Why sky-high school taxes are not a partisan issue
Amidst all the chatter surrounding the issue of Teaneck's relatively high school spending, a misguided strand of thought consistently emerges. There are those who seem to think that anyone who questions the necessity of outspending neighboring school districts is locked in some kind of Manichaean struggle with those who stand behind the schools and insist that all is well in the Teaneck public school system. Somehow, raising a few pointed questions about Teaneck's bloated school budget betrays a lack of commitment to the principles of public education, community engagement, and the welfare of Teaneck's children. Only a greedy person with ulterior motives and the wrong party affiliation could possibly question whether Teaneck taxpayers are getting a good value for their money, according to this line of reasoning.Well, here is something to think about, even if you are convinced that every penny spent is absolutely necessary and that Teaneck's schools are performing at an elite level.
Property taxes, the major portion of which go to fund the public schools, are not assessed with regard to one's ability to pay them. This means that older residents who subsist on social security payments and reside in homes they acquired many years ago are shouldering a crushing burden (even after discounts and rebates for seniors) due to Teaneck's high educational expenditures. Similarly, any longtime resident whose home has appreciated significantly while his or her income has crept along at a much slower pace is facing significant financial pressure to leave Teaneck. This creates a situation, particularly given Teaneck's existing demographics, that almost guarantees that the next generation of residents are going to be less favorably disposed towards devoting resources to the schools.
The reality is that Teaneck's schools are not comparable to Tenafly's schools, yet the price of a home in Teaneck, as well as the annual tax levy on that residence, is very high for this area. As a result, those who purchase homes in Teaneck in the coming years are likely to be upper income families who are not planning to use the schools. Guess what? They are not going to stand for elevated public school spending unless it is can be well justified to them. That is a daunting prospect for those of us who want to see Teaneck's schools flourish. One way to prevent reaching a situation like this is to have an ongoing effort in place to cut the fat in order to rein in spending to more normal levels (sorry, but much as we'd like to dismiss the somewhat jarring statistics on Teaneck's educational expenditures, we are not there yet). It is also crucial that we have an especially open and accountable BoE that projects an air of fiscal responsibility as it strives to help Teaneck's students get the best education possible (we could improve on this front as well).
In sum, there are two problems that need to be tackled: the actual problem of Teaneck's high spending and the burden it places on many residents, and the perception problem that could lead to an erosion of support for the schools in the future. Defenders of the BoE continue to claim that these problems are invented by dyed-in-the-wool opponents of public education. Neither I, nor many others who have expressed concern, fall into that category, and yet we see these problems festering now and worry that they will get worse in the future if not addressed quickly. We ignore them at the peril of our school system and our community. Maligning those who bring up the issues is a sure route to disaster.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 12:05 PM
13 Comments:
Well put
Anyone who has attended Board of Education meetings during this past year or two would have to agree that eery Board member is concerned about the rising costs of public education, the public perception of our schools, and the unfair comparison of our public schools to towns whose kids come from more homogeneous and less skewed socio-economic backgrounds. The Board's open dialogue over this past year concerning achievement levels and their support for the superintendent's long-range ACT initiative shows that the schools are working hard to take a comprehensive approach to this natoin-wide problem.
Finally, while Teaneck Blog does advance some worthwhile questions, when you use the word "bloated" to describe the budget, you betray a prejudice that makes it hard to respond to. Board members are taxpayers, too, and well aware of the pressures to keep expenses down. I suggest next fall and winter that those who are interested make it a point to attend the Board's Budget workshops and listen to the data, engage the Board and superintendent in getting questions answered, and perhaps offer more suggestions as to how to limit spending within state mandates and guidelines. I am not suggesting there are not more ways to cut spending -- only that it isn't so easy once you understand the limitations Board members and administrators operate with under state and federal laws.
Point taken with regard to the word "bloated." Perhaps it is unnecessarily pejorative. But recall that Teaneck's school budgets also stand out for their well above-average spending on support and maintenance, neither of which are subject to state or federal mandates. And unless Teaneck's neighbors are not in compliance with those mandates or have radically different demographics, there have to be ways to realize further cost savings.
On the question of maintenance costs, I understand that Teaneck's schools operate in aging facilities that may require more upkeep than those of neighboring towns, and it may be cheaper to spend the money to keep the older facilities going rather than embark on a costly construction or renovation campaign, but there certainly appears to be some duplication with Township functions and room for consolidation. I suspect this is why former BoE member Lenny Hennig made this issue a plank of his Council campaign platform this year.
Defenders of the BoE continue to claim that these problems are invented by dyed-in-the-wool opponents of public education.
A deliberate lie!!!!
Teaneck Blog, your points are well taken and I agree that the town and the BOE need to get their budget under control. I also agree that the BOE needs to do a better job of communicating to the public.
As a public school parent, I acknowledge that my buttons get pushed when certain statements (and not necessarily by you) are made about the public schools which I perceive as having racist subtexts. (and by no means am I accusing anyone of racism. I'm speaking strictly of my own knee-jerk perceptions to criticisms of the quality of the schools.)
