Learnin' Stuff Ain't Cheap!

It appears that in order to obtain a college education a student or his parents must become indentured servants of banks and/or the government!

BTY - Many of those indebted leave college without a degree! And if you've noticed the advertising by "for profit" schools is constant on both radio and TV (DeVry, Berkeley, Star, Phoenix, etc.). There must be a ton of money in the "education business".

Defining "Charter"

I looked up the definition of "charter" and found many. Definition number seven at "World English Dictionary" I think was most befitting for describing Charter Schools -
7. a law, policy, or decision containing a loophole which allows a specified group to engage more easily in an activity considered undesirable
Read below and you will understand why this definition is most apt!

Charter schools in Camden aren't just draining students - they're draining money, close to $66 million worth in 2013-14, compared with just just $52 million the year before. Next year, Camden has budgeted $72 million to transfer to charters. There's your $75 million shortfall. - See more at: http://thecontributor.com/how-charter-schools-are-strip-mining-one-nj-school-district#sthash.ltC8aekW.dpuf

• While Gov. Chris Christie rails about the pay of public school superintendents, top employees at these schools live in another world, spared from his rancor. Nineteen directors were paid the maximum allowed salary — $225,734 — to oversee schools with anywhere from 30 to 327 students a day. And 52 people at these schools took home more than $175,000, the most superintendents are allowed to earn in public schools with up to 10,000 students.

• About a third of the schools did business with companies owned or controlled by the same people who run the schools, or their relatives or associates, oftentimes at a higher cost than other schools pay. The deals ran the gamut from real estate to bus rentals to food.

• Nearly one-fifth of schools had instances of nepotism. One school had four related directors, three of whom earned the maximum $225,734. Another employed a part-time classroom aide related to the director who earned $94,000 in 2013, three times other aides’ salaries.

• Three dozen schools offered generous pension plans paid for by the public but requiring no contributions by employees, in stark contrast to public school teachers and administrators’ plans. At one school, a former official collected retiree health benefits after she served time for ripping off taxpayers.

• Twenty-two cars — including two BMWs, a Land Rover, three Lexus and two Mercedes — were charged in part to taxpayers despite being used for personal transportation by officials. School disclosure reports show many cars were kept at officials’ homes.

There's Gold in Them There Schools - And Wall Street Comin' to Stake Its Claim !

If you think all the "education reform" stuff in really about improving education, think again !
"Education Reform" is just a back door approach to privatization. The claims of inferior teachers and failing schools are used as wedges to crack the door open wide enough for Wall Street carpetbaggers and cronies of connected politicians to sneak in and grab the billions of education dollars just waiting to be scooped up. 
Tenure "reform" (elimination) is a prelude to the takeover by private interests. Teachers who have worked for years to arrive at decent pay levels will be easy to fire and replaced with low cost people thus insuring even greater profits when corporations finally gain full control of the system. 
The elimination of seniority under the guise of keeping "the best" teachers when layoffs occur really means keeping "the lowest paid" teachers, again to increase corporate profits once schools are privatized. (And it isn't that far off!)
How about bargaining rights? 
Kiss them goodbye!
After years of fighting to establish a fair and equitable system for determining teacher rights and compensation future "negotiations" will be "hat in hand". 
The only rights that will remain for teachers will be the right to be continually bullied, defamed and blamed ! 

I

He Is Kidding - Isn't He ?

Maybe they could go to Newark Academy  instead ! $33,300

Or maybe Pingry !     $34,714

Or Delbarton $30,200

Or Kushner Academy  $22,295

Texas Testing Could Be Toast

Looks like those Texans are turning out to be a lot smarter than the Big City Folk here in Jersey !

Click Here for a better view of the article.

Testing Gone Wild !

I have added numerous captions to the above video.

 

And the point of all this testing and expense?

To help justify eliminating tenure thereby enabling the firing of the higher paid teachers.
To help set the stage for low employee pay when schools are finally privatized.
To justify the privatization of public education.
To justify the state takeover of urban schools.
To allow shoveling money to test creators and publishers.
To help in the attempts to eliminate collective bargaining for public employees.
To destroy what little power the teacher's unions did possess.
Just my humble opinion!

The Brain Drain and The Wallet Drain

I recently had the poor judgment to log in to the local message board on the Internet. In so doing, I read a post by a town resident regarding the high school.

After reading it, I continued to exercise poor judgment by responding.

