Brave New World

The pitfalls and perils of students’ digital devices – and pointers for preventing their misuse

By David B. Rubin, ESQ.

Students and their digital devices can be a powerful – and sometimes scary – combination. At school and at home, students today have access to computers, cellphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and other devices that offer unprecedented opportunities for distraction, bullying, cheating, defamation, invasion of privacy and other behavior harmful to themselves and others.

The challenge for school officials is to maintain a safe and productive learning environment in this digital age, without compromising students’ personal liberties. There are legal concerns with the use and misuse of digital devices that educational leaders need to be aware of. For board members and administrators, the good news is that there are effective ways to successfully manage student use of this 21st century technology.

The proliferation of cellphones among our youth is well documented. In 2004, 45 percent of teens had them. By 2006 that figure had jumped to 63 percent and, by early 2008, stood at 71 percent and climbing. Cellphones and PDAs are now standard equipment for most youngsters, and a typical classroom has dozens of these devices tucked away in pockets, backpacks and purses. Some may be activated, or even secretly in use while class is in session. Even the most rudimentary cellphone is far more than a mere telephone, since much communication now takes place through “texting,” short e-mails sent right from the phone. PDAs, like BlackBerrys or iPhones – essentially handheld computers with all the functions of a laptop and more – offer limitless possibilities for communication, research and computation, photography, video and sound recording, gaming, and all manner of entertainment rated G to XXX. The occasional ringtone from an unsilenced cellphone, an embarrassing staple of modern life from corporate meetings to Broadway shows, is no less prevalent in the classroom.

A threshold question is whether school officials have the power to ban these devices entirely. Though the issue has not yet been tested before the Commissioner of Education or the New Jersey courts, there is a credible argument that possession of these devices at school is already prohibited by law. A provision of our state criminal code, on the books since 1989, bans “remotely activated paging devices” on school property. This statute has been incorporated in administrative regulations of our State Board of Education and all local school district policies. The Legislature no doubt had in mind the rudimentary beeper in wide use at the time for drug trafficking and other criminal activity, but it cannot seriously be disputed that the more sophisticated cellphones and PDAs meet the literal definition of the term. And even if the criminal statute does not extend to this new technology, I am satisfied that it serves as a helpful reference point to support a policy banning these devices for any district feeling strongly enough to do so.

Other legal problems arise from students’ use of this technology at home or elsewhere off school grounds, when interacting with each other on social networking sites and online communities like Facebook and MySpace. Dealing with online threats of violence poses no great legal issues, at least when it’s clear that we’re dealing with a true threat and not merely insulting commentary or satire that may be disrespectful, but is protected by the First Amendment. State Board of Education regulations explicitly empower school officials to impose consequences for off-campus behavior that impacts the school environment, and a recent amendment to our state anti-bullying statute now explicitly prohibits online intimidation.

Another phenomenon raising its own unique set of legal concerns is “sexting,” the uploading and dissemination of students’ own nude photographs. A recent survey found that approximately 20 percent of all teenagers have e-mailed or posted online nude or semi-nude photos of themselves. What these youngsters surely don’t realize is that this behavior violates child pornography laws in many states, and some students with no criminal intent already have found themselves charged with crimes that can mark them as a sex offender for life. The behavior is troubling enough when it is consensual among all participants, but when these photographs are subsequently distributed to unintended recipients, it may also constitute bullying or sexual harassment. 

Why students engage in sexting is a matter of adolescent psychology beyond the scope of this article, but there is an emerging consensus that, as troubling as this disturbing, attention-getting behavior may be, criminal prosecution is not the most effective way to attack it. Two sexting cases involving 14-year old girls in Glen Rock and Clifton over the past year offer examples of some of these alternative approaches. In one case, police instructed students to delete the photographs from their cellphones, and the school district conducted programs alerting students to the dangers of this practice. In the other case, the girl was allowed to undergo six months of counseling.

Two companion bills pending in the New Jersey Senate and Assembly as of this writing would decriminalize sexting by allowing juveniles who engage in this behavior without criminal intent to avoid conviction if they complete an educational program acquainting them with the true nature of their conduct. School districts across the country are proactively attacking the problem by adopting policies alerting students to the perils of sexting, and targeting the psychological and emotional needs prompting them to engage in this practice in the first place.

