Response required
It should come as no surprise that we have not yet heard the last of the protests over the scant adjustments made to the defeated school budget. This week's Suburbanite contains a well-crafted letter from Teaneck resident Dror Futter that levels a number of pointed criticisms of both the actions and attitudes of the Township Council and Board of Education. Given that some of the issues Futter brings up have been discussed in this forum over the past few weeks, I am particularly interested in the response (substantive, not emotional) this letter will elicit from staunch defenders of the Council and BoE. Given that the Suburbanite has not yet entered the Information Age, the full text of Futter's letter is reproduced here*:To the Editor:
Teaneck residents are justifiably outraged that the message delivered by their rejection of the school board budget was ignored both by the township council and the Board of Education. The largely illusory $550,000 in budget cuts they approved represent a reduction of less than 1 percent of the $80-plus million school budget.
The board's response becomes more understandable after reviewing recent statements by board trustees in the pages of your publication. In a May 24 letter, board member Barbara Ostroth (who curiously does not identify herself as a board member) states that the board represents "everyone" meaning "students, teachers, administrators, support staff and our neighbors all over town." Actually, it does not; the board represents town residents (including, obviously, students) - period. The other groups listed are employed by the board, not represented by it.
If the board were to stop viewing itself as a representative of the teachers, perhaps teachers' salaries would not be 25 percent or more above those in neighboring towns, and salary increases would be conditioned upon productivity enhancements.
In what appears to be the first salvo of the 2007 budget vote, Ms. Ostroth blames apathy and disinterest for the defeat of the budget. She calls upon the readers to reject "rumor and innuendo" through "information, investigation and facts." Over the past few years, I have published several letters in this publication providing a detailed, fact-based critique (complete with links to the relevant on-line information sources) of the Teaneck school district. I have demonstrated that contrary to repeated assertions of excellence by the board, student performance in the district is, at best, average.
Further, I have highlighted that Teaneck's spending per student has been in the top 10 percent of school districts in the state and that it was impossible to justify the most recent 13+ percent increase in teacher's salary. In my opinion, no member of the board has ever provided a factual response to my assertions.
While Ms. Ostroth's comments are disappointing, a recent statement by Board President Judy McKay is nothing short of outrageous. On the cover of this publication on April 26 (after the rejection of the budget) Ms. McKay stated: "Bergen County is a very expensive area in which to live, and our school population does not reflect the wealth of the township." In the midst of the irresponsibly rancorous and divisive Town Council campaign, Ms. McKay sought not to unite us, but to divide us based on wealth. This seriously calls into question her fitness to represent all of Teaneck as board president.
In case Ms. McKay has forgotten, the residents of Teaneck have supported eight straight years of increases of what was already among the most generously funded school districts in the state. Even if the school budget were cut by 10 percent, Teaneck would still rank in the top 25 percent of districts in terms of school spending.
School spending is not a form of wealth transfer. Town residents have a responsibility to ensure that students receive a good education. The fact that they have not been receiving a good education when compared with other school districts cannot be blamed on lack of funding - it can be blamed on the failed educational policies of the board.
Dror Futter
Teaneck
It is worth noting that Futter conflates the issues of school performance and school costs. I suppose his point is that given the relatively large sums Teaneck spends on education, residents have the right to demand superior performance. Given that the empirical studies done on the topic of school funding find little evidence of a statistical link between higher school spending and better educational outcomes, I would leave this issue aside and settle for a reasonable explanation as to why Teaneck taxpayers are being asked to shell out more than others even to achieve the same results. In any case, it is becoming clear that more taxpayers are losing patience with the BoE. The PR campaign to restore confidence in Teaneck's educational leadership would be bolstered by a clearly presented and factually supported explanation of where all the money goes and why it needs to go there.
