SOMSD Changes
Whilst I am committed to continuing to send my (white) children to Columbia, I have sometimes questioned whether or not I am providing them the best opportunity of a great education and a great high school experience. We continue to send them based on the hope that they will be part of a more diverse and inclusive environment that mirrors our aspirational view of what we hope the US can be. We recognize that as idealistic. But it still feels better than giving in to some non-diverse private school or more institutionally racist neighboring towns (Livingston, Millburn, Summit, Chatham).
@Woot - so you’re more concerned with making yourself “feel” good over the quality of your child’s eduacation? You would rather have them be some sort of grand social experiment rather than prepare them for the next step through rigorous academics?
"Quality of your child's education" is often about fit.
I am familiar with several White families who attended Millburn "for the schools", but switched to private school because the hyper-competitiveness in the public school was not a good fit for their child.
I am also familiar with several Black families in SOMSD who switched to private school because in SOMSD, their child was provided with different experiences, by teachers/administrators/policies, as compared to what was provided to their White peers. This was not a good fit for their child.
Fit varies, and what one thinks of as "good quality of education" varies.
SOMSD is still a very good fit for my kids: We have been fortunate, and the goals I have for my kids' educational achievement, social/emotional growth and well-being, and personal safety, appear on-track within this system.
That said, challenges others have had are real, and changes are needed. Also, parents/children may have goals that this district does not serve well, which can lead to choices to leave.
One may also be swayed by the experiences or perceptions of others... or rating systems based mostly on test score data/socio-economic status.
I don't know what "the best educational opportunity" would be for my kids... but in our particular circumstances for our particular goals, this one doesn't seem far off.
Prisoner, you're saying that CHS isn't rigorous? Trying to understand.
krugle said:
Prisoner, you're saying that CHS isn't rigorous? Trying to understand.
I’m questioning whether @Woot continues to send his/her children to CHS despite having reservations about the quality of the education and experience. Despite those reservations, the children are sent based on a “hope”.
I’m not saying CHS isn’t rigorous, I’m simply questioning why someone wouldn’t want to provide their children with the best educational opportunities available. However, like @sprout said, a lot of it is about fit.
krugle said:
Prisoner, you're saying that CHS isn't rigorous? Trying to understand.
Just seems like sending your kids to a school based on “hope” isn’t exactly setting them up for success.
Sprout, it's tricky to talk about "fit." You're right, switching to private school might make all the difference for kids for whom our schools are not working. But for a family that can't afford private school, it's kind of miserable to hear about this option. I can testify.
But I find it very hopeful to hear that district schools are a good fit for your children. I assign your endorsement a lot of weight.
All things considered, CHS is a good school. Could it be better, yes. Should it be better, yes.
Regardless of which side you're on regarding Mr. Fields, we should all be screaming for more school funding from the state and a fundamental change in the way schools are funded in NJ.
Perhaps if reps of inner-ring- suburb districts would form a coalition in Trenton? Are there enough of them to effectuate a naked power play? Because appeals to fairness are pointless at this point. We don't even have enough power to get them heard.
I am happy that my son will be starting CHS this fall. I am concerned about Ms. Aaron leaving, not because of many of the issues stated here, but more about worries of the unknown... and that the new principal will be "interim". This status does not bode well for stability and accountability - if that means anything at this point. This will be my son's 6th principal in our school system since he started kindergarten (6 in 10 years)... and he possibly may have a 7th by High School graduation! Seems like anybody concerned about our District needs to understand that flux of this magnitude is difficult on each of the schools, their employees, and ALL of the children. With all of this change, I do know one thing: that the principal is KEY to setting the tone for the school - and it has made a HUGE difference (good and bad) on my son's education and treatment while being educated. But also something wonderful is happening... within all of this turmoil and diversity, it has spawned a critical thinker who sees that success is up to him - and on HIS shoulders. He is looking forward to Columbia - and is already excited about the next chapters of this life... so something is working in this big jumble of a District.
prisoners_dilemma said:
krugle said:Just seems like sending your kids to a school based on “hope” isn’t exactly setting them up for success.
