Is there a spin doctor in the house?
What else will it take to prod the Teaneck's Board of Education into displaying a commitment to curb spending? With confidence in the BoE's fiscal responsibility already dented by a slew of comparative measures that show Teaneck to be among the freest-spending of school districts in the region, the Record reports on a study released by New Jersey's Department of Education suggesting that Teaneck's school expenditures are far in excess of what would be required in order to provide students with a "thorough and efficient education." The time for taking measures to demonstrate to the public that the BOE is looking for ways to curb costs is now.While the general conclusion of the report was that schools statewide are underfunded by at least $190 million, Teaneck's schools were adjudged to be overfunded by a staggering $9.4 million, or 17.6%. While these numbers may not shock many of those who have looked at Teaneck's elevated per pupil spending figures, they do provide more evidence for the view that the BOE could be running a tighter ship. Up to now, some defenders of the status quo have contended that Teaneck is somehow different, rendering straightforward statistical comparisons invalid. While the results of this report are preliminary and the methodology that produced them is opaque, the presence of an additional datapoint makes it harder to insist that the numbers are irrelevant.
Reaction from the BOE is not yet forthcoming. The Record was only able to elicit this comment from BOE President Judith McKay:
"The state has never clearly defined what they mean by a 'thorough and efficient' education," said Judith McKay, Teaneck Board of Education president. "So it's very difficult to comment on are we going above and beyond."In any case, it is not elaborate explanations but deeds that are needed here. Having resisted the Council's invitation to subject its spending to the review of the Financial Advisory Board, the BOE passed up an opportunity to portray itself as a body that embraces additional oversight and welcomes new ideas on how to save taxpayers money. While it was well within its rights to do that, it may have been a short-sighted step.
The reasons why Teaneck residents are increasingly focused on the bottom line, especially when it comes to school spending, have been well documented. With the fiscal situation unlikely to improve on its own and a district that is shrinking in size, now seems like the perfect time to begin the process of making moderate cuts in expenditures to avoid an unwelcome shock to the system in the future. Hopefully that will be enough to stem the risk of the most unwelcome shock of all- the kind that may be delivered at the ballot box by an electorate that is fed up and mobilized to make a point without regard to the long-term damage it might cause. The BOE owes itself, and all of us who care about public education, protection from that fate.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:18 AM
26 Comments:
Kudos!
But the old farts on the BOE are very intrenched in doing things their way..wasting the taxpayers money...hopefully though the BOE will see the error of their ways and curb their spending before the taxpayers force them to curb it again.
The New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) does an extremely thorough job of collecting information regarding public education and providing the public with the information needed to make informed judgments regarding the educational and financial performance of public school systems.
Each March, the NJDOE publishes the annual Comparative Spending Guide (CSG), documenting financial performance, with districts broken down by type (K-12, K-6, 7-12, K-8, 9-12) and size, with details provided for Total Cost Per Pupil, Total Classroom Instruction, Total Support Services, Total Administrative Costs and Total Operations and Maintenance, all calculated on a per pupil basis, along with Median Teacher Salary and other detail drilldowns. The bottom line number from the CSG, Total Comparative Cost per Pupil, is intended to allow an apples-to-apples comparison of costs to educate a student across districts, and excludes out-of-district tuition payments for special education students and transportation expenditures. Click on http://www.state.nj.us/njded/data/ for access to the full range of NJDOE data.
The way the document is structured, the Comparative Spending Guide compares Teaneck to all K-12 districts statewide with more than 3,500 students. As costs in northern New Jersey are higher than those in some areas elsewhere in the state, it can be difficult to make meaningful comparisons staright from the CSG. In each of the past few years, I have extracted data from the CSG, providing a comparison of Teaneck to all 36 of the K-12 districts in Bergen County. The 2005 analysis is avaliable online at
http://www.teaneckinfo.com/yti/ViewArticle.ascx?id=27, and shows that Teaneck had a Total Cost per Pupil of $13,256, over 20% above the unweighted average spending of the 35 other K-12 districts in the County. This number passed $14,000 for the 2005-06 school year and is just about $15,000 in the revised budget for the current 2006-07 school year. The Teaneck Public Schools' expenditures are significantly above average in virtually every category; 18% over in Administrative Services, 25% in Classroom Instruction, rising to nearly 50% in Operations and Maintenance.
Based on my analysis using this comparison to countywide averages, Teaneck was spending $8.5 million above average in 2003-04 and $11 million on 2004-05.