I guess I just lack self control! Maybe that's why I continue to write this blog.

Below is the initial statement to which I replied. It is followed by the remainder of the conversation.

I have blocked out all the names of the institutions mentioned because I don't want be accused of spreading disparaging comments about any school system.

 ****************   

Poster:

Unfortunately, the problem of the brain drain at the high school level in NHS is not unique in Bloomfield and Montclair as well. The movement of students to private high schools in this part of Essex County seems to be common.

[/quote]

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

W:

I have worked with many students who attend  private schools and also many who attend the public schools in this area. I hesitate to name the private schools but I will give abbreviations of the  names - Del, New, Kus, SPP, Sol, SHP, SJM. MKA  and you can guess which they are.

I can only speak for the chem and physics programs (and the teaching there of)  at these schools. They are generally inferior to, or at best equal to that of most of the public schools in the area.

Additionally, the school calendar for these private schools is abbreviated. The winter vacations at some is two weeks long, the spring break is two weeks long and the school year ends in early June. The entire year adds up to far less than 180 days (maybe in the 150 range),

You really don't get too much class time for the $15K to $25K tuition.

I would think long and hard before sending my child to a private school.

If you want to send your child to a private school for prestige or to keep him/her away from the "Riffraff" then it's probably a good idea but if you expect a superior education, I'm not so sure it's going to happen there!

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

Poster:

With all due respect what are you basing your information on. Have you taught at these schools or sent a child to one of these schools?

I respectfully disagree with your "evaluation" that claims the named schools are inferior. Take a look at the AP exams* from Nutley HS as presented at the BOE meeting in February 2012, they are less than impressive. The SAT Critical Reading Mean and Writing Mean scores in Nutley have been below 500 for the past five years. The Mathematics Mean score in Nutley has not topped 516 in the last five years. This is based on a perfect score of 800. Again less than impressive. So clearly the "extra" days in the class room (based on your numbers) have not helped the students achieve great heights. I will take 150 quality days of quality instruction time to your 180 days of mediocrity any day of the week.

I have two children. Child #1 attended NHS, child #2 did not. Child #2 wrote more essays and papers in a single marking period than child #1 wrote in four years at NHS. Child #1 was completely unprepared for the amount of written work required at the college level.

Now let's talk about the intangibles, things like character, respect and accountability**. I speak from experience, again having one child at NHS and one child in private school, there is no comparison. Nutley talks about character development and talks about accountability but the follow through is weak at best. Private schools not only have a student handbook, they hold their students to the rules in the handbook

Now let me shatter the small-minded thoughts that parents pay to send their child to private school for athletic advantage. The fact is people send their children to private school for the purpose of a better education. It was not in our family plan to spend money on high school education, but after living through four years at NHS, we deemed it a necessary expense. Our experience at the elementary and middle schools was exactly what we had anticipated, but there was a big drop-off at the high school level.

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

W:

I can only tell about my experiences having helped many private school students in the area and only about the chem and physics programs.

Admittedly, this is all anecdotal but it is my experience over the past twenty years or so.

As far as character, respect and accountability, again I can only speak from my experience.

I never relied on the school to teach these things to my own children (BTW they both went to NHS and were well prepared - my daughter graduated from engineering school and my son earned an MBA).

Character, respect and accountability were taught at home and I wrote the "handbook" for them myself and adhered to it.

There are handbooks issued in public schools citing rules and regulations pertaining to many of the qualities of which you speak but often the school is unable to enforce them. To remove a child from a public school, even the most disrespectful and troublesome, is next to impossible.

In a private school, expelling a student is simple and therefore private schools can enforce the handbook rules and regulations with ease

.

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

More Comments:

* I taught AP physics at the secondary level. The class was often filled with unqualified students who were there strictly for extra GPA points.

During my time teaching the course I asked myself several questions which still beset me.

Firstly, I was teaching a full load of classes and at the same time expected to provide a college level program at the high school for the AP class.

Now, during this time I was also teaching chemistry at an area college. At the college, the situation was different by light years.

 I was provided with a full time lab assistant who set up and supplied each and every lab session.

The full time staff at the college were assign teaching assistants (TAs) to help students out of class time.

Instructors also had offices hours provided to help students.

The weekly teaching load of the full time instructors was but 15 class hours.

Faced with the conditions at the high school as compared to those at the college, was it fair that I  was expected to duplicate the same instruction level and student  help in AP classes, as that provided by college instructors with all the advantages they held?