Prisoner, you're saying that CHS isn't rigorous? Trying to understand.
Sending one’s kids to almost ANY school entails not a little bit of hope, unless one is somehow guaranteed an outcome. I’d suspect whatever school that is would be rather hard to get into, however.
ml1 said:
DaveSchmidt said:There is a very strong argument that NJ has long-standing and entrenched structural racism that causes our state to be extremely segregated by race.
campbell29 said:A start would be agreement that institutional racism is everywhere. But see how hard even that first step is.
If everywhere that is integrated is ipso facto instutionally racist, what’s the solution?
http://www.antipovertynetwork.org/resources/Documents/The%20Uncomfortable%20Truth%20Final%20-%20web.pdf
Our whole country continues to be extremely segregated by race. Like someone mentioned in an above post, painting rainbow sidewalks won't solve homophobia anymore than good thoughts will solve institutional racism. It's ingrained into the very nature of our country.
It's why it's taken the age of the cell phone camera for white people to think good and hard about how their interactions with police differ dramatically than those of black people.
Just as an example, when those videos first started coming out, I can't count the number of people on this board (and elsewhere) who had their own stories to tell about how they were stopped by cops and, look, they just did what the cops said and everything was hunky dory. So, clearly the black guy or black kid did something to get shot. We comfort ourselves with these stories and don't believe black people when they tell us their experiences.
I like Elizabeth Aaron, I truly believe that she had every intention of moving CHS in the right direction and personally, I don't think she should have been let go. But I also know that I'm not going to sit here and say that there's no institutional racism in our schools. Because it's everywhere. We can be the most open and welcoming white folks in the world but it doesn't mean our black neighbors aren't getting screwed. Institutional racism doesn't mean you wake up every day and think "I hate people of color". It means our systems and organizations and society are designed to value and reward and give power to white people above all others. It is like an AI program run amok. Just because we don't _think_ that way doesn't mean it's not happening. It's been in place before you and I were even born. We benefit from it every day.
brealer said: Perhaps if reps of inner-ring- suburb districts would form a coalition in Trenton? Are there enough of them to effectuate a naked power play? Because appeals to fairness are pointless at this point. We don't even have enough power to get them heard.
If every district got 100% of its state aid, the School Funding Reform Act would give suburban districts more money than they currently get, but for the SOMSD the gain would only be $3.5 million, which isn't a lot compared to a Total Operating Budget of $131,360,071 for 2018-19.
Getting another $3.5 million would be helpful in the short term, although honestly I don't think it would do any good in the long-term because having additional money would weaken the SOMSD's bargaining position vis-a-vis the local unions and the additional state aid would eventually go into higher salaries, not new services and/or tax offsets. Also, our healthcare costs and OOD tuition costs constantly increase faster than inflation too.
The legislature has been moving against ad hoc disbursements of state aid that are intended to benefit one school district or just a handful of school districts. In the CEIFA era there had been an aid stream called "Abbott Rim Aid," but it was only $25 million at its peak and most of it went to districts who are much lower income than the SOMSD, such as North Bergen. However, SFRA folded "Abbott Bordered Aid" into other streams of aid in an attempt to simplify the formula.
IMO, every district in NJ can make a case that somehow the aid law doesn't work for it and therefore it should get additional money. IMO, these arguments are only persuasive for districts with extremely high municipal taxes (eg East Orange & Irvington) and districts with extreme demographic uniqueness (eg Lakewood).
Also, it is inaccurate to only look at K-12 operating aid as the only state support for local education, since the state also pays for TPAF, post-retirement medical, and FICA taxes. On average, these streams of indirect aid are $2700 per student.
I've invested a ton of time fighting for a fair distribution of state aid in NJ that would benefit the SOMSD, but I think it's time we addressed spending-side issues in NJ school districts.
Can we stop saying Elizabeth Aaron got "let go?" It is inaccurate and prejudicial. She has a job, one that she has been quoted as saying she is looking forward to, intends to do, and do well.
Out of nothing more than curiosity and a desire to catch myself in the future, had I used that phrase? Agree “reassigned” is more apt since, well, that’s what actually happened (or at least is about to).
so was she "reassigned" willingly or unwillingly. more to the point. upon whose behest?