*The letter is reproduced without express permission of the Suburbanite or the letter writer, relying on the fact that the Suburbanite's letters policy says that letters "may be published, reproduced or distributed in print, electronic or other forms" and does not state that letters become the property of the Suburbanite.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:59 AM
18 Comments:
Re: the comment:
"The fact that they have not been receiving a good education when compared with other school districts cannot be blamed on lack of funding"
I know for certain Teaneck's public schools offer students a superb education, as they should.
The problem is that too many students are not taking full advantage of what the schools offer. Too many students do not show appreciation for their neighbor's generosity.
Neither more money nor less will solve that problem.
I agree more spending controls are necessary.
But, what I think most of us really want is to see ALL of our neighbors - whether Teaneck students, parents, teachers, or mentors - demonstrate a commitment to the budget's ROI.
I know for certain Teaneck's public schools offer students a superb education, as they should.
Clearly just one of the "staunch defenders of the Council and BofE"
Clearly just one of the "staunch defenders of the Council and BofE"
How you can jump to that conclusion is beyond me when the person had said in his/her original post what that more money will not solve the problem & that we have a right to expect a return on investment (ROI).
Furthermore, how would you know that the opportunities for a first class education are missing in the Teaneck schools? I must assume from the tenor of your remarks that you have no experience with our school system -- I think you an apology to someone.
It's shameful that there are a whole lot of people in Teaneck who complain bitterly about the quality of the schools who have never stepped foot in the schools (except perhaps to vot), who have never reviewed the curriculum, who have never met or interacted with the principals, teachers and other employees of the school system, who have never attended Board of Education meetings or tried in any way to get know our terrific students.
The PR campaign to restore confidence in Teaneck's educational leadership would be bolstered by a clearly presented and factually supported explanation of where all the money goes and why it needs to go there.
As you had no problems with Futter's misrepresentations, perhaps you didn't read Ms. Ostroth's letter. Let me quote the part that relates to the your statement.
"... the board reviews budget information for four months in open public hearings, mailings home to every household in Teaneck, and presentations on Channel 77 that detail how the school budget impacts the educational experience of our children."
If that's not enough (and somehow I know it wont be), you may be interested to know that the budget itself contains detailed information.
Mr Abbott:
Your recent post made a passing reference to "Futter's misrepresentations." The fiscal and performance shortcomings of the Teaneck school district relative to others in the state are easily demonstrable based on government data available on public websites. These sources have formed the basis of the article that is the subject of this post and others on this topic that I have written to the Suburbanite in the past. The two quotes in my article were complete and accurate replications of the statements as they appeared in the Suburbanite.
I am troubled by the possibility that my article contained “misrepresentations”. Please specifically identify them so that I may correct them.
Dror Futter
Dror:
I'll start with your misrepresentation of Ms. Ostroth statement. Her letter said, "I agree that the board must find new ways to re-engage our parents and staff, working with them to build support for budgets and ur school system in future years. For the public we need your help to overcome the apathy and disinterest in understanding the importance of supporting Board members, administrators and teaching staff in the tough job they do throughout the year." From this you get, "Ms. Ostroth blames apathy and disinterest for the defeat of the budget." That's a misrepresentation.
You wrote of a "recent 13+ percent increase in teacher's salary". From my point of view ignoring the time frame of the increase is an attempt at deception. It is far more inflammatory to talk about a 13% raise then 13% over three years. (I am guessing at the time frame but I know it's not one year.) I consider this a misrepresentation.
Then there's the "...perhaps teachers' salaries would not be 25 percent or more above those in neighboring towns ..." I'm sure you you've found some arcane means to justify this statement, but it's simply not true.
Another of your statements was, “In the midst of the irresponsibly rancorous and divisive Town Council campaign, Ms. McKay sought not to unite us, but to divide us based on wealth." You may consider Ms. McKay’s statement to be divisive, but that’s not the same as claiming to know Ms. McKay’s motive. That part is a misrepresentation. As Ms. McKay has discussed this before and I know the context in which it is meant I don’t agree with you. I also wonder what motive there was in bringing the Town Council campaign into the discussion. Were you trying to associate Ms. McKay with it?
