Quality Public Education for All New Jersey Students

 

 
     GSCS Statement Condemning Violence Motivated by Race, Ethnicity or Sexual Orientation
     Latest Testimonies and Letters
     Virtual and In-Person Meeting Calendar for 2023-2024
     GSCS Critical Issues
     3-28-24 Education in the News
     3-27-24 Education in the News
     3-26-24 Education in the News
     3-25-24 Education in the News
     3-22-24 Education in the News
     3-21-24 Education in the News
     3-20-24 Education in the News
     3-19-24 Education in the News
     3-18-24 Education in the News
     3-15-24 Education in the News
     3-14-24 Education in the News
     3-12-24 Education in the News
     3-11-24 Education in the News
     3-8-24 Education in the News
     3-7-24 Educaiton in the News
     3-6-24 Education in the News
     3-5-24 Education in the News
     3-4-24 Education in the News
     3-1-24 Education in the News
     2-29-24 Educaiton in the News
     2-28-24 Education in the News
     2-27-24 Education in the News
     2-26-24 Education in the News
     2-23-24 Education in the News
     2-22-24 Education in the News
     2-21-24 Education in the News
     2-20-24 Education in the News
     2-19-24 Education in the News
     2-16-24 Education in the News
     2-15-24 Education in the News
     2-14-24 Education in the News
     2-13-24 Education in the News
     2-12-24 Education in the News
     2-9-24 Education in the News
     2-8-24 Education in the News
     2-7-24 Education in the News
     2-6-24 Education in the News
     2-5-24 Education in the news
     2-2-24 Education in the News
     2-1-24 Education in the News
     1-31-24 Education in the News
     1-30-24 Education in the News
     1-29-24 Education in the News
     1-26-24 Education in the News
     1-25-24 Education in the News
     1-24-24 Education in the News
     1-23-24 Education in the News
     1-22-24 Education in the News
     1-19-24 Education in the News
     1-18-24 Education in the News
     1-17-24 Education in the News
     1-16-24 Education in the News
     1-12-24 Education in the News
     1-11-24 Education in the News
     1-10-23 Education in the News
     1-9-24 Education in the News
     1-8-24 Education in the News
     1-5-24 Education in the News
     1-4-24 Education in the News
     1-3-23 Education in the News
     1-2-24 Education in the News
     2023-2024 Announcement Archive
     Older Archives
8-8-14 Education Issues in the News
Star Ledger Opinion - Too many regulations are overloading New Jersey's schools: Opinion By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist

NJ Spotlight - Bacon v. NJ Department of Education Court Case: Could It Be the Next ‘Abbott?’...Long-standing suit brought by 20 rural districts demanding

Star Ledger - N.J. State Board of Education changes much-criticized teacher evaluation formula

Star Ledger Opinion - Too many regulations are overloading New Jersey's schools: Opinion

By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist The Star-Ledger
Follow on Twitter
on August 08, 2014 at 8:00 AM, updated August 08, 2014 at 8:08 AM

 
 
 

By Patrick J. Fletcher
and Daniel Fishbein

It’s an unsettling question, but we’re obliged to ask it. Has the rapidly accelerating pace of public education-related government mandates now become utterly unsustainable?

In just the past few years, New Jersey legislators have chosen to burden local school districts with the umbrella of AchieveNJ, which includes the recent TeachNJ tenure reform act that imposes upon us a new teacher and administrator evaluation system, with student achievement data included as part of the process.

And as if that weren’t enough, there’s also the new computer-based student evaluation system known as PARCC, as well as updated curriculum programs and textbooks related to the implementation of the Common Core Standards.

In addition, teachers and administrators alike are now required to acquire yearly training in areas auxiliary to education, including, but not limited to, child abuse; confidentiality of records; gang awareness; student drug and alcohol abuse; diversity awareness; sexual harassment; workplace and classroom bullying; conflict management; dating violence; and suicide.

For legislative bodies, it makes sense that public schools should periodically shift their curriculums to stay in sync as society evolves. But the risk we face today is that our schools will be overwhelmed by the complexity and cost of education mandates.

No matter how well-intentioned any given mandate may be, the collective difficulty is that they now are too numerous to allow our education system to succeed in what should be its core mission — providing students with solid academic foundations.

This is the case for the following two very specific reasons:

• Almost without exception, education mandates siphon time from administrators, teachers and school counselors. Whether the specific issue is participation in too frequent performance evaluations, conducting excessive research, or completing unnecessary paperwork, the result is that those individuals charged with educating our young people — which includes the simple process of spending time with them — are being thrust in entirely different directions, away from students and into closed offices.

• Many of the broadest, most complicated education mandates are underfunded or, in a surprising number of cases, unfunded. As such, they place a tremendous burden on local school budgets and by extension, taxpayers. And this frequently results in the elimination of excellent education programs excellent educators, all because local financial resources must be redirected to meet these government dictates.

