1- NJ unemployment rate of 9.9% (U.S. 8.3%) was only exceeded by three states: California, Rhode Island and Nevada; 454,900 residents are unemployed.

2- According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, New Jersey’s GDP declined 0.5% last year (U.S. +1.5%) and ranked 47th in the nation; personal income growth ranked 44th in 2011.

3- NJ needs an 8.2% increase in revenues to meet Governor Christie’s $31.7 billion budget for fiscal 2013 that calls for $2.0 billion in higher spending while reducing taxes.

4- Standard & Poor’s Rating Services lowered its outlook on NJ debt to negative from stable on September 19, 2012 due to “optimistic budget projections [by Governor Christie], a reliance on one-time budgetary plugs and underfunding of pensions and other obligations”

5- According to the 2012 State Business Tax Climate Index Report released by the Tax Foundation, NJ ranks last in the U.S in overall tax burden. It ranks 49th in property taxes, 48th in income taxes, 46th in sales taxes, 39th in corporate taxes and 25th in unemployment insurance taxes.

6- On June 25, the U.S. Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which establishes requirements for state and local government financial reporting, altered asset and liability accounting standards to increase transparency. Under the new reporting requirements, NJ appears to have less than 30% of the assets it needs for promised pension benefits. Its pension obligation currently exceeds $80 billion, or nearly double the $41.8 billion forecast on December 31. Others believe the liability may be as high as $173.9 billion
(http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0614/0121/)

Bottom line: The Teaneck BOE cannot continue to raise spending at current rates; i.e., 8.3% in two years without consideration of the broader NJ economic situation, and the already high burden of property taxes paid by Teaneck residents. The reported rate of property tax increases does not reflect the impact of using “rainy day funds” (reserves, budgeted fund balances) and other financial “adjustments”. Terms of the ongoing TTEA negotiation will be critical to future BOE spending levels. Classroom (Instructional) spending is only 58% of the total and needs to be increased as a percentage of the total via increased administrative efficiency and other cost saving opportunities.

The Ramsey BOE and Ramsey Teachers Association agreed to a new contract this week. A comparison is being made with the situation in Teaneck where negotiations are ongoing. Details of the TTEA negotiations have been kept confidential from Teaneck residents and taxpayers.

Our issue is not with individual Teaneck teachers, many of whom are of high quality and dedicated to their students. Our concern is the failure of the TTEA to recognize that they are very well compensated relative to their peers and that higher salaries for teachers implies less spending elsewhere; i.e., the classroom.

I. Background
2010-2011 Ramsey http://www.nj.gov/cgi-bin/education/csg/12/csg.pl
Costs Amount per Pupil: $17,774. Cost ranking within group: 53. Median Teacher Salary: $66,354. Salary ranking within group: 53. Support Service Salary: $74,152. Salary ranking within Group: 38. Revenue sources local taxes: 88.2%. Average daily enroll plus sent pupils: 3,113.

2010-2011 Teaneck http://www.nj.gov/cgi-bin/education/csg/12/csg.pl
Costs Amount per Pupil: $21,648. Cost ranking within group: 97. Median Teacher Salary: $85,550. Salary ranking within group: 104 — 3rd highest. Support Service Salary: $104,734. Salary ranking within Group: 106 — Highest. Revenue sources local taxes: 85.5%. Average daily enroll plus sent pupils: 4,092.

Note: 2012-13 Teaneck school year total expenditures of $93.6M (as per BOE Budget Review handout) based on 4,130 students implies per pupil cost of $22,659

II. New Ramsey contract as compared to Teaneck 2008-2011 existing contract still leaves the TTEA FAR AHEAD!

1) Salary increases for 2010-11 of 4.35%, 2011-12 wage freeze and 2012-13 increase of 2.0% (6.4% in total) implies a compounded salary increase over three years of 2.1%. This figure excludes the step increase. Based on median teacher salary of $66,354 x 1.064 = 70,600 or STILL 21.2% BELOW TEANECK’s MEDIAN THREE YEARS PRIOR

2) Ramsey salary guide being re-done adding a 16th step. Teaneck has 13 steps, whereas NYC has 25 steps. Yearly incremental raises will be reduced from an average of 2.7% to 2.28%. As a reminder for Teaneck residents, the salary guide for 2008-2011 has separate salary step categories for Bachelors, Masters, Masters +32 credits and Doctorate and is as follows:

Teaneck teachers with a masters degree receives a GUARANTEED SALARY INCREASE for at least thirteen years as follows:
Year 1: $54,360
Year 2: $54,860, +1.0%
Year 3: $55,360, +1.1%. Granting of tenure
Year 4: $55,860, +1.0%
Year 5: $58,145, +4.1%
Year 6: $60,860, +4.7%
Year 7: $63,975, +5.1%
Year 8: $67,490, +5.5%
Year 9: $71,405, +5.8%
Year 10: $75,720, +6.0%
Year 11: $80,435, +6.2%
Year 12: $85,550, +6.4%
Year 13: $91,065, +6.4%

Personnel with a Masters Degree + 32 credits — a category which does not necessary ensure a better teacher – guarantees a far higher salary.
Year 1: 62,514
Year 2: $63,089, +0.9%
Year 3: $63,664, +0.9%. Granting of tenure
Year 4: $64,239, +0.9%
Year 5: $66,867, +4.1%
Year 6: $69,989, +4.7%
Year 7: $73,571, +5.1%
Year 8: $77,614, +5.5%
Year 9: $82,116, +5.8%
Year 10: $87,078, +6.0%
Year 11: $92,500, +6.2%
Year 12: $98,383, +6.4%
Year 13: $104,734, +6.4%

Please note for Year 5 of teaching experience onward, salary increases of 4.1% to 6.4% are GUARANTEED even with a STEP WAGE FREEZE. These guaranteed increases FAR EXCEED those in private industry and elsewhere.

III. State health insurance premiums increased 14.7% in 2012-2014 to $23,000 for family coverage. These costs need to be considered in the negotiation with the TTEA. As an aside, I manage the cost of health benefits at my firm. The double digit increase far exceeds that of health inflation in the U.S. at 4.2%. Opportunities for cost savings are clearly evident.