Taking your points one at a time:
1. "Disinterest and apathy" - not worth debating.
2. Fair point on the 13% over 3 years. Not my intention - I actually discussed this issue at length in a January letter. So let's go to the facts. It is an increase over no less than 4.25% per year for each of the next three years when inflation has not exceeded 4% since 1991 and has been under 3% in most recent years. Also, keep in mind that this generous increase was on top of salaries that ranked among the highest in the state. Probably should have written all of this in the letter, but it certainly does not help the Board's case.
3. From my January letter: "To place the salary increase in context, in the 2004-2005 school year, the town’s mean teacher salary of $64,887 placed Teaneck at 98 out of 104 peer districts (K-12, 3500+ students). Contrast this with mean salaries of $47,000, $48,000 and $53,000 in Paramus, Bogota and Bergenfield respectively." +/- 25% lower if I am doing my math correctly. The "arcane means" I employed were a calculator and the State Dept of Education website.
4. In addition to Ms. McKay's statement being inflammatory on its face, I mentioned the town council election because not only was it ill-advised but it was also ill-timed. I quoted her accurately and completely and correctly identified the time period in which she spoke - tough to call that a misrepresentation.
Bottom line, by virtually every objective measure of student performance, Teaneck students perform at or below the average for their peers. It is also a fact that funding of the district has been in the top 10% for at least the last decade and spending has increased despite the fact that about half the school age children do not attend public school and enrollment is down as noted in a new post tonight on this blog.
Clearly, one cannot accuse the district of being under-funded. Similarly, I refuse the accept the proposition that Teaneck students are less capable than their peers in other districts. That leaves responsibility for the mediocre performance in the hands of the Board, the teachers and the administration. The Board is not doing the students of Teaneck a favor by consistently rejecting criticism and rewarding teachers with pay raises that cannot be justified by the performance of their students.
I had 4 children attend THS and I wish I was financially able to send them elsewhere. Drugs, peer pressure and teacher failure was abundant throughout their years there. Sex in the stairwells?? Where were the teachers or those so called "hall monitors" we are paying dearly for???
You would think with what we pay in taxes for salaries the teachers would actually care. I found maybe 4% of them actually gave a damn.
I graduated from THS and I was proud to say we ranked 1st in the state back then. Where do we rank now?
The budget is out of control and the Orthodox are not to blame. Good for them for caring about their childrens education.
Mr Futter:
1. Not worth debating?
2. A surprise concession. I can understand the rest of your response in that you are still trying to make a case. As you have made yours, I’ll try mine. At no time have I expressed any opinion on this blog as to whether I think teacher’s salaries are too high, too low or just right. My objection is to the tactics, you use to support your opinions.
3. Your original statement was “… perhaps teachers' salaries would not be 25 percent or more above those in neighboring towns …”
If your statement said, “…above 3 neighboring towns” or “…above a few neighboring towns” or even possibly “…above some neighboring towns” it would have been accurate. Instead the statement is worded to imply all neighboring towns. If I could find two towns in the area with higher salaries, would a statement that “salaries are below those in neighboring towns” be any more accurate.
For the record, you are not doing your math correctly. Only two of the towns meet your 25% criteria. Can you provide the source of your numbers? I don’t dispute them. I just can’t find them. It doesn’t appear to be the NJ School Report cards as they appear to show median salaries not mean salaries.
While on the subject, I would like to refer you to an article from the Star Ledger titled, Analysis sheds light on teacher salaries. It discusses the problems of using the average salary numbers provided by the state.
4. Your response totally ignores what I said. It was irrelevant. I said “… claiming to know Ms. McKay’s motive … is a misrepresentation.” I did not call your opinions, or quotes a misrepresentation. In this case, I will say I do totally disagree with your opinions, but that’s a separate matter.
