By Frank Belluscio

On May 18, long before the state’s other education organizations weighed in — and long before last week’s ill-fated “compromise” between the Department of Education and the state teachers union — the New Jersey School Boards Association endorsed the state’s prospective Race to the Top application.

The Association urged local school boards to seriously consider signing memoranda of agreement to participate, based to large extent on aspects that were later eliminated or weakened under the May 27 compromise with the NJEA.

From the May 18 letter of endorsement by Marie S. Bilik, NJSBA executive director:

“The proposals reflected in the round two application…would serve to open doors to educational opportunity for disadvantaged students, advance student achievement by providing additional teacher compensation based on classroom performance, build an accurate and useful database of student achievement, and give local school officials the ability to retain the best teachers by making needed changes in the state’s tenure and seniority system.”

Yesterday afternoon (6/1) turned into a period of high drama on the Internet, as the state announced it was submitting an application based on its original plans.  What followed were news reports describing two situations (select one):

(a)  After reviewing the application over the weekend, state Department of Education officials determined that the NJEA compromises jeopardized New Jersey’s chances to receive the grant; or

(b)  The governor decided to veto the compromise based on political concerns.

Not unexpected were statements from the NJEA accusing the governor of reneging on the deal and from the Senate and Assembly Democrats saying that the governor took his cue from conservative radio commentators and, in the process, severely undermined New Jersey’s chances of winning RTTT grant funds.

What’s left now is a conceptually stronger application, but one which political controversy might sink.  Let’s hope that the U.S. Department of Education evaluators don’t read news websites before making decisions on grant applications.  What’s at stake here is $400 million and a lot more.

By Frank Belluscio 

New Jersey is a state populated by an “argumentative people,” with children enrolled in a “wretched” school system, governed by elections set up to “rig the game.”

Forget the high property taxes.  That image by itself would drive people out of this state.  Why would anyone want to live here? Why would any business invest here?

What’s surprising is this negative image is resulting not from God-awful reality TV shows or talk radio that specializes in blasting government.  It’s being promoted by the government itself…at least inadvertently.  Thankfully, it’s not accurate.

Let’s look at some recent examples of poor choices of words from state politicians and the people who work for them.

(1)  ‘Rig the Game’ In announcing his “toolkit” on Monday, Governor Christie made the following comment about the proposal to move school elections to November.  “We need more voters to participate in the school board and fire district process in order to have it reflect in a much greater way than it does today, the interest of all the people in New Jersey and not just the special interest who organize and set up those elections in order to rig the game.  To rig the game so that they get the result that they want.”

I’m not a spokesman for the administration, but I think the message (which NJSBA would not agree with) that the governor intended to convey is this: ”Too few people vote in the April election; it gives special interests, like teacher unions, the ability to impact the outcome.  We can eliminate that influence by moving the school election to November.”

Unfortunately, bringing the expression “rig the game” into the discussion conjures up images of fixed elections, electioneering and the cliché, “vote early and often.”

So, just in case anyone asks you, here are some facts about the Annual School Elections–whether they take place in April or at any other time of year:

• School elections are conducted by the state’s 21 county boards of election, not local school districts.  Any concern about “rigging the game” should immediately be brought to the attention of the county clerk.
• A long line of court decisions, dating from 1953, prohibits the expenditure of public funds to encourage citizens to vote “yes” or “no” on any public question, including the proposed school budget, or to vote in favor or against any candidate for office.  If such violations occur, a complaint could be filed with Superior Court.
• The state Accountability Regulations prohibit the name or photo of any school board member from appearing in school district-issued material during the 90 days preceding school election. (I’m not aware of similar restrictions for municipalities or counties.)
• School board candidates must file the same financial disclosures and campaign contribution reports with the state’s Election Law Enforcement Commission as do all other candidates for political office.
• Prohibitions against electioneering and other actions to intimidate voters apply to school elections as they do to all elections.

But let’s face it.  The governor wasn’t really talking about election fraud or electioneering.  He was talking about the NJEA and, maybe, us too.

(2)  A ‘Wretched System’  He’s the new guy, who recently came over to the “dark side” (i.e., government public relations) after years as a reporter.  So, maybe we should cut him a break.  Unfortunately, the commissioner of education’s spokesman definitely chose the wrong adjective when communicating with a Star-Ledger columnist not known for giving government officials breaks of any sort.