I did my best to provide a rigorous course but I was always perplexed the this inequity.

Secondly, the AP exam was always given in mid May with almost a month and a half of school left. Therefore, I not only had the disadvantages aforementioned, but also a serious loss of instruction time. In other words, I was expected to prepare students for a difficult exam in a difficult subject in a very compressed time frame. These circumstances exist for all AP teachers throughout the state.

When I called the College Board (the AP people) and asked why the test couldn't be given at the end of the school year, I was told it was because schools in many other states was ended earlier than in New Jersey. I guess that was a correct answer but not one that helped my student nor me!

The answer should have been "we will prepare another test for students who end school in June and administer it at a later date". 

Could it be that they don't want to spend the extra time, effort and money?

** It appears that the public schools are now expected not only to educate the children, give dental checkups, fight obesity, give scoliosis examinations, prevent teenage pregnancy, prevent STDs, do drug testing, prevent bullying, end discrimination, (and I'm sure there's more) but also be the sole instiller of character, respect and accountability.

Cerf Says "Notion of School Privatization is Ridiculous" - Really??

A comment from a viewer: "I do not know if he actually can tell the difference between a lie and a truth. Remember, it was at this meeting that he said that it is a lie that he wants to privatize public education, and called the notion ridiculous - while just months before approving a K12Inc managed school?!"
******
Cerf's statement about no interest in school privatization brought to mind an article that I read a month ago. I have added it below. This article certainly contradicts his assertion. What do you think?? 
 ******

Op-Ed: A Call for Fairness in School Options

All our children deserve quality schools, and quality education within them

 print | email | share

By Junius Williams, Esq., August 1, 2012 in Opinion |4 Comments

In law school, we were taught to evaluate contracts, including leases, looking at the interests created and protected within the four corners of the document. Using this approach we can see which party has the most power by determining the dominant interests, despite public proclamations to the contrary. Through this lens and looking at a recently state superintendent approved long-term lease with an option to buy public school property granted to a charter school in Newark, we see the inequity of bargaining position that has been visited upon the taxpayers, parents and students in Newark. If one examines the interests advanced in this document, we see evidence of the belief held by many people in Newark that we have a two-tiered education system in Newark, one for charter schools and their private partners, and one for the general population of students.

So let us examine the lease with option to buy 18th Ave. School, between Newark Public Schools (NPS) and TEAM Academy. This lease-purchase arrangement was recently the subject of a Newark Advisory Board veto, but was overridden by District Superintendent Cami Anderson. The tenant is a nonprofit corporation, but not TEAM. Under the lease, the tenant has the option to assign (or transfer) its interest to any entity with which it is “affiliated.” This assignment is not subject to NPS or even state approval.

 Also, the tenant or its “assignee” has an option to purchase the building which can be exercised on or before July 1,2013 at a “market price” which will reflect the value of a beat-up, old building, built in the 19th century. A cheap sales price is therefore guaranteed.

But then the document makes reference to use by the tenant or it assignee of a federal program called the Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZAB) to renovate the building after the option has been turned into a contract of sale on July 1, 2013. Upon a call to The National Education Foundation, I learned that New Jersey has been allocated $32 million under this program. But the state, which runs the Newark District, has processed $14 million for renovation for charter school use, but none for public school use. The $17 million remains uncommitted, but the Newark District under state supervision has not stepped forward, although eligible. The governor has frozen state bonds available for school construction. Why can’t the DOE ask the Economic Development Administration to sell and guarantee these interest-free bonds under this program for NPS to improve its general population schools, requesting the use of the Face Book money as the 10% match? This would enable the District to modernize 18th Avenue, issue short-term leases to TEAM or any other charter school with a right to reclaim possession upon sufficient notice. The city is growing and the taxpayers would then preserve a valuable asset for future use.

Under the lease, a private entity will enjoy the benefits of the appreciation in the value of 18th Avenue School, using the taxpayers’ money to fix it up, after it has been sold at a rock bottom price. The new private owner of the school can lease it back to NPS or even TEAM at top dollar, and depreciate and get other tax advantages if it is for-profit entity.

