The incredibly shrinking district
According to state's Department of Education, from 1998 to 2006, total enrollment in New Jersey's public schools grew from 1,264,260 to 1,394,778, a gain of more than 10%. Over the same period, Bergen County added over 17,000 pupils, a rise of 14.6%. Teaneck, however, managed to buck the trend, as local public schools actually lost students even as the overall population of the town was rising. In fact, since peaking during the 2001-02 school year at 4,679 students, total enrollment has tumbled nearly 4% (using combined figures for both the Teaneck public school district and the Teaneck charter school). Other than Bogota's small school district, no other neighboring district has experienced anything like this (Bergenfield enrollment +13.3% since '98-'99, Englewood +6.0%, New Milford +8.5%, Leonia +4.9%, Hackensack +12.2%). These figures are even more remarkable when one considers that data from the 2000 census show that Teaneck had a significantly larger percentage of residents under the age of 18 than neighboring towns whose public school enrollments have grown.There is a plausible, though not proven, explanation for this startling trend. The anomaly of Teaneck's diminishing enrollments may be explained by noting that a significant and growing proportion of the young families in Teaneck do not make use of the public schools. While a source of consternation for some who fear that support for the public schools is in danger of evaporating, the less emotional among us might simply view this demographic reality as a fact of life in a free society. Rather than lamenting the loss of what once was, we ought to consider how the new situation the Teaneck school district finds itself in ought to be handled. If recent trends are to persist for the foreseeable future, what steps should we be taking now to adjust to the fact that Teaneck schools are destined to be more sparsely populated down the road?
The future?The realization that enrollments are on the wane may be hard to take for those who are watching their fiefdoms contract, but ultimately, those who care for the future of the district must take these types of actions now. If per pupil spending remains seriously elevated while fewer and fewer residents have a direct stake in the system, support for public education in Teaneck surely will take a hit. If, on the other hand, officials are able to demonstrate that they are running a lean and efficient operation that is producing good educational and good fiscal outcomes for the residents of Teaneck, it is a safe bet that Teaneck's tradition of generous support for public education will continue for a long time to come.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:12 PM
23 Comments:
Do you think the increase in the orthodox population in Teaneck might have something to do with it?
enough with the orthodox blame game? does anyone realize there are other minorities in town, as well as other private schools (muslim, catholic) that may have also grown?
It doesn't really matter what ethnic, religious, or socioeconomic group's members decide not to avail themselves of public schooling, it matters what steps we take to accomodate the new realities. It is clear that if the student population is dwindling, steps need to be taken to downsize the school system commensurately or the financial burden will be too great to bear. That is never easy to do, but it has to be considered sooner rather than later.
It's a bit early to start calling for the reduction of plant and administrative services. 4% equates to 187 students. Spread across the 7 schools in the district, that's 26 per school. spread across grades in each school, that approx 9 students per grade. (assuming equal distribution)
You must also consider that each grade of incoming students reflects the ebb and flow of general population growth. It is possible to have several years of declining enrollment followed by a banner year that necessitates the addition of several new classrooms (as was the case with my son's class). That graduating class will need those extra classrooms until they graduate out.
I'm not yet convinced that declining enrollment is a permanent trend.
I'm not yet convinced that declining enrollment is a permanent trend.
You'll note that I qualified my statements with an "if." I don't have enough information to know whether this is a secular decline in the student population or merely a cyclical one. However, given the prevailing trends in nearby communities and the fact that Teaneck's population is still showing growth, the decline in Teaneck enrollments takes on more significance.
By the way, there is another reason to think that the recent declines in Teaneck's school population are likely to accelerate rather than reverse direction- the peak of the "echo boom" generation is behind us and the population of school age children nationwide is projected to drop for the next 5-7 years and resume growing at a slower rate after that.
Perhaps this is why the people of Tenafly were so opposed to the eruv?
Saying the "orthodox" population in Teaneck is growing is not blaming anyone. While other religious minorites may have grown, I think it's clear that in Teaneck the largest religious communtiy whose children tend to not go to the public schools are the "orthodox". I also suspect that it's also the fastest growing religious community over the last 20 years. Both in numbers and as a percent of the population.
I understand that for some the mere mention of the word "orthodox" in a context that may appear as negative is offensive. This just makes it difficult to examine the real population trends in Teaneck.
