Enough is Enough - Really?

We can always make room for more!

I was reading an editorial in the Ledger last week about the blocking of Christopher Cerf’s appointment as New Jersey Commissioner of Education by State Senator Ronald Rice. It cited Rice’s reason for stopping Cerf’s appointment as believing “Cerf is at the center of a conspiracy by hedge fund managers, like David Tepper of Appaloosa Management in Short Hills, to take over public education and turn it to private gain”.

I was certainly glad to see that it is not only I who is suspicious of the “education reform” movement but also someone else like Senator Rice who could act to at least slow its insidious progression.
Then the editorial continues on to demean anyone who could possibly believe Rice’s suppositions to be correct. “No one who is firmly based on the planet Earth believes that nonsense. Tepper is worth about $6 billion and his engagement in education reform is charity work. Does Rice really believe Tepper would need to engage in the mess of Jersey politics to earn a few more bucks?” it says.
Well, I think Rice probably does believe that he would (and so do I) and it is and not necessarily for a “few more bucks”. The current expenditures for education in New Jersey is surely not just a “few bucks”.
If the logic of the editorial suggests that Mr. Tepper is disinterested in making more money just because he now has so much, the question becomes, at what point in his accumulation of wealth did he lose interest in accumulating more? One billion would certainly be enough to satisfy me but evidently not Mr. Tepper because he apparently continued on to amass two billion. Then, I must assume that two billion was insufficient to satisfy his greed (I use this word since our Governor feels it’s OK to use it in reference to teacher’s salaries) since he went on the obtain a third billion and on finally to six billion.
So now I guess the Ledger editor has read the mind of Mr. Tepper and has determined that six billion is the cut off point for his desire to make more money! It must be grand to be able to peer into other people’spsyches and read their thoughts, motivations and desire
                                                                                       as does our editor.

Interestingly enough, a follow up editorial a day or two later seems to emphasize my point. It was about the climate change debate. Here is the excerpt that I found most interesting. “the oil-rich Koch brothers (who have backed climate-denier Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign) donated $200,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 and had given before. Their involvement supports the belief that the Heartland Institute is a shill for oil companies that have a huge profit motive in dirty fossil fuels”.
If memory serves me correctly, the Kochs have even more than six billion in their coffers. Using the logic applied to Tepper’s involvement in NJ “education reform” why would the Ledger ever think that the Kochs would want to make even more money?
All I can figure from this is it must be fuzzy thinking or selective naiveté on the part of the Star-Ledger editor. Or could it be something else? 

Who’sFirst?

Here we go again! Another message from “Students First” and, of course, a “Donate” click box included. Once again I replied asking why my previous inquires about executive compensation at “Students First:” was ignored. Finally realizing that my requests were in vain, I did a little research about the head honcho, Michele Rhee. My findings are contained in an article which I have inserted below the attached flyer. It gives me the suspicion that maybe “Students First” should be renamed “Michele and Executives First”.

PS
My suspicions are not reserved for "Students First". There are now organizations that proclaim to be promoting quality education crawling out of the woodwork. Many are fostered by big money interests and education "experts".
Is altruism the real motivation? Maybe, but I'm not so sure!

******************************************************************************

****************************************************************************** Guess Michelle Rhee’s Severance Pay! (Hint: It’s Not Too Shabby) Posted by Alan Suderman on Oct. 13, 2010 at 6:31 pm Admit it, you're curious about how much Michelle Rhee's severance paycheck will be, aren't you? That's so rude. Fortunately for you, LL is also rude. Here's what her contract (provided by a wonderful tipster) says: You shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and may be removed in accordance with the Act. In the event that your employment is terminated for any reasons other than (i) criminal conduct, (ii) gross dereliction of duty or (iii) gross misconduct, you shall be entitled to a severance payment of up to 12 weeks of your base salary, plus any accrued leave, as well as an additional 12 weeks of administrative leave. Additionally, should you choose to terminate your appointment for good cause, you will receive a payment of up to 12 weeks of your base salary, plus any accrued leave, as well as an additional 12 weeks of administrative leave. LL's no lawyer, but that looks like Rhee can get 24 weeks, also known as six months, of severance pay for leaving "for good cause," whatever that means. (It's hard to imagine Rhee didn't ensure her departure falls under that clause when she discussed it with Almost Mayor Vince Gray and Still Mayor Adrian Fenty.) Her contract, which she signed in 2007, has a base pay of $275,000 plus yearly cost-of-living adjustments. So, for six months' pay, we're talking roughly $140,000 in severance, plus whatever leave she's built up. LL has tried unsuccessfully to reach various city officials who can provide an authoritative amount, but hasn't gotten much of an answer. (Fenty spokeswoman Mafara Hobson says this: "I don't know that she gets a severance.") LL will update as needed.

$100,000 Questions About Tenure

The constant cry from those wishing to eliminate tenure is that the cost of firing a tenured teacher is extreme (the claim is up to $100,000).
Why does it cost so much to remove a poorly performing, tenured teacher?
Because lawyers charge school districts exorbitant fees in order to carry out the process.
Instead of ending tenure for all teachers, the majority of whom are doing well, why not limit the cost of firing the poor ones?
We should look at capping the outrageous legal fees that are paid by school systems each year.
The State is certainly very good at capping all other aspects of school district spending why not cap these?
If this was done, some questions might arise. Would lawyers take tenure cases filed by school districts at reduced fees?
Last year, New Jersey admitted 3037 lawyers to the Bar. Estimated job openings were 844 leaving a surplus of 2193 . The median wage for New Jersey lawyers is $43.84 per hour. *
If the law of supply and demand works as claimed, it should be easy to hire lawyers to pursue these actions.
Another question might then be, would districts be able to obtain the “best” lawyers if legal costs were capped?
Well, if the charges brought against an individual are valid and well documented, I don’t think districts need Johnny Cochran to win the case!
Another cost saving measure might be, having the State hiring a group of salaried lawyers to be leased to school districts at nominal rates. These lawyers could then pursue tenure charge cases instead of having districts spend outlandish sums by hiring independent law firms.
If the real motivation behind ending tenure is only so that “poor” teachers can be fired without huge cost why not investigate these alternatives? (My own opinion, this is not the real motivation for the elimination of tenure.)

