Stockholm, Secaucus and...Teaneck?
A medium-sized town in Northern New Jersey offers its residents top notch public facilities and social services to rival those of a Scandinavian welfare state without a single municipal tax hike in the last eight years. What's wrong with this picture? Nothing at all! Would that we could enjoy all those benefits without reaching any deeper into our pockets!Unfortunately, the town in question is Secaucus and not Teaneck. And yet, an article in today's Record compares Secaucus' generous childcare programs to those of, of all places, Teaneck.
Secaucus isn't the only town where the local government has found ways to provide affordable child-care options.
Teaneck's Recreation Department has had a long-standing preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds that costs about $225 a month, or nearly a quarter the cost of some private preschools.
This year there are already 20 children on the waiting list, and the preschool has expanded every session to a full day to meet the increasingly demanding schedule of parents, said Recreation Director Glenna Crockett.
Secaucus' extraordinary ability to cater to its 16,000 residents without raising taxes on them is the consequence of a $1.6 million windfall from a hotel occupancy tax and a massive ratables base from its many office buildings, industrial parks, and retail developments. Teaneck has the hotel occupancy tax, but not much else to alleviate the growing burden on its homeowners.
Should Teaneck be providing subsidized preschool programs that can necessarily serve only a tiny proportion of the population while the tax burden soars? Assuming this benefit costs something, it is hard to argue that this constitutes a good use of Teaneck's limited resources, no matter how wonderful the program may be for the lucky few who are admitted. As the Swedes have already found out, you cannot have it all.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 9:43 AM
48 Comments:
Yeah and they have a HUGE industry complex that helps with their ratables too..unlike Teaneck.
The Teaneck Hotel Tax was the idea of Mayor, then Councilman Katz. Although, no one in Teaneck wants to build an industrial complex, I do think its about time we listened to the progressive thinkers on the Council to increase our ratables A.S.A.P.
I totally disagree with your argument about Teaneck's subsidized PreSchool program. The program is open to everyone, and they do not discriminate on who gets in -- and quite a number of children they serve would not be able to get private preK without the township helping out with the cost. As you say, it's only limited by its space needs, admits children on a first-come, first-served basis, and they have run a terrific preschool program for years. My children were in it way back when it was a half-day program, and it was full even then. Even private pre-K programs are also limited by space needs.
Many educational studies confirm that Pre-K is essential to helping children with basic skills as they move towards kindergarten, and we should really be looking to expand it. The school system does what it can as well to provide pre-K for at-risk kids, and its new program at Bryant has the potential to include even more families who need the specialized pre-K services.
The Recreation Department is one of the main areas in this community (along with the volunteer-based sports programs they work with) where our tax dollars are used so that everyone has an equal opportunity to take any program and meet residents they might not otherwise get to know.
I'll repeat what I've said before here.
The town should rezone the property south of Degraw Avenue across from Glenpointe for a major transit village style mixed-use project which includes retail, residences and commercial development plus a park and ride stop for New York-bound commuters.
It's the only site in town big enough to accomodate a development that could have a real impact on ratables. The location is excellent for development and it's the most NIMBY-proof site in town because it's surrounded on three sides by roads and major highways and a natural buffer could be placed between the neighborhood to the west and the project.
Since when does the township help you if you can not afford private PReK unless you have a special needs child?
the myopic Blogger said...
it is hard to argue that this constitutes a good use of Teaneck's limited resources, no matter how wonderful the program may be for the lucky few who are admitted.
It's only hard if you think money is the only thing that matters.
OK, if it so easy to justify why don't you go ahead and explain why granting a small number of eligible families with no demonstrable need a valuable benefit makes sense for a financially strapped municipality? I would think even the "progressives" would favor a means test.
We sent my two daughters to a lovely program at a local reform temple run by a bunch of secular Russian ladies. Over time though, the program gradually evolved from Jew-lite to Jew-heavy to appeal to changing tastes.
We stuck it out, until one day the ladies sent a note home informing us that, at the request of a parent, they would be instituting daily davening with separate prayers for the boys and the girls.
I sent a note back asking if they would honor my humanist faith by instituting daily readings of the works of John Dewey.
My request was not taken seriously.
When I mentioned that I didn't want my three-year old child to engage in gender-separated davening, the Russian ladies said it was not a problem and that they would just pull her out of class at davening time and let her sit in the hall by herself.
We turned to the Recreation Department pre-school program, which, by the way, was excellent.
My kids don't need to take the bus to school, but do I begrudge the families that depend on busing?
I'm largely sedentary, but do I complain about the sports programming at the recreation center?