Online socializing between students and staff is another vexing problem. Everyone agrees that educators should avoid any behavior that would compromise their status as authority figures and role models for their students, but pinning the education community down on the precise boundaries of permissible interaction with students is another matter. At a recent in-service professional development session I conducted on this topic, I was surprised at how much disagreement there was on the point among seasoned administrators from the same school district. Those boundaries are especially murky in more close-knit communities where teachers may live in the same town as the students and interact with them outside of school as neighbors, “rec” coaches, and scoutmasters.

This is an area where attempts should be made to align the professional standards of the district’s educational leaders with the values of the local community. New Jersey law will afford school districts some latitude to stake out the boundaries of staff-student relationships to reflect the local culture, but constitutional principles of due process and fundamental fairness entitle all concerned to reasonable advance notice of the district’s expectations before being exposed to discipline for undermining them. Whether through board policy, administrative regulation or discussion at faculty meetings, these standards should be spelled out and not left to each staff member’s version of “common sense.”

My reading of the law persuades me that teachers have no legally-protected right to communicate with students after hours if the district feels this practice would conflict with their role as district employees, and districts are free to ban it entirely. On the other hand, if your district believes there is value in such communication through e-mail or teachers’ own Web sites on a limited range of subjects, I strongly recommend that staff be given explicit guidance on the district’s ground rules, and not leave the matter to individual discretion. These rules might include limiting such communications to questions or comments about the specific coursework involved. If the staff member is an athletic coach, there could be a prohibition on anything unrelated to team business. Special rules may be appropriate for student assistance counselors or others who deal with students in a therapeutic capacity. Whatever the expectations are, they should be spelled out clearly. The more the door is left open to casual banter unrelated to the staff member’s professional relationship with the student, the less able the district will be to impose consequences later.

Some cases around the country have addressed how school officials investigate students’ online misbehavior, and offer some cautionary guidance. Often times, an administrator’s investigation of suspected wrongdoing will include analyzing phone numbers, screen names or photographs found on a student’s cellphone, PDA or computer. Since the famous U.S. Supreme Court case of New Jersey v. T.L.O., involving a Piscataway High School vice principal’s search of a student’s handbag, public school students have enjoyed Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by school officials, though under a less rigorous “reasonable suspicion” standard than the “probable cause” required for searches by police.

There is no doubt that accessing the hard drive of a student’s personal laptop, or sorting through the address book of her iPhone or BlackBerry, would be considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. For that reason, and also because these devices may have highly personal information stored in them that may have nothing to do with the matter under investigation, school officials should consult with their school district attorney on the appropriate guidelines for this type of investigation before forging ahead.

In conclusion, until there is a nationwide consensus on standards for online behavior, it is imperative that school districts develop clear policies reflecting the expectations of the district’s educational leaders and local community values. The goal is prevention, not discipline, so these expectations should be communicated to students and staff in a timely and effective manner to avoid inappropriate behavior before it occurs. 

David B. Rubin is an attorney based in Metuchen. He can be reached at rubinlaw@att.net.

FEATURES

The Lessons of Union City

By Gordon MacInnes

There were several Abbott districts that had demonstrated that a focus on improving early literacy could produce impressive performance gains in higher grades. For years, researchers have noted the plateau of improved results that appears to set in at about fifth grade, producing national results that are encouraging on fourth grade tests, begin to fade by the middle grades, and disappear in high school. Having concrete examples of good practice and improved results was essential to diluting the natural skepticism and distrust that accompanies any top-down change. Three districts—Union City, Perth Amboy, and West New York delivered consistently strong results in densely populated, high-poverty communities where most parents spoke only Spanish at home. They also stood out because the improved results were across the board and not limited to schools led by extraordinary principals.

The highest performing district with concentrated poverty on the 2001 fourth grade language arts test was West New York (91.3 percent proficiency), followed by Union City (79.3 percent) and Perth Amboy (75.2 percent). What set these districts apart was the coherence of their approach to early literacy, the continuous use of benchmarks and assessments to gauge student needs, the integration of preschool with kindergarten, and the extra time given struggling readers. In short, they practiced pedagogy.

There was one more feature common to West New York, Union City and Perth Amboy; none had applied for supplemental aid under Abbott V, and they spent noticeably less per pupil than the average Abbott district. In 2002, they were 21st, 23rd, and 26th, respectively, in per-pupil spending out of 30 districts (in 2006, they ranked 27th, 26th, and 24th, respectively, out of 31 districts.) Citation of this fact produced a backlash from the plaintiffs’ attorney, the legislative black caucus, and some superintendents of higher-spending, lower-performing districts who inferred that the emphasis on early literacy was a thinly disguised justification for cutting Abbott budgets.

