| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The sections of A4 that relate to the establishment of the Executive County Superintent offices do not warrant enactment. There are a number of flaws and problematic parts of this virtual overhaul of New Jersey's education sysem. At best, this proposal for schools and county system of governance, should be taken off the table and revisited with an eye on quality education as well as efficiency. Call your local legislator, Senate President Codey (609 292 5215) and Speaker Roberts (609 292 7065) and let them know how you feel about their plans for you and your children's future. Click on MORE for GSCS comments and member talking points on the overview of this legislation ...
A4/Speaker Roberts
Overriding issue: No fiscal Note
There is no fiscal note on this attached to the bill on the costs of establishing a new office of the Executive County Superintendent, attendant staff and salaries, requisite facilities and increased technology. It is irresponsible not to provide fiscal analysis of this brand new office. Surely there will be substantial new costs that are much higher than what currently exists under the Department of Education county offices. These costs and related costs will need to be sustained into the out years, and cannot be seen as first year start up costs only. Additionally, these new costs to the state will certainly be more than the $100,000 cut off point that requires standing Budget Committee review – this is another reasonable process requirement of the legislature that its own leadership is ignoring in this rushed debate.
Please ‘show us the money’. It is germane to the issue of property tax relief that the legislature and the public know what costs are involved in effecting any one of the plans before us today in A4, especially the for brand new Executive County Superintendent offices and new work responsibilities delegated to those offices. Before the state takes steps to overhaul its education system- and in the name of saving money as its first priority – we should be apprised of inherent costs in these plans so that can appropriately be factored in the best practice of informed decision-making. To have this discussion in the absence of real numbers on both the plus and minus side of the ledger is very risky business.
Politicization: Gubernatorial appointment issues –
The county executive superintendent is appointed by the Governor on a biannual basis, with the recommendation of the Commissioner; at the same time, the Commissioner is also appointed by the Governor. Politics could take the lead rather than educational and organizational leadership. How can politicization of the role not occur?
Bureaucracy at the county level will increase –
How can another layer extending bureaucracy and the potential for patronage not be avoided?
Blurring of organizational lines of authority –
The Department of Education Commissioner and the ‘super’ county superintendent are both positions that are awarded by gubernatorial appointments. Which role then would really run the show? In addition to the role of the Commissioner likely being weakened and duplicated, confusion could override clarity of function; operational delegation and clarity are necessary priorities in well-functioning, efficient bureaucracies.
Local control is diminished in this proposed governance construct –
Executive superintendents have virtual veto power over school budgets as well as administrator contracts. Since their contributions would have less effect, boards of education – local parents and citizens - could lose eventually lose heart and distance themselves from participating in local governance. It is generally accepted that increased local involvement leads to more effective education for children and a higher level of accountability for school districts.
Consolidation recommending power and public vote required –
There are no provisions for local input into consolidation plans; while each affected locality is required to vote on the Commissioner-approved plan, the bill is silent on what criteria will literally be used to determine if the plan passes or fails. For instance, if 4 communities are affected and 3 out of the 4 vote for the consolidation plan, would that be considered a majority and the plan would then be passed? Or, does the voters’ sentiment in the one community carry the weight in the final outcome?
Executive superintendent’s evaluation is dependent on administrative reduction
No guidelines are stipulated, nor ways to assess qualitatively, what is too much or too little administration. The effective side of a Thorough and Efficient education is not a priority compared to the emphasis on the efficiency side. In addition, there is no easy way to determine quantitative guidelines since student demographics and needs differ district to district.
Mandate ‘downsizing’ –
The executive superintendent is granted recommending powers to eliminate certain mandates, while the legislature is given final oversight opportunity as a check and balance. This is positive.
Local districts may apply to executive county superintendent for certain services –
This part of the bill is reminiscent of
____________________________________________
Member Talking Points on A4 follow:
A4 TALKING POINTS
- Polarization: Since the Abbott Districts will still receive the protection given to them by the Courts, Executive County Superintendents (ECS) will have a limited ability to cut cost/enforce “efficiencies” in those districts. The “efficiencies” that they are mandated to promote (and upon which their job security depends) will have to be found in the regular operating districts. The ECS’s will only really be ECS’s of the regular operating districts in each county. This will increase Abbott/regular operating district polarization and take an educational toll in regular operation districts (especially those in the suburbs).
- Failed Initiatives: County-wide districting (as in the S49 pilot program) or the ECS system will cause radical changes in school governance, accountability to the public and district operations. If the initiatives fail, it will be very difficult and take years to reconstitute successful and effective leadership and accountability structures. The current district superintendent system also fosters the training of a new generation of superintendents/educational leaders. This will be completely curtailed by county-wide districting and somewhat curtailed by the ECS system.
- S 42 Will Not Save Money or Cut Property Taxes: S42 allows the ECS and the County Business Administrator to hire sufficient clerical personnel to assist them in their duties. Simultaneously overseeing a multitude of district budgets, superintendent contracts and business administrator contracts; while doing consolidation studies, coordinating transportation and shared services and identifying “efficiencies” will call for a large staff, including mid-level professionals, plus sufficient office space to house a major administrative operation. The expense of running this complex administrative structure will offset much, if not all of the cost savings created by the identification of “efficiencies.”
- Accountability: A politically appointed ECS is not accountable to local voters or boards of education. His or her decisions are absolute and his or her powers are subject to minimal oversight. As demonstrated by the SCC debacle, the combination of unchecked authority and limited accountability is a recipe for corruption, inefficiency and the waste of millions of dollars. The ECS’s decisions will have great impact on education (see below), but his or her mandate is centered almost exclusively on cost cutting.
- Conflicting Goals: The Governor has supported the creation of more rigorous high school curricula and graduation requirements, supporting the recommendations of the High School Redesign Steering Committee. The Governor and legislators have also championed the ideas of universal Pre-K and full-day kindergarten. Non of these laudable programs are mandated (except for Pre-K in Abbott districts), and they would be among the programs subject to line item veto by the ECS whose job security and mandate focus on cost cutting/finding “efficiencies.
- Education First: Despite the funding crisis,
- Curtailing Existing Efforts: Local superintendents have been in the forefront of the movement to create shared service arrangements with municipalities and other districts and effect economies within their own districts. Creating incentives that would reward these efforts is much more cost effective and conducive to both educational quality and local accountability than erecting large, expensive, patronage driven ECS offices.