Another real trend in the public school population is the change in racial balance. In the HS graduating class on 1999, 38% of the student body was listed as white. This year it's 30%, but the real trend appears as one looks through the grades. The percentage drops to 23% in the 11th grade, and 18% in 10th. it stays in the 15 to 18% range through the 6th grade, but in the 5th it drops to 10% and then 12% in 4th and 3rd. In kindergarden through 2nd it's between 16 and 17%.
I believe the two trends are not unrelated.
I believe the two trends are not unrelated.
I think you're probably correct. However, the racial balance is of little consequence to the question at hand, unless it somehow perpetuates the decline in enrollment. I don't know that there is any evidence of that.
Much as some of us may bemoan the fact that certain groups choose not to use the public schools (and that, among other things, this results in a remarkable racial imbalance) Teaneck Blog is, IMO, right that we must all come to grips with the fact that the district is probably shrinking. Corporate Cog's remarks about how this may not immediately require overall reductions are also good points, but the overall trend is (sadly) towards fewer students, not more.
"but the overall trend is (sadly) towards fewer students, not more"
Why is it necessarily a bad thing that Teaneck's public school population seems to be declining? It seems to me that when fewer students take advantage of the school system, there are necessarily more resources available for the students who do remain in the schools. In addition, fewer students in the schools means that there is (or should be) less of a financial burden on the taxpayers. For all of you who have made comments like "Perhaps this is why the people of Tenafly were so opposed to the eruv?" can you imagine what would happen to your taxes if all of the so called "Orthodox" families in Teaneck were magically replaced by families who chose to use the public schools? There is no way Teaneck could handle such an influx of students and you can be sure that your taxes would be many times higher than what they are right now. Families who opt out of public schools are simply freeing up public resources (which they are still paying for with their tax dollars). Having fewer students in the public schools should make the schools even better.
The racial balance of the school should not make one difference of how our students perform academically. This is America, where everyone has equal rights. Everyone in the Teaneck Public Schools is afforded the same opportunities no matter who they are, what color they are, their religion, etc. To blame a certain segment of the population for the shortcomings of the school system or student performance is ridiculous. Its almost as if people are saying that the school system can only do well if a majority of the students are white. This is prepostorous. Any student, no matter his race, religion, or origin can achieve anything they put their mind to. Teaneck's School System has been spending the money and offering the programs. If the students of the Teaneck School System fail to use these resources to their advantage they and their parents have no one to blame but themselves.
An Orthodox Jewish neighbor once proposed that her entire community enroll in the Teaneck Public Schools one year and watch the recriminations. I firmly believe the town is much better off with her community, given the stability of property values, tax base, etc. The Orthodox Jewish community's presence here is a boon to all of us. I am not offended that people in a free society choose not to use public facilities, as long as they still contribute their fair share. Right on, Blarla!
Unfortunately, the reality is (and always has been since Teaneck's public schools formally integrated in 1965 and became "minority-majority" in the early 1990's) that there are some white and Asian families as well as certain upper-income black families that are afraid of their children being in schools that are so heavily populated by children of color. It's a shame, because their children would be the richer for the experience of learning how to "judge people by the content of their character" but we can only strive to offer the best possible education opportunities (like blarla said) and support the schools' efforts to improve achievement for all students. This is a worthy long-range goal that needs to have the commitment of both users and the wider Teaneck community. And anyone who says the tremendous growth of the Orthodox population in Teaneck doesn't have alot to do with the shift has their head in the sand!
The reason that I said it was "sad" that so many people do not use the public schools is because I happen to like diversity in a school system. This is my feeling, not shared by everyone, but it is my feeling.
America holds a unique place in history because it is so diverse and because we are forced to come to terms with our differences. This may not always be easy or comfortable, but it is necessary -- and if our national myths are to be believed, it is also our greatest strength -- we are, after all, the great "melting pot". The public school system has played an important role in this because it forces everyone to mix together.
I do understand that there are parents who feel that their kids are not getting a good education in the public schools and look for a private school that can do what they feel is a better job. By and large, rightly or wrongly (I believe wrongly) this is why some Catholic parents in Teaneck, for example, send their kids to the Catholic schools. From what I've heard here and there (but never been able to verify on my own) it is also why some black parents in Teaneck put their kids in private school.
However, the Orthodox are unique in that they send their kids to religious schools in order to emphasize and strengthen their differences with the community at large. Their worry is that by sending their kids to a secular school they will lose their Jewish identity, even to the extent of marrying outside the religion. There are some Catholics parents who feel the same way and my remarks apply equally to them. Certainly the same is true of the muslim parents who send their kids to private, religious schools.