PS
Does anyone really think that the Governor (who is a lawyer) and the legislature (which is in majority composed of lawyers) would ever even suggest much entertain these types of actions?
I guess he thinks it's much easier and it's  more fun beating up on teachers! (and it probably is).

PSS
I see today in the Ledger, Tom Moran's column describes NJEA as "a union whose highest goal is to protect bad teachers". I guess he's referring to the union's resistance against eliminating tenure.
I'm not a big fan of NJEA but I certainly don't think that "protecting bad teachers" is their objective at all and I would doubt that "Tommy Boy" really believes that either!
And about Vince Giordano's salary, "it is a little over $300K! Yes, that's way too high for a union guy". Again, I'm not a fan of Giordano but who is Moran to decide that his salary is "way too high for a union guy"? The NJEA members should make that decision not Tom Moran.
I guess being involved with a union in any way, shape or form  means you deserve only poor salaries and poor benefits. The only people who deserve good salaries and benefits are in the "private sector"!
(By the way Tom, working for  NJEA is a private sector job!)

* http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/

Cooked Up Schemes and Catchy Titles

 I got to thinking about all the educational schemes that are constantly cooked up in Trenton, Washington and throughout the U.S. What really impresses me is not the results they yield but the grandiose sounding names that are dreamt up for these fruitless projects. The ability to continuously conjure up such pretentious titles (and of course, the catchy sounding acronyms) is astonishing especially in light of their constant failure to help improve the education of our children.
The Renaissance Act
The Urban Hope Act
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
The Race to the Top
The Quality Education Act (QEA)
Thorough and Efficient (T&E)
High School Proficiency (HSPT)
(HSPT9)
(HSTP11)
Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA)
Quality Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC) Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act (CEIFA)
The School Funding Reform Act
The New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK)
NJ ASK 3
NJ ASK4.
NJ ASK 3-8
Minimum Basic Skills testing program (MBS)
Early Warning Test (EWT)
Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA)
Elementary School Proficiency Assessment (ESPA)
Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS)
Professional Improvement Plan (PIP)
None of these programs and tests occurred before the 1970s. Up to that time, education was left in the hands of local school boards and teachers.
The system must have worked quite well since during the that prior time a record number of people were graduated from high school and college, America remained and improved its position as a world economic power, we sent men to the moon, we instituted civil rights for all and we backed down the Soviet Union.
Not bad for a country with an inferior educational system that was seen to require all the remedies which have been proposed and imposed during the past forty years!
I can only think of a few reasons as to why such a plethora of dictates are constantly issued from the DOEs.
(1) it is an attempt to justify the positions of public officials and the executives in the DOE (public education has to be saved and they are the ones who will do it)
(2) the state no longer trusts local school boards and teachers to provide the best possible education for their children (even though they did so for decades prior)
(3) the state feels that local school boards and teachers are incapable of providing sound education (even though they did so for decades prior)
(4) teacher's salaries have become too high and we need justification to lower them
(5) politicians will be able to better promote the privatization of public schools thereby allowing select individuals and corporations to reap the rewards
(6) maybe they really do think that education can be improved by the myriad of programs and proposals. I would like to think that this is their motive so that I might view them as being misguided rather than sinister - but I’m not so sure this is the case?
What do you think?

PS
I have contacted the NJDOE and asked who constructs and publishes the aforementioned tests (and is well paid with taxpayer money I am sure). Of course, once again, no one was there to answer my questions. “They will call back” was the reply from the secretary.
I left my number and email address.
So far, I have received the same reply as that from “Students First” – NONE!

Tenure - Going, Going, Gone!

       I read another editorial in the Ledger today about a new great savior of the Newark Public School system, Cami Anderson. “Cami Anderson sees her job as helping all kids in Newark to learn, charter schools are not a threat, they are a help” she is quoted.
My question is “help” to do what?
Maybe “help” to gain ground in the efforts to privatize the New Jersey Public School System?
Additionally, the editorial goes on to tell how she has placed a hundred staffers in an “excess labor pool” because of their poor performance and how she can’t fire them due to tenure laws.
When I read this several questions arose.
I know that it is not good to have poorly performing anybody in any job but should tenure for the vast majority be eliminated for the sins of a tiny minority?
I looked up the statistics pertaining to the Newark School System. It employs 108,591 full time teachers. One hundred therefore represents 0.092%.
Another question is, did these poorly performing people receive unsatisfactory evaluations in the past from the well performing administrators who supervised them? If not, then maybe the administrators who are said to be performing well really weren’t performing that well after all.
Were any increments withheld in these prior years? Tenure charges are not required to allow increment withholding and costs the district almost nothing except possibly the costs to respond to a grievance filing by the teacher.
I also decided to look at the biography of Ms. Anderson. I found that she has excellent credentials however when I noticed her actual teaching experience, it was very disappointing. It appears that she has taught a mere two years (1993 – 1995) in California. It seems to me that this is another case of those who really haven’t done the job are assigned to tell others how to do it! I guess it plays right into the Christie proposal of allowing those with no teaching experience but having “managerial experience” (maybe even managing a Wendy’s) to be appointed as superintendents.*
As I was searching the Internet for information pertaining to this article, I happened to notice some other interesting facts relating to tenure and its elimination.
Tenure was originally established to prevent the kind of thing that will surely occur if it is eliminated and public schools are privatized.
“Tenure emerged in response to the spoils system in public schooling, under which teachers were hired (and fired) as a consequence of the political process rather than their competence or fit. Advocates intended it to be part of teachers’ total compensation, helping to attract and retain teachers by making up for relatively low starting salaries and back-loaded pension benefits through long-term job stability.”
I also discovered other interesting statements and facts. The well publicized documentary (or should I call psuedo documentary after reading the facts) called “Waiting For Superman”, made numerous erroneous statements about teaching and tenure that those who seek to eliminate tenure constantly cling to.
Here are some, " ...in Illinois, 1 in 57 doctors loses his or her medical license, and 1 in 97 attorneys loses his or her law license, but only 1 teacher in 2500 has ever lost his or her credentials."
“In reality, only 121 doctors lost their licenses in Illinois in 2009, out of 43,670 physicians, rather than 1 in 57, as the movie claims. That means an average of 0.3% of doctors per year lost their licenses; or 3 out 1,000 per year. And according to data reported by the American Bar Association, 26 lawyers in Illinois were disbarred in 2009, out of a total of 58,457 - in some cases, by mutual consent. The total number of lawyers disbarred in the entire country, either involuntarily or by mutual consent, is 800 per year out of 1,180,386; which is about .07%”**
To summarize, it appears that many who desire to place our educational system and its teachers in the hands of corporations and profitable companies are playing hard ball. They will go to any means necessary to disparage teachers and the teaching profession. Meanwhile teachers and teacher's unions chose to play Whiffle Ball!


