They just don't get it
A direct quote from today's article by Brian Aberback in the Bergen Record:
School board President Judith McKay said school budget problems are a funding rather than spending issue.
"If the state had given us the aid they should be giving us, we would not be in this situation," she said.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 12:26 PM
17 Comments:
The following is my interpretation of Ms. McKay's remarks:
If the state gave us any funding that comprised a meaningful percentage of the school budget, our property taxes would not be as high.
Let's face it - it's every district's dream to be well funded so that they could offer state-of-the-art educational services.
And it's every parent's dream to send their child to a state-of-the-art school.
Cutting spending goes against the dreams and wishes of every parent and teacher out there.
It's very difficult to reconcile our hopes and dreams against the harsh reality of rising costs and rising taxes.
It would take a truly gifted and creative BOE to accomplish everything we would like to accomplish and yet cut spending.
Well put. There is no doubt that Dr. McKay and the other members of the BoE have their hearts in the right place. I know that they are trying to do what is best for the student body and what is best for all of Teaneck.
However, Dr. McKay's comment betrays an outlook so out of touch with reality that it causes me to lose hope. To say that it is not our high level of spending that is the problem but rather the fact that this spending is not offset by subsidies from the State of New Jersey is absurd. The BoE has no control over state aid; it never has, and never will. It is extraordinarily irresponsible to spend extravagantly and then make the excuse that if we had more money it wouldn't really be an issue. Does anyone handle their own personal finances this way? If they do, they do not stay out of bankruptcy for long.
It is scary that our leadership thinks this way.
Its time that Dr. McKay leave office. What seats are up for eleciton next April?
Can I play poker with you guys? I'd love to go "all in" and then welsh on my bets. (P.S. I'm part Welsh.)
to conflicted parent
If you have any questions about what Ms. McKay meant by this statement or have other questions, the easiest approach is to contact her or any board member. While their views vary, I believe they all welcome inquiries and will do their best to provide both their views and factual information.
An interesting question you might ask is why the pre-cut school tax rate was going up 4.9% while the budget increase was closer to 3%.
Tom Abbott- Are you suggesting that I revoke the doctorate I mistakenly awarded her?
Good catch.
An interesting question you might ask is why the pre-cut school tax rate was going up 4.9% while the budget increase was closer to 3%.
Good question, Tom. This may be a little like comparing apples to oranges, but in terms of advancing discussion, I'd say your question was much better than your "catch."
An interesting question you might ask is why the pre-cut school tax rate was going up 4.9% while the budget increase was closer to 3%.
Are you suggesting that there is anything other than arithmetic at work here? Obviously, in the absence of budget cuts, if the contribution from other sources (e.g. state grants/subsidies) declines, the local taxpayer is forced to make up the shortfall.
As Dr. McKay's detailed understanding of the budget and the Teaneck school system, has put her "so out of touch with reality" that in sympathy I've restore the honorific, it's fortunate to know Dr. Teaneck Blog has a firm foothold on reality and can analyze these matters in depth for us. Perhaps you can help with a few more questions.
Are the "grants/subsidies" you refer to funds NJ law requires the state to provide to local school systems? What part of the school budget is for programs mandated by state law? and how much of this required funding does the state actually provide?
Dr. McKay, beware, finally we'll get some reality based answers!
Are you suggesting that there is anything other than arithmetic at work here?
Pehaps I shouldn't answer, because it wasn't my question. But it strikes me that the good faith and credit of the State of New Jersey, or lack thereof, may be a work here.
Hold on, Dr. Tom Abbott, I need to consult with every other school board in the area. They all seem to know how to keep the costs lower while subject to the same state mandates.
Consult the other school boards in real life rather than fantasy and you'll find they agree with Ms. McKay.
Consult the other school boards in real life rather than fantasy and you'll find they agree with Ms. McKay.
I don't doubt that officials from neighboring school boards would also complain that unfunded mandates from state and federal government are raising costs and shifting the burden onto local property tax payers and making their job harder.
But the fact remains that the Teaneck property tax payers are getting hit harder than others. We deserve an explanation for why that is. So far I have not heard one, neither from you nor from the BoE.