IV. Pension reform was not mentioned in the Ramsey contract. Unfunded taxpayer liabilities based on unrealistic return on investment calculations by all involved (unions, politicians) will eventually lead to reduced spending for students based on the need to pay retirees. This issue is expected to become apparent within 7-12 years.

V. The Ramsey unused sick pay policy is unknown. In Teaneck, TTEA members receive an unused sick pay benefit of $15,000 upon retirement. Teachers should NOT be paid for NOT getting sick (as per all other American employees). The BOE should also make public all other contracted retirement benefits to avoid “surprises” as per interim Superintendent Denham’s retirement payout exceeding $260,000.

Bottom Line: Salaries account for the majority of BOE spending. TTEA members are already extremely well compensated. Opportunities exist to limit step (wage) increases, reduce the level of guaranteed increases between steps, increase the number of steps and make other changes. A part of the savings could be re-allocated to the BEST TEACHERS as performance bonuses. Monies must be increasingly allocated to enhancing instruction and student performance.

1) NJ Monthly has continued its tradition of ranking the top NJ high schools. In 2012, Teaneck H.S. ranked 126 or 328 high schools in New Jersey.

http://njmonthly.com/articles/towns_and_schools/top-new-jersey-high-schools-2012-.html

Grade 12 enrollment: 334; Average class size: 19.2; Student – faculty ratio: 10.3; % Faculty with Masters of Doctorate: 74.6%; Average combined SAT score: 1390; % Advanced proficient in HPSA language: 15.7%; % Advanced proficient in HPSA math: 17.5%; # AP tests offered: 16; % AP tests resulting in 3+ score: 58.2%; Adjusted cohort graduation rate: 91.7%

THS did not rank among the top 10 schools in ANY District Factor Group (Lowest A,B, CD, DE, FG,GH, I, J Highest). Benchmark performers are evident from the list compiled by NJ monthly. Teaneck is classified as being in District Factor Group “GH”, the third highest of eight groupings. However, the ranking is somewhat overstated given the large number of affluent parents sending their children to private schools.

Methodology:
School environment: The sum of the standardized rank score for average class size; student faculty ration; % faculty with advanced degrees; and number of AP tests offered

Student performance: The sum of the standardized rank scores for average combined SAT score; percentage of students showing advanced proficiency on HSPA; and students scoring 3 or higher on AP tests as a percentage of juniors and seniors

Student outcomes: A single score based on a new graduation rate calculation (four year adjusted cohort graduation rate) introduced by NJ in 2011, as mandated by the Federal government. The adjusted cohort formula divides the number of four year graduates by the number of first time ninth graders who entered the cohort four years earlier.

2) In contrast to the THS academic ranking, district spending is in the top 2-10% for nearly all parameters:

Ind. Per Pupil Spending Rank K-12Average %± vs.Average
1 Comparative Cost $17,891 100 $13,917 28.6%
2 Classroom Instruction $11,153 104 $8,244 35.3%
6 Support Services $2,777 94 $2,214 25.4%
8 Administrative Cost $1,657 94 $1,406 17.9%
10 Operations & Maintenance $2,039 93 $1,708 19.4%
13 Extracurricular Activities $262 67 $251 4.4%
16 Median Teacher Salary $82,116 103 $62,665

Data from NJDoE 2012 Comparative Spending Guide.[2]
*Of K-12 districts with 3,501+ students. Lowest spending=1; Highest=106

Bottom Line: Given the level of public school spending within Teaneck, opportunities exist to increase accountability and enhance performance.

1) The Wall Street Journal of August 25-26 had an editorial entitled, “California’s School Head Fake”. The editorial highlighted a California bill that “seeks to pre-empt a recent court order [Superior Court Judge James Chalfant] requiring that teachers be evaluated IN PART on student test scores. The Judge noted that “99.3% of teachers receive the highest grade on their evaluations, but only 46% of students score proficient on language arts state tests.” How is that possible? The teachers union supports passage of the bill.

As a Teaneck resident, I am interested in transparency and accountability. Based on what criteria have Teaneck teachers been evaluated during the past five years? Is there a statistical distribution of employee quality (as in all other professions and industries)? What happened to teachers deemed ineffective and/or on probation? Any “rewards” for the best teachers?

2) How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity and the Hidden Power of Character by Paul Tough.

A review in the NY Times emphasize the author’s belief that success is not primarily dependent upon cognitive skills (IQ); non-cognitive skills “like persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit and self-confidence.” really make a difference. Character is often developed by “encountering and overcoming failure”. Both affluent and poor children are affected by the lack thereof, or excess of adversity while maturing as children and adolescents. The author states that many children growing up in stressful environments, particularly younger children find it “harder to concentrate, sit still, rebound from disappointments and to follow directions”. Supportive parenting is essential. Among affluent children, the author found the main cause of distress to be “excessive achievement pressures and isolation from parents – both physical and emotional”.

Bottom line: Character matters.

Governor Christie signed a tenure reform bill on August 8 that will take effect in 2013-14. Teachers will now receive tenure after four years, not three as previously mandated. According to NJ.com, “New teachers will earn tenure after four years if they complete a year of mentoring, then receive two positive ratings within a three-year span. Part of the evaluation rests on student progress.

After teachers are tenured, they must continue to demonstrate effectiveness; two negative ratings would result in tenure charges from the school superintendent. Such cases would then go to an arbitrator rather than, as now happens, an administrative law judge.”

The bill does not alter the onerous grievance procedure, nor does it alter the length of service criteria for periods when budget cuts mandate staff reductions; i.e., layoffs based on ” last-in, first -out” (“LIFO”). Grievance, as described in the TTEA contract remains a very expensive, cumbersome and time consuming procedure that often results in the retention of ineffective teachers. “LIFO” results in the loss of many highly motivated and ambitious young teachers, often to more senior teachers that may be of lesser quality. Teacher excellence, and not job security should be the focus of the New Jersey Education Association.