It's over at CHS for Aaron, she has indicated as much. I sincerely wish her replacement nothing but success.
Robert_Casotto said:
so was she "reassigned" willingly or unwillingly. more to the point. upon whose behest?
It was not her choice. She was "reassinged" by interim Superintendent Ficarra to the central office. There is much speculation on the reasons why but we will probably never know the full story.
max_weisenfeld said:
Can we stop saying Elizabeth Aaron got "let go?" It is inaccurate and prejudicial. She has a job, one that she has been quoted as saying she is looking forward to, intends to do, and do well.
Ms. Aaron was removed from her position against her will. Due to her tenure, the district is not permitted to release her completely so she was given a different job, one where she has no daily contact with students or building authority. She has, at least publicly, displayed an admirable attitude about doing the best job she can. After the massive protest formed, the district added some clarification about her new duties.
Maybe Ms. Aaron will thrive in her new role and do meaningful work on the extremely important issues that have purportedly been assigned to her. Maybe the clarification of her duties was just a sop to the crowd and her position as special assignment principal will be, as it's been before, a holding room while she sends out resumes. Time will tell, but though she still is a district employee, I don't think it's misleading to say Ms. Aaron was "let go."
When the Yankees removed Billy Martin as manager, they'd usually give him some front office or broadcasting job with the team while they were paying out his contract. No one ever hesitated to say that he'd been fired.
yahooyahoo said:
Robert_Casotto said:It was not her choice. She was "reassinged" by interim Superintendent Ficarra to the central office. There is much speculation on the reasons why but we will probably never know the full story.
so was she "reassigned" willingly or unwillingly. more to the point. upon whose behest?
Stoughton said:
max_weisenfeld said:Ms. Aaron was removed from her position against her will.
Can we stop saying Elizabeth Aaron got "let go?" It is inaccurate and prejudicial. She has a job, one that she has been quoted as saying she is looking forward to, intends to do, and do well.
You actually do not know this.
ctrzaska said:
Out of nothing more than curiosity and a desire to catch myself in the future, had I used that phrase? Agree “reassigned” is more apt since, well, that’s what actually happened (or at least is about to).
Not you, but many others have.
max_weisenfeld said:
yahooyahoo said:
Robert_Casotto said:It was not her choice. She was "reassinged" by interim Superintendent Ficarra to the central office. There is much speculation on the reasons why but we will probably never know the full story.
so was she "reassigned" willingly or unwillingly. more to the point. upon whose behest?
Stoughton said:You actually do not know this.
max_weisenfeld said:Ms. Aaron was removed from her position against her will.
Can we stop saying Elizabeth Aaron got "let go?" It is inaccurate and prejudicial. She has a job, one that she has been quoted as saying she is looking forward to, intends to do, and do well.
Ms. Aaron has not come out and said publicly that her removal as principal was against her will. Given the fact that she still is employed by the district in a technically high position, it probably would be unwise to do so.
She also has not said publicly that she wanted or agreed with the change. If she did agree with it, why wouldn't she say so?
A tremendous amount of energy, including a petition signed by 1,600 community members, went into the effort to have her reinstated. At the outset of this effort, one of the leaders gave Ms. Aaron the chance to stop things in the event that she was happy with the switch. She didn't stop it.
On the day before a large rally was going to held in support of Ms. Aaron's reinstatement, Dr. Ficarra and BOE president Elizabeth Baker called the group leaders in for a meeting. The group leaders thought a potential reinstatement might be discussed, but the message from Ficarra and Baker was clear and simple: "Ms. Aaron wants the rally to be canceled. Call her and see for yourselves." The leaders were shocked, but that's what Ms. Aaron said when they called her, and not wanting to go against her wishes, the rally was canceled.
What happened? Were her new duties strengthened or clarified in a way that changed her mind? Was she threatened with adverse references or some other type of punishment if she didn't call off the rabble demanding her reinstatement? Was she genuinely concerned about the emotions involved and some of the lines that community members were drawing on both sides of the issue? Something else? A combination of factors? We don't know.