So instead of sarcastic retorts and innuendos suggesting that you really understand the complex issues involved while others do not, why don't you compose an actual response to the questions posed on this blog? I will post it, with full credit to you, on the main page. Here are a few points you may want to cover:
-why Teaneck's per pupil costs are out of line with local and state averages
-why Teaneck teachers are paid far more than their peers even at comparable levels of tenure and experience
-why Teaneck's maintenance costs per pupil dwarf maintenance costs elsewhere and what has been done up to now to bring these costs back into line
You can e-mail your piece to teaneckblog@yahoo.com
Anonymous said...
Its time that Dr. McKay leave office. What seats are up for eleciton next April?
3:55 PM
Mr. Ostroth and Mr. Abbott spent a lot of time tossing barbs about Judy McKay's comments on the budget, but never answered this question. It's their wives, Janet Abbott and Barbara Ostroth, who are up for re-election. Given the town's mood about the BoE and the SCI report, they may face some serious competition this time around, vs other years when voter apathy made re-election a no-brainer for the incumbents. Sometimes it's good to be able to run on your record; sometimes it's not.
to "Anonymous at 6:06 PM"
Though no one has suggested otherwise, I would like to make it clear that I speak for myself and not for my wife.
As for not answering "Anonymous at 3:55PM"'s question, I do not assume that questions addressed to the blog are addressed to me. However, just for completeness Dr. Henry Pruitt's term will also expire next year.
But now let us return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, "when voter apathy made re-election a no-brainer for the incumbents". (I hope Teaneck Blog forgives the sarcasm, I just can't help myself.)
2006 (not quite a yesteryear) - two incumbants ran and both won re-election. However the newcomer Gervonn Romney Rice's 2094 votes led the field by over 300 votes. This suggests that if the third incumbant had run, that he or the third place finisher may not have won re-election.
2005 Ardie Walser's 2096 votes gave him a 600 vote lead over the second place incumbant and defeatiing one of the three incumbants by more than 900 votes.
2004 Henry Pruitt's one first time election with 2629 votes. 600 votes ahead of second place and close to 1000 votes ahead of my favorite board members third place finish. The remaining incumbant lost by more than 1400 votes.
2003 was a good year for incumbants but not a good year for apathy. Three candidates ran on what was perceived as a platform of lowering taxes at the expense of education. Turnout was hugh ... for a board election. Newcomer David Diuguid was elected with 3505 votes with the two running incumbants getting 3550 and 3358 votes. I believe each received more votes than the number who voted in 2006.
2002 Three incumbants ran unopposed and won handily. That may count as voter apathy.
2001 Janet Abbott came in second but only two incumbants ran. The third place incumbant beat the fourth place challenger by only 38 votes. One of the hardest elections, in my view, with 4 out of 6 candidates well qualified for the board.
2000 William Carlos led the field ahead of two incumbants but with a relatively small margin.
(Please note that some of the numbers may be off by a bit as my totals were usually obtained before the final certified totals were published.)
Beyond that memory (and the compulsive need to retain election results) fails me though I can remember other incumbant school board members defeated and even lashing out at their opponents. Teaneck politics is always fun!
But memory doesn't fail me entirely so for those who were not already bored to tears, I will briefly mention the first one I paid attention to. In the early 90's a slate of three candidates ran on a platform of defeating the school board budget. Their leader campaigned agressively against the budget. While the school budget that year was defeated, the Teaneck voters did not elect those candidates, but instead overwhelmingly elected the candidates who campaigned on an education platform and supported the budget.
and to TB's statement, "So instead of sarcastic retorts and innuendos suggesting that you really understand the complex issues involved while others do not ..."
While it may appear as you suggest, I do not mean to imply that I understand these complex issues. You may note that I have repeatedly suggested consulting those who have a far better understanding. Those who have chosen to devote hugh parts of their lives to these matters and who feel an obligation to answer questions from the citizens of Teaneck. However, if you have gotten the impression that I don't think you have shown an understanding of these issues you are correct.