The NY Times reported on Saturday, August 18 that only 55% of NYC teachers working in the past three years earned tenure in 2012, as compared to 97% in 2007. The data suggests many SUB-STANDARD TEACHERS ARE ALREADY EMBEDDED WITHIN THE NYC PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. An additional 42% were kept on probation for another year and 3% were denied tenure or fired. The data also suggests BECOMING AN EFFECTIVE TEACHER IS NOT EASY.

Bottom line: School boards will be required to adopt a new teacher evaluation system with rating categories from ineffective to highly effective. Ineffective teachers will be offered probation after the first negative rating year. We remain concerned that without reform to grievance procedures, not much will change.

The Teaneck BOE needs to review its evaluation system, the number of ineffective teachers, their status and steps taken to ensure a high quality teaching environment. Studies have shown that bad teachers affect student outcomes, and contribute to longer-term under-performance. Great teachers have the opposite effect. Perhaps, we can implement a “Pay for Performance” approach within Teaneck that provides bonuses to master teachers.

Today’s Bergen Record reported an overwhelming rejection by the Englewood Teacher’s Association of the proposed three year contract: No pay raises for two years and a 1-2% increase in year 3. Employees would also “pay more for healthcare benefits, lose tuition reimbursement and bonuses for perfect attendance, and receive 25% less for advising a club or after school activities”. Rejection means the outsourcing of 24 secretaries and 66 full-time teaching assistants. A cost saving of $2.0 million will result.

Anita Shemish , Co-President of the Englewood Teachers Association stated, “It was a Sophie’s Choice” or according to the Urban Dictionary, “an impossibly difficult choice, especially forced upon someone.”

According to the NJ Comparative Spending Guide, in 2010-11 Englewood spent $22,264 per pupil for an average daily enrollment of 2,928. In 2011-12, the average teacher salary was $62,700, support service salary $66,815 and Administrator salary of $122,616.

In 2010-11, Teaneck spent $21,648 per pupil for an average daily enrollment of 4,162. In 2011-12, the average teacher salary was $82,116, support service salary $95,461 and Administrator salary of $139,795. 2010-11 salary figures are lower than the prior year due to a mix change; i.e., the retirement of higher paid teachers.

In other words, Teaneck salaries are 31.0%, 42.9% and 14.0% higher than those in Englewood for teachers, support services and administrators respectively. TTEA members also receive a maximum $20,000 in unused sick pay upon retirement, whereas most other communities cap the amount at $5,000. We are unaware of other “hidden” benefits such as tuition reimbursement, perfect attendance bonuses and other items.

We are aware that Teaneck has 13 salary levels, whereas NYC has 25 and that AUTOMATIC RAISES of 4-6% per annum occur between years 6-13 of the contract.

We are aware of the Teaneck taxpayers paying the salary of the local union President despite not being in the classroom as mandated for other teachers. The NJEA also has the right to use Teaneck facilities during non-scheduled class periods.

Pay for performance, tenure at three years and egregious grievance procedures are sacrosanct and not subject to local negotiation.

Bottom line: Unlike Sophie in William Styron novel and the movie starring Meryl Streep, the Englewood Teacher’s Union decision was not a “life or death” choice for its members; it was a difficult economic choice.

In Teaneck, the BOE and Teachers Education Association are currently in mediation. We are not privy to details of the proposed contract. Salaries are the largest single expenditure, by far in Teaneck’s budget. Outsourcing may become a necessity if the TTEA fails to recognize the need for shared sacrifice — something they did NOT RECOGNIZE during the budget crises two years ago.

The Teaneck BOE has been given another $1.4 million reprieve by rejection of the Shalom Academy Hebrew Charter School application. The Tuesday, July 17 issue of the Bergen Record, page L3 reported that “school board President Ardie Walser expressed relief that the district could use the $1.4 million it had been obligated to set aside for Shalom Academy”. A more detailed article published today, page L1 included a quote from Superintendent Pinsak: “but, first of all we can’t use all for that [education and technology] and secondly, we really need to think about the next year’s taxes, the next year’s expenses and our capital improvements.”

A few thoughts about fiscal responsibility, the TTEA negotiations and opportunities to reduce costs:

1- Fiscal responsibility extends beyond an increase in the tax rate. During the past two years, BOE general current expenses have increased from $76.2 million in 2010-11 to $84.1 million in 2012-13, an increase of 10.4% in two years. Taxes increased only 0.4% per annum in that period or slightly less than 1.0% over two years. Dr. Walser’s comments reflects a spending mindset, despite the fact that Teaneck already spends more per pupil (even adjusted for transportation) than nearly every other district in New Jersey.

2- Dr. Pinsak’s comments seem more forward looking. Next year’s expenses are likely to reflect the TTEA (Teacher’s Union) contract term. Salaries and benefits account for the majority of BOE spending.

As a reminder, the median teacher salary in Teaneck is $87,078 – 34% HIGHER than the Bergen County average. In addition, salaries have increased 55.7% in the past decade, more than twice the rate of other Bergen County teachers at 23.5%. Support service salaries at $104,734 are the highest paid in ALL of NJ. School nurses are paid 30% more than Intensive Care Unit (ICU) nurses who work 70 more days per year!

A 0% salary increase would still leave TTEA members with significant annual raises. The BOE needs to increase the number of levels and reduce the automatic salary increase per level. In addition, the elimination of the MA+32 salary category, a category created by the NJEA to further inflate salaries without ANY evidence of student benefit should be considered. An unused sick pay ceiling of $20,000 far exceeds that of most other Bergen County towns. Tenure, grievance procedures, pay for performance and other issues require negotiation at the state level.

The rising cost of retiree pension and health benefits in NJ are unsustainable. Politician and unions are playing “make believe” by assuming a 7-8% return on investment (ROI); actual returns are likely to be 0-2%. The BOE and TTEA need to recognize that retiree benefits are a very “rich” part of the compensation package that the vast majority of NJ private sector workers are not entitled.

Contract terms remain confidential. A contract with additional salary level raises are likely to lead to fewer teachers in the future, as well as taxpayer angst.