Until about 1900, America’s public schools almost exclusively emphasized reading, writing and arithmetic skills. Then, government mandates began to be imposed — from nutrition in the early 1900s, to business education in the ’40s, to sex-ed in the ’50s, English-as-a-second-language in the ’80s, and bullying prevention today.

It’s also worth noting that our public schools have always thrived on a balanced partnership with students’ homes. But this balance is now being menaced by a focus on producing effective workers at the expense of well-prepared citizens. Instead, our schools should be addressing the needs of our youngest learners, via a joint effort with parents, civic leaders and others — with a goal of developing adults who will be prepared to lead.

So, as our public schools buckle under the weight of successive state and federal mandates, there’s an obvious question we simply cannot ignore: Are New Jersey’s most recent education mandates about the needs of our students ... or about the agendas of adults?

Patrick J. Fletcher is superintendent of the River Dell Regional School District, and Daniel Fishbein is superintendent of Ridgewood Public Schools. Both are members of the Bergen County Association of School Administrators governing board. Keep the conversation going at nj.com/opinion

 

 

NJ Spotlight - Bacon v. NJ Department of Education Court Case: Could It Be the Next ‘Abbott?’

John Mooney | August 7, 2014

Long-standing suit brought by 20 rural districts demanding equitable state funding comes off back burner

 

In the shadows of New Jersey’s landmark Abbott v. Burke school equity case, Bacon v. NJ Department of Education has always seemed like a distant cousin to that epic court ruling.

While the Abbott case, spanning 40 years, went to the core of the state’s financing of schools and ultimately became a national model, the Bacon case was brought more quietly in 1997 by 20 rural districts who contended they were under-served by the state.

Related Links

ELC Letter to Acting Attorney General

Underfunded Rural Districts Seek Redress in the Courts

But the Bacon case has seen its own successes in the courts -- and now it’s back before the state.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a notice with the state last week demanding that the Christie administration comply with previous court decisions in the Bacon case that essentially require the same equitable funding for the mostly southern New Jersey rural districts as the Abbott decisions have afforded the 31 urban districts covered in that ruling.

The letter to acting state Attorney General John Hoffman cites the administration’s failure to comply with the Bacon case’s court decrees from 2008 that require funding match the School Funding Reform Act.

The 2008 rulings also required that the state give the Bacon districts necessary resources to provide preschool programs, another key legacy of Abbott.

The letter to Hoffman also cites state funding cuts in 2011 that all but erased any increased funding received under the previous remedial orders.

The Bacon districts encompass a varied array of communities, many in South Jersey, including Buena Regional, Clayton, Lakewood, Egg Harbor City and Hammonton.

Other important note in the letter: The Education Law Center, the Newark-based advocacy group that led the Abbott litigation, is taking over the Bacon case. The districts’ long-time attorney, Frederick Jacobs, remains an attorney but attaching the ELC’s name brings stature and resources.

The letter to Hoffman was largely aimed at kicking off the legal process in reviving the case. It is unlikely the Christie administration will be boosting funding for any school districts in the near future as it faces its own revenue problems. But it is also not a simple case to defend, as at least some of the Bacon districts have fared well under the state’s fiscal-monitoring system but others have still struggled over the last decade. These include Lakewood, the latest in the state to see a state monitor named to oversee its fiscal affairs.

Acting state Education Commissioner David Hespe yesterday would not comment on the case, other to say the ELC’s inquiry was under review.

“We’re reviewing the letter with the Attorney General, and we will communicate a response to the law center when that review is done,” he said.

Hespe did not put a timeframe on that response. If the state does not formally respond, the next step would be for the plaintiffs to go back to court, where the Bacon complaints have largely fared well, although it has been a lengthy process involving several levels of the judiciary and even the State Board of Education.

In the last judicial action, the state appellate court in 2008 sided with the districts in saying they are entitled to adequate state support, much like the Abbott districts. But a request for emergency relief after the first cuts in 2011 was remanded to a lower court, and has since languished.

The letter to Hoffman said the issue has not gone away.

“In 2014-15, the Bacon districts will again be deprived of the funding increases and the preschool programs required by the SFRA formula,” the letter reads. ”As a result, the constitutional violation found by the state board in 2006 and upheld by the appellate division in 2008 …. have not been remediated to date.”

 

Star Ledger - N.J. State Board of Education changes much-criticized teacher evaluation formula

By Peggy McGlone | The Star-Ledger The Star-Ledger
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on August 06, 2014 at 2:26 PM, updated August 07, 2014 at 7:26 AM

TRENTON — The New Jersey State Board of Education took the first formal step Wednesday to modify the teacher evaluation process to reduce the importance of student test scores for the upcoming school year.

At its monthly meeting in Trenton, board members agreed to regulations that codify the compromise reached between state officials and educators last month to reduce the impact of standardized test scores on teacher effectiveness.