* We do however unfortunately, have kind of a precedent for this. The previous NJ Commissioners of Education was a lawyer and I don’t believe had any public school teaching experience.

** Feedblitz.com

PS

With regard to Christie's latest tyrant about NJEA, here are some of my thoughts.
So eliminating tenure, starving the pension plan, eliminating benefits, firing well paid teachers so as to hire cheaper replacements and connected people, bashing teachers and privatizing schools so as to enrich corporations who will run the schools will cure the ills of "failing schools"?
Who the hell is he kidding. What a bunch of arrogant, ignorant  BS.
Is NJEA the best? Absolutely not! Why?
They don't have the courage to demand respect and call for a state wide strike! Instead they hide in their Trenton offices, put out sappy ads and engage in name calling. Name calling will never suffice for meaningful action.
As my mother used to say " If you're willing to take a lot of crap just wait, there's more coming."

Back to the Future

Back in the “old days” of teaching, the 1960s and 1970s, teachers and the teaching profession fought long and hard to gain bargaining rights and respect. Prior to that time, salary negotiations, employee grievances and teacher rights were unheard of issues.
Only by “stand up” tactics was the tide changed. Teacher strikes and the threat of strikes pervaded the state. Teachers stood tall and demanded respect and fair compensation and benefits. Some people went to jail rather than continue to work as second class citizens without benefits, equitable grievance procedures and a solid (but not extravagant) pension system.
Today, all that was fought for and attained in those bygone years is being lost with little or no outcry from those effected. I see no massive response from teachers and teacher's organizations, only the whimpers and whines that occasionally appear on the newspaper's Letters to the Editor page. Is the timid reaction a tacit approval of “education reform” measures taken by the state or is it just pervasive apathy?
They say that it is impossible to relive the past but without a loud, forceful rebuttal teachers and the teaching profession will soon do so.
I am sure that some might say, “they only raised health care contributions a few percent, it's not so bad, we can afford it”.
I am sure that some might say, “they raised the retirement age but I'm far from that and I'll worry about it then, not now”.
I am sure that some might say, “they increased the denominator for pensions but again, I'm far from that and I'll worry about it then, not now”.
I am sure that some might say, “they eliminated the C.O.L.A. from the pension, but I'm far from that and I'll worry about it then, not now”.
I am sure that some might say, “they under-funded the pension and are still not contributing, but I'm far from that and I'll worry about it then, not now”.
They severely capped school spending and the chances of maintaining a decent wage are slim but “I'll let the negotiators worry about that – it's their job!”.
They are creating more and more “private public schools” “but that's only in the urban areas and it won't effect me”.
They want to institute “merit pay” but “that won't effect me (unless a connected person wants your job or you are at the top of the salary scale or you're on the administration's shit list) because I'm a good teacher and I would never get poor evaluations”.
They want to eliminate tenure but “I wouldn't be let go, I've been here for years with a good record” (see the previous sentence).
They want to end seniority (LIFO) but “I wouldn't be replaced by a younger, lower paid teacher. I'm a good teacher and they know it!” (again, see the previous sentences).
Now, you might ask “why do you care? You've been retired for years and most of these factors don't effect you at all!”
Well, here's why. I was seriously involved in improving the plight of the teaching profession for many years and I find it difficult to see all the hard work done by myself and many others go “down the drain”. Additionally, when people ask me about my career I want to be able to proudly proclaim that I was a public school teacher without fearing that I would be viewed as having been one of a group which demands little respect and is willing to continually suffer degradation and humiliation without protest.

Distortion or Incompetency? You Decide

I was sent this article by a of TDS viewer. It was originally posted at:

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2012/01/once-again-tom-moran-doesnt-do-his-job.html? spref=tw

It is definitely worth reading. I’m not sure if it suggests that the media or at least some in the media purposefully choose to help bolster the Governor’s education “reform” plan by distorting the facts or if it merely reflects editorial in competency. I’ll leave it to you to decide.

Below the article I have listed a link to a video that I am sure you will find enlightening. It clearly demonstrates the lengths to which those advocating education “reform” will go to achieve their goals (It’s also got some humor in it). Take a look! “
*******************************************************
"I will protect your pensions. Nothing about your pension is going to change when I am governor.” - Chris Christie, “An Open Letter to the Teachers of NJ” October, 2009 Sunday, January 29, 2012  

  Once Again, Tom Moran Doesn’t Do His Job I have tried - no, really, I have - to back off of Tom Moran and the editorial pages of the Star-Ledger. But I just can’t let this one pass: In a typically insouciant editorial about the problems with one of Chris Christie’s “reform” schemes, the S-L writes: But it’s not just school buildings that are needed. The instructional programs in the Camden schools are disastrous failures, too. At Camden Street Elementary, just 10 percent of third-graders read at grade level. At Camden High School, fewer than 17 percent of juniors are proficient in math. [emphasis mine]

  Here’s the problem: Camden Street Elementary is not in Camden. As the Camden City Public Schools website shows, there isn’t a school even remotely named Camden Street Elementary. (It took me all of 30 seconds to find this through Google, Tom). I happen to know that Camden Street Elementary is in Newark. Why? Because I wrote about how the school that was bad-mouthed by a child advocate group and the superintendent of Newark’s schools, Cami Anderson. And then Bruce Baker shared some further graphs about Camden Street Elementary, which really got me angry about how the staff was being treated publicly. 