3- Richard Ravitch, Chairman of the recently released State Budget Task Force report that analyzed the finances of six states, including NJ stated: “The ability of the states to meet their obligations to public employees, to creditors and most critically to the education and well-being of their citizens is threatened”. New Jersey borrowed against money received from the tobacco settlement and failed to make all it pension payments. The BOE needs to consider the ability of the State of NJ to sustain its funding at current levels for next year as they begin to deliberate spending the Shalom Academy windfall.

4- The NJ unemployment rate is 9.2%, one percentage point higher than the U.S. at 8.2%. TTEA negotiations require consideration of the ability of Teaneck resident to pay for additional salary increases (to already very well compensated employees).

5- The BOE remains focused on spending and not cost reduction. We need to identify non-Teaneck residents, estimated at 2-4% of the student population who use our schools. Special education busing cost $6,000 per recipient; i.e., $1.8 million for 300 students, the majority of whom are not severely disabled. Fort Lee bought buses and hired drivers for many of their disabled students; the buses were then used after-hours for field and athletic trips. Englewood is considering outsourcing staff functions for a savings of $2.0 million. Administrative process efficiencies are clearly realizable.

Bottom line: Save, not spend the Charter School windfall (with exception). The TTEA negotiations remain critical to the allocation of future classroom spending.

1- The recall election of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin highlighted the limits to the power of public sector unions. Mr. Walker elimination of the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin’s public sector unions resulted in the recall election — an exceedingly rare occurrence outside of criminal activity. The law ended the automatic deduction of union dues; public workers must now chose to “opt-in” . Result: AFSME membership has declined from 63,000 to 29,000 in the past year. The American Federation of Teachers, Wisconsin lost one-third of its membership. I wonder what would happen to the NJEA and TTEA if teachers had the option not to join the union. So much for democracy in America.

2- Labor union membership during 2011 in the private sector is 6.9%, whereas the rate among public workers is 37%. Unions were “rightfully” created in the early 20th century to prevent unfair labor practices and worker exploitation. Today, the opposite exists. Many unions are exploiting the excessive generosity of politicians to garner wages, benefits, grievance procedures and pensions that exceed those of the private sector. Municipalities are reducing services to pay for the pensions of retired workers. Teaneck will soon reach a similar crossroads if changes aren’t made.

3- I saw Rahm Emanuel, the Mayor of Chicago and former Obama Chief of Staff on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS this morning discuss the need for pension reform. He said change is required to ensure the financial viability of cities and towns across the U.S. Possible remedies include (a) the elimination of automatic cost of living adjustments (b) raising the retirement age to 65, or at least 62 (c) alter the calculation of pensions from the last three years of service – and all its overtime — to an average of lifetime earnings (d) mandate contributions for health care benefits (e) switch employees to a 401k plan. San Diego and San Jose residents have voted overwhelmingly to review municipal worker pension policies and make unilateral changes to sustain local services.

Pensions need to be considered during the ongoing negotiations with the TTEA. They are an incredibly generous benefit that few others are able to access.

4- The Englewood BOE vote to consider outsourcing the districts 24 secretaries and 66 full time professional assistants to save $2.0 million per annum (approximately $22,200 per person) highlights the disparity between private sector and public sector wages/benefits. Teaneck faced a similar issue with its Teamsters union last year. The TTEA needs to consider the ramifications of its negotiating position to all its employees as taxpayers will not continue to support excessive salaries for many of its members – $85,550 for teachers, the third highest in NJ and for support services $104,734, the highest in NJ.

5- The New Jersey unemployment rate is 9.1%, 46th in the nation. It is above the NJ average of 8.2%. Economists expect job creation to lag the rest of the nation.

Bottom line: It’s time for the TTEA to recognize the historical generosity of the BOE, and that NJ residents are still suffering from the recession. Every extra dollar in the pocket of TTEA members will result in less money for the classroom. It’s that simple.

The Ridgefield Education Association and its local BOE settled its contract dispute based on the following terms:

1) Salary increases to STEPS: Year 1 – 3.2%, Year 2- 2.3%, Year 3 – 2.3%. According to the State of NJ Comparative Spending Guide http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/education/csg/11/csg.pl, the median classroom teacher salary for 2010-11 is $61,474, ranking 30. The increase begins to close the GAP with districts such as Teaneck, where the median classroom teacher salary is $85,550 – the third highest in New Jersey and 39.2% higher than Ridgefield Borough.

Support service salaries in Ridgefield Borough for 2010-11 is $93,511, ranking 67. Comparable figures for Teaneck are $104,734 — the highest in New Jersey and 12.0% higher than Ridgefield Borough.

The TTEA will invariably compare itself to the percentage increase in Ridgefield Borough, a spurious argument.

2) Ridgefield Borough is adding two steps to the salary guide to 19 steps for teachers with a bachelors degree and 20 steps for those who have a masters degree. Teaneck has only 13 steps

3) Teachers in Ridgefield Borough are also contributing toward their health benefits. The amount was not specified.

As a reminder, Teaneck Teachers get salary increases even if the step increase remains at 0% for the next three years based on the lapsed 2008-11 contract. The media and the unions continue to misrepresent the year-over-year change to steps as the salary increase; it is NOT. For example, Teaneck teachers with a masters degree receives a GUARANTEED SALARY INCREASE for at least thirteen years as follows:

Year 1: $54,360
Year 2: $54,860, +1.0%
Year 3: $55,360, +1.1%. Granting of tenure
Year 4: $55,860, +1.0%
Year 5: $58,145, +4.1%
Year 6: $60,860, +4.7%
Year 7: $63,975, +5.1%
Year 8: $67,490, +5.5%
Year 9: $71,405, +5.8%
Year 10: $75,720, +6.0%
Year 11: $80,435, +6.2%
Year 12: $85,550, +6.4%
Year 13: $91,065, +6.4%

The Teacher salary guide for 2010-11 is even more generous for personnel with a Masters Degree + 32 credits — a category which does not necessary guarantee a better teacher, but does guarantee a far higher salary. As a reminder, the TTEA contract does not allow pay for performance.