The Success of Union City The more data are analyzed, the more it becomes apparent that Union City was the Abbott district that had established the most cohesive and best-documented approach to improved instruction. In short, its impressive achievement in terms of increased student performance could be explained by the effort it expended. Since the new NJDOE focus on early literacy borrowed so heavily from policies already in use in Union City, a brief description of them is in order.

Union City is the nation’s most densely populated municipality and, by the most widely employed measure of poverty – eligibility for the free lunch program – New Jersey’s poorest. English is rarely heard on its streets; 96 percent of its students are Latino. An old-fashioned political machine runs the town – the mayor appoints the school board and influences the hiring of just about everyone else. Predominately Cuban-American in the 1970s, many of Union City’s students today are from the Dominican Republic, Mexico, or Ecuador, and often they are poor, and illiterate even in Spanish. Again, Union City is one of the lowest spending Abbott districts ($12,431 per student in 2006), ranking 26th out of 31).

So why is it that over the past five years, almost 70 percent of Union City’s fourth graders were proficient on the state’s benchmark fourth grade literacy test, while only half of students with similar characteristics in other districts were passing?

In fact, Union City may be the first urban district in the United States to sustain academic achievement into the middle grades, and effectively close the gap between its students and those in non-urban schools. On New Jersey’s eighth grade math test in 2006, Union City and non-urban students were proficient at 71.0 percent and 71.6 percent, respectively; for language arts, the comparable numbers were 76.6 percent and 80.6 percent. Between 1999 and 2006, eighth grade students in Union City closed the gap in math with non-Abbott students from 26.3 percentage points to 0.6, and in language arts, they went from 23.3 percentage points behind to only 3.0. Such steady and sustained improvement in the middle grades is somewhere between very rare and nonexistent. (See charts below)

Here are the (familiar) ingredients that best explain Union City’s consistently better performance:

• Union City focuses on academic achievement and uses performance on state and district assessments as its principal accountability measures. It dissects the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS) and the state assessments to identify which of hundreds of “progress indicators” are the most powerful and important in rewriting the district curriculum. Union City jettisoned most textbooks, preferring software and instructional materials better tailored to the core standards and state tests. Therefore, everyone involved – teachers, students, parents, and administrators – has a clear idea of what is to be taught and learned.

• Union City stresses early literacy. Even before the 1998 Abbott decision that mandated preschool for three- and four-year olds, Union City worked with community day care programs to increase the exposure of their children to language, Spanish or English, by distributing books in return for at least one “read aloud” session daily. It increased the time devoted to literacy in the elementary grades from thirty minutes for reading and thirty minutes for writing in 1988 to 111 uninterrupted minutes in 1989 and to 120 minutes in 1993, and added even more time for struggling readers. It set up classroom libraries tailored to the needs of each class’s students, and constantly measured progress to determine which students needed what extra help. The tie-in between preschool and early literacy produced dramatic results: 83 percent of Union City third-graders who had attended preschool in Union City were proficient on the state’s 2006 literacy assessment, compared with 73 percent for Union City students who had not attended preschool and to 64 percent in all Abbott districts. The same year, 87 percent of non-Abbott students were proficient – Union City had achieved a nearly complete closing of the achievement gap among students who had attended preschool in Union City.  (See chart on page 28)

• Union City analyzes the probable reasons students fall behind and spends whatever time is required to bring them up to standard. Struggling students are expected to participate in extra sessions during the school day, including during breakfast, lunch, or after school. Students that share similar problems are put in small groups for more intensive interaction during the two-hour daily literacy block.

• Union City continuously measures the progress of all students through district assessments that are completed every eight weeks. Supervisors work with teachers to diagnose problems and prescribe specific follow-up. So, if 80 percent of all third graders miss question number 17 on a test, the central office knows that it has a district-wide problem; or it may see that most of the students who missed question number 9 are from just two schools; or, that question number 11 was trouble only for students in fifteen classrooms scattered across town. Its student database provides teachers, parents, and principals with timely information on what needs to be stressed with each student.

• The Union City school district enlists teachers to help solve pedagogical puzzles. Teachers are closely involved in developing the curriculum, in experimenting with new approaches, testing and selecting instructional materials, and adapting technology to facilitate instruction.