The cover article in Saturday's Record, which showed that Teaneck's spending was $9.4 million above that needed to provide the "Thorough and Efficient" (T&E) education mandated by the State Constitution, falls firmly within the range of my study. Unfortuately, the state has not disclosed the methodology used to calculate the T&E education, which is disappointing, and makes interpretation more difficult. Yet, whether the amount is "really" only $8 million or even $5million, we should recognize that there is a genuine issue that must be addressed.
In the business world, we look at best practices to identify the most effective way to deliver a particular outcome. In the world of commerce, those holding the most desireable information on industry-best practices are competitors, and (for some unknown reason) are often unwilling to divulge data that provide them with competitive advantages.
Not so in government. All of the requisite data is publicly available, in the CSG and in myriad other sources. Each of the 592 operating school districts in the state are a laboratory for providing students with an education; some are going to tap into or evolve methods and practices that allow them to operate more effectively and efficiently.
We need to be identifying those districts that have achieved the greatest success in educating their students and controlling costs, identifying those practices that allow them to perform more efficiently than we do, and applying those methodologies to improve the education our students receive and controlling the ever-spiraling costs that Teaneck taxpayers must bear.
The skills needed to work with the district to perform this analysis are all available within our community. A financial advisory board, whether the FAB constituted by the Township Council, or an equivalent body constituted by the Board of Education, would go a long way to assisting the district in providing an education that is both thorough AND efficient.
Alan Sohn
Alan-
Great post....and thank you for providing the links you did!
If you really want to understand why we are $9M over, look at the list of teachers' salaries starting on p15 of the following: http://www.teaneckschools.org/pdf/aboutus/boardofeducation/minutes/2006_2007minutes/minutes083006spm.pdf. The number of PreK/K and health/fitness teachers making the maximum salary of $96,000 is hard to believe. Keep in mind that in addition to salary, they also benefit from incredibly generous healthcare benefits.
Based on the State "Report Card," in 2004-2005 teachers' salaries constituted 58% of education spending in Teaneck. It is clear that no meaningful progress can be made on cost containment without dealing with salaries. Unfortunately, we are only in Year 1 of a 3 year contract and the contract has yearly increases that are certain to exceed inflation - Teaneck's "overspend," therefore, is almost certain to increase.
It looks like the URL did not come through completely.
http://www.teaneckschools.org/pdf/aboutus/boardofeducation/minutes/2006_2007minutes/minutes083006spm.pdf
8:40blogger-
Your links do not work...
Can't seem to get the full link in. If you go to www.teaneckschools.org and search the terms "august" "minutes" then select the August 2006 meeting minutes, you will get the document I wrote about.
8:40blogger-
Thank you I shall do that :)
The real question is, how many of the 4,367 students in Teaneck are actually residents of Teaneck?
Anon-
that is a great question..aks my self that everyday when I pass the bus stops to NYC and they are filled with kids from the HIgh School :)
I would guess that the incremental cost of instructing any one student is pretty low. Therefore, given the magnitude of the overall budget problem, unless the number of non-resident students is so large that their removal from the district will result in the reduction of a meaningful number of classes, this is not the solution. That is not to say every bit helps - but this is not where I would focus my energy.
For more on the issue of non-resident students, please see here.
WHO IS WATCHING THE STORE ?
I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER , BUT IF THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT THINGS WHERE IN ORDER THE FAB WOULD BE WELCOMED ! HERE IS OURS BOOKS TAKE A LOOK , GIVE US SOME SUGGESTIONS ..TAXDOLLARS ARE NOT WASTED HERE..
The "books" of both the township and the council are already open to anybody. Anyone can review them and offer suggestions.
While in theory I have the right to go to the BoE and inspect the books and records of the Board, if you search the term "budget" on the BoE website you get to the following very helpful entry: "The 2006-2007 school year budget was defeated by Teaneck voters on April 18, 2006 by a margin of 1,644 TO 1,336."
Contrast this with the Manager's Report put out by the town. Whatever else you can say about the Town Council's effectiveness, the Report is pretty comprehensive. Where is the BoE counterpart?
There is no question that both the Township and the Board should use the Internet more effectively in conveying information to the public. The BofE budget should have been on the site before the school board election.
The township Manager's Report while useful, is out of date. It has online since at least September of 2005. The new one has been out on paper for at least a month or two. Considering the cost of printing vs the near zero cost of publishing it on the Internet, it's hard to understand.
