Miles apart
I don't think this was the response Dror Futter was hoping for. A letter writer in this week's Suburbanite inadvertently illustrated why attempts at fostering a meaningful debate about the high costs and relative performance of the Teaneck public school system are hopeless.While Futter's letter in last week's edition (see below for the full text in the entry titled "Response required") employed a combination of quotations from officials, statistics, and his own personal analysis to question the effectiveness of the Board of Education leadership, this week's response consists of:
- idle speculation (private school test scores would probably be no better than Teaneck public schools' results, which are flawed anyway)
- a bit of anecdotal evidence (a Teaneck public school teacher has been honored recently)
- some outright silliness ("New Jersey private schools can easily run above $20,000 a year. How is it that one Teaneck child's education is worth 20 grand and up, but another Teaneck child's isn't worth $13,000?") and
- a whole lot of cheerleading for the Teaneck schools ("the children aren't just getting a good education they're getting a great education")
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 9:37 AM
13 Comments:
Perhaps you and a group of concerned taxpayers should organize a fact-finding mission.
You can start by inspecting the main offices at the Board of Ed on Merrison Street. You may want to talk to the administrators about the goals and priorities. You could perform a detailed rather than a superficial analysis of test scores. You might want to find out, for example, how the performance of minority students in Teaneck compares with the performance of minority students in other districts.
You can then visit several of the schools and inspect the facilities, talk to teachers and students and talk to public school parents. You may even want to audit a classroom or two.
What you may discover is that you are bad mouthing a school system that is doing an excellent job at educating a very diverse group of students.
What you may discover is that you are bad mouthing a school system that is doing an excellent job at educating a very diverse group of students.
Are you actually reading what I've written? Where is the bad mouthing? I have not taken any position on the issues, let alone made negative comments about anyone or anything. Is it wrong to lament the fact that legitimate questions supported by facts and statistics are going unaddressed? Is it unfair of me to point out some of the potential negative consequences of trying to sweep these issues under the table in the face of protest?
You are only reinforcing my point by attempting to stifle the debate through your sarcasm. I admire your unswerving faith in the Teaneck Board of Education and your equanimity in the face of spiralling tax bills, but I don't share them, nor do many other residents. In the absence of convincing explanations for why Teaneck taxpayers have to pay premium prices for a regular school system, many will assume the worst- mismanagement, incompetence, etc. and I cannot blame them. I will continue to push for answers without prejudging their validity, and I am happy to see others doing the same.
All I'm saying is that as a stakeholder in BoE, you have a right to inspect what you pay for. Rather than complain in abstract about how your money is being spent - why don't you go take a look as what your tax dollars are being spent on. I'm sure the Board of Ed would be happy to accomodate you.
Mr. Futter's letter employed a combination or misquotes. misrepresentations, and statistical lies to support his views. Since the Blogger agrees with him this is "well crafted". Only someone with the extreme bias of the Teaneck Blogger would consider it worthy of a response.
On the other hand this weeks letter to the Suburbanite is in opposition to the Blogger's views. In an attempt to engage in useful debate he uses, "idle speculation", "anecdotal evidence", "outright silliness" and "cheerleading" to describe the authors views.
When Swurgle has the gall to question his conclusions, he cites her attempt "to stifle the debate through ... sarcasm."
I don't think a Teaneck audience is likely to fall for this nonsense but than I can't believe anyone would fall for Rush Limbaugh's crap either.
I'd like to suggest those who have not already seen Swurgle's blog "Teaneck Progress" take a look. Judge for yourselves which author is more objective in trying to separate their opinions from facts.
Tom - Thanks for the plug and the complement, although credit for some of the more thoughtful (and less sarcastic) posts goes to my co-contributor Public School Parent.
More of the usual unsupported claptrap from Tom Abbott... If you cannot address the figures from the New Jersey Department of Education, you are not adding to anyone's understanding of the issues at hand. If you have a good explanation and are withholding it, you are doing the Teaneck BoE you hold so dear a disservice.
My attempt to contrast the argument in this week's letter to the Suburbanite with the Mr. Futter's argument is anything but "biased." I am not at all partial to the sometimes shrill tone taken by Mr. Futter and others who are far more up in arms about these questions than I am, much as you'd love to tar all those who dare to question the authority of the BoE with the same brush. You must certainly concede that the letter writer's rambling letter, devoid of any supporting evidence, does nothing to rebut Mr. Futter's letter from the prior week. If you don't, I think you may be guilty of projecting your own biases upon others.
I must say that I tend to agree with Teaneck Blog that neither the BOE nor Tom Abbot has adequately addressed the issues raised by Mr. Futter (and Teaneck Blog and Alan Sohn, for that matter). I wish they would.