  You see, Tom, Camden Street Elementary is a school whose specific mission is to serve children who have autism, cognitive disabilities, and behavioral disabilities: Branch Brook Elementary is the highest-performing elementary school in Newark; is it any wonder why Camden Street’s wonderful and deserving children don’t do as well as Branch Brook’s in standardized tests?
From the school’s website: Camden [Street Elementary]’s special needs program houses approximately two hundred students. These students live throughout the City of Newark, and are transported to Camden by bus. Opportunities for integrating classified students into a least restrictive environment are accomplished through inclusion and mainstreaming. Our goal is to meet the various needs of all. To accomplish this task, we provide students with whole group and individual learning experiences. Academic success is the mission of Camden Street Elementary School’s staff. The strategy used to achieve this goal is through high expectations and realistic goals. High expectations are communicated to the students by the teachers letting them know specifically what they are expected to learn, and that they can learn. [emphasis mine]
  So let’s review:
  Tom Moran wrote that Camden Street Elementary was in Camden; it is in Newark. Tom Moran bemoaned the poor showing of Camden Street’s third graders on standardized tests. Tom Moran showed no sign of knowing that Camden Street serves special needs students. This is lazy, indifferent, who-gives-a-s*** journalism that demeans the difficult work that both the educators in the City of Camden and the educators at Camden Street Elementary in Newark do every day .Moran owes them all an immediate correction

******************************************************************************

Video worth watching -

“Paid to protest?” video

http://www.wgntv.com/videogallery/67610540/News/paid-to-protest 

Starved to Death – It’s Just a Matter of Time

Each year for the past twenty years the New Jersey Pension Plan has been unfunded or under funded. This was done under both  Democratic and Republican administrations (it started with Whitman).

“For more than a decade, the state legislatures and governors of both parties have overridden a law requiring full payments.” -  NJ.Com. 
I think violated or disobeyed better describes what has happened than   “overridden”.

Now with the arrival of Christie the contributions to the plan are again inadequate (despite promises and laws requiring full funding). The article below shows the current condition as still severely under funded and anticipating much less than full future payments.

What does this all add up to for current workers and future retirees?

 I sincerely believe the next move will be an effort to destroy TPAF and PERS. Serious attempts will be made, (I think successful attempts)  in the not too distant future, to replace both with defined contribution plans. (401K plans with limited matching  by the State – probably very limited). This has become a common practice in the private sector and it will soon come to the public sector. The cry will again be “if it’s good for the private sector then it must also be good for the public sector as well”.  (The private sector with its highly paid executives and continual outsourcing are the epitome of  American archetype!).

The current condition of  the New Jersey Pension System is cheered  by those who seek its destruction. They will readily justify its demise by pointing to the current shortfall and continued under funding which they have created  and continue to create.

I think it’s just a matter of time, a short time!

************

Attachment: Ranking of Pension Funds by State

News 12 Website Article

New Jersey (STONJ1)’s pension fund has only two-thirds of the assets needed to pay future benefits, and the gap widened even as Governor Chris Christie boosted employee contributions and froze raises, according to state data.

The seven retirement funds covering government workers and teachers had a funded ratio of 67.5 percent as of June 30, down from 70.5 percent a year earlier, according to data released yesterday by the Division of Pensions and Benefits. The deficit swelled by $5.5 billion during the 12 months to $41.8 billion.

To address chronic shortfalls, Christie in June signed bills that raised pension and health-care expenses for public workers, increased the minimum retirement age for new employees to 65 from 62 and froze cost-of-living increases.

Without Christie’s changes, the deficit would have been $61.8 billion, Andrew Pratt, a spokesman for Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff, said in an interview. “We always planned for that,” he said. “This is no surprise.”

The so-called unfunded liability stood at $53.9 billion before passage of Christie’s plan. After approval, the gap was lowered to $36.3 billion based on revised 30-year projections, Pratt said.

A 2010 law required the state to begin phasing in the full payments over seven years after a decade of lapsed funding. Christie this year has budgeted $484 million for a pension payment, according to the Treasury Department. Actuaries had recommended the state put in $3 billion. Pratt said 20 years of underfunding “magnified” the problem.

Moody’s Investors Service said a day after the pension law was signed that it wouldn’t help New Jersey until 2017 and that the health of the funds would “continue to deteriorate” as the state skipped payments. A 2010 law required the state to begin phasing in the full payments over seven years.

New Jersey’s pensions in 2010 had 66 percent of what was needed to pay promised benefits, down from 71.7 percent in the preceding year, according to an annual study by Bloomberg Rankings. The median for all states was 74.6 percent.

Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?

Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer? by wsautter

Walt's Intro to Adding Audio Comments to TDS

Walts Intro to Voice Commenting on TDS by wsautter

Profitable Non-Profits (For Some!)

Well the day has come (and by the way, with the blessing of NJEA)

Copyright © 2010-2011, njSPOTLIGHT. All rights reserved.
Fast-Tracked and Rewritten Bill Could Put Some Public Schools Under Private Management
By John Mooney, January 4, 2012 in Education
First proposed by Gov. Chris Christie and since taken up by South Jersey Democrats, a plan that would open up select public schools to nonprofit or even some limited for-profit management appears poised for passage in the final days of the legislature's lame duck session.
And in the Star Ledger last week:


Now I got to thinking about the “non-profit” and “limited for-profit” qualifiers in the articles. I took the time to investigate the operation of one of the largest “non-profit”, educational entities in the country. Here’s what I discovered:
********
Corporate Culture and Big Pay Come to Nonprofit Testing Service
By TAMAR LEWIN
Published: November 23, 2002

Buoyed by growing revenue, the Educational Testing Service, the not-for-profit group that produces the SAT, the Advanced Placement exams and the Graduate Record Exams, last year gave one-time bonuses of as much as $366,000 to 15 of its officers.
E.T.S., the world's largest testing organization, has traditionally paid salaries comparable to those at colleges, universities, and groups like the College Board, which administers the tests that the service devises for it.
But under the leadership of Kurt Landgraf, a former chief operating officer of the DuPont Company who became president of E.T.S. two years ago, compensation has soared.
Mr. Landgraf himself received nearly $800,000 for his first 10 months on the job -- about twice as much as Gaston Caperton, who heads the College Board -- and more than all but two college presidents in the nation. One new vice president earned $25,700 for her first five weeks on the job and received a one-time payment of $212,306.
E.T.S. was founded in 1947 as a tax-exempt organization to meet the growing demand for admissions tests for colleges and graduate schools. In large part, the pay changes reflect the service's conversion from an entity staffed mostly by academics to one that is run by executives recruited from the corporate world and that had revenue of more than $700 million in the last fiscal year.
********
Sounds pretty profitable for the guys at the top, however for the average employee:
********
Average Educational Testing Service Salaries from http://www.simplyhired.com
“The average salary for educational testing service jobs is $53,000. Average educational testing service salaries can vary greatly due to company, location, industry, experience and benefits.”
********
It will be interesting to see if the same compensation pattern plays out at the newly created “non-profit” and “limited for profit” schools that are being created by the New Jersey Legislature and Governor.
I think you probably know my guess! What’s yours?