I'm not a senior citizen, but do I complain that the town is offering services that benefit people other than me?
Not sure I follow the reasoning here- are you suggesting that there are no secular pre-school options in the area and therefore the Township needs to step in to provide a vital service that the market cannot offer? If this is the case, why does it have to be offered at such a low price? Why not charge a fee closer to market rate and open it up to more students? Surely you agree that offering subsidized chess lessons once a week for eight weeks is nothing like offering a full year of pre-school at a fraction of its true cost. This constitutes a giveaway of thousands of dollars to a select few families who might not even need it. The Township doesn't have the resources to sustain this, nor is it fair to those shut out because of the huge demand stimulated by the artificially low price.
Teaneck Blog-
Part of the problem is that Teaneck likes to waste the tax payers money...why should their PreK program be any different?
Also there are PLENTY of PreK programs in the area...People just dont want to pay FULL PRICE for them...they want a deal... and what better deal than what Teaneck is offering?!?!
Swurgle makes a very sensible argument, and gives numerous examples that make sense. I think some of the comments on this topic are just sour grapes, but for the sake of discussion, whether or not the Town increased the price of their Pre-K, there is no space in the current Rodda facility to accomodate more kids unless other spaces were converted. Bottom line, there is a real need for more affordable Pre-K in this state and I believe Teaneck is not eligible for aid in that direction because we are too wealthy a community.
I believe Teaneck is not eligible for aid in that direction because we are too wealthy a community.
LOL!!!
That is the best one I have heard in a long time.
It would be wise for Teaneck to pay attention in how they spend our tax money instead of wasting it buying cemeteries and other garabge!
Swurggle..
I have to agree it sounds like your plan is the best by far!!!!
Do you think Teaneck will move on it any time soon???
I would love to see an accounting study of how much the Town's pre-K actually costs vs revenue. If you eliminate the need for a profit and you factor out the building costs (debatable, but perhaps reasonable since the building would exist anyway and be used for other things) then it may not be very expensive and may even come close to breaking even.
Like I say, I don't know, but it does seem like people are making assumptions that may not be justified.
This analysis sounds like an Alan Sohn project, doesn't it?
My development site makes tremendous sense. Even if the site is zoned for park space, it's not being used for a park, as far as I know, there are no plans to make it into a park and having lived in Teaneck on an off since 1967, I've never known anyone to use that property for recreational purposes.
When I'm not blogging, I'm a real estate consultant and in my professional judgement this is the best development site in town. Let's get it on the tax rolls so that people can stop whining about the school system.
I would love to see an accounting study of how much the Town's pre-K actually costs vs revenue. If you eliminate the need for a profit and you factor out the building costs (debatable, but perhaps reasonable since the building would exist anyway and be used for other things) then it may not be very expensive and may even come close to breaking even.
It is certainly possible that there is not a significant "out-of-pocket" cost to the Township for running this program, but remember that foregone revenue is also a cost. Still, I would imagine that staff compensation is the single biggest outlay for any preschool program, and it is unlikely that the teachers are underpaid as much as the families are undercharged.
If it turns out that somehow the Teaneck Recreation Department has hit on the secret formula for inexpensive, high quality early childhood education, then that is terrific. It's unfortunate that the model is not scalable so that more Teaneck families could participate. Perhaps the admissions criteria should be revisited to make sure this benefit is getting to families who could not otherwise give their children a preschool education.
Of course, the public school system does have a pre-K educational program, I believe for at-risk children (which generally means selected based on need).
I could be wrong about this and if so, I stand corrected in advance. But I do not believe that Teaneck Rec, as the program in question is called, actually bills itself as a pre-K school. Obviously it provides a stimulating, thus enriching environment for 4 and 5-year olds. But I don't know that they see themselves as provding "schooling" as much as recreation for pre-schoolers (which is not to say that some staff members don't have teaching experience). This may be a tenuous or even bogus distinction for those inclined to see the program as an unnecessary expense. But I suspect it's not so insignificant a distinction for those parents determined that their precious little one gets the most advantageous pre-K curriculum possible.
If it were so inclined, the entire Recreation Department could probably be a money-making concern. By not charging "market rates" to all the basketball and indoor soccer programs for the use of their two gymnasiums, it is also foregoing revenue. But making money is not the purpose of a town Recreation Department, is it?
The Board of Ed's (Teaneck school systems) PreK-3/4 is only for developmental delayed kids...you only qualify if they deem your child in need of extra help.
In most cases since the budget was defeated only the most severe cases are taken in to the program...where before they used to take you even if you did not need it...