I think it's important not to conflate the performance of the students on average with school spending because there's no relationship between the two. More spending won't necessarily result in better test scores and less spending won't necessarily degrade scores.
There are alot of families on the fence about whether to send their kid to the public schools. I think that letters like the one that appeared in this week's Suburbanite are valuable in that they provide reassurance to certain parents that the schools are doing a good job. I share the view and experience of the author of that letter and I would like to see more people give the schools a chance.
That's exactly right. There does not seem to be any relationship with higher spending and higher test scores. So where is the accountability of the BOE and the teachers of the district? At what point is it not okay to continue to accept pay for what is most definitely the nonperformance of our students. Everyone seems to agree this is not a racially motivated topic as all students attending Teanck schools have the same opportunities, so why is success only assumed if there are more Caucasian students in the school? If we have great resources with learned teachers, they should be able to put that experience and talent to work and improve the district. If not, let's bring in some new teachers and staff who have not become accustomed to the excuses and still motivated and enthusiastic about making a difference in a student's life.
Anonymous: Regardless of the opportunities that are available to all students, there is an achievement gap in Teaneck. White kids (and Asian kids) perform better on standardized tests than Black and Latino kids.
If you look at the scores in Teaneck by race, (which used to be available on line, but seem to have been removed) you'll note that scores for White kids in Teaneck are comparable to any elite school system in Bergen County. Black and Latino scores, while lagging behind White scores, are among the highest for Black and Latino students in the State. However, because the district is predominantly Black and Latino, the overall average scores lag behind other districts in Bergen County that are predominantly White / Asian.
This is not a problem that is specific to Teaneck. This is a national problem.
Through it's ACT initiave (Achievementr Challenge in Teaneck), the BOE is committed to narrowing the gap.
swurgle:
Do you know where the scores by race were available? Was it the Teaneck school site or New Jersey Department of Education? If it's local we might be able to get it back online. If it was the state it may still be worth persuing.
I've often heard that the statistics bear out your conclusion but I've never been able to find any data to verify it.
Some of the information you seek is available on the schools' website -- teaneckschools.org. Once you open the page, click on "site map" then click on "ACT Initiative" under the superintendent section, and you can read all about the Board's focus on improving achievement and test scores in our schools.
Thanks anonymous. Sometimes these things are just hard to find. (If only I had thought to ask a nearby board member.)
For those interested on the Teaneck School site, one can find the Achievement Challenge in Teaneck: A Vision for Change
Within that document there is a link to a Power Point slide show also called Achievement Challenge in Teaneck - May 4, 2005 (Note: IE will work better than other browsers for a Power Point.)
There are charts comparing Teaneck vs. New Jersey results on the GEPA and NJASK tests broken down by White, African-American, Hispanic and Asian students.
In 2004 Teaneck results were consistently better than state averages for all groups with one exception. Surprisingly the Asian students did not do as well on the GEPA in language skills and math. On the NJASK, Teaneck's Asian students far outdid the state averages.
While this only compares Teaneck to the state as a whole, it does support Swurgle's overall thesis that group by group Teaneck scores exceed the averages even though looked at as a whole Teaneck seems to do poorly.
It would be interesting to see if the same held true if comparisons were made based on socio-economic status.
The turn this discussion is taking is most interesting. There's another interesting explanation for the scores that I heard. This is second hand -- a friend said that she was told this by a senior member of the Teaneck schools administration. The argument goes like this:
The Teaneck Schools get a lot on transfers in -- more than most districts -- and a lot of these are minority kids. Presumably, the reason is that Teaneck is seen as a desirable community because of our history of integration. Now, the Teaneck Schools can't be responsible for how transfers-in test out since Teaneck didn't have them for long enough. The group to look at is the students who have been in the Teaneck schools from the start, and if you look at that cohort you see very good results, better than other districts.
This is all second hand and I don't have any numbers, but it is interesting. I'll have to look at the references others have posted.
Once again, though, the point gets diluted to race. Regardless, teachers are being paid to teach. What you are saying is a person is genetically predispositioned to score lower on standardized tests regardless of the school system. This is just not true. Look at magnet schools all over NYC. The problem is not the student; the problem is the jaded teacher who will not take the time to look beyond the color of the skin and the situation at home and take responsibility. Isn't this what Teaneck is all about? Diversity and succeeding in that diverse environment. We can not, as a community, take a step back, and say...well, the kids are all this color or that color, so we're doomed to always score lower. Our teachers get paid enormous salaries for their higher education degrees; they need to put that knowledge to good use and show our children how to succeed. That is the argument at hand.
Anonymous.
Can you be more specific as to who you're accusing of these bigoted attitudes. Is it all teachers or just Teaneck's teachers? Or perhaps it's only teachers who get paid enormous salaries. Could you also perhaps define what an enormous salary is?
Post a Comment
<< Home