The King’s New Clothes

I read in the paper today an article about a recent “driving and texting” law. It immediately brought to mind a whole variety of thoughts.
The first reminded me of the “cell phone and driving” which has been in effect for some time now. As I drive around the state, I see person after person driving while holding a cell phone to his ear. I rarely see or hear of anyone being ticketed in spite of the enacted law.
Now, Trenton has decided to enact a “driving and texting” law. I wonder if it will be enforced in the same fashion as is the “driving while cell phoning ” law?
Enacting a law without enforcement is a waste of time and effort! It is akin to writing on the blackboard in a classroom full of students, “There will be no gum chewing in this class” and then allowing everyone to chew away without penalty! The teacher just wasted a piece of chalk!
The reasoning behind the enactment of the rarely enforced “driving and texting” and the “driving while cell phoning” is that they will help to prevent accidents, and that they will (if enforced). While all this legislation is being created in name of accident reduction, a major cause of highway accidents and death is ignored.
The continual promotion and sale of vehicles with four hundred horsepower engines, zero to sixty in five seconds capability and top speeds of one hundred and seventy miles per hour is never even mentioned as a primary cause highway mayhem. Why?
It is the “King’s New Clothes” mentality. Legislators certainly don’t want to offend citizens who eagerly buy these vehicles or the car companies who produce them. Surely requiring vehicles to be equipped with governors (speed controlling devices) would create an unprecedented uproar so instead they chose to ignore the situation and pass unforced “driving and texting” and “driving while cell phoning” laws. Both laws give the illusion of doing something about the accident problem without having to address the overriding unpopular issue of preventing the sales of cars without speed limiting devices.
Another “King’s New Clothes” issue can be found in Washington. Proposals to cut spending are constantly bandied about to the exclusion of cuts in military spending , the largest expenditure in the Federal Budget. Again our law makers ignore the obvious fact that cutting military spending will significantly help to balance the budget.
Now what has all this to do with education?
Well, the same “King’s New Clothes” mentality exists in the “educational reform” measures that are enacted in Trenton!
Legislators and the administration refuse to accept the fact that only a dramatic change in public attitude will provide a substantial cure for the problems plaguing education in New Jersey and America. Until the public becomes convinced that education and those who provide it are to be revered and aided in their efforts, educational success will continue to be illusive. Until parents strongly engage in the educational process with their children, little improvement can be expected.
Dare a politician suggest that a significant step to better education lies in the hands of the public? I think not! It might be considered offensive and is better left unsaid!
“Aren’t we paying taxes to have our children educated? Why should we have to participate? It’s the teacher’s job!” will be the outcry.
As a result, lawmakers ignore the fact that educating a child is not like buying a new suit. To have a good result everyone must be involved and not just show up to pay the bill.
So why then again, are none of these statements being voiced in Trenton? Again, it’s the “King’s New Clothes” mentality.
Instead, a constant flow of edicts spew from Trenton, course standards, testing requirements, hackneyed educational jargon and teacher bashing all designed to supposedly cure our educational ills. Meanwhile the major cure is ignored!
I suppose the next question is “Can education really be elevated to a revered status and if so how?” Certainly the array of laws and proposal flowing from Trenton haven’t done much in this effort.
However, if Lady Gaga, the NFL, MLB, Professional Wrestling, etc. have been able to propel themselves to the heights of public admiration and respect it shouldn’t be impossible for education to improve its public image. Like the aforementioned it can be accomplished with proper promotion and fortitude. The public view of education could be greatly enhanced and thereby the levels of achievement greatly improved if only a campaign to “sell” education was instituted instead of the constant tinkering and debasement which is now occurring.

Peering Into The Future For NJ Retirees

Unshared “Shared Sacrifice”?

In the budget message of March 2010 Governor Christie called for “shared sacrifice”. Pension “reform” was part of the “shared sacrifice” by teachers and public workers. The “reform” measures eliminated the COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) for currently retired workers and scuttled many of the provisions of the existing system. In instituting the COLA elimination, the State of New Jersey unilaterally reneged on the contract agreement between retirees and the State which was put in place on the day the retiree began collecting pension payments. It appears that contract law applies to everyone in New Jersey except the State!

The cry from the Governor was the State doesn’t have the money (of course they don’t, since much of it was stolen by the State) and that retirees are obliged to participate in “shared sacrifice”.

Well, let’s look at another group who has entered into contracts with the State and not been required to participate in the Governor’s “shared sacrifice” program. Those are the New Jersey State bondholders.

Here’s what I mean.

Listed below are several of the outstanding NJ bonds, their maturity dates and coupon rates (interest rates).

NEW JERSEY ECONOMIC DEV AUTH ECONOMIC DEV REV ELITE PHARMACEUTICALS PJ-SER A

64577HPQ8            6.500 % 09/01/2030

TOBACCO SETTLEMENT FING CORP N J RFDG-SR-SER 1A ASSET-BACKED BONDS

888808DF6 5.000 %  06/01/2041

NEW JERSEY ECONOMIC DEV AUTH REV -SR MTG-ARBOR-A

645916D20 6.000%  05/15/2028

NEW JERSEY HEALTH CARE FACS FING AUTH REV SOMERSET MED CTR

64579E8G4 5.500% 07/01/2033

NEW JERSEY HEALTH CARE FACS FING AUTH REV SOMERSET MED CTR

64579E8G4 5.500%  07/01/2033

These are just five randomly selected issues all paying  5% or better (in a rate environment that pays less than 1% on saving accounts) and all carry maturity dates twenty and thirty years into the future.