T Blog said "it is unlikely that the teachers are underpaid as much as the families are undercharged".
i'd be suprised if you're right about that. i know it's always easy to beat on teachers first, but if they're making more than 25K i'd be really shocked.
Anonymous said...
In most cases since the budget was defeated only the most severe cases are taken in to the [PreK] program.
While there were changes in the preK program, the budget for the preK program was not affected by the budget defeat.
Teaneck Blog said...
"OK, if it so easy to justify why don't you go ahead and explain why granting a small number of eligible families with no demonstrable need a valuable benefit makes sense for a financially strapped municipality? I would think even the "progressives" would favor a means test."
Since you didn't understand Swurgle's answer, I will assume it wasn't easy enough. I'll try a much simpler one. The citizens of Teaneck support it. If you disagree, I would recommend speaking to the Teaneck council and recommending that it be shut down. If you don't think your voice is enough, you could start a petition campaign as well.
While you’re at it is there any program at the Recreation Center that you consider justified? Perhaps you could recommend selling the Rhoda center and Votee park for commercial development. The sports fields are not used by most of the town. Neither is the pool and they are expensive to maintain. It’s win-win … lower expenses and more commercial taxes. Perhaps you would favor closing the Teaneck Library as well. If not the whole library just save on those materials only used by a small section of the community like the large print books or the children’s play area?
Did you know that the Teaneck council recently authorized $50,000 for the purchase of 275 trees? As strapped for cash as you imagine the town is, you must be outraged!
As you clearly have no idea what “progressives” might think, you might want to consider giving your own opinions. Feel free to references propaganda articles like the one about Stockholm from the Spero group. In case you were wondering it’s not a “progressive” site. If you’re not sure check their opinion piece, " Priest criticizes ADL for Mel Gibson statement."
While there were changes in the preK program, the budget for the preK program was not affected by the budget defeat.
Really???
Doesn't the PreK progam at Bryant which deals with "disabled" kids get part of its funding from the school budget..that is what we where told in June. I mean it is part of the Teaneck school system and all.
Please note I am not talking about the PreK program at the Rhodda Center.
Did you know that the Teaneck council recently authorized $50,000 for the purchase of 275 trees? As strapped for cash as you imagine the town is, you must be outraged!
Man and they can get FREE trees if they knew where to look...pissing away the tax money again!
The PreK program was unaffected because the funding for special education is Title 1 funds, and protected from budget cuts by state and federal law. This is one of the main reasons why the Board of Ed has so little leeway in identifying areas for budget cuts, because so many areas of the budget are mandated by state law or contract obligations.
Since you didn't understand Swurgle's answer, I will assume it wasn't easy enough. I'll try a much simpler one. The citizens of Teaneck support it.
Doubtful. You can be sure that the majority of Teaneck residents are barely aware of the program, and few if any of those have ever subjected it to any kind of scrutiny.
Perhaps you could recommend selling the Rhoda center and Votee park for commercial development...
This is just silly. Don't project your own inability to hold a nuanced position onto others. One can support sponsoring eight weeknight sessions of discounted karate lessons while raising an eyebrow at eight months of significantly reduced preschool.
Feel free to references propaganda articles like the one about Stockholm from the Spero group. In case you were wondering it’s not a “progressive” site.
I was waiting for this objection, which is why I have this one from a Guardian site all cued up for you. Does the Guardian pass muster with progressives?
What might seem wasteful and useless to one person might be a terrific bargain to someone else.
Here's an example:
About $5,000 of my property tax bill goes to the Board of Education. What do I get for $5,000? A high quality education for my kids taught by top-tier, committed, experienced educators. In fact, my kids teachers are more experienced and qualified than the typical teacher at a private school where tuition is $20,000 per year.
For $2,500 per kid per year.
I just wish that more people would take a closer look at what the public schools have to offer and what a bargain they are for those who take advantage of them.
Swurgle-
Your view of the public schools are great I am glad that the schools work for you and yours...I for one did not find them to my liking or standard so I spend an extra $8,000 per year on top of my already $5000 property tax contribution to send my kids to a private school...what do I get for my $5000, lets see $771. approx. for busing reimbursment and that is it!
from my previous post...
since I only use $771 approx from my $5000 property tax donation to the BOE swurgle and her/his buddies get some extra funds for their kiddies..somewhere around $4229...mulitply that by all of the kids that go to private schools but their folks have to pay the tax bill still...Teaneck BOE is making a KILLING...such a KILLING that you would think the schools would rank a bit better
:-)
Before this thread gets transformed into yet another free-for-all on the quality and efficiency of the Teaneck public school system, please keep in mind that this has little relevance to the question of whether the Recreation Department should be running a small taxpayer funded preschool.