Let me recount the column: When asked to address New Jersey’s performance on the U.S. Department of Education’s National Assessment of Educational Progress, the spokesman called the results “irrelevant.” According to the Star-Ledger, he stated, “We should not take solace in the fact that we score well in a wretched system that fails to adequately teach such a high percentage of children.”

Somehow, I don’t think superintendents in places like Livingston or Westfield believe their students are being taught in a wretched system.  In fact, New Jersey’s continued excellent performance on the NAEP–one of the few “apples-to-apples” comparisons of public school students’ performance nationwide–illustrates the overall success of our state’s public schools.

So, here is the message that I think the Department of Education spokesman meant to deliver or, at least, should have conveyed: “We should not be satisfied with the NAEP results because there are many students whose educational needs are not being met under the current system.  Until we change the system so that these students also have the opportunity to succeed, we cannot celebrate.”

Of course, part of the administration’s proposed solution–vouchers–is something NJSBA cannot support, based on long-standing policy against the use of public funds for non-public schools.  But dismissing a valid measure of student achievement and “dissing” the success of high performing schools will not help achieve the goal–educational opportunity for all–that we all share.

(3) ‘Malfeasance.’ Don’t think for a minute that the administration is the only branch of government guilty of choosing its words indiscriminately.  It has a long way to go before meeting the “standard” set by certain committees of the state Legislature.  My “favorite” example came from a member of the Assembly Budget Committee, when he charged local school boards with “malfeasance”–not a particular board, but school boards in general.  That’s a powerful–and, frankly, awful–accusation to make against 588 public bodies, with 4,800 unpaid members.  (Sometimes, there seem to be two classes of elected officials: those who are paid and have the bully pulpit, and those who are unpaid and become undeserved targets.)

Of course, the legislator who made the “malfeasance” remark fell into the practice, common among politicians, of taking an isolated incident (if I recall right, it was the time a school district was found to have paid its bus drivers for the time it took them to charge their cell phones) and applying it to everyone.

We might expect unfounded, irresponsible statements from radio talk show hosts.  Elected officials should operate at a higher level.  Unfortunately, they’re choosing not to, and public discourse is the worse for it.

By Frank Belluscio 

The call came in just after 9.  It was my assistant’s daughter, asking for her mom, but eager to tell somebody–anybody–that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center and that they (the news people, the police) thought it was an accident…until (more…)

By Frank Belluscio 

“Any discussion of how to reduce New Jersey’s oppressive property taxes must begin with reforming the collective bargaining process and bringing public employee salaries and benefits in line with what taxpayers can afford. That conversation needs to begin now.” – Asbury Park Press editorial (9/6/2009)

Kudos to the Asbury Park Press. Far too often, newspaper commentaries on education spending and collective bargaining in New Jersey’s public schools arrive at simplistic conclusions: Powerful teacher unions overwhelm school boards; complacent school boards let it happen; or local associations and school boards are part of the same public education establishment.

Identification of the real problems, and solutions, requires in-depth knowledge–something frequently not reflected in newspaper editorials about collective bargaining and teacher salaries.  An Asbury Park Press editorial, published over Labor Day weekend, proved to be somewhat of an exception.  While complaining that average settlement rates are not dropping fast enough, the editorial took aim at a critical part of the collective bargaining process for many school districts–impasse procedures, particularly fact-finding.  That’s an area into which the commentators from the news media seldom venture, but one which a number of local school boards have found problematic.

In making its case, the Press arrived at several conclusions, including the following:

“Who’s to blame [for the slow drop in settlement rates]? For the most part, the state, not local school boards.  Even if school boards wanted to play hardball, their hands are tied by a collective bargaining process that renders them virtually powerless. ”

NJSBA strongly disagrees with the writer that local school boards are powerless in the collective bargaining process.  (The writer also fails to mention the significant progress school boards have made in controlling health benefit costs through the bargaining process.) However, to his credit, the editorial writer brings to light aspects of the collective bargaining process in need of reform–as well as the need for a more even balance of power at the bargaining table.  The September 6 editorial is definitely worth a read.