• Union City sees literacy as the doorway to deeper and more rigorous learning. It has deemphasized textbooks as the centerpiece of instruction and has opted for a curriculum that is carefully aligned to core standards and state tests. Novels, primary materials, and essays have replaced texts and anthologies. The district emphasizes writing of all kinds (journal, poetry, research papers, short reports, short stories) and develops projects that cut across at least two disciplines (for example, writing a research paper on evolution that uses findings from the Beagle’s voyage to the Galapagos to touch upon history, biology, geography). Its mathematics curriculum has been constructed in much the same way, leading to dramatic results on state assessments.

• Union City knows how to teach English to immigrant Latinos. Ninety-two percent of Union City students are Latino; 75 percent come from homes in which only Spanish is spoken. As with general instruction, there is no one program or formula for teaching English language learners. Age, schooling experience, the literacy level of parents, Spanish vocabulary, and reading ability are all considered in placing students. Some students may breeze through the Spanish-only “port-of-entry” class in two months; others may linger for a year. Union City offers diverse, age-appropriate literature and nonfiction reading, so that a thirteen-year-old immigrant can read about soccer and not Goldilocks and the Three Bears. It has pioneered using iPods to provide the English versions of texts being read in Spanish.

The Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment for math is a decent measure of how well students are being educated in the middle grades because it requires mastery of writing, vocabulary, and reading comprehension to answer open-ended word problems and explain one’s procedures. The chart above compares Union City’s eighth graders to other Abbott districts and to non-Abbott students between 1999 and 2007.

As can be seen, Union City students perform much closer to average New Jersey students than they do to their peers in other Abbott districts.

Union City’s dramatic improvements rely on maintaining the kind of pedagogical culture described above. Doing so requires a commitment by district leadership and middle management to keep the focus on continuous assessment of student work and adjustments to classroom instruction.

Gordon MacInnes is a fellow at The Century Foundation and a lecturer at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School. From 2002 to 2007 he served as assistant commissioner for Abbott implementation for the New Jersey Department of Education. From 1998 to 2002, he was president of Citizens for Better Schools, a New Jersey-based nonprofit. MacInnes was a member of the state Senate from 1994 to 1998; prior to that, he served in the General Assembly. He has also  held positions that included chief executive of New Jersey Network, special assistant to Gov. Richard J. Hughes, special assistant to the state Commissioner of Education, and deputy director of the White House Task Force on the Cities. In Plain Sight is published by The Century Foundation Press (www.tcf.org) and available for $14.95.

Connecting Leaders and Learners

By Charles Kuzminski, Ed.D.

Does leadership really matter? That is, can effective leaders and their actions really have an impact on student achievement? The answer is a resounding yes, according to McREL, the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning in Denver, a non-profit organization advocating standards-based school improvement programs.

Both at the school and district levels, McREL’s analyses of various studies spanning more than 30 years of leadership research establish a direct connection between effective leaders and student achievement. In an era of increasing pressure to improve the quality of our schools, the implications of this research are compelling. Most of us have always believed that strong school leadership is important to student success. Now we know it is absolutely essential.

Reassuring as that information may be, it isn’t very helpful unless we also know what it is that effective leaders do to help students learn. Most school leaders work hard and genuinely believe their actions are in the best interests of the children they represent. Superintendents and principals draw from their training and experiences to guide their actions. School board members draw from their NJSBA training and their experiences to make the best decisions they can.  However, decisions and actions don’t always converge the way they should. Sometimes the best intentions may be admirable, but may have little to do with improving student achievement. McREL’s findings are important because they also highlight the specific leadership actions that are directly connected to measurable gains in student learning.The research is reported in the book District Leadership That Works: Striking the Right Balance by Robert. J. Marzano and Timothy Waters (jointly published by Solution Tree Press and McRel in 2009).

District Level Leadership and Student Achievement At the district level we now have evidence of broad responsibilities and specific actions that McREL’s research has connected to student achievement gains. Note that district leadership refers not only to actions by the superintendent, but also responsibilities of the board. There are six areas of district level responsibilities that are positively related to student achievement:

• Collaborative Goal Setting Process The superintendent involves board members and principals in the goal-setting process. This is a shared responsibility and should reflect changes necessary to enhance student achievement rather than maintain the status quo.

• Non-negotiable Goals for Achievement and Instruction Long term goals for achievement and instruction are adopted by the board and become non-negotiable in that clear priorities are set and guide school and district actions.