Now have at it, if you must...
Doesn't the PreK progam at Bryant ... get part of its funding from the school budget..
While this is true, the budget cut does not get spread evenly across the school programs. The town council gets to set the amount of the budget cut and make recommendations as to where cuts can be made. However it is the BofE that determines the actual cuts. The budget cuts were taken in other areas of the budget, not in the preK program.
Teaneck Blog said...
... this has little relevance to the question of whether the Recreation Department should be running a small taxpayer funded preschool.
Perhaps the public schools get into the discussion because others realize they are both questions of public financing of education.
While as usual you've carefully chosen your words to never actually give an opinion, it appears to me that you believe the Teaneck Recreation pre-school program should not exist. You've acknowledged that you have no idea what it actually costs the town, but still seem to feel it's an unwarranted use of public funds. If it's subsidized it it shouldn't be. If it's not (or minimally) subsidized, it should still charge something closer to the private pre-schools and make a profit. Is this anywhere close?
I'm also having a bit of trouble with understanding your nuance. You seem to feel other public expenditures that benefit various segments of the town are acceptable. Can you perhaps let us know your standards? Or perhaps provide some examples of which you feel are justified and which aren't? I am particularly curious how you feel about the $50,000 for trees.
I was waiting for this objection, which is why I have this one from a Guardian site all cued up for you. Does the Guardian pass muster with progressives?
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting the articles are similar in there view? If so I would suggest reading them again. They are closer than Spero's view of Mel Gibson and the Guardian's sites, "The lessons of Mel Gibson."
As for your question about progressives. I don't speak for whoever you are referring to as progressives.
The issue with this program is that it is open to all, with the capacity to serve few. In this way, it is distinguishable from the library, having a rec center, and such which have the capacity to serve many.
That does not mean that Teaneck should not run programs with limited slots. However, at that point you need (1) a clear public policy value; or (2) deminimus cost.
Point #2 covers things like chess lessons where the building space is a "sunk" cost and the cost of instruction relatively low.
In the context of Point #1, if entry to this progam was need based, I personally would be supportive given the importance of quality PreK to future educational development. Opening it to "everyone" dilutes the public policy benefit, since there are PreK alternatives for those that can afford it and the town cannot afford to make it a benefit available to all that want it (such as the library).
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting the articles are similar in there view? If so I would suggest reading them again.
The link was only to make the point that the Swedish electorate has recently come to grips with the fact that their sprawling public sector has become an insupportable burden. Both articles illustrate the point well enough for my purposes.
As for clarifying my position on the Rec Department preschool program, the last Anonymous poster seems to have encapsulated it fairly well.
As for the $50,000 expense for trees, I have no opinion. It's not something I would either support or oppose on principle, so in the absence of any more information, I have nothing to say on the subject.
Swurgle- stop it with the DeGraw development, It is county park land and was deeded years ago and you cant change that.Also it is wetland and you cant build on wetlands. Should Paramus build on Van Suan Park? Should Teaneck knock down Argonne Park and Votee PArk and build McMansions.Also the idea of a ratable chase never works. Build Cedar Land UP, making condos above the stores is really the only way to go.
Here's one - build stores on the parks adjoining Rt 4. I have never understood the boast that we have green spaces on Rt 4. Not exactly the ideal space to play ball, no one uses them and it only benefits drivers for the 3 seconds they pass through. The access to Rt 4 means that they will not disrupt local traffic patterns. As to the residents across from these parks, require nice landscaping behind the stores - it has to beat a view of Rt 4.
Unfortunately (for your argument about the possibilities of development along Rt. 4) the "Greenbelt" area of Route 4 in Teaneck is officially historic, I believe, and cannot be altered without considerable effort.
Re: Building retail on the Route 4 "greenbelt", there's not enough width on any parcel along Route 4 to fit buildings plus parking plus loading docks in the rear.
there's not enough width on any parcel along Route 4 to fit buildings plus parking plus loading docks in the rear.
sounds like Cedar Lane
Cedar Lane is grandfathered in. Nobody would "build" Cedar Lane today.
As for the question of adding height to Cedar Lane with condos above stores - like they're currently doing in Englewood - it's a great idea, but a logistical nightmare. Can existing landlords be encouraged to demolish and rebuild their properties for mixed use? Should the town use it's powers eminent domain to assemble groups of privately owned properties for demolition and reconstruction? How would the the people of Teaneck feel about 4 and 5 story buildings lining Cedar Lane anyway? I'm sure the issue of traffic and parking would come up as well as the impact of the increase in population on the surrounding neighborhoods.