I'm not saying that the Orthodox don't have a right to do this, nor that they are bad people, nor that they are racist. And I also understand that Modern Orthodoxy, as a movement, has actually been very successfull at engaging the modern world -- it does not, for example, hold itself apart from modernity as do all but one of the Hasidic sects. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the reason the Orthodox don't send their kids to the public schools is to reenforce their Jewish identity and not because they worry about whether their kids will learn to read and write.
Kind of off-topic, but worthy of discussion nonetheless...
there are some white and Asian families as well as certain upper-income black families that are afraid of their children being in schools that are so heavily populated by children of color
I don't know about this, but I do know there are people from those demographics who feel that the Teaneck schools do not have a culture of high academic achievement. It is often said that there is a negative peer pressure, especially in the upper grades, and that this dissuades many students from showing great interest in their studies and realizing their full academic potential.
For example, despite its abundant resources, THS frequently ranks in the middle of the pack or worse statistically. This is not necessarily an indictment of the quality of instruction or the management of the school. It is, however, a clear reflection of average test scores, rates of participation in AP courses, and other easily quantifiable measures that rankings often utilize. Whether or not that is a fair way to judge a school, these numbers can and often do reflect the atmosphere in the schools (is this school a feeder to the Ivies or not?) and will dissuade some highly educated and ambitious parents from putting their children in the system.
These sentiments should not be confused with disdain for racial or ethnic diversity.
There have been two threads to this discussion: 1) Is enrollment declining (the subject of TeaneckBlog's original post); and 2), Who's to blame / how does this effect the Teaneck Public Schools. I will take a stab with each separately.
1) IS ENROLLMENT DECLINING?
When all else fails, there are always facts. I asked for, and received, data on the districts's forecasts for enrollment in the upcoming decade. These calculations are based on a rather gruesomely-named "cohort survival rate," that calculates how many children stay in the schools after each year.
The forecasts are as follows:
2005 - 4,588 (actual)
2006 - 4,536
2007 - 4,443
2008 - 4,351
2009 - 4,268
2010 - 4,202
2011 - 4,176
2012 - 4,129
2013 - 4,138
2014 - 4,138
2015 - 4,141
Coming down from the near-term 2001-02 peak of 4,679, it appears that the district will be shrinking. While it is unclear how the choice by many parents to send their children to other schools is factored into these equations, the clear forecast for the future is a smaller enrollment in the district, settling in the mid-4,100's by early in the next decade. While there is always an "ebb and flow" to enrollment, it looks like Teaneck is in the ebb phase of the cycle.
How the district responds to this decline will be critical. As we've discussed earlier, the district has many large fixed costs that must be averaged in before a single student shows up. The Total Comparative Cost per Pupil (TCPP) of $15,000 does not reflect the marginal costs of educating one more (or one fewer) student. One factor in the sharp climb in TCPP over the past few years has been the decline in students.
At some point, cuts in teachers, administrators and support staff must accompany this decline. Even in the short term, students can be shifted and regrouped within target student-teacher ratios, necessitating cuts in teachers in some grades and subjects, probably starting in the early grades and then cascading through into the middle schools and then Teaneck High School.
Without accompanying staffing changes, Cost per Pupil levels, the measuring stick established by the New Jersey Department of Education, will skyrocket. Already, Teaneck has the highest TCPP, budgeted at just over $15,000 for the 206-07 school year, of all 36 K-12 districts in Bergen County.
In these next few years, the forecasted drop of some 400-500 students is within a few students either way of the enrollment of each of the four elementary schools, and approaching a middle school's worth of students. Might there be the possibility of the sale (and redevelopment) of one of the existing school facilities down the road?
2) WHO'S TO BLAME / WHAT'S THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL QUALITY
As to assignment of the "blame" on the declining enrollment, demographic trends around Teaneck's different communities is the deciding factor. Based on data from the 2000 Census, Teaneck had an overall 25% of its population below the age of 18 (yes, I know that those under 5 aren't school-aged, but it tells the same story). In the four West Englewood districts (9, 10, 11 and 12) and district 18 (around Teaneck High School), the under 18 population was 33%. These are the same five districts with the largest Orthodox Jewish populations. If anything, in the six years since the last census, those numbers (and percentages) are only growing.
Is this causing the decline in enrollment? Sure. In many cases, Orthodox families move into homes of families that sent their children to the district's schools, and have since graduated and moved on.
Is this causing a decline in the quality of schools? Absolutely No. At best, if all of these kids were in the district, based on their socioeconomic characteristics, there might be higher AVERAGE scores in the NJASK, GEPA, HSPA and SATs, and there might be a bunch more award winners. And given that No Child Left Behind uses overall percentages by group, it might help with some of the recent NCLB issues.