5. From your original letter, “Teaneck residents are justifiably outraged …” You are outraged. Some residents are outraged. Some are disappointed that it was this high. You don’t speak for the town.
If you are correct, Councilman Katz should have been defeated by the outraged citizenry. He voted for the “illusory” budget cut. Instead he got more than more than 4300 votes – a well deserved victory.
Let me refer you to another article from the Star Ledger – Is public education a people's civic duty? It may help explain the real budget process, not the illusory process you imagine it should be.
6. “Bottom line, by virtually every objective measure of student performance, Teaneck students perform at or below the average for their peers.” Another blanket statement of pseudo fact that seems geared to incite rather than to inform!
anonymous says:
The budget is out of control and the Orthodox are not to blame.
A brilliant defense of a non-existant attack!
The source of my information is the 2005 Comparative Spending Guide which you can find at http://www.nj.gov/njded/guide/2005/. Then search by the Teaneck school district.
Reviewing this document you will see that in virtually every area involving salaries, Teaneck ranks 90th or above among 104 peer districts. The salary information is median data. To review - "median" means the middle teacher's salaries when ranked, "mean" means the average. For the reasons highlighted in the Ledger article you cite, I only use the median numbers.
As to salaries, do you really want to criticize my numbers based on Bergenfield - where Teaneck's salaries are "only" 22.5% higher (65K/53K). Let’s put this one to rest and include all the towns neighboring Teaneck - Bogota (48k), Hackensack (67k), New Milford (44k), Ridgefield Park (49k), Englewood (55k), Leonia (42k), Bergenfield (53) - average 51K (Paramus, mentioned in my prior post, would reduced this average). In other words, Teaneck's median salary is 27% (65/51) higher than the average of the median salaries in neighboring towns.
In fact, even if we expand our "neighborhood" to include all of Bergen county only 3 districts out of 36 have higher median salaries. I'll stick with my original point. If Ms. Ostroth and others on the Board did not incorrectly view themselves as representatives of the teachers (who seem to be very well represented by their union) in addition to their responsibility to the town's residents, perhaps our district would not be outbidding virtually everyone in our county for teaching talent.
With respect to student performance, before labeling my statements "pseudo-facts" perhaps you could marshal some facts in support of this accusation by identifying some areas of academic achievement in which District students (not select subgroups or just the best students) have performed significantly above peer districts for a sustained period.
Dror
Dror:
First, I know the difference between median and mean. When you referred to the “mean” salaries, I assumed you were not talking about median. If you understood medians, you might understand that taking the average (arithmetic mean) of medians as you’ve done is nonsensical. Even if you had used means you would need to weight the average by the number of teachers in each district. Hackensack’s 68K (I like to round correctly) would have a higher weight than Bogota, New Milford and Leonia. Hackensack may have as many teachers as the three combined. In any case, your statement should still have only read, “above 25% of the median salaries of some surrounding towns.”
Still on the subject of medians, you reference the article I cited saying, “For the reasons highlighted in the Ledger article you cite, I only use the median numbers.” It misses the entire point of the article which was that comparing districts using the median numbers provided by the state is not an accurate way to compare teacher’s salaries. Could this be another deliberate misrepresentation?
You state that Teaneck is “…outbidding virtually everyone in our county for teaching talent.” If you are basing this on median salaries, you just have no clue. Have you checked the district’s pay scales?
Assuming median salaries were a good statistic to use for all these comparisons, what would we expect to happen in the online 2005-2006 report? ( select K-12 districts.) Take Teaneck’s median of $64,887 and add the 4.25% increase to get $67,645. The actual number is $61,195. If I wanted to misuse these numbers, I’d say the BofE reduced teacher’s salaries by 9.5%, but I try not to lie with numbers.
