Board of Education
stateguy said:
Someone with some sense (maybe the State of NJ )should take a deep dive and clean up what seems to be a mess,
Be careful what you wish for...
I agree, though, that it seems to be constant infighting on that board. We have to do better, or at least be told what all of the fighting is about and where candidates stand so we can vote intelligently.
I believe the recent additions to the BOE come with a greater toolset to collaborate and solve problems based on their real-world experience. Many of this year's new candidates seem to possess similar skills. I look forward to not pulling the lever (or whatever new-fangled voting machine process they'll throw at me) for any incumbents certainly.
This November, there are three spots up for election. Board President Thair Joshua and Member Erin Siders are not running for re-election. Board Member Johanna Wright is running for re-election. Though I know someone above said they would be against any incumbents, it's fair to say that Ms. Wright has persistently raised concerns about various efforts put forth by the informally aligned group that has made up the BOE's governing majority for many years, as well as the BOE's dysfunction. While she's an incumbent, I don't think it's accurate to say that voting for her re-election is an endorsement of "more of the same."
Mr. Joshua and Ms. Siders are part of the majority group and the folks who have backed them and others from the majority group seem to be supporting Ritu Pancholy and Will Meyer.
Others running are Regina Eckert, Bill Gifford and Nubia DuVall Wilson, whose statement is linked here:
Johanna Wright has been a board member for quite some time. What solutions has she proposed? Any member of the community who pays attention can raise concerns. A board member, however, has some capacity to do something about it.
tjohn said:
Johanna Wright has been a board member for quite some time. What solutions has she proposed? Any member of the community who pays attention can raise concerns. A board member, however, has some capacity to do something about it.
I'll let Ms. Wright and her campaign speak to her specific proposals and plans. From my perspective, she is in the minority of what is currently a 6-3 breakdown among the BOE's groups (some might call them "factions," though I think it's a little looser than that), so her ability to get her proposals passed is very limited. However, on numerous occasions as other members have raced through one proposal or another, she's the one who has raised questions about the real-world impact on students and families. Just my opinion, of course.
The point I was trying to make is that though she is the only incumbent running, it's more complicated than simply assuming that she's responsible for the way the BOE is currently run, because she's often trying to slow down or stop the majority group and has been criticized in meetings and online for doing so.
In the past, I have found Johanna Wright's questions, votes, and slowing down to be more about increasing confusion and getting the spotlight on her -- rather than designed to be informative, thoughtful, or solution-focused.
Johanna Wright and Melissa Malespina, supported a move by Kaitlin Wittleder, even though the legal counsel strongly advised against it. This type of maneuvering in the gray area of legal to make a point against other BOE members, and get attention is self-serving, and could cost our district in litigation (again).
Ms. Malespina in particular seems to aim for the punitive: Having our district make payouts, rather than helping to be proactive in addressing district problems, or trying to solve the problems internally. This group's approach increases how much we get hit in our pocketbooks unnecessarily. I would rather have a BOE that works proactively and collaboratively to fix our many problems -- not play 'gotcha' using our budget.
chalmers said:
tjohn said:
Johanna Wright has been a board member for quite some time. What solutions has she proposed? Any member of the community who pays attention can raise concerns. A board member, however, has some capacity to do something about it.
I'll let Ms. Wright and her campaign speak to her specific proposals and plans. From my perspective, she is in the minority of what is currently a 6-3 breakdown among the BOE's groups (some might call them "factions," though I think it's a little looser than that), so her ability to get her proposals passed is very limited. However, on numerous occasions as other members have raced through one proposal or another, she's the one who has raised questions about the real-world impact on students and families. Just my opinion, of course.
The point I was trying to make is that though she is the only incumbent running, it's more complicated than simply assuming that she's responsible for the way the BOE is currently run, because she's often trying to slow down or stop the majority group and has been criticized in meetings and online for doing so.
Joanna Wright has always positioned herself as the outsider, but she has been on the BOE for a long time now. She does speak up, raise objections, and ask questions but she doesn't offer much in the way of solutions.
However, she is currently one of the few that are standing up to the current power brokers on the BOE. Thair Joshua has, in my opinion, been a disaster as BOE president. I didn't think things could get worse after Annemarie Maini. I'm glad he had decided not to seek re-election.
sprout said:
In the past, I have found Johanna Wright's questions, votes, and slowing down to be more about increasing confusion and getting the spotlight on her -- rather than designed to be informative, thoughtful, or solution-focused.