Year 1: 62,514
Year 2: $63,089, +0.9%
Year 3: $63,664, +0.9%. Granting of tenure
Year 4: $64,239, +0.9%
Year 5: $66,867, +4.1%
Year 6: $69,989, +4.7%
Year 7: $73,571, +5.1%
Year 8: $77,614, +5.5%
Year 9: $82,116, +5.8%
Year 10: $87,078, +6.0%
Year 11: $92,500, +6.2%
Year 12: $98,383, +6.4%
Year 13: $104,734, +6.4%

4- Pensions need to be considered as well. A recent article in the NY Times highlighted union (and politician) opposition to changing the assumed rate of return from 8% to 7%; the real rate of return is 0-2%. The unions and politicians continue to play “MAKE BELIEVE” as follows:

Assume there is a $100 million fund to pay pensions. The NJ Pension Fund currently assumes an 8% rate of return or $8.0 million on its $100 million fund for a total value of $108.0 million after Year 1. A more realistic assumption based on current market conditions is a 1% rate of return or $1.0 million for a total of $101. The unions (and politicians) claim we will be funding $108 million for future pension liabilities. The more realistic figure is $101 million, leaving a $7.0 million under-funded balance for the future. When the retiring teachers and other union workers need to be paid, there won’t be enough money….but that is someone else’s problem; i.e., the taxpayer’s.

5- As an aside, the 6-7 Teaneck school nurses are compensated 30-40% higher than ICU critical care nurses in the private sector for a 180 day work year; ICU nurses work 250 days. Opportunities for outsourcing are clearly evident at a far lower cost. There is NO reason why school nurses should be part of a collective bargaining agreement with the Teachers Union.

Bottom Line: Teaneck teacher salaries are already 39.2% higher than Ridgefield Borough salaries. A comparison by the TTEA using % increase and not the actual dollar increase per step per annum would be egregious. The Ridgefield contract will have 19-20 steps, whereas Teaneck only has 13 steps. We suggest that a 0% step increase is needed for all teachers between years 5-13 and an increase in the number of steps is required for all teachers (at a minimum). We also believe a $5,000 cap on unused sick pay is required; the $20,000 payment continues to be an “outrage”.

The Teaneck community needs to support a “hard” negotiation position with the Teacher’s Union for a new three year contract for the following reasons:

1- TTEA members are exceedingly well compensated. According to the Bergen Record, the median teacher salary in Teaneck is $87,078 – 34% HIGHER than the Bergen County average

2- TTEA salaries have increased 55.7% in the past decade, more than twice the rate of inflation as compared to Bergen County teachers at 23.5%.

3- The percentage change in TTEA salaries has increased more than twice the rate of the Teaneck median household income. In plain English, TTEA members are seeing their incomes rise faster than local taxpayers, mostly employed in the for-profit private sector.

4- Thomas Papaleo, Union President complains about the need to be made whole for the 1.5% of salary payment for health insurance. This is “chutzpah” or an outrage. According the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average American household insurance premium in 2011 was $15,073 with employee payments of $4,129. Employee co-payments and deductibles add another $2,007 in out-of-pocket costs. TTEA members pay FAR less out-of-pocket than most Americans ($6,137) for “best-in-class” coverage. I suggest we raise member contributions further.

5- The TTEA contract is based on “hidden” raises that are automatic based on years of service (i.e., between levels); 4-6% are the norm in years 5-13 of the contract, even if the TTEA negotiates a 0% increase in the level itself. In addition, in Teaneck it takes only 13 years to reach maximum salary; in NYC, 25 years

6- The TTEA still has a cap of $20,000 for unused sick pay. The rest of us go to work without a “payout” upon retirement. Other districts have a $5,000 cap.

7- Bad teachers essentially cannot be fired due to very expensive grievance procedures. There is NO pay for performance. Tenure at three years…….and other work rules affecting student outcomes.

8- During the budget crises of 2010 when $6.0 million was cut, the BOE asked for a one year pay freeze. The Union said NO. So much for goodwill, and the welfare of our children.

Bottom line:
The GREED needs to stop. The TTEA needs to recognize that the taxpayer trough is getting close to empty due to high unemployment, pay freezes and health care costs spiralling out of control; i.e., higher co-payments and deductibles.

TTEA get a far better deal than most workers in the private sector. That is a reversal of historical proportions.

According to the Bergen Record, only 200 of the 535 TTEA members picketed neart Teaneck Road. This suggests 335 members stayed home, and perhaps recognized the generousity of the existing contract.

Our feud is NOT with teachers, but the union leadership. We support the Board of Education in their attempt to bring rationality to the negotiation process. More money in the pockets of EXCEEDINGLY WELL COMPENSATED TTEA members means less for the classroom.

We also need to cap sick pay, re-negotiate grievance procedures and FIRE bad teachers.

The TTEA contract for 2008-2011 is available in the Facts and Figures ection of the blog. The salary scale in Teaneck and NYC is also available. Teaneck CAUSES believes full transparency facilitates opinion generation and decision making.

On May 21, 2012 Teaneck 2020 is sponsoring a forum entitled: “Protecting Public Education: What can we do to preserve and protect our public schools”. Panelists include Barbara Pinsak, Superintendent and Senator Loretta Weinberg, the NJ Senate majority Leader and District 37 Senator; as well as Julie Sass Rubin PhD, Spokesperson, Save our Schools and Danielle Farrie, PhD, Education Law Center. All highly qualified with strong credentials.

The forum will occur tomorrow, Monday, May 21 from 7:30-9:30 at Teaneck High School, Media Center, 2nd Floor. All community residents are invited.

A few thoughts regarding the panelist organizations:

1- Julia Sass Rubin, Ph.D. is an “Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University and one of the founding members of Save Our Schools NJ, a nonpartisan, grassroots, all volunteer organization of parents and other concerned residents who believe that all New Jersey children should have access to a high quality public education.” We agree, the question involves implementation – How?