As for the total State debt, I quote from the  Star Ledger – August 20, 2008

“The additional borrowing pushes the state's debt load to $32.9 billion. Including $3.6 billion in bonds being repaid with payments from a national settlement against cigarette manufacturers -- which the state Treasury does not count in its debt calculations -- the state's total debt load is $36.5 billion, nearly triple the level of a decade ago.”

Each purchase of a NJ muni bond represents a contract with the State (there are literally millions) and to date none have been violated (defaulted) as has been the pension contract.
If it is okay to unilaterally violate a contract agreement with pension retirees in the name of “shared sacrifice” then why has no sacrifice by the holders of NJ tax free bonds (many of whom are wealthy people) been proposed?

Why haven’t these bondholders been required to accept lower interest returns in the future in the name of “shared sacrifice” as have been public employees and retirees?

How about this:             36.5 X .05 = 1.825B bond interest payments at a  5% average rate

36.5 x  .02 = .73 B    bond interest payments at a  2% average rate

          1.095 B   net savings if bondholders were to “share the sacrifice”

At a reduced 2% rate (still twice that of a saving account) rather than an average rate of 5%, NJ could save over a billion dollars a year!

What do you think  the chances are of this happening or even being suggested ?

I say chances are slim and none.

Why hasn’t this been even mentioned? Well, from a practical standpoint, the ability of  NJ to borrow future funds would instantly disappear if it was even hinted at.

However, from a moral standpoint it still should be made clear by the Governor that public employees and retirees really represent the total share (100%) of the “shared sacrifice” of which he speaks so glowingly!

Free Market Education Aint Workin’ That Good!

The privatization of education will result in better education and reduction in costs. Competition always produces a better product more cheaply. The free enterprise system works the best in all areas of endeavor (Except, of course, when public workers negotiate for better salaries and working conditions). 

These are the claims by the proponents of privatizing public education. The “voucher system” and charter schools (both of which, are mechanisms to pry open the door for privatization) will end the cycle of “failing” inner city schools and raise  educational levels to new heights of grandeur. All this will occur with massive reductions in costs to the taxpayer.

Really?

Let’s look at a prime example of privatized education that has been ongoing for decades, namely the American college and university system. Admittedly, all colleges are not considered to be  private but even those deemed “public colleges” are not free and not truly public institutions as are the K-12 schools. They all for the most part, require tuition contributions by the attendees and are not therefore “free public education” institutions (there may be some truly free public colleges but I can’t think of any). Colleges, both “public” and private vie with each other for students and their tuition money in the free market arena. Admissions people from all these institutions comb the land for prospective students year after year. They attend “College Fairs” and offer “instant admissions” at high schools throughout the country. They all engage in the free market system to obtain “customers” to fill the seats in their classrooms.

However, in spite of the claims of those professing the privatization mantra, the cost of a college education has risen dramatically (maybe outrageously is a better word) and the quality has diminished over the years. One might say that increased costs are simply the result of inflation that has affected all areas of the economy. Well, that is true but not nearly to the same extent as in college and university education.

My children graduated from Rutgers University in the late 1990s. I remember the tuition cost then and it wasn’t cheap. I have recently read the current tuition rate as now being twice that of what I paid but a mere twelve years ago. By my calculation, that comes out to be an average yearly increase of six percent. I wouldn’t call that cost reduction or even cost containment!

I graduated from a New Jersey state college in the mid 1960s. I still remember the tuition, believe it or not, it was seventy-five dollars a semester! That’s one hundred and fifty dollars a year. Again, one might say ‘Sure, but that was forty-five years ago (gulp) and everything was cheap’.

 Well, at that time a typical wage was about fifty to sixty dollars a week meaning that a year’s tuition was three week’s salary. Today, with a tuition of ten thousand dollars (if you can get one so cheaply and I doubt it) and an average salary of a thousand dollars a week, that makes yearly tuition ten week’s salary! And what about private college tuition and its cost? At thirty to forty weeks’ salary, t hat is really out of this world! According to the proponents of privatization, competition and the free market should have resulted in lower cost and greater efficiency! I don’t think so!

How about the quality of a college education? The free market should have improved its worth for sure. It’s much better now, right?

Well maybe, but I’m not so sure!

In the sixties, the college year started in early September and ran until mid January with a week off for Christmas. After a one week mid January break between semesters classes started again and ran until mid June.

The college schedule as it exists today starts in late August or early September and ends in early December with two interim breaks along the way. The second semester resumes in late January and ends in early May.

My calculations reveal that students today receive one full year less schooling at a much, much greater cost.

If competition really improves the educational system shouldn’t it have yielded more education for less money rather than less schooling at a greater cost?

Based on the aforementioned, privatization, competition and the free market result in exactly the opposite of that which proponents claim.

What it will accomplish (and they don’t want to mention) is:

(1)   lower salaries for teachers and staff

(2)   reduced benefits for teachers and staff

(3)   reduced quality of teachers and staff

(4)   huge executive salaries for those running the private educational corporations

(5)   fees for any and all extras (including extra pencils and crayons)

(6)   poorer math and science programs in particular (areas where teachers are hard to find right now)

(7)   an educational system that will put profits over products (the products being America’s children)

PS

Have a nice holiday!

PSS

If you have thoughts on education and education related matters please send them to me (even if they don’t agree with my ideas)  and I will post them with or without your name as you request.

Still Waiting

I wrote on this blog site on December 15th in my “Show Me the Money” piece as follows:


"My note sent to Student’s First –


Sent to Students First on 12-15-11


Before I donate I would like some information about how my money will be used.
Please forward to me information regarding the compensation packages for the
executives of the organization.
Thank you"


I received this response yesterday form "Michele Rhee". Here it is.

Needless to say, I called the number indicated at the bottom of the email and was connected with "$NJKids.org" another "education reform" (eliminating tenure) operation in Edison, NJ . I repeated my request for information pertaining to executive compensation. I got no verbal information but instead was told that Kaitlyn (the woman who answered the phone) would "try" to obtain an answer for me and that it would be emailed to me.
I get the feeling that this inquiry will go unanswered like the previous one. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think so. I'll let you know!

Show Me the Money (or at Least Where it Going)!