As for deserving an explanation as to why taxes are high, I certainly don't owe you or any tax payer any explanation. Except for voting yes on the budget, I am not responsible.
Everything you've written about the school board appears to be colored by your view that taxes should be lowered. You are willing to condemn the school board for not adhering to a joint session protocol that does not exist. It's a minor point which I believe you refused to concede because at face value it looks bad for the school board.
I cannot provide easy answers for your other questions. I can't even provide complex ones. While I do not dispuite the premise of the questions. I believe you cited references in your earlier postings, but I haven't taken the time to verify them. I do have some opinions as to causes but as I have little in the way of factual data to back them up, I am reluctant to express them and discover how foolish they are in so public a forum. You even anonymously are much braver (or perhaps more foolish) than I. While my questions appear easier, I can't answer them with any accuracy either. If I did I wouldn't have phrased them as questions.
To date, I have seen you say nothing positive about the school system or any board member. Though possibly the only one you've mentioned by name is the school board president. I believe your comments about the council have not been positive either. Unless of course, calling them ultra liberal was meant as a compliment. (Sarcasm again. Sorry. I'm not witty. It's the best I can do.)
You've made your position very clear - at least in my view. So let me clarify my view a bit. My view happens to match my mothers who at some point when I was nine years old (give or take 5 years) was talking about a school bond or budget vote. She said something to the effect of, "You should always vote for school budgets. No matter how fraught with problems, errors, or even corruption, the ultimate losers when the budget is defeated are always the kids. If there are problems defeat the politicians who run the schools not the budget." Not an exact quote but you get the gist.
Well, there goes one of my money saving suggestions for the schools. I was going to nominate you to serve as a volunteer debating coach at THS, but with this performance I'm afraid our team would get trounced.
You beg off from my invitation to set the record straight, pleading ignorance of the issues. Yet at the same time, you are certain that I do not know what I'm talking about. Well, you have already disqualified yourself as a judge of that.
You also demonstrate that you are not a very careful reader- this entire discussion is not about why taxes are high, but rather why the Teaneck's educational costs are out of line with those of other area districts. The taxpayers of Teaneck are indeed owed an explanation of why they are being forced to pay more than others, maybe not from you since you don't know much about it, but from those who do. Your suggestion that we raise these issues with the school board members is a good one. I hope like minded citizens will be encouraged to do just that by the conversation we are having here.
As for some of your other gems-
To date, I have seen you say nothing positive about the school system or any board member. Though possibly the only one you've mentioned by name is the school board president. I believe your comments about the council have not been positive either.
This is neither here nor there. This discussion is not personal; it is about issues, policy, and approach to government. The only reason Judith McKay's name came up is because I was responding to a direct quote from her in the Bergen Record.
As I wrote above, "There is no doubt that Dr. McKay and the other members of the BoE have their hearts in the right place. I know that they are trying to do what is best for the student body and what is best for all of Teaneck."
My view happens to match my mothers who at some point when I was nine years old (give or take 5 years) was talking about a school bond or budget vote. She said something to the effect of, "You should always vote for school budgets. No matter how fraught with problems, errors, or even corruption, the ultimate losers when the budget is defeated are always the kids. If there are problems defeat the politicians who run the schools not the budget."
I support your right to cast your vote based on a bit of sentimental folk wisdom but I urge other Teaneck residents to continue to think critically about issues and demand real accountability from our public officials, whether they are in favor of higher spending or opposed to it. Democracy does not function well when citizens take the defeatist attitude that those who are in positions of power necessarily know better than they do. Does anybody refrain from commenting on the Bush Administration's foreign policy because he/she is not privy to all the same national defense information that the President is?
If you blindly vote for the budget no matter what it contains, are you really doing the best for the children of Teaneck? Is throwing more money at the school system better than constantly reevaluating existing programs and looking for better and more efficient ways to implement them? Is it worth it to empty the children of Teaneck's college funds or keep them from attending summer camp in order to avoid cutting support staff or administrators? If you vote 'yes' no matter what, you are evading your responsibility to weigh these questions carefully.
Post a Comment
<< Home