Johanna Wright and Melissa Malespina, supported a move by Kaitlin Wittleder, even though the legal counsel strongly advised against it. This type of maneuvering in the gray area of legal to make a point against other BOE members, and get attention is self-serving, and could cost our district in litigation (again).
Ms. Malespina in particular seems to aim for the punitive: Having our district make payouts, rather than helping to be proactive in addressing district problems, or trying to solve the problems internally. This group's approach increases how much we get hit in our pocketbooks unnecessarily. I would rather have a BOE that works proactively and collaboratively to fix our many problems -- not play 'gotcha' using our budget.
What happened was that Board Member Qawi Telesford used internal CHS floor plans as part of a presentation to support the $8 million pool plan. This created a potential security risk, which he should have been aware of as head of the BOE’s Safety and Security Committee. Board Member Wittleder wanted to bring this to the community’s attention and the BOE attorney said she shouldn’t without naming a specific rule or procedure why. She raised the issue and as a result, a motion was made to remove her as the Board’s second vice president. After 45 minutes of contentious debate, the vote came out 4-4, so she remains as VP2.
I think there were probably several off-ramps where either side could have handled things better. But as your criticism of the three Board Members (Wright, Malespina and Wittleder) shows, they’re generally in the minority of a 6-3 split. Community members happy with the BOE’s work and direction in recent years might be inclined to favor the candidates affiliated with the majority, while those looking for a change might want to consider the other candidates.
The change I'm looking for is from dysfunctional to functional. There are contributors to the dysfunction in both 'cliques'. But I disagree with the approach of the minority, which has lesser power, to use gray area legal things against the majority, in order to push their minority points of view. I disagree that their approach or perspectives should become the majority.
For example, Ms. Malespina lost her previous bid for BOE (in my opinion, for good reason) -- but she did a very good job with her PR in the 2020 election. If she was more up-front with her real views and approaches, she may not have succeeded. Her win was very slim, and required counting the provisional votes.
To be fair, the margin of victory doesn't matter. I feel like opacity is the buzz word for the BOE.
They continue also to outright refuse to bus out of district students, which this district had done for years if not decades prior to the Covid excuse. Almost like a childish punishment for parents opting out of this mess.
BarneyGumble said:
They continue also to outright refuse to bus out of district students, which this district had done for years if not decades prior to the Covid excuse. Almost like a childish punishment for parents opting out of this mess.
The Covid excuse? You mean the one where teachers didn't want to risk serious illness and maybe even death? I suppose we can debate whether or not remote learning needed to last as long as it did, but until vaccines were available it was totally justified.
And why should I pay to bus children whose parents wanted them to go to private school?
I believe public school districts are legally required to provide a stipend if not providing bussing to private schools (I assume the stipends are provided). It would seem more efficient for the private schools to provide bussing that could be paid into using the stipends, rather than having each public district provide/organize a separate bus service to multiple private schools.
sprout said:
I believe public school districts are legally required to provide a stipend if not providing bussing to private schools (I assume the stipends are provided). It would seem more efficient for the private schools to provide bussing that could be paid into using the stipends, rather than having each public district provide/organize a separate bus service to multiple private schools.
Correct.
https://www.state.nj.us/education/finance/transportation/procedures/np_proc.pdf
tjohn said:
And why should I pay to bus children whose parents wanted them to go to private school?
Because the Rule of Law.
https://www.nj.gov/education/code/current/title6a/chap27.pdf
BarneyGumble said:
tjohn said:
And why should I pay to bus children whose parents wanted them to go to private school?
Because the Rule of Law.
https://www.nj.gov/education/code/current/title6a/chap27.pdf
I know the law. I am questioning the wisdom of said law.
tjohn said:
BarneyGumble said:
tjohn said:
And why should I pay to bus children whose parents wanted them to go to private school?
Because the Rule of Law.
https://www.nj.gov/education/code/current/title6a/chap27.pdf
I know the law. I am questioning the wisdom of said law.
I second that concern. I don't believe that taxpayer funds should be used to help parents send their children to private school. And I was surprised when I learned that is the case in NJ. (It's not true everywhere.) We should be funding better transportation within our district before paying for students to voluntarily go out. (I'm not talking about special needs OOD placements, but I assume those transportation needs are not in question.)
Does the SOMA school district still receive state funds for students who attend private schools?
Nine-member boards are often dysfunctional messes. Way too many people. Factions are inevitable.
cramer said:
Does the SOMA school district still receive state funds for students who attend private schools?