Here is an email that I received last week from “Student First” and Michele Rhee (the latest educational expert celeb following in the footsteps of William Benett, Lemar Alexander, etc. all of whom did little to improve education but certainly did engage in self aggrandizement ). I have outlined in red and unlined some of the phrases which bother me and placed my remarks after each of those statements in blue type.

A Slow, Painful Path to the Death of American Science Ed

Currently, enrollment in science majors in America is dwindling. According to recent reports we can look forward to fewer and fewer scientists, engineers and especially science teachers being created in the upcoming years. How did this happen? Why has science and science education lost its glitter?
Well for one, why would any student elect to spend countless hours in a chemistry lab while his peers are playing cards in the student lounge knowing his reward upon graduation pales compared to that of the business and law graduates? When I think about it, it is kind of amazing that anyone is willing to study science in the first place!
Secondly, with respect to those preparing to become science teachers the motivation is even more perplexing. These people, generally, are far from stupid. Why would anyone elect to put in all that time and effort and then enter teaching, a field receiving little respect, constant bashing and continual debasement? My guess is, that it is only those who are sincerely dedicated to the science education of future generations. They are the only science people who enter the profession today.
I don’t think that we can continue to count on an endless supply of people such as these to fill the future need for qualified science instructors in our public schools. (By the way, math and language people are also in short supply and getting shorter).
I am one of a huge group of retired chem and physics teacher who was inspired in the age of Sputnik and moon landings and I don't see too many qualified people coming to replace us. The situation bodes poorly for our country’s future. Science education and education in general needs a “shot in the arm” if it is to propel America technologically forward.
I have read recently that funds are being diverted from Liberal Arts to the Sciences in many colleges, hoping to encourage students to enter biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Trust me, it will take more than that to shift students into becoming science majors. It will take a whole change in attitude.
A “shot in the arm” to my way of thinking requires the following:
(1) a cessation of teacher bashing
(2) an end to political tinkering (meddling) with education (the real purpose of which I will discuss in a future post),
(3) a reinstitution of NSF science teaching programs as existed in the sixties
(4) a strong PR campaign to extol the virtues of study and hard work (hard work by the student – learning is not necessarily improved by the teacher doing more, the student must likewise do more – learning requires audience participation)
(5) an end to the claims of private education being vastly superior to public education (because in many cases, based on my experience, it certainly is not!)
(6) a concerted PR effort to encourage parents to augment the teacher’s efforts at home (we must make it a badge of honor to have helped a child with his schoolwork something to brag about!)
Maybe you have some more constructive ideas which would help to forestall the looming demise of science in our country.

An Educational Rosetta Stone

“Teachers are overpaid” - translation - “They make more than I do (or I think they do)”

“Teaching is a cushy job” - translation - “I think it’s easier than my job (I sat in school for twelve years and teaching didn’t look that hard to me!”

“We need tenure reform” - translation - “We would like to fire teachers whenever they don’t conform to our every demand or when they are too vocal or if a connected person needs a job or if we want to save money with lower paid teachers or if we don’t like their politics”

“My child has a poor teacher” - translation - “My child gets poor grades – It can’t be because I constantly allow him to play video games and hang on Facebook instead of doing his school work”

“I’m sure the teacher did what my child said. He would never lie to me” - translation - “Not unless he really wanted something or thought I might find out that he was lying.”

“The teacher picks on my kid” - translation - “I can’t do anything with him at home. Why can’t the teacher handle him in school?”

“The teacher doesn’t stimulate learning in my child” - translation - “The teacher should be able to entertain my child while she teaches him. How can a teacher with a piece of chalk not be able to entertain and stimulate my kid as well as do video games, TV and the internet?”.

“Why can’t the schools resolve social problems? We certainly pay enough taxes!” - translation - “Why can’t the schools solve the drug problem, teen sex, bullying, child obesity, teen suicide, date rape and relationship abuse (and also check for vision problems, hearing problems, scoliosis, etc.) .
We’ve given them these assignments (along with teaching the children) and they don’t seem to be curing the problems? They must be poor teachers!
We’re paying them enough, why should parents have to help? It’s the teacher’s job!”

“You need to be connected to get a teaching job” - translation - “Teaching jobs are readily available in chemistry, physics, math and languages but I’m not good at those subjects - translation - It requires too much work to get a teaching certificate in these areas. It’s much easier to just bash teachers and the school system”.

It Takes One to Know One!

As I told you recently, I sent an OPRA request to NJDOE for Bio information pertaining to the executive staff at NJDOE .

I wrote in my request:
“I AM REALLY INTERESTED IN THE LENGTH AND LOCATIONS OF THE TEACHING CAREERS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED”

What I received is contained below together with my comments after each bio.

What concerns me is what I have said before –

As Ross Perot once put it, when he was at Ford, and I paraphrase - "if managers are to do a good job they must once in a while go down to the factory floor and put a wheel on a car".

I find it difficult to understand how anyone without reasonable classroom experience in a public school setting can supervise and profess to tell others how teach. What do you think?




STAFF BIOS
Christopher Cerf – Acting Commissioner
Chris Cerf was sworn in as New Jersey’s Acting Commissioner of Education on January 18, 2011 following his nomination by Governor Christie. As Acting Commissioner, he oversees 2,500 public schools, 1.4 m Commissioner Cerf is committed to closing New Jersey’s academic achievement gap while substantially raising the achievement level of all New Jersey students. He is working to make New Jersey’s education system, already one of the best-performing systems
Prior to his appointment, Commissioner Cerf was the CEO of Sangari Global Education, which offers innovative education programming to more than 500,000 students worldwide. Between 2004 and 2009, he was Deputy Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education where he oversaw organizational strategy, innovation, labor relations and all matters pertaining to recruiting, supporting, developing and evaluating the nearly 80,000 teachers and 1,450 principals who serve the nation’s largest school district. He earlier served as Associate Counsel to President Clinton and as a partner in two Washington, D.C.,

(No teaching experience indicated)

Andy Smarick -- Deputy Commissioner
Previously Andy served as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education and as an education aide at the White House. Prior positions also include: Chief Operating Officer for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, legislative assistant to a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and aide to members of the Maryland state legislature. Andy helped launch a college-preparatory charter school for underserved boys and girls in Annapolis, and he was a member of Maryland Governor’s Commission on Quality Education. His areas of research include school turnarounds, teacher quality, charter schools, performance pay, district reform, Catholic schools, and more. His articles have appeared in the Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, Education Next, National Affairs, and other outlets. He is a former White House Fellow and member of the 2010-11 class of Aspen Institute-New Schools Fellows. He earned a bachelor’s degree, summa cum laude and with honors, and a master’s degree in public management from the University of Maryland

