Not that special
An article in today's New York Times suggests that declining rates of public school enrollment among upper middle class families could be a regional trend. The Times tells the stories of a number of upwardly mobile parents who moved to communities reputed to have the best public school districts around, only to wind up enrolling their children in private schools after becoming disenchanted with the public schools. Though the Times does not present much hard data, the anecdotal evidence cited suggests that more are opting for private schools, even in towns where school taxes are extremely high and the public schools are considered a major draw on account of their elevated rankings and high test scores.
What does this mean for Teaneck, which, to put it charitably, seems to be a little bit ahead of this trend? To my mind, nothing more than that the schools should stick to their knitting. If the future brings even lower public school enrollments, especially among those who pay the steepest property taxes, all we can really do is play the hand we have been dealt. The Board of Ed should actively promote transparency and efficiency to make sure the schools are being run with the best interests of all of the town's residents in mind. Then, instead of agonizing about becoming the next Lawrence, we can look forward to becoming the next Yorktown.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 9:50 AM
14 Comments:
well just think...if there are less kids in the public schools then the taxes should go down (school portion of the tax)..they have less kids in the schools to educate hence they need less money :)that is unless Teaneck keeps allowing out of town kids to use the schools free of charge!
The district's calculations, calculated using the gruesomely worded "cohort survial ratio", show a decline from 4,588 students in 2005 to 4,536 in 2006, followed by declines of around 60-100 students per year through 2011. After 2011, enrollment will level off at 4,202, then decline slowly through the end of its 2015 projection timeframe to the mid 4,100's. This would amount to a 10% decline over the upcoming decade.
Interestingly, the estimates show a precipitous drop in High School enrollment, from 1,486 in 2006 to 1,095 students in 2015, a decline in the decade of over 25%. Middle school enrollment is project to decline from 2005's total of 1,300 to 1,108 in 2001 before rebounding.
It's only elementary school enrollment -- at 1,401 in 2006, and forecast to grow slightly and level off at 1,461 by 2012 -- that shows any signs of stability.
The high school and middle school stats, where many of the students are already living in Teaneck, are showing sharp declines, while elementary school enrollment, when many of the students haven't been born yet, many of the parent haven't even met or heard of Teaneck, are a model of consistency in projected attendance. I will pursue obtaining additional information regarding the source of this artifact in the model generated on behalf of the district.
This decline will obviously offer some benefits to Teaneck as a whole in helping ease some of the tax burdens. The average cost of educating a single student of $15,000 will not be saved by the reduction of each student. However, the marginal cost, which could well be in the $10,000 per student range (for argument's sake), could amount to reductions in expenditures of $600,000 to $900,000 per year over the next five years (based on total enrollment NOT on actual expenditures in those years). As the biggest drop will be in high school students, who are more expensive to educate (multiple teachers requiring advanced degrees, classrooms, laboratories and other facilities vs. a single teacher), these savings may be fairly accurate.
The fact that the full average cost of $15,000 cannot be saved by reducing a single student, is a sign of the staggeringly high fixed costs of being in the school business. The already Bergen County-leading (among K-12 districts) Total Comparitive Cost per Pupil (TCPP) of $15,000 will soar in the near term, unless extremely difficult choices are made in the very near future as to how to deal with the decline in attendees. The use of TCPP as the gold standard benchmark for evaluating spending across districts, will make increases in this measure in future years increaingly unpalatable.
While it may require some shifting of grades across facilities, the Teaneck Public Schools may find itself with an extra school building (or two) in the upcoming years, which may offer the opportunity to sell what may still be a valuable piece of real estate. This would not only offer a one-time benefit to Teaneck's taxpayers, it would also help reduce ongoing costs through consolidation into a smaller number of facilities and the staff needed to support a superannuated and obsolescent physical plant. Plans should be considered right now to develop a strategy for reconfiguring school assignments to help position the district for this eventuality.
Overall, in terms of total spending, the project declines of 1.5-2% in enrollment each of the next five years will place a small brake on total growth in spending. Yet work -- hard work -- must still be done to address the structural problems that have left our district, and all of Teaneck's residents, with a substantial tax burden to cover its expenses.
Alan Sohn
Teaneck Blog:
What do you mean by the "...the schools should stick to their knitting"?