But would the presence of all these children lift up those students struggling at the bottom? Almost certainly, the answer is No!
The district is already facing schools, particularly at the high schol-level, that may be integrated to some degree overall (and becoming less integrated, as pointed out), but are for all intents and purposes segregated based on the levels of classes, most noticably at the honors and AP courses. Much of the achievement gap is based on differences in socioeconomic standing (SES), which, unfortunately, ends up being a proxy for race and ethnicity.
If all classes were heterogeneous, a greater presence of higher SES students might help lift up a few of these boats with the rising tide, which might help at the elementary school level. But the increasing de facto segragation within the high school would eliminate this as a factor.
Having attended this past Wednesday's Board of Education Workshop session, I agree wholeheartedly with the Superintendent's statement that there is no reason that ALL students cannot achieve, regardless of their race, religion or background.
The district's challenge is to cut this achievement gap, an effort that is well underway. What will it take to do this? I don't know. But blaming any particular group's absence for "causing" the problem is at best a poor rationalization for the real issues that face the Teaneck Public Schools. At worst...
Alan Sohn:
But blaming any particular group's absence for "causing" the problem is at best a poor rationalization for the real issues that face the Teaneck Public Schools.
I can't see that anyone is suggesting the orthodox community is responsible for the real issues facing the schools. Until your post, I don't believe anyone, had come close to dealing with the real issues facing the Teaneck school system. Beyond the issue of blame, I think you've made some very good points.
The "cohort survival rate" data is not surprising. One could come up with less accurate empirical forecasts just looking at class sizes. There definitely is a trend. The 2006 senior class size was 305 compared to a first grade size of 273. In 1999, the senior class was almost the same size at 311. However the first grade class was 347.
Can I ask where you're getting the TCPP data? I've made a brief attempt to find them but would prefer not to continue my search.
Teaneck Blogger:
Any idea what the criteria for considering the school an Ivy feeder might be?
Anonymous stated "If the students of the Teaneck School System fail to use these resources to their advantage they and their parents have no one to blame but themselves."
I could not disagree more. The BoE continuously trumpets the fact that 90% of Teaneck students continue their studies after graduation. Given the wide range of admission standards at post-high school institutions, I never understood how this equates to a validation of the quality of the Teaneck school system.
However, I do think this statistic is a tribute to the parents and students of Teaneck who clearly understand the benefits of education and overwhelmingly continue to seek it even after it is no longer mandated by the State.
Since the resources are there and the desire for education is clearly there, the issue rests with how these clearly motivated students are being taught. There the responsibility must be shouldered by the teachers, administration and BoE for failing to put in place an educational experience that produces better results.
Project ACT was a landmark in that it marked the first time that the District acknowledged that it was failing to meet the needs of significant segments of the student population. While I am not sure that the ACT program is the best way to address these deficiencies, recognizing a problem is the first step to solving it. Hopefully, the impact of ACT will be candidly assessed and changes made quickly if it fails to deliver the desired results.
Dror,
You say, “Project ACT was a landmark in that it marked the first time that the District acknowledged that it was failing to meet the needs of significant segments of the student population.”
Could you clarify what you mean? Is the creation of “Project Act” the acknowledgement you refer to or was there some declaration and when did this occur? Do you have a time frame? Did it happen before the Literacy Initiative and the Math Initiative? If, not perhaps you would explain why they don’t count. Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word significant. Or maybe it’s first I don’t understand and that’s why programs over ten years old like Peer Leadership and the Forum don’t count.
Nice to see that non-Jews (or non-traditional Jews) can also have chutzpah. The primary reason Orthodox Jews send their children to yeshivot is so they can get a Jewish education, not so they won't intermarry. Quite amazing to me to see someone from outside the community write in to explain us.
This is my first post I'd love to thank you for such a terrific made site!
Was thinking this would be a nice way to introduce myself!
Sincerely,
Laurence Todd
if you're ever bored check out my site!
[url=http://www.partyopedia.com/articles/blues-clues-party-supplies.html]blues clues Party Supplies[/url].
Hello. My wife and I bought our house about 6 months ago. It was a foreclosure and we were able to get a great deal on it. We also took advantage of the 8K tax credit so that definitely helped. We did an extensive remodeling job and now I want to refinance to cut the term to a 20 or 15 year loan. Does anyone know any good sites for mortgage information? Thanks!
Mike
Post a Comment
<< Home