I went to the SOS website, http://www.saveourschoolsnj.org/ to learn more about the organizations. Focus issues include (a) “Assault on NJ Public Schools Part 1 – Fiscal Starvation”. As highlighted previously on our blog, Teaneck public schools are not starved for funding. In 2009-10, Teaneck spent $22,942 per pupil, ranking 101/105 districts. 83% of funding was via local property taxes. Teacher, Special Education, Administration and Maintenance salaries are among the highest in the State. For the Teaneck BOE, iIt’s a question of resource allocation and not the absolute level of spending. (b) “Assault on NJ Public Schools Part II – Eroding Local Control”; i.e., “Charter school expansion that ignores local voter preferences while depleting the public school budgets”. Voters want a public school system that works, irrespective of “control”. The Teaneck Community Charter School seems to be working. BOE “fury” is clearly evident against the pending Hebrew Charter School – whose entire history has been shrouded in secrecy. Charter schools would not exist if an unmet need was not present.

SOS also supports “Greater accountability and transparency of charter school finances and educational performance”. Why doesn’t SOS support the same objective for our public schools? Our education system is failing many students, especially in math literacy. Tenure at three years, egregious grievance procedures that essentially prevents the termination of incompetent teachers, the lack of a standardized performance evaluation system — found in every industry, for-profit and non-for-profit in the U.S., mandated union membership, and the lack of a pay for performance system is not addressed on the website.

As in healthcare, the money exists to fund a quality system. The educational process needs re-engineering and the re-allocation of resources.

2- Danielle Farrie PhD is” research director at Education Law Center (ELC). She maintains a database of educational data for the state of New Jersey and conducts analysis to support litigation and public policy for ELC and partner organizations.” Additional information from their website, http://www.edlawcenter.org/about/mission-history.html highlights the following:

The ELC was founded in 1973, and has used the courts for “equal educational opportunity and education justice in the United States”. They have “advanced the provision of fair school funding, high quality early education, safe and adequate school facilities, and school reform, especially to schools serving high concentrations of at-risk students and students with disabilities and other special needs”. Their advocacy led to the Abbott vs. Burke ruling.

On June 19, 2011 we made the following blog post on Teaneck Causes:

In late May, the NJ Supreme Court ordered lawmakers to raise spending for poor urban schools by $500 million despite a state budget shortfall of $10 billion. The 3-2 decision accused the state of violating previous Supreme Court judicial orders in a case that was initially filed in 1981. 31 low income, urban districts will receive a $500 million windfall.

According to the Education Law Center (http://www.edlawcenter.org/ELCPublic/AbbottvBurke/AbbottProfiles/All_Districts_Detail_2007.pdf), there are 272,692 K-12 students enrolled in Abbott districts. They account for 20.6% of the 1,317,623 enrolled students in NJ. African Americans (40.2%) and Latinos (44.6%) represent the vast majority of Abbott district students; comparable figures for the entire state are 16.7% and 18.4% respectively. Although the graduation rate of Abbott District students (83.7%) are not that dissimilar from the NJ average (94.2%), only 55.3% graduate based on the traditional Grade 11 HSPA exam (NJ: 80.8%); 32.5% graduate based on the alternative (SRA) exam. The “gap” in student performance widens with advancing age from the ASK 4 test scores to the Grade 8 (GEPA) exam to the Grade 11 HSPA — a pattern seen elsewhere. Early intervention remains essential.
$500 million divided by 272,692 students = $1,834 per student.

Its financial impact will vary by district based on the level of per pupil spending (2009-10):

Asbury Park: $24,306
Camden: $17,336
Garfield: $13,991
Elizabeth: $16,242
Hoboken: $21,859
Irvington: $15,568
Jersey City: $17,368
Newark: 16,913
Trenton: $16,481

Note, Teaneck spends more per pupil than every Abbott District except Asbury Park.

The range of per pupil spending among 10 randomly selected Abbott districts is $13,991 for Garfield and $24,306 for Asbury Park — 74%. NO correlation appears to exist between spending and student performance. An increase of $1,834 represents 13.1% for Garfield but “only” 7.5% for Asbury Park

The ELC, with good intentions needs to also assess the effectiveness and efficiency of spending, as well as the economic status of the State of New Jersey and its residents. Despite funding, the education system is not working in Abbott Districts for many of its students.

Bottom Line: We should all attend what is likely to be a most interesting forum. The quest for funding and the demise of charter schools continues to be espoused by many within the NJ hierarchy without adequate regard to efficient and effective spending.

The April 19 Suburbanite headline, “Fisher urges forum for school funding” highlights a continued unwillingness by the Board of Education to consider reduced spending and/or improved resource allocation to the potential shortage of capital. It’s always about more money from taxpayers, the state and perhaps, charter schools that may never open.

Ms. Fisher repeatedly speaks about the “devastating” budget cuts of 2010. Objective data reported by the State of New Jersey suggests classroom size was not significantly increased; academic achievement was also not affected. Teaneck teachers still received their contracted 4.5% step increase for 2011. Where was the devastation?

A few weeks ago, a few Board of Education members mentioned the “miracle” budget of 2012-13, with a property tax increase of 0.4%. Spending has actually increased 10.2% in the past two years due to higher state aid and importantly budgeted fund balances paid for by taxpayers in prior years that was not spent until recently. “Rainy day” financial practices will continue next year with the possibility of a $2.5 million budget surplus.

The NJ Taxpayers’ Guide to Education Spending reported spending per pupil (elementary, middle, high school) in 2009-10 of $22,942, ranking 101/105 within the State. A figure approximating $24,000 is possible for 2012-13. Comparable private school tuitions for elementary and middle school is $13-16,000, whereas for high school its $25,000; Catholic school tuition is far lower.

Teaneck teacher and staff salaries are among the most generous in the State. Teamster members recognized the need for a multi-year salary freeze and givebacks, while the Teacher’s Union demonstrates periodically in front of the Administration Building. No tenure reform, pay for performance or even a reduction in the $20,000 unused sick pay cap. Students who don’t live in Teaneck use our schools; administrative overhead is excessive.

Bottom line: It still feels like a recession. It’s time to stop equating school funding with academic achievement and focus on enhancing productivity and outcomes. Charter schools would not exist if an unmet need was not present.