Also can you elaborate on what you mean by, "The Board of Ed should actively promote transparency...?
By the former I mean that the schools themselves ought not attempt to wage some sort of battle to attract students in the face of prevailing trends but rather should focus on educating those who walk through their doors as best they can.
By the latter, I mean that the BoE, whose role is rather different, ought to reach out to the community as much as possible and take every concrete step it can to operate completely openly and with the maximal public scrutiny possible to erase all doubt as to whether it is serving as a faithful trustee for all stakeholders and favoring none.
Before you protest that either this is hopelessly vague or already being done to perfection by the current BoE, you may rest assured that we are all aware of your views on these matters, and yet I still feel these sentiments are worth expressing and are widely shared.
The BofE does operate as openly as possible.
The BofE and the school administration do reach out to the community.
The primary interest of the BofE members is education. I believe every candidate, successful or not, has campaigned, with a promise that they will primarily be advocates for students.
The standard you propose for transparency is set so high, that I don't believe any legislative body or policy making board could meet them.
some big egos in the Board Room.
but all very dedicated to our kids/township
Tom, so I guess the information is out there and I have not seen it. Could you point me to the BoE's communications around the following:
1. Last year's budget - even the annual "Report on Excellence" (or whatever they called it) did not come out.
2. An explanation about the pension given to the former Superintendent.
3. A justification of the significantly above inflation raises given to some of NJ's best paid teachers.
4. Any substantive response to the State experts finding that Teaneck overspends by more than 17%.
You would think that the BoE would communicate proactively on all of these issues, if for no other reason than to ensure continue community support for Teaneck schools.
As you are well aware from prior discussions, the budget has been available from the school administration since sometime in June. Before you complain that its not available unless you don’t have to make an effort, the Final Budget for the Fiscal Year – July 1,2006 – June 30, 2007 is also on the website. It has been there for about a week. A total surprise.
The lastest Teaneck Manager's Report has also been posted since last we discussed this same subject. It's been there two weeks.
and ...
I believe you are mistaken about the "Report on Excellence" but I don't really know. Do I need to tell you again where you get a copy or find out if it was issued?
The other "communications", you request don't exist and I believe that is appropriate. Keep in mind I don't speak for the school board or its members.
and ...
4. Any substantive response to the State experts finding that Teaneck overspends by more than 17%.
How does one give a "substantive response" to an insubstantial report. I should point out that experts did not use the term "overspends".
I believe, the following quotes from the article support my view:
State officials declined to comment on the methodology or accuracy of the estimates, which officials would describe only as "preliminary" and a "work in progress."
...
"I would caution any legislator or district official or board member from putting any credence into these numbers, unless and until the Department of Education can come forward and present full documentation of how they arrived at them," said David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center, who participated in the state's effort.
...
"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."
Again not speaking for the board, I would hope that the Teaneck School System goes "above and beyond" a "thorough and efficient" education.
...
3. A justification of the significantly above inflation raises given to some of NJ's best paid teachers.
Teachers' salaries are negotiated through collective bargaining. When negotiating raises the appropriate comparison is not the inflation rate, but rather the results of similar negotiations with those in the same profession in nearby areas.
2. An explanation about the pension given to the former Superintendent.
An explanation is provided by the state in it's report. I don't suppose thats the explanation you're looking for.
Again not speaking for the board and only giving my opinions. A pension is a contractual obligation. In this case the contract would have been executed sometime in the late 80's or early 90's. As the abuses mentioned in the report were not local to Teaneck or to school systems, but rather systemic throughout NJ, I assume this was not an unusual contract. When the board approved the pension is 2003, it was approval of a contractual obligation. If they had not approved the pension they it would have led to a long and expensive legal battle. I suspect the outcome would have been no savings on the pension side but hugh legal fees and possibly punitive damages. Any "explanation" now that suggested the ex-superintendent had acted illegally could also lead to costly litigation.
Again just my views. I have not discussed this with any board members.
Not going to debate you on your individual point, but it is clear the BoE could use you or someone like you. My point this was that when controversial issues arise the Board of Ed does not feel any need to communicate through the press, email or otherwise to explain their side as you just did. Would help to create a feeling that they actually feel accountable to those that elect them.
In response, please don't tell me I could go to their meetings and ask. That is not the point.
Post a Comment
<< Home