• Board Alignment and Support of District Goals The board must maintain public and private support for district goals and have situational awareness of conflicts and distractions. Board members should also avail themselves of professional development aimed at supporting them as instructional leaders in their districts.

• Use of Resources Available resources are dedicated to the accomplishment of district goals, including staff development that pertains directly to district achievement and instructional goals.

• Monitoring Goals The superintendent regularly monitors implementation of the instructional program and progress on the goals and reports the findings publicly.

• Defined Autonomy: Relationship with Schools The superintendent provides autonomy to principals to lead their schools, but expects alignment on district goals and use of resources for professional development.

This sixth finding is intriguing. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the research found a negative relationship between site-based leadership and student achievement. However, when principals exercised leadership autonomy that was aligned with district goals for achievement and instruction, a positive relationship with student achievement was found. McREL researchers termed this sixth responsibility “Defined Autonomy.” Used appropriately, the concept can serve as the basis of the relationship between superintendents and their principals. In schools where goals for instruction and student achievement are being met, principals will have more autonomy than in schools where students are not achieving and the quality of instruction is not at an acceptable level.

School Level Leadership and Student Achievement In its study of school level leadership, McREL identified 21 responsibilities that are key to principal effectiveness and directly connected to student achievement. A review of these leadership responsibilities paints a picture of a principal who understands that school order and a leader’s visibility are important prerequisites of learning. However, it also portrays a principal who has a strong knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment and the skill to be a change agent and an optimizer who inspires staff and builds in them a belief that they and their students can achieve challenging goals. Principals who successfully balance the 21 responsibilities are also balancing their obligation to be both strong managers and effective instructional leaders. However, successfully balancing the 21 responsibilities is a challenge for principals and led McREL to develop the Balanced Leadership Framework and a companion series of professional development programs for school-level leaders. The findings from McREL’s leadership research form the essence of the framework. In it, school leaders are also introduced to the importance of having the right leadership focus and become familiar with the research-based characteristics of effective schools and teaching. Leaders often underestimate the impact that instructional change has on teachers. Balanced Leadership grounds them in research-based techniques to successfully transform their schools and districts. The framework is tied together by the notion of a purposeful community, one in which a collective vision is established and collaborative beliefs and processes are developed to achieve that vision.

Balanced Leadership in New Jersey Districts throughout New Jersey and the nation have embraced the McREL research and gravitate to different aspects of the professional development program, depending on their specific goals or challenges. The Paterson school district was searching for a common language of leadership among current principals and vice principals. The district was also committed to developing future principals from the ranks of  aspiring teacher-leaders. These groups invested two years using the Balanced Leadership professional development program. Vivian Gaines, Paterson director of professional development, reports that 21 participants have advanced to leadership positions of greater responsibility or from teacher to an administrative position since the inception of the program.

Frank Kasyan, superintendent in the Little Egg Harbor School District, promotes a district vision where each staff member  is a leader. During the past few years the district’s administrators, along with leaders from neighboring Stafford Township, have sharpened their skills and have grown confident in their knowledge of Balanced Leadership. Little Egg Harbor is now developing a team of teacher-leaders and administrators are introducing them to the same concepts they learned. Teacher-leaders are practicing the ideas as curriculum developers, trainers and chairs of professional learning communities that have been established in their schools.

One of the concepts the McREL program introduces is the idea that schools must maximize use of the assets available to them, especially intangible assets. Private corporations have long recognized the importance of intangible assets, especially assets like a corporate “brand.” For example, Coca Cola is considered to be the most valuable corporate brand in the world. The Neptune Township school district has recognized the importance of the concept and has taken significant steps to enhance the district’s reputation. The phrase, “Excellence: No Excuses” echoes at Neptune Township High School. Its impact can be felt in a variety of ways including improved student academic achievement, as well as sportsmanship and excellence on playing fields. The district also prides itself in its facilities. Its Summerfield Elementary School, for example, was the first LEED gold public school in New Jersey. Superintendent David Mooij has also built significant partnerships during the past few years, including ones with the Jersey Shore University Medical Center and the Long Branch school district. Of course, effort and brand go hand in hand, as do pride and achievement in the Neptune district.

Implications for Districts and Boards of Education McREL’s research has taught us that school and district leaders really do matter, if they balance their leadership skills appropriately and maintain the right focus. Leaders who complete training become more confident as many of their leadership styles and actions are supported by the research findings. They also develop insights that may alter the way they view their schools and how they lead.