Ms. Ostroth speaks for herself. When she campaigned for the BofE, I believe she said she would represent everyone involved in the schools including teachers. She has been consistant on this point throughout her tenure on the board. If you disagreed, you shouldn’t have voted for her. As to the opinions or the other board members, you clearly don’t know what they are. To pretend to know their views is not appropriate.
Tom:
Lying is a pretty strong accusation and is best answered with facts. Thank you for bringing to my attention that the 2006 spending guide is online. First, Teaneck's new median salary of 61K still ranks it 92nd among 104 districts - a point that somehow failed to make it into your posting. Second,if you don't like median salaries as a measure, you might also look at Teaneck's per student spending on classroom instruction (an interesting statistic that reflects policies both on total teacher compensation and classroom size) which places Teaneck 102(!) out of 104.
As to the teacher's pay scales, if you want further evidence that the teacher pay is best in class in Teaneck turn to the Board of Ed website - the recruiting section- which states
" The Teaneck Public School District is proud to offer one of the best salary schedules, extra compensation and benefit packages for its employees in the State of New Jersey."
http://www.teaneckschools.org/hrm/slrygds.html
Could not agree more, perhaps you would like to challenge the Board on this statement as well.
I actually have no issue with paying teachers high salaries, if their students produce results. I assume that at some point you will support your prior "pseudo-fact" accusation by highlighting those areas where the performance of Teaneck students is one of the best in the State of New Jeresey.
Dror
Sir Futter:
You really don't pay attention. I have not been discussing the level of teacher's salaries. I've been discussing your misuse of statistics. Finding other means to justify your opinion about teacher’s salaries being too high will not make the original statement any less misleading. When you say, “Teaneck's new median salary of 61K still ranks it 92nd among 104 districts - a point that somehow failed to make it into your posting.” It was totally irrelevant to what I was saying. Before I would begin mentioning rank, I would need to check into what it meant and whether it was relevant. Provided a link so you or anyone could check the statistics seemed sufficient. (I have checked and now know how the rank is defined. Please don’t offer an explanation.)
In my opinion, the only real way to compare salaries is using the salary scales. I would suspect looking at Teaneck’s you might well find it's amongst the highest in the county or even in the state, but it would take considerable time and effort to do comparisons that could justify a sweeping statement like the 25% one.
When you look at median statistics you get anomalies like Teaneck’s salary going down while in reality it did go up by 4.25% While it can happen with averages, the effect tends not to be as drastic. While I have read many discussions as to why median is used rather than mean, I’ve never been convinced. Providing both would seem better. What’s another few thousand numbers amongst the millions they publish?
I won’t be justifying my “pseudo-fact” statement nor will I retract it. Your statement is so broad that we would have to start by defining what “virtually every objective measure” meant I suspect you would start with measures in the report and I’d say they appear objective but that true comparisons have to consider many variables that are not considered in these “objective measures”. But it’s time to move on. By now we’re probably the only two reading this discussion.
Actually, I have been following this whole discussion as well (so there are at least three of us still reading). Tom Abbott, I have to say that you have me confused. What point are you trying to make? It seems to me that you continue to question/challenge evidence supplied by Dror Futter but you never seem to put forth contradictory evidence of your own. Do you think that the Teaneck schools are truly excellent? That they are performing to the highest standards? That the generous funding they receive is warranted given the results that they produce? If this is the case, I would love to see some empirical evidence to support your view.
I have made no statement about the quality of the Teaneck schools. My objection is that Mr. Futter's uses misrepresentations to support his opinions.
If I were to say, "Jerry Falwell's Liberty University is a bad place for students interested in an education in science to go because the professors are all witches," and you responded "The professors are not witches." Would it be fair for me to say, "Then show me evidence that proves the college is a good school for science students?"
I have not objected to Mr. Futter's opinions. I object to the fact that he says things that are not factual to support them.
If you can't follow what I'm saying I'm sorry. Move on! There are more made up facts in later posts.
I like it! Good job. Go on.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home