I believe that the only state funds for this are for special education placements and transportation. No?
sac said:
cramer said:
Does the SOMA school district still receive state funds for students who attend private schools?
I believe that the only state funds for this are for special education placements and transportation. No?
I was referring to the Equalization Aid that SOMA (and all school districts) receives from the state. I think it's based on the number of students in the district, and includes all students, whether they attend SOMA schools or not.
eta - As an example, does SOMA receive equalization aid for the students who attend Golda Och Academy in West Orange or Our Lady of Sorrows School in South Orange?
tjohn said:
And why should I pay to bus children whose parents wanted them to go to private school?
Most modern industrialized countries support private schools using public funds. They're smart enough to realize all schooling is a right that should be financially supported by the public. They don't care who manages a school, whether its is a public agency or private firm. They just want to see results. When their local public school doesn't meet needs then the parents have the option to select private without the burden of a financial penalty. But as usual, we're behind the curve.
Lets look at healthcare and its insurance industry. Suppose we get rid of insurers, paying for all our healthcare using public funds. Would you argue that you should only get your healthcare paid for provided you go to a public health clinic or use a public health service lab? You are using a similar argument when you say public funds should only to pay for public schools education.
What about private colleges? If you're going to be consistent then all public grants and subsidies to private colleges should be stopped. Grants to students should also be disallowed.
We've seen the result of our education system. Half of the population is below 6th grade reading level. We rank 125th in literacy, near the bottom of the pile.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/02/us-literacy-rate/
We elect horrors to office. A large segment of the population believes Obama is a Muslim, etc. A comment above stated that the current BOE is an embarrassment. Why is that? Could the embarrassment be the voters who voted them in? We read about Cruz, Hawley, Stefanik and so on. We decry them. Yet, they get elected and re-elected. So, where does the real fault lie?
Maybe we should worry less about who gets what subsidies and worry more on why we're building an uneducated and stupid public. Isn't it obvious schools are failing us?
We have basically been doing this with charter schools for many years.
And the problems are still large: The oversight of public schools funds is much more lax with charter schools. The CEO of one NJ charter school was caught embezzling. The top administrators at another charter school are paid much more exorbitant salaries than are seen in public schools (I assume legally). Articles have been written about several charter schools in NJ that use questionable methods to kick out kids who they are finding more expensive or challenging to educate. They also encourage kids who need special education support to stay in the public schools by providing inadequate levels of support (if any) in the charter school.
If more public money is sent to more selection-based schools, then public schools that are not selection-based, will eventually only contain the more challenging / expensive students to educate. Currently, selection-based schools that keep their education costs low in these ways that "cheat" students and the public school systems, can use remaining funds to pay the CEO/top administrators more. Before we send them more money, this systemic issue needs to be addressed.
The charters are the absolute worst -- "aid in lieu" to pay for private school buses is a well-entrenched scam the taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for, but charter funding is a much more significant disaster for the public. Every time a kid goes to a charter school, they take 90% of their home district's average per-pupil funding money with them, even though it costs nowhere near that amount to educate a single child.
Nothing but a scam to get rich off a public need.
sprout said:
We have basically been doing this with charter schools for many years.
cramer said:
sac said:
cramer said:
Does the SOMA school district still receive state funds for students who attend private schools?
I believe that the only state funds for this are for special education placements and transportation. No?
I was referring to the Equalization Aid that SOMA (and all school districts) receives from the state. I think it's based on the number of students in the district, and includes all students, whether they attend SOMA schools or not.
eta - As an example, does SOMA receive equalization aid for the students who attend Golda Och Academy in West Orange or Our Lady of Sorrows School in South Orange?
260 NJ school districts are ineligible for Equalization Aid because their Local Fair Shares exceed their Adequacy Budget.
The SOMSD is one of these districts. In 2022-23 our Local Fair Share is $123 million and our Adequacy Budget is $108 million.
Every year I do an OPRA request for each district's state aid target versus its actual aid, so show state aid deficits and surpluses.
I also keep track of inequalities in Local Fair Share tax rate. The SOMSD has a higher-than-average LFS because we lack non-residential property and we have random high-income outliers.
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
As a longtime resident (decades) who’s kids long ago left the school system, I continue to wonder what the priorities of the Board of Education are. Reports of misconduct, investigations, personality clashes seem to be the headlines,
How about focusing on quality education, best practices, and outcomes?
Today’s report that there will be no courtesy bussing restored because there isnt “enough time” is a classic example.
Someone with some sense (maybe the State of NJ )should take a deep dive and clean up what seems to be a mess,