These changes can sometimes be transformational. However stakeholders in a district may resist such sweeping change. Understanding the reasons for the resistance, and learning how to help stakeholders through the transition increases the chances that the change will succeed and positively impact students.

The implications of the research for boards of education are significant. Not only does administrator leadership matter, but so does board leadership. For example, does your district have an inclusive, collaborative goal setting process? Is the board easily distracted from its goals, or are the goals truly non-negotiable and clearly reflected in the actions of the board and the schools? Are increasingly scarce resources supporting district goals, including the professional development essential to the success of any new instructional initiative? Are district goals monitored and shared with the public in a transparent manner? In your district, is everyone seen as a potential leader and united by a consistent district mission that signals “student achievement is why we’re here and that’s what guides our actions?”

Asking – and answering – such questions is a hallmark of effective leadership by boards and administrators.

Charles Kuzminski, Ed.D., is a former New Jersey superintendent and currently a partner and principal consultant for Leadership Links, LLC. He is also a professional development consultant for McREL. He can be contacted at ckuzminski@comcast.net or at 732-539-7530.

Double Duty

NJSBA’s Board Member of the Year is Dale Caldwell, who serves on both the New Brunswick school board and the Middlesex Regional Educational Services Commission

By Janet Bamford

Board members who sometimes feel as if their school board responsibilities leave them time-pressed should contemplate the schedule of Dale Caldwell, NJSBA’s Board Member of the Year. Caldwell serves simultaneously on two boards: the New Brunswick school district board; and the Middlesex Regional Educational Services Commission (MRESC), where he is president.

Caldwell started with the New Brunswick board eleven years ago; on that board he has served as president, vice-president, and chair of the finance, athletic and public relations committees, as well as board representative to NJSBA.

He joined MRESC in 1999, after serving as the New Brunswick board’s representative to that group. Caldwell has been MRESC board president since 2001. The Middlesex Regional Educational Services Commission serves approximately 100 school districts and municipalities throughout New Jersey, providing services to special needs students.

The son of a retired Methodist minister and civil rights leader, Caldwell received a BA degree in economics from Princeton University and an MBA in finance from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton school.  He also attended the Senior Executives in State and Local Government Program at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

He is currently a client services consultant for Right Management, a human resources consulting firm in Princeton. He has previously served as a senior manager at Deloitte Consulting; director of the employee services group at Scholastic, Inc.; deputy commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA); and, executive director of the Newark Alliance.

Caldwell has been instrumental in the formation of several programs serving students, some of them before he was a school board member. In 1994, while employed at Deloitte, he started “Take Your Community to Work Day,” which brought public school students from cities such as New Brunswick, Newark and Jersey City, into corporations to learn about the work world. He founded the Classroom Press Conference (CPC) in 1997, which brings executives into school to be interviewed by students. In 2000, he started the Tennis, Technology and Theatre (T3) program, which has successfully provided New Brunswick and Franklin Township public school students with tennis, computer and theater skills.

Dale Caldwell is also an author. Last year he wrote a book, School To Work To Success: A Practical Guide to Finding a Rewarding Career and Enjoying Life, which provides practical advice on finding a job and managing a career.

According to MRESC Superintendent Mark Finkelstein, Caldwell has a deep passion for being an effective school board member. “Dale understands that board members never stop learning, and that the NJSBA is an incredible resource for those who take their board service seriously,” he said.

Dale Caldwell lives in New Brunswick with his wife and daughter. Recently School Leader spoke with Caldwell about his experiences.

How did you first get involved in serving on a school board?

My dad is a United Methodist minister who knew and marched with Dr. Martin Luther King in the 1960s. I was born in Boston and they picketed together for the integration of the Boston public schools. I was only six or seven at the time, but I still remember the name of Louise Day Hicks. She was the school board president who was pushing to maintain the segregation and it was ingrained in my mind how important school boards are and how they can make a difference at the grassroots level.

When I moved to New Brunswick I got to know a number of the educators while I was mentoring students and trying to connect corporations to students in schools. As you know, New Brunswick is a Type 1 district and the board is appointed. I was appointed in 1998. When I first did it, I fell in love with the kids and with the potential of the district. I have been able to see how the schools can really impact the communities, both in the academic sense, and also in the recreation and structural sense.

What is it like to also serve on the Middlesex Regional Educational Services Commission?

It’s interesting and it is really a perfect complement for a school board. MRESC doesn’t get state funding. It was started because if you have one or two kids who are multiply disabled from each district in Middlesex County, it makes sense to bring them together and use economies of scale and share services to create an effective school.

