to show their support for the dress code by donning their own navy golf shirts and khaki pants and skirts this fall. Ten teachers volunteered their time to unpack the boxes and give out the uniforms. “When you put money on a child’s person, they know someone values them enough to spend money on them,” said Faith Palamar, a teacher at the school. “It’s a direct investment in children.”