Englewood has done a great job of redeveloping Palisade Avenue. They've been working on it for about 30 years. Teaneck can probably learn alot by talking to Englewood's redevelopment officials about how they did it.
As for the $50,000 expense for trees, I have no opinion. It's not something I would either support or oppose on principle, so in the absence of any more information, I have nothing to say on the subject.
tom - haven't you worked it out yet or can't you see the nuance? It's only education that he opposes it on principle!
Actually, un-nuanced, uncritical support for the Board of Education on principle seems to be a common theme among some posters on this blog. It would be one thing if the Teaneck schools were a model of either fiscal responsibility or academic achievement. However, the schools leave a lot to be desired on both fronts and one should be able to critically examine the performance of the schools and the Board of Education without being labeled an opponent of public school education.
Instead, any critique of schools carries the automatic assumption that the author is an opponent of adequate funding of public school education resulting from the fact that the author (1) has no children in the school system (as if taxpayer status is not sufficient to give one a seat at the table for this discussion or, possibly, that some parents might actually dare critique a school district that self-proclaims excellence with scant objective factual basis); (2) has never visited a Teaneck school (as if even a one day visit to any school would give anyone a comprehensive view of the quality of instruction); (3) is a rich private school parent (as if those with means enjoy spending money on education when a quality free education is available); (4) is unacquainted with little Johnny or Sally who received an excellent education at the Teaneck public schools (as if anyone is arguing that no one receives a good education in the Teaneck schools) and/or (5) is Orthodox (whose greatest sin seems to be self-funding the educational costs of about half of Teaneck’s school age population).
For a change of pace, I’d love to see the BoE supporters provide an explanation as to why Teaneck is in the top 10% of most spending categories while neighboring towns are not and produce some objective data demonstrating that our teachers are not overpaid relative to those in neighboring towns and that the performance of our entire district (not cherry picking ethnic/racial groups) is good (top 80%) much less excellent. Establish these facts and then you will begin to have a basis to argue that criticism of the BoE = opposition to education.
I would like to see those that criticize Teaneck's public school system suggest ways to make it better.
Unfettered criticism without recommendations for improvement is not enough. If you really want to see change, contribute something more than random posts on a little-read blogging forum.
Get in the schools and participate in the process!
People in the 5 categories listed above have not exactly received a warm reception when they have tried to become involved. If you recall the incredibly ill-conceived (to be charitable) TEANECK CARES campaign of a few years ago, 2 of the most frequent criticisms against them were their lack of prior experience with the Board and their lack of children in the school system (the fact that the much beloved then Superintendent had no prior history with Teaneck and did not even live in NJ did not really bother anyone). Voting rose dramatically as the defenders of the status quo rushed to the polls (this is not to suggest that the Teaneck CARES slate merited anyone's vote).
This year's election caught the BoE and its supporters off-guard. I am pretty confident they will turn out in much greater numbers next year and their candidates of choice will be incumbents and candidates who talk about adding programs rather than evaluating existing ones. In fact, until this year, Henry Pruitt is the only candidate I can remember in recent memory who identified problems that should be fixed. Most candidates do not even mention fiscal responsibility in their campaign ads.
As to suggestions for improvement - in the military they call the Teaneck schools a "target rich environment." In an earlier post someone suggested an early retirement program and a two-tier wage system (new teachers start on a different scale) as a way for reducing salary expense. The Board could consider performance bonuses for teacher's whose students perform well on applicable tests - this approach has been used with encouraging results in NYC (where Chancellor Klein raised private funds to pay the bonuses!). The list goes on and on.
However, to change you have to be willing to admit there is a problem and be open to suggestions. Pro-BoE posters on this blog seem unwilling to acknowledge a problem and the best evidence of the BoE's openness to change is the vehemence with which they rejected the possibility that the Town Council's Financial Advisory Board review BoE finances as well. Since their findings would be non-binding and not funded by the BoE, what exactly are they afraid of?
Having the town council appoint a board to review the school budget is as appropriate as the BofE appointing a board to review the town council budget.
With the one critical difference that the Town Council is adult enough to bring its spending under outside review. I would think the BoE would welcome the input of a free outisde review, but I note that the BoE did not respond by offering to commission its own outside review. Best case the outside review confirms BoE claims that they are running a reasonably cost effective operation. More likely case, they walk away with some identified areas for improvement.
Raising the question again - what are they afraid of?
Raising the question again - what are they afraid of?
You've already invested a chunk of time in crafting several thought provoking posts. Why not spend an extra moment or two to create a username so we can all better appreciate your contributions to this forum? Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home