The 2010-11 NJASK (Grades 3-8) and HPSA (Grade 11) scores show mixed results in language and math proficiency. Proficiency was based on passing; percentile scoring relative to other students in NJ were not available.

Elementary and middle school language proficiency from Grades 3-7 ranged from 52.1% passing in Grade 5 in Benjamin Franklin to 71.4% in Grade 4 at Whittier. In most schools, 30-40% of students are not language proficient. Grade 8 language proficiency was substantially higher at 73-91.1%, suggesting either (a) a dramatic increase in proficiency skills or (b) a far easier test standard.

Math proficiency was superior to language proficiency at all schools and across all grades. Passing percentages were strongest in Grades 3-6 with a range of 70.4% to 94.1%, and then significantly weakened in Grades 7-8 with a range of test scores from 58.2-76.4%.

Teaneck High School Grade 11 language proficiency was 88.8%, whereas Grade 11 math proficiency was 69.1%.

Grade 3 Language;
2009-10, 2010-11
Hawthorne 65.9%, 61.9%;
Lowell 66.7%, 65.8%
Whittier 56.7%, 60.2%
Community 70.6%, 70.5%

Grade 4 Language
2009-10 2010-11
Hawthorne 57.0%, 67.4%
Lowell 55.2%, 71.4%
Whittier 56.3%, 61.1%
Community Charter 67.6%, 70.6%

Grade 5 Language
2009-10, 2010-11
Ben Franklin 56.2%, 52.1%
Thomas Jeff 65.3%, 58.1%
Community 63.9%, 61.8%

Grade 6 Language
2009-10 2010-11
Ben Franklin 60.8%, 62.7%
Thomas Jeff 77.1%, 67.7%
Community 67.6%, 65.7%

Grade 7 Language
2009-10, 2010-11
Ben Franklin 71.6%, 61.2%;
Thomas Jeff 59.5%, 65.4%;
Community Charter 60.6%, 67.7%

Grade 8 Language
2009-10, 2010-11
Ben Franklin 80.8%, 88.8%
Thomas Jeff 83.1%, 73.0%
Community Charter 90.3% 91.1%

Grade 3 Math;
2009-10, 2010-11
Hawthorne 84.7%, 77.4%
Lowell 76.5%, 83.5%
Whittier 70.1%, 73.4%
Community Charter 73.6%, 94.1%

Grade 4 Math
2009-10, 2010-11
Hawthorne 91.0%, 86.7%
Lowell 58.6%, 73.6%
Whittier 65.5%, 70.4%
Community Charter 82.3%, 82.3%

Grade 5 Math;
2009-10, 2010-11
Ben Franklin 76.5%, 72.7%
Thomas Jeff 79.2%, 78.3%
Community Charter 94.5%, 85.3%

Grade 6 Math
2009-10, 2010-11
Ben Franklin 60.8% 70.4%
Thomas Jeff 75.3% 81.6%
Community Charter 67.7% 85.7%

Grade 7 Math;
2009-10 2010-11
Ben Franklin 63.0%, 68.0%
Thomas Jeff 60.9%, 66.3%
Community Charter 66.7%, 73.5%

Grade 8 Math
2009-10, 2010-11
Ben Franklin 58.5% 75.2%
Thomas Jeff 60.5% 58.2%
Community Charter 77.4% 76.4%

Grade 4 Science
2009-10, 2010-11
Hawthorne 98.0%, 91.6%
Lowell 94.8%, 96.7%
Whittier 92.6%, 88.9%
Community Charter 94.1%, 97.0%

Grade 8 Science
2009-10, 2010-11
Ben Franklin 81.6%, 82.8%
Thomas Jeff 86.5%, 78.6%
Community Charter 93.6%, 94.1%

Grade 11 Math
2009-10, 2010-11
Teaneck High School 62.8%, 69.1%

Grade 11 Language
2009-10, 2010-11
Teaneck High School 91.5%, 88.8%

Bottom line: Mixed results. Math scores appear to be improving, though from a relatively low baseline. A clear negative performance trend begins in Grade 7 & 8 and continues through Grade 11 in high school. Conversely, language proficiency appears to improve with grade advancement. Science scores appear adequate.

Commissioner Cerf of the State BOE recently raised the question about the validity of the State HPSA exam for high school students given data suggesting the need for remedial course work by students in college who receive a passing score.

An achievement gap exists and is already recognized by the BOE. Longer-term trend data, supplemented by additional information to assess the success, or lack thereof of existing efforts to improve results. It would be helpful for the BOE to establish objective and measurable 5-year improvement goals. The budget cuts of 2010 did not appear to affect results. Its important to note that schools do not replace the need for family engagement in a child’s education.

On Thursday, December 1, 2011, NJEA released a press release entitled, “Chistie’s Straw Man for Reform.” In the press release, NJEA President Barbara Keshishian stated: “The Christie administration’s primary rationale for education reform – the so-called “achievement gap” between white and black students in the state’s urban districts – is “a classic straw man.”

“Here’s the truth: New Jersey has an achievement gap between white and black students, but it is narrowing,” Keshishian said. “And the real story is that both groups out-perform the vast majority of their counterparts across America.”

Results from the 2011 4th grade math and reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – the benchmark for state comparisons – showed that:

• New Jersey’s white fourth-graders scored third in both math and reading, when ranked against other states’ white students.
• New Jersey’s black fourth-graders scored fifth in math and second in reading, when ranked against other states’ black students

The press release also stated that while “research indicates that while there is an achievement gap between white and black students, the most reliable predictor of test score results is family income.”

The NJEA was reacting to previously released data from the NJDOE:

• On the NJASK (New Jersey Assessment of Knowledge and Skills), the state test administered to students in grades 3-8 in math and language arts literacy (LAL), there is a significant proficiency gap between economically disadvantaged students – students eligible for free and reduced price lunch (FRPL) – and students not eligible for free and reduced price lunch (non-FRPL). In both subjects, this percentage point gap has remained relatively constant or has widened since 2005. Note that changes in assessments in grades 3 and 4 in 2008-09 and changes in assessments for grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 in 2007-08 mean that longitudinal comparisons in those grades cannot accurately be compared over time.
• A persistent [statewide] gap of more than 20 percentage points in pass rates exists between white and both African American and Hispanic students on the NJASK.