(I've been told for many years that the budget is also available at the library but I've never verified it.)
Once again -- the school system employs a full-time retired police officer who investigates all reports of non-resident students throughout the year, not on a one-shot basis. Leads regularly come from administrators, teachers, custodians, school nurses, parents and students and result in the ongoing vigilance we have. The kids you may see on the bus are ones taking it to and from the high school or midd schools from other parts of town, because we no longer provide busing to those schools. There are also students that have divorced parents or who live legally with grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.
Teaneck never offered bussing to the High School or Middle Schools...not even when I was in them way back when.
As for them going to other parts of town ..doubt it as the bus they catch is headed to the City..via the GWB...looks like they are nonresidents abusing our school system!
$100.00 here , $50.00 there..it does add up and who pays the piper ? us the taxpayer.
DO NOT WASTE MY HARD EARNED MONEY
I propose a apartment unit surcharge,paid for by the occupant of the unit to generate needed revenue. It is only fair to the many private home owners that the renters start pulling some of the load.
Tom:
The BoE has actually gone in reverse. There is less public budget information available on their website than there was a couple of years ago. Go to the Human Resources section. Teacher's salaries are not posted and the site indicates that the "new" teacher's contract - which I believe was completed last February - will be posted "soon." Also, I do not believe that the "Report on Excellence" (or whatever the pre-budget vote yearly update to residents was called) was sent out this year.
Begging the question - what are they afraid of/hiding?
8:40blogger:
The "new" Teacher's Contract, finalized in June, is posted. Salary levels are included. Individual teacher salaries are also posted as part of the August agenda.
Instead of posting what you believe and making unfounded anonymous accusations, ask the school board or administration and get real answers.
First, I should not need to ask for this information. It should be provided for all to see and be easy to find (see my second point). I should not need to be an investigative reporter to find out how my tax dollars are spent.
Second, the Board seems more concerned about communicating with employees than with say, residents. The page you identify is in the "For Employee" section. However, if you go to "District Departments" section and then the HR section, you will find that the contract section is as a I said "Contract Coming Soon" and the salary scale is blank. So my posting was neither "based on belief" or "unfounded."
My error was believing that the BoE might be more interested in communicating with me, a town resident, rather than employees. Given the effectiveness of the Teachers' Union at the bargaining table, I'm pretty confident they already have copies of their contracts.
840:
How do you feel about the town council? They don't have any contracts online. Not even the new contract with Birdsall Engineering. Do you believe it's because they have something to hide?
Tom, you must be joking. Teachers' salaries are over 55% of the School Budget,Birdsall at 80-90K is probably under 1% of the town budget. If you were trying to convince us that you are unwilling to tolerate any criticism of the Board - you've made your case.
That said, I think it would be a good practice for both the Board and the Council to post material contracts on the web and make it easy to find on the website. While I don't think the Birdsall contract is material based on its size, I think the Council would be wise to post it given the controversy around it.
Also, to be clear, I believe the Town Council (both new and old) is far from perfect. However, the Town Manager's Report provides much more information than the Board pro-actively provides town residents (I should not have to visit the Board or go to meetings to get this information). Further, the new Council has embraced the notion of outside review. While it is too early to tell how "real" this process will be, it is a step in the right direction in building public confidence in the fiscal prudence of the Council.
I will rephrase. The town website has no contracts online. None of the labor contract are online. As you implied your inability to find the teachers contract was evidence that the BofE is hiding something, do you reach a similar conclusion about the council?
As I've said before the current Town Manager's report for 2005 is not online. You can get it at a council meeting or at the town offices.
While the newly appointed Financial Advisory Board may well produce beneficial, it is not an "outside" review.
Also, where did you get the over 55% figure?
If anyone is still reading on this thread, I'll leave it to them to decided if the Board is doing an adequate job of fostering confidence in its fiscal prudence.
As to the facts, the 55% number is from the Dept of Education report card. The most recent posted is from the 2004-2005 school year. The actual number is 58% and the site describes this number as "Percents of teacher salaries and benefits of the total comparative expenditures."
Anticipating your next "nit," the 58% does include teachers' benefits and that in no way changes the core argument that teacher's contract is by definition by far the largest financial obligation of the Board and therefore should be posted - which the Board has done for employees and town residents who correctly understand that the Board is far more interested in communicating with employees than residents.
Post a Comment
<< Home