The MRESC has done that with virtually every level of shared service you can think of.

When I joined the board in 1999, the budget was approximately $35 million. Today the budget is more than $90 million. That doesn’t represent more state dollars. More and more districts are using the services of MRESC. It serves 11 counties around the state. In fact, we changed the name from Middlesex County Educational Services Commission to Middlesex Regional Educational Services Commission because we are providing everything from educational services to transportation to consulting services to non-public schools. Our transportation serves 7000 students each day.

We are one of the largest providers in the state of services to autistic children, we serve kids who are multiply disabled and in wheelchairs, we serve kids who have had discipline problems, like those who are kicked out because of gun possession or other things.

MRESC really serves some of the hardest-to-educate kids in the state.

What do you wish you had known when you joined a board for the first time? What advice would you have for a new board member?

One piece of advice is to get to know your fellow board members and understand their perspective on education. Understand the district and the needs of two critical groups: the exceptional students – those that are doing very well, and the students who are having trouble. The reality of public education is it is designed to provide a quality education for most kids. But you have to look to the fringes to see how the district can benefit all kids. What services do the kids who are outliers need?

What took you by surprise when you joined the board?

I have spent most of  my career in the private sector and one thing I was surprised about was how little connection there is between careers and schools – between the corporate world and schools. At the end of the day, our goal is to educate productive citizens who are able to find living-wage employment. The ultimate goal isn’t graduating from high school, it’s preparing students for a productive life after school. I have been surprised that is not the number one priority of school districts everywhere.

What has the New Brunswick school district done in this area?

One big thing we have done is create a health sciences technology school. It is a selective school within the district for kids who are looking at careers in the health care field. We are connected with Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital and the kids get some hands-on opportunities at RWJ. It has a heavier science curriculum; it is very much a college prep program. Some of our best students go there.

New Brunswick also has something called “Classroom Press Conferences.” The idea is that we need to expose more young people to folks in careers. What happens is the principal distributes a biography of someone, and students, with the help of teachers, study it and develop questions. Executives come into school and spend an hour or so of their time, and the kids question him. Distributing the bios and developing the questions ahead of time really gives the kids a chance to think about what made this executive successful.

Tell us a little bit about your district.

New Brunswick is an urban district. It is 72 percent Latino and 25 percent African American. It is a low-income district with a lot of families at or below the poverty level. It is also a place with an incredible amount of talented young people. An example I use is that there are two football players that came out of New Brunswick, Dwayne Jarrett and Jonathan Casillas. They were part of a program called “Play it Smart,” which athletes participate in. It requires tutoring and community service. I think a number of students who might have dropped out of school were encouraged to stay by the program. Dwayne Jarrett is now playing professional football for the Carolina Panthers, and I believe Jonathan Casillas is playing for the New Orleans Saints.

I also am the past president of the United States Tennis Association Eastern Section, which oversees tennis in the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut area. I started a tennis team in New Brunswick, and I’m pleased to say that this year for the first time, our number one young man won the Greater Middlesex County Tournament and his sister got to the semi finals of the tournament this year. We are starting to develop talented tennis players.

New Brunswick has as many talented kids as anywhere in the state. We have some of the best minds here too. It’s just a matter of inspiring the kids and pulling it out of them. As a board member, it is our job to encourage the superintendent and staff to help young people find the talents they have.

What are some of the toughest decisions you’ve had to make?

At one of my early board meetings, we had a young man who was being bullied. As a form of defense, he brought a gun to school. He was an honor student and he was one of the good kids, but we had to kick him out, by state law, for at least a year, if not longer. He went to the MRESC program and did well and came back. What I’ve found is that sometimes you have to come down hard on kids who need support.

What are some of the needs that kids have that you think are not being met right now?

I sit on the Asbury Park housing authority. One of the things we are working on is trying to connect housing authorities to school districts. There hasn’t been much of a connection so far. There are some great after-school programs but the problems don’t stop at 6 p.m. There needs to be more support for families with young students after 6 p.m. We don’t have the funding that young people and their families need after 6 p.m. We really need more intervention from federal or state government, because it is cheaper to send these kids to Yale than it is to send them to jail.

What are some of the accomplishments of your board that you are most proud of ?