By Frank Belluscio

Forget the H1N1 flu.  According to some people, the biggest threat to our children’s well-being this fall will come on Tuesday (9/8) in the form of a Webcast speech to the nation’s schoolchildren by President Obama. That’s right. Fringe lunacy has risen to a new level–not in NJ (at least according to a report posted on nj.com/news)–but certainly in other locales.

Don’t get me wrong.  If President “W” had arranged a similar PR tactic four years ago, I’m certain that the howls from the far left would have been as loud, as accusatory and as illogical.

Yesterday, President Obama’s upcoming speech dominated messages on a listserv for the communications officers of the state school boards associations. My colleagues report that the speech is generating controversy in parts of their states.  Here are some examples:

From Ohio–A Web site is making available the following message for parents’ use: “To Whom it May Concern: When it comes to teaching my child about personal responsibility and life goals, I have determined that I am a far better teacher of those objectives than a President who has chosen to surround himself with known anarchists and terrorists.  Therefore, <insert child’s name> will be at home on Sept 8th in order not to be corrupted by the propaganda that will be shown in his class room.”

From Maryland–A member of the state’s legislature sent the following message to his constituents: “According to the office of the Baltimore County Superintendent of Schools, if you do not want your child to participate, you need only notify the school principal, and your child will have an alternate activity available during the address.  However, rather than stigmatize my child by having him pulled out of class, I would just keep him home that day (I do have two children in public school).”

From Tennessee–According to a newspaper story, a superintendent indicates that “about half of the callers have wanted to opt out of children watching the speech while the other half want their children to be able to see it.”  A memo issued to parents stated that “students will be given the opportunity to listen to the speech in their schools, provided their parents or guardians give permission in writing for them to do so.”

From Kentucky–A newspaper reported, “Fayette County Superintendent said his district got about 50 calls, mostly from parents who were misinformed by radio hosts who ‘have blown this thing out of proportion.’  One (host) had everyone believing that the president was going to talk to elementary kids about his health care agenda.  Once people got the correct information, most seemed to be fine.”

And from our colleagues at the Arizona School Boards Association, located in a state with its share of parents opposed to the Obama speech, comes a voice of reason–and indeed a sentiment shared among the various states’ school boards organizations:

“ASBA believes that accountability for meeting fair standards that encourage high student achievement and responsible and informed citizenship is the common responsibility of the elected school district governing board, staff members, parents, the students themselves and the community at large.  Though we strongly encourage our school district members to participate in this non-partisan, non-political educational event, we also believe that the choice to participate must be a local one.”

Amen! 2009 is neither a presidential nor a Congressional election year. Tuesday’s Webcast is a function of the Office of the President as the leader of the country and not as the leader of the Democratic party.

As a local school board member, how do you feel about the president’s planned speech to the nation’s schoolchildren?  Are your district’s schools planning to show the Webcast on Tuesday?

The following article appears in the Oct. 1 issue of School Board Notes Online.

By now, everyone understands that the crisis on Wall Street and in the banking/mortgage industry will affect government revenue–particularly in New Jersey, where the economy is strongly affected by the financial services industry.  State revenue projections will directly affect the governor’s proposed 2009-10 state budget, which will include his recommendations for state aid to public education.  (Read NJSBA Advocacy Coordinator Ray Pinney’s excellent BoardBlog post, Will NJ Classrooms Feel the Aftershocks From Wall Street’s Earthquake?)

But the future may be here sooner than we think (more…)

OK, we’ve got six and a half weeks to go before the presidential election. But not everything happens at the national level.  In fact, the absence of statewide elections in New Jersey this year means there will be some busy folks at the State House this fall.  So, watch out for– (more…)

There are some sacred cows for which the NJEA will fall on the sword.  Pensions/retirement benefits are one; tenure and the sanctity of collective bargaining are others.  Up to now, for the union the sanctity of collective bargaining has included NO merit pay. (more…)

By Frank Belluscio 

Politicians come and politicians go, but their sound bites live on.

For public school districts, the worst ones have been misleading statements about student achievement and school district operations. It has taken a decade-long advertising campaign (more…)

The following opinion article, by NJSBA Executive Director Marie S. Bilik, appeared earlier this month in the Asbury Park Press, Daily Record (Morris County), Daily Journal (Vineland), Courier News (Bridgewater) and Home News Tribune (East Brunswick).

A recent article [in the Gannett New Jersey newspapers] about the state’s new accountability regulations (more…)