Here's Ms. Aaron's tweet from a couple of days before the change was announced (in a vague email sent on a Saturday evening). It is a quote from John Lewis that reads, in part: "Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble." Maybe it has nothing to do with anything, but if it does, it hardly seems like the message of someone who finally nailed down that job they wanted.
https://twitter.com/CougarPrincipal/status/1012767660898168832
Whether you think Ms. Aaron is a good principal or even a good person, there's nothing in her history as a community member or school official that would make me believe that she'd just sit back and watch while hundreds of person-hours and high emotions were devoted to protesting a change that she actually welcomed anyway.
But your mileage may vary.
prisoners_dilemma said:
Whilst I am committed to continuing to send my (white) children to Columbia, I have sometimes questioned whether or not I am providing them the best opportunity of a great education and a great high school experience. We continue to send them based on the hope that they will be part of a more diverse and inclusive environment that mirrors our aspirational view of what we hope the US can be. We recognize that as idealistic. But it still feels better than giving in to some non-diverse private school or more institutionally racist neighboring towns (Livingston, Millburn, Summit, Chatham).
@Woot - so you’re more concerned with making yourself “feel” good over the quality of your child’s eduacation? You would rather have them be some sort of grand social experiment rather than prepare them for the next step through rigorous academics?
Columbia is a very good public school. And public schools are not a “grand social experiment”.
And that’s not what I said. I’d rather my children attend a school that (at least) looks as diverse as my community. And I want them to be part of my community.
Thanks for your concerns. My children will be fine.
max_weisenfeld said:
yahooyahoo said:
Robert_Casotto said:It was not her choice. She was "reassinged" by interim Superintendent Ficarra to the central office. There is much speculation on the reasons why but we will probably never know the full story.
so was she "reassigned" willingly or unwillingly. more to the point. upon whose behest?
Stoughton said:You actually do not know this.
max_weisenfeld said:Ms. Aaron was removed from her position against her will.
Can we stop saying Elizabeth Aaron got "let go?" It is inaccurate and prejudicial. She has a job, one that she has been quoted as saying she is looking forward to, intends to do, and do well.
Interesting.
If— speaking purely in hypothetical terms, of course— someone does know this, how would one refute your declarative statement?
Someone with that knowledge has two options: a) say “nevermind” and let it go, preferring not to betray whatever confidence entrusted them with the information and ultimately expose her to disciplinary and/or further political consequences or, b) provide the source of the information and thus... see above.
Now, one may also take a middle road and simply point to the lack of any public confirmation of her voluntary move into the central office. However glaring this omission, though, it isn’t direct proof of course.
max_weisenfeld said:
yahooyahoo said:
Robert_Casotto said:It was not her choice. She was "reassinged" by interim Superintendent Ficarra to the central office. There is much speculation on the reasons why but we will probably never know the full story.
so was she "reassigned" willingly or unwillingly. more to the point. upon whose behest?
Stoughton said:You actually do not know this.
max_weisenfeld said:Ms. Aaron was removed from her position against her will.
Can we stop saying Elizabeth Aaron got "let go?" It is inaccurate and prejudicial. She has a job, one that she has been quoted as saying she is looking forward to, intends to do, and do well.
Da Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.
The latest press release - I'm having formatting difficulty so here is the Village Green article
I don't buy it. All this does is describe what her work will supposedly entail and that she's supposedly looking forward to it. It doesn't directly address the concern that she is being pushed out as a result of the lawsuit.
This makes me so angry with Dr. Ficarra and our Board of Ed. 'Research best practices across the nation...'. I'm sure she'll get this done just in time to inform the fall rollout of what Ficarra already presented as designed configuration 'options' for the district.
If they were inadequately 'researched' why were they presented? Will she be the 'project manager' for the transition because nobody in the Central Office can operationalize their way out of a paper bag?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Advertisement
A lawsuit to end school segregation was also filed against the state of NJ this May (the initial focus is on charter schools):
https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2018/05/17/suit-aimed-at-ending-nj-school-segregation-targets-role-of-charter-schools/?slreturn=20180611123254