In the New Brunswick district, the “Play it Smart” program is one. Another is something that two other board members, Pat Sadowski and Emra Seawood, were instrumental in – a VH1 grant, a “Save the Music” grant. They provide musical instruments to schools. We have saxophones, clarinets, guitars, all donated by VH1. We went to the National School Boards Association conference, saw the booth, and asked about the program. We applied and won. If anyone says it is not valuable to go to those conferences, I want to tell them we got the grant, and got almost a half million dollars of additional revenues for the program.

One of the other programs that has been useful is DonorsChoose.org. They are an independent non-profit. The concept there is that they encourage teachers to submit proposals for projects. Individual donors would look at the projects and say “I want to give $600 or $1,000.” We have had 40 to 50 of those submissions funded. I think we’ve had trips to museums funded and some gardening programs and some literacy programs.

What are some of the accomplishments of MRESC that you take special pride in?

Because of the focus we have on shared services, we estimate we save taxpayers about $60 million a year. Looking at transportation alone, MRESC saves New Brunswick about $600, 000 a year by using a shared model. We provide transportation for 19 or so districts. By creating schools that provide services for autistic children, local districts don’t have to provide those services. I don’t want to beat up the private providers but our rates are about half of what private providers charge.

Another accomplishment of MRESC is its pre-school program. The two providers in the New Brunswick district had problems and we were in a bind and didn’t know where to turn. The commission stepped up and developed programs in five of the schools; they are among the best in the city. Unfortunately there were changes in regulations and they couldn’t afford to do them anymore. So the program was passed on to another provider and I think they’ll do a good job. But MRESC’s ability to step in and fill the gap was really key.

What misperceptions are out there about school board members?

One of the things, and actually winning this award has intensified my understanding of this, is that there is not a lot of respect for school board members. There are 4,800 school board members in New Jersey volunteering hours and hours of their time. If you said that their time was worth $25 an hour, that’s an incredible free resource. Most school board members are more important to everyday life in this state than most of the politicians. This is the front line of government where the rubber hits the road.

Looking ahead, what are the big challenges that school boards will have to confront?

I think there is global change that I don’t think a lot of people are thinking about. I also think the non-profit presence will be more significant than ever.

Effective collaborations with non-profits in the community really should be incentivized by the government. When I talk about the “after 6 programs” in urban communities, school districts should never be creating programs for that, but should partner with non-profits to do it. I think one of the big challenges that schools will have is to work collaboratively with non-profits or even create non-profits that can fill educational support voids. We need to be more deliberate about that relationship between non-profits and schools, and the state should incentivize it and also provide tax breaks to corporations, which are very concerned about this because the quality of the work force is critical to their profitability.

As an African American board member, I also think that we need to have more structured interaction between predominately white districts and districts of color. This is a wonderfully diverse state but the schools are not as diverse as they could be and should be.

The other thing, and this is a radical idea, but I think there should be a Type 3 school district. A Type 1 district is appointed and a Type 2 is elected. But there should be a Type 3 where you have a majority of the board elected and a minority of the board appointed. A third option allows some people who might not be willing to run to come on the board. It would get more people on the board who could add value, but who aren’t political and who are scared off by running.

You are a certified board member. What did you learn in the certification process?

The skills that make better board members also contribute to someone being a better worker and a better person – negotiation skills, financial skills, understanding human resources skills, and skills in getting people together. The coursework to become a certificated board member was invaluable. People sometimes find it hard in their schedule to do that but I have really encouraged people to do the certificated program.

What special problems do urban school districts have?

I will give you a different answer than you may have heard before: the answer is really time. The parents in urban communities are as committed to the education of their children as parents anywhere else. The problem is that because so many are low-income – they are working two or three jobs to get enough to barely make ends meet. They have the will but not the time to provide the support and the advocacy the kids need. I have been on some private school boards. I am on the board of the Cathedral School of St. John the Divine in New York City because I went to elementary school there. It’s a very diverse school but it’s a private school and tuition is $30,000 a year. The parents who are paying $30,000 a year are advocating and making sure their kids are getting the best education possible. Parents in urban schools want to do that but just don’t have the time, the resources or the background or education to challenge the schools or the teachers.

You have a daughter in school now. How is it different being a board member when you’re also the parent of a student?

It’s actually more rewarding. When you’re the parent you learn a little more about what’s going on or what’s not going on in the schools. My daughter is 5 and in kindergarten. She went to the preschool program and she was beginning to read before kindergarten because of the preschool program in New Brunswick public schools.

Janet Bamford is the managing editor of School Leader. She can be reached at jbamford@njsba.org.