Why the BOE did not collectively respond to Mr. Futter's letter is beyond me, maybe they're planning to. The BOE needs to present a detailed statistical analysis of our student's performance to justify the fact that we pay more per pupil than other towns.
An as to Tom Abbot's statments to the effect that the BOE has essentially done this in the past, well, I say they need to do it again, in kind. I'm not only a taxpayer but I have 2 kids in the public schools and I say they need to answer every single letter that is made in a responsible manner, and Mr. Futter's letter was most defintely a responsible one. It is unfair to accuse him of trying to destroy the public schools because we presume him to be Orthodox; he raised legitimate issues that should be responded to.
I enjoy your blog and the fair-minded way you write about the issues. Mr. Abbott's sarcasm is lost on me. Ad hominem attacks by reference to conservative radio commentators, etc. are out of bounds. It's not even skillful propaganda. Mr. Abbott, you're out of your league. Engage the blogger without sarcasm and lame humor and you'll be more persuasive.
I enjoy your blog and the fair-minded way you write about the issues. Mr. Abbott's sarcasm is lost on me. Ad hominem attacks by reference to conservative radio commentators, etc. are out of bounds. It's not even skillful propaganda. Mr. Abbott, you're out of your league. Engage the blogger without sarcasm and lame humor and you'll be more persuasive.
To publicschoolparent
I don’t know whether you’ve read the comments relating to the June 1st posting of Drur Futter’s letter. Where you and I seem to differ is in your belief that Mr. Futter’s letter was responsible. My objections to the letter are to misrepresentations of facts. He misquotes one board member, maligns another, and misuses statistics to convey false impressions.
Alan Sohn’s posts are hard to compare to Mr. Futter’s. Mr. Sohn has chosen to spend time getting to know the BofE, its members, its procedures and its processes. His posts tend to be well researched, thoughtful and insightful. His primary concern appears to be the educational system and not the budget.
I do not speak for the Board and so if I address the notion of the Board addressing Mr. Futter’s letter it is just conjecture. I don’t believe the BOE can collectively respond to any letter. Any individual board member may choose to. However keep in mind that board members while elected are volunteers. They spend an inordinate amount of time on Board business. I suspect most board member spend at least 20 hours a week on board related business and I believe some spend more than twice that. This includes the six members who have full time jobs. Nonetheless, I can understand that you feel they should answer Mr. Futter's letter. Would you also expect them to respond to each Blog post here and on the Teaneck Progress blog? How about the nj.com forums? (I was certainly pleased to see swurgle, Alan Sohn and you all respond to dave77's query about the schools.)
I’m not entirely certain as to what you meant by my “… statements to the effect that the BOE has essentially done this in the past.” I believe you are referring to my quote of Ms. Ostroth’s letter amongst the comments related to the June 1st post. This was in direct response to TB’s statement which seemed to imply there was no such attempt. I can’t see how this can be construed as my saying that the board should not continue to make every effort to provide the public with information. Ms. Ostroth’s letter says the same. If memory serves me this is a common theme of Ms. Ostroth’s annual post election letter. Each year she talks about the apathy that results in low voter turnout and how the board must work harder at involving and educating the parents and the community. I can’t speak for the success because year after year voter turnout is low.
The real surprise in your post is the last line. “It is unfair to accuse him of trying to destroy the public schools because we presume him to be Orthodox; he raised legitimate issues that should be responded to.” To imply that anything I’ve written is due to his religion is bizarre ... as is the notion that I accused him of trying to destroy the public schools.
Maybe the Board of Ed members just have the good sense not to respond to letters that contain personal attacks.
“It is unfair to accuse him of trying to destroy the public schools because we presume him to be Orthodox; he raised legitimate issues that should be responded to.” To imply that anything I’ve written is due to his religion is bizarre ... as is the notion that I accused him of trying to destroy the public schools.
You're right and I apologize. This is a case of rushed, careless writing on my part. I did not mean to accuse you of this, I meant to direct this at others who have voiced this viewpoint.
...The BOE needs to present a detailed statistical analysis of our student's performance to justify the fact that we pay more per pupil than other towns.
An[d] as to Tom Abbot's statments to the effect that the BOE has essentially done this in the past...
I was referring to the fact that you have said that the BOE has answered its critics in other venues (e.g., at open board meetings)
...most board member spend at least 20 hours a week on board related business and I believe some spend more than twice that. ... Would you also expect them to respond to each Blog post here and on the Teaneck Progress blog?
I know how much time they put in, and I appreciate the frustration and difficulties at having to deal with multiple critics on multiple venues. Still, it is a political office and, like it not, answering the critics is part of the job.
I like it! Keep up the good work. Thanks for sharing this wonderful site with us.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home