Bottom line: The achievement gap is still very wide. Comparisons among counterpart populations ignore the following reality: (a) On average, a college graduate will earn $1 million more than a high school graduate over a lifetime (b) Between 1998 and 2008, the job market has drastically shifted in favor of those with a college degree. During that time period, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 10 million jobs were created for those with a college degree, while 600,000 jobs were lost that did not require a high school degree. (c) High school dropouts are 47 times more likely to be incarcerated in their lifetime than a college graduate.

It’s all about succeeding in college and eventually, life. That is the role of education at school and in the home. High levels of education spending within the public school system does not necessarily equate with academic performance. A new approach is required.

I attended the March 28 BOE budget presentation at THS. Board members touted the “miracle budget” and the minimal 0.4% increase in property tax. I applaud the minimal increase while recognizing that during the past two years, total expenditures have increased from $86.4 million in 2010-11 to $91.3 million, +5.7% this school year to $93.6 million, +2.5% appropriated for next year, 2012-13.

How do tax increases of < 0.5% in two consecutive years allow for an increase in spending of 8.3%? Accounting, state aid and “saving for a rainy day”. More specifically:

1- A budgeted fund balance or surplus taxpayer funds from prior years. It was $5.7 million in June 2011, and is projected to be $4.2 million in June 2012; $1.7 million in June 2013. The more likely figure in 2013 is $2.4-2.7 million.

2- A legal reserve of $1.9 million that is not really a legal reserve. The funds are being applied to the 2012-13 budget

3- An increase in categorical STATE transportation aid of $940,000 for 2012-13, the vast majority of which is not really transportation aid. It too will be applied to the budget

4- Additional carryover from the Shalom Academy, budgeted but not fully allocated and thus, able to be carried over to next year. A similar occurrence is possible next year as well.

Bottom line: Teaneck residents must be aware of the 8.3% increase in spending, and not necessarily focus on the minimal increase in property taxes. BOE spending is already very high relative to other school districts.

Fiscal responsibility mandates efficient spending and an analysis of potential cost savings in administrative overhead, out-of-district students attending Teaneck schools, $1.86 million on special education bus spending for 318 students ($5,835/student) and other previously identified areas. We know what has to be done. The BOE is not being fiscally prudent with taxpayer funding.

We want Teaneck to have the best possible schools; its students prepared for a highly competitive future. The past has proven spending does not correlate with academic performance. Fiscal responsibility does not preclude academic achievement.

The shift to a November election date for the Board of Election eliminates the budget vote and if necessary, a review by the Town Council (if the budget does not exceed a 2% threshold). Unfortunately, we believe that at least a few, if not many members of the BOE will view the 2% threshold as a target and not the maximum allowable amount.

In the Friday, January 20 Bergen Record Ardie Walser, President of the BOE stated “the current process is not a good one,” and added, “Some of the concern [about the new law] is legitimate. But sometimes you have to change.”

It’s about fiduciary responsibility – something the BOE has ignored until recently as evidenced by the following metrics:

1- According to the “Taxpayers Guide to Education Spending May 2011″, the 2009-10 Costs Amount per Pupil: $22,942 ranked 101/105 districts with > 3,500 students. Teaneck pays its educational support services, administrators and teachers more than the vast majority of their colleagues; e.g., educational support service personnel and teachers are in the top 98% of NJ personnel. Why?

Educational support service salary (2010-11): $104,734 ranked 106/106; Administrator salary (2009-10): $132,397 ranked 88/106; Teacher salary (2010-11): $85,550 ranked 104/106. Nurses earn 20-30% more than private sector ICU nurses for a 180 day work year (vs. 250 for a private sector nurse).

Note, these salaries exclude the cost of healthcare benefits which have been skyrocketing. We estimate “best-in-class” benefit costs at $21-24,000/employee; out-of-pocket deductibles and co-payments are minimal compared to the average employee plan.

2- Granting teachers a pay raise of 4.5% per annum between 2008-11 while the “Great Recession” ravaged the economy. During 2010, when a request for shared sacrifice was made, the TTEA said “absolutely not”. 4.5% x 3 years = 14.1% compounded raise. The 2008-11 pay raise was far higher than most other districts within NJ. Note, “pay for performance” does not exist within Teaneck. What are the terms of the re-negotiated contract? More levels? Smaller increases per level?

3- Accrued unused vacation pay of $3,334,535. The maximum payment per employee is $20,000 — far higher than the $5-10,000 suggested by Governor Christie and the Democratic legislature. Why not a lower cap for Teaneck? Was unused vacation pay part of the re-negotiated contract?

Dr. Denham, interim superintendent recently retired with a Teaneck taxpayer funded retirement “bonus” of $294,067.26 — $44,287.80 for 60 unused vacation days and $249,779.46 for unused sick days.

4- Hiring a transportation consultant to focus on the elimination of private school busing, whereas the Township spends $1.8 million on students for 300 students with disabilities ($6,000/student) and another $315,000 for field and athletic trips. Fort Lee bought buses and hired drivers for many of their disabled students; the buses were then used after-hours for field and athletic trips. Bergenfield shares routes with New Milford, Dumont and Tenafly. Why not Teaneck?

5- Tenafly lost 142 students or 4% of its students in its re-registration effort (Bergen Record, October 7). The drive was necessary to ensure students live in the district. Applying a 4.0% figure to Teaneck’s 4,162 students implies that 166 students do not belong in the school system — a figure far higher than the reported “actual” number. Cost per pupil is $22,942. Assuming an incremental 80 students be identified implies a cost savings of $1,835,360 — more than enough to pay for additional classroom activities for Teaneck residents. Assuming cost per pupil of $15,000 (34.6% lower) still results in a savings exceeding $1.0 million. Why can’t Teaneck identify more students who do NOT reside within the Township?

6- The three year salary and level freeze taken by Teamsters Union (custodial) personnel is a positive first step. The cost per employee between the Aramark offer ($48,345) and existing