The injustice of this policy is also seen in rental revenue in four short-term leases, also approved by the state through Superintendent Anderson at the same time as the 18th Avenue lease-purchase agreement. NPS administrators revel in the projection of $500,000-$600,000 in rent from all five leases. Between the commencement of the lease and the date of sale, 18th Avenue School will be leased for $1.50 per square foot. The best-projected rental price for another school is $5.25 per square foot. However, business property in Newark is going for about $14 to $17 per square foot. The QZAB bonds have been available to the state for years. If Newark buildings were renovated and upgraded using the QZAB and/or state Abbott bond money, the district would be in a better bargaining position to rent unused schools at a higher price, and thus earn two or three times more rent. The sum of $500,000-600,000 is not very much money when the district has a shortfall of $36 million, caused in part by increased reliance upon charter schools.

Instead of a policy to empty the buildings of neighborhood schools, and enter into a lease-sale scheme that will turn public real estate over to private interests at bargain prices, the state should use all available funding, including QZAB, and Abbott construction bond proceeds to renovate and construct new schools for the general population, providing them with improvements such as science labs and electrical upgrades for high-speed internet, or complete rehabilitation in the case of schools like 18th Avenue. The state should use its resources equitably, rather than provide good deals only for charter schools and their partners. All our children deserve quality schools, and quality education within them.

More in Opinion »

Junius Williams, Esq. is the Director of the Abbott Leadership Institute.

Why Not Whys Instead of Hows?

All the recent clamor about student loan rates got me to thinking about my own college days.

I graduated from a rural, north western, New Jersey high school in 1960.

My family lived on the edge. My father was in his seventies and disabled. We lived solely on his monthly Social Security check (I know – “socialism, entitlements, feeding at the public trough, etc.”) but without it we wouldn’t have survived.

Upon graduation I sought a college with the lowest possible tuition. The one I found was East Carolina College in Greenville, North Carolina however even that was more than I could afford when I considered the costs of transportation.

As a result, I joined the work force delivering coal for the local lumberyard.

After a year of hard labor I accumulated two years of tuition money and was admitted to Montclair State College.

Enough about me.

What does this have to do will the current banter regarding student loan rates?

Well, I clearly recall the tuition rate that I paid in 1961was -  are you ready?

      One hundred and fifty dollars per year!

If it weren’t for that minimal tuition rate, I and many like me, could have never moved from the poverty class to the middle class. I’d still be shoveling coal for a living!

As you can see below, the rate for the same college today is approaching ten thousand dollars per year!

Now I know what many of  you will say.

“Yes, but everything was cheaper then and a dollar was worth much more than today.”

All this is true but let’s use some simple arithmetic to give these numbers current day prospective so they can be fully appreciated.

First, consider that tuition rates have increased 6400% over the past forty-five years ($150 to $9674).

My first teaching job in 1965 paid a starting salary of $5200. Today a starting salary hovers around $50,000 a less than 690% increase.

In 1966 I bought my first new car, a fully loaded Pontiac Lemans (one of the most popular and stylish cars of the day). The cost - $2750!

A similar car today (a Honda Accord) goes for approximately $23,000, an 840% increase.

Gasoline prices (another topic of popular controversy) were at $.33 per gallon. Today - $4.00 per gallon – a 1200% increase.

Even housing has risen at a significantly lesser rate than college tuition. In 1965 a new single family, split level sold for about $25,000. Today that same house bears a price tag of about $450,000 – an increase of  a mere 1800%.

The education “reform” movement in New Jersey and elsewhere throughout the nation proclaims that vouchers and privatization will lower costs.

All colleges, both public and private participate in the “free market” in that they are obliged to compete for students (customers).

Based on the aforementioned  statistics it certainly appears that the “free market” when applied to education does not reduce costs. When compared to the price rises of other “commodities” it may be actually increasing costs to the consumer?

It appears that college tuition rates have “gone wild”.

How does this relate to public education?

Here’s how!

Why have no questions been asked as  to why college costs have skyrocketed  beyond all other costs? Only questions about interest rates on the loans that are required in order to pay them have been raised!

The same vein of discussion occurs pertaining to health care costs. Again, little asked as to why costs are so high but instead how and who is going to pay them!

The whys of  the costs of both of these vital services are never called into question?

Interestingly enough however, when it comes to costs of public education and public services which have risen not near so dramatically, the conversation immediately changes from “How do we pay for it?” to “Let’s limit costs by reducing salaries and benefits and putting caps on budgets”.

Why is this approach to solving cost problems applied only to public services and public servants and never to purveyors the services that engage in the most egregious price rises of all?