(No K thru 12 teaching experience indicated)




David Hespe – Chief of Staff In addition to serving as Chief of Staff for the NJDOE, David serves on the Governor’s Education Transformation Task Force, which was formed to review all statutes and regulations that affect public education, and recommend a new accountability system that grants more autonomy to schools while maintaining strict accountability for student achievement, safety, and fiscal responsibility. He also serves on the College and Career Readiness Task Force, comprised of K-12 and higher education practitioners and business community representatives.
Hespe is formerly the Co-Executive Director/Vice President for STEM Education at Liberty Science Center. Prior to that position he was the Interim Superintendent for the Willingboro School District having previously served as Assistant Superintendent. He was a faculty member in the Educational Leadership Department of Rowan University and served five years as department chair prior to becoming a school administrator. Hespe also served as Commissioner of Education for the State of New Jersey from 1999 through 2001. Prior to that position, he was the First Assistant Attorney General for the State of New Jersey. He also served as Assistant Commissioner of Education. Hespe began his service in the Executive Branch of State Government as Assistant Counsel for Education and Higher Education to Governor Whitman. Hespe also served in the Legislative Branch as Associate Counsel in the Education Section of the Office of Legislative Services where he was the Committee Aid to the Assembly Education and Higher Education Committee. Prior to that position, he was in the private practice of law. Hespe received both a Juris Doctor and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Rutgers University.

(No K thru 12 teaching experience indicated)



Penny MacCormack -- Chief Academic Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Standards, Assessment, and Curriculum
Penny MacCormack began her career in education as a teacher of high school science courses that included AP chemistry. A former teacher of the year, her career path has taken her through positions as dean, principal, and assistant superintendent in two urban districts – New Haven and Hartford, CT. Her latest assignment was as the Chief Academic Officer in Hartford, which is an urban district with 22,000 students and 2,100 certified staff in 50 schools. Penny is a recent graduate of the Broad Superintendents Academy and is now a Broad Fellow. She is also working on an Ed.D. in Educational Leadership from the University of Hartford.

(Length of teaching experience and teaching locations – public vs private – not indicated)



Peter Shulman -- Chief Talent Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Teacher and Leader Effectiveness
Peter Shulman joined the New Jersey Department of Education as the Chief Talent Officer on November 7, 2011. Peter has experience both at large urban school districts and a state education department. His work will center on helping to strengthen policy and practice around the recruitment, evaluation, development and retention of effective teachers and school leaders. Most recently, Peter led the Teacher Leader Effectiveness Unit at the Delaware Department of Education, where he oversaw the teacher and leader effectiveness initiatives that are part of Delaware's successful bid for a Race to the Top award. Peter also served in the School District of Philadelphia and the Miami-Dade County Public Schools in Florida, where he served as Administrative Director in Human Resources. He holds a bachelor degree in economics from the University of Michigan and an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Peter will have a range of responsibility that includes overseeing our educator effectiveness work and rollout of the new teacher evaluation system. Peter will also spearhead work with graduate schools of education to ensure that their graduates are effectively prepared to achieve the mission of preparing all students in New Jersey to graduate from high school ready for college and career.

(No K thru 12 teaching experience indicated)




Bari Anhalt Erlichson -- Chief Performance Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Data, Research, Evaluation and Reporting
In the role of Chief Performance Officer,Bari oversees school and district performance and accountability, the development of the state’s student-level, longitudinal data system, and research and evaluation efforts. A former professor at Rutgers University, Dr. Erlichson has conducted research in many topic areas, including school reform, education policy implementation, school funding, and governance. She is a co-author of the book, Multiethnic Moments: the Politics of Urban Education Reform (Temple University Press, 2006) as well as a contributor to several edited volumes and journals. Prior to joining the NJDOE, she taught fifth grade in Plainfield, New Jersey after having been a student teacher in the Newark Public Schools. Dr. Erlichson holds a Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University, an M.A. in education administration and policy from the Stanford School of Education, and a B.A. from Dartmouth College.

(Length of K thru 12 teaching experience not indicated)




David Corso – Assistant Commissioner of Administration and Finance
Dave has been an employee of the Department of Education since 1992 and has served in several positions in the department. Dave was the Director of Administration and Human Resources from July 2002 until his appointment to Assistant Commissioner in July 2011. He was also the Director of Human Resources for 4 years and the Manager of the Bureau of Management Services for 7 years. In addition, he serves as the Department’s Ethics Liaison Officer, the Employee Relations Coordinator and the Emergency Management Coordinator. Dave began his state service in 1986 as a Budget and Program Analyst with the Department of Treasury, Office of Management and Budget. He then became Chief Fiscal and Administrative Officer at the Department of Insurance in 1990. He has over 25 years of public sector experience. Dave holds a B.S. in Business Management from St. Francis University in Loretto, PA and a Master of Public Administration (MPA) from Rutgers University. He has the following certificates: Certificate of Eligibility - School Business Administrator, Certified Public Manager, and Supervisory Management.

(No K thru 12 teaching experience indicated)



Barbara Gantwerk – Assistant Commissioner of Programs and Operations
Barbara Gantwerk began her work as a speech pathologist in Tel Aviv Israel where she worked at a treatment center for children with disabilities and established the first citywide screening program for speech and language disorders and taught at the University of Tel Aviv. Upon returning to the United States, she worked as a speech pathologist with children with disabilities. She began her career with the New Jersey State Department of Education in 1979 as the state consultant for speech and language services, and in 1994 she was appointed state director of the Office of Special Education, a position she held for 11 years. In 2006, Ms. Gantwerk was appointed to the position of Assistant Commissioner of the Division of Student Services. She is responsible for state and federal programs serving the needs of the student populations most at risk for educational problems. This includes: students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, homeless, migrant and Limited English Proficient students. Additionally, sh
e is responsible for student health services, school climate issues such as harassment intimidation and bullying and oversees the Katzenbach State School for the Deaf.

(No K thru 12 teaching experience indicated)