The proposed changes are in response to teachers' outcry that their evaluations will be based on scores of a new and unproven computer-based test that will be given to students this spring. The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers, or PARCC, is the test that will replace the NJASK and HSPA tests.

For teaches of math and language arts, student test scores will account for 10 percent of total evaluations, down from 30 percent this year. Classroom observation will account for 70 percent, and Student Growth Objectives, or SGOs, will account for 20 percent.

The changes came from feedback from the field, Assistant Commissioner Peter Shulman told the board.

“This was the first year, and in general we were very happy with it,” Shulman said.

The board approved “mechanical” changes to state regulations that will allow the changes to proceed, Shulman said.

The new rules, which will go into effect in the coming school year, also change the evaluation formulas for those who teach classes other than math and language arts. Those teachers, who represent 80 percent of educators, will see the weights of their SGOs increase from 15 percent to 20 percent. The rest of the evaluation will be based on classroom observations.

SGOs are created by teachers with support and approval of their supervisors. State officials provided a presentation on SGOs to board members who asked to learn more about the measurement tool.

In addition, the changes include an expedited review process for teachers who felt their SGO score unfairly dropped their evaluation to partially effective or ineffectively, the two lowest evaluation scores. Shulman estimated this number to be “in the low hundreds.”

“We want to give these folks an opportunity for review,” he said. The majority of the reviews will be handled on the district level.

State officials also presented a detailed report on Career and Technical Education, which affects almost 90,000 students in both county vocational-technical schools and in programs in comprehensive high schools across the state.

The board also approved an initial proposal for updating the curriculum for CTE and technology curriculum. Final decisions on those proposals will be made in October.

NJ Spotlight - Changes in Much-Debated Teacher-Evaluation Policy Being Put Into Practice

John Mooney | August 6, 2014

State board to review new regulations implement scaled-back use of student testing results

 

The nitty-gritty of any political decree is in the administrative code that follows it.

Gov. Chris Christie’s move last month to relax some of the strictures of the new teacher-evaluation system is taking some twists as policy is turned into practice.

Related Links

Christie Sticks to Middle of the Road in Arriving at PARC Decision

Proposed Teacher-Evaluation Regulations

Teacher Evaluation Chart

Today, the State Board of Education will review teacher-evaluation regulations that implement Christie’s compromise plan to reduce the use of new online testing next year to measure teacher performance.

Under pressure from advocates and the Democrat-led Legislature, Christie announced he would pull back on the use of student test scores from the new PARCC testing to no more than 10 percent of certain teachers’ evaluations next year and 20 percent the year after.

The new regulations presented today will codify the change through specific procedural steps. The code itself doesn’t set the precise percentage levels, but instead will widen the window for how much the state says that school districts may take into account student performance in teacher ratings.

Currently, the range is 40 to 50 percent, but the proposal will lower that to 30 percent. That will allow the administration, as announced, to reduce the use of student test scores to 10 percent next year and the use of other “student growth objectives” to 20 percent.

In addition, the administration will extend the deadline for the state to set the percentages each year until Aug. 31, eliminating the current April deadline. That will permit the change for next year, as announced.

The code proposal also details a new appeals process for the just-concluded 2013-14 school year. Teachers can appeal if their SGOs placed them in a “partially effective” or “ineffective” category.

Administration officials concede that the SGOs process has seen its bumps in the first year, with many complaints that the objectives are being imposed on teachers and that the process has been less collaborative than envisioned.

“While I think overall, we did quite well, there were some pockets in the state where it was not implemented in the most accurate manner,” said Peter Shulman, the state’s assistant commissioner and chief talent officer.

Shulman is slated to give a presentation to the state board on the SGO process today.

The added wrinkle in the new code is that the Christie administration has thrown in an appeal provision for school administrators, too. They will be allowed to contest their own ratings and the use of similarly determined “administrative goals” in their evaluations.

Under the proposed code, principals and other supervisors who were rated as below satisfactory due to a failure to meet those goals this past year will be able to appeal and contest the findings.

All of these appeals steps will only apply to the 2013-14 school year, and will not extend to future years.

Shulman said yesterday that the changes represent a further fine-tuning of the teacher-evaluation system, which he noted from the start was an evolving process. Another set of less consequential changes in the teacher-effectiveness code is already winding itself through the State Board of Education.

He said the state is also about to embark on a study of two-dozen districts’ implementation of the new system to determine its strengths and weaknesses. The districts have yet to be selected, but he said the report will be a “deeper dive” that looks at both anecdotal and survey feedback as well as data and other empirical evidence.

The first report will be released in the fall, he said, and a second report will be issued next spring once final evaluations are completed.

“Since I’ve got here, I’ve preached the model of continuous improvement,” Shulman said. “We’re continuing to learn, we’re continuing to refine, and we’re continuing to improve.”

Edit heading here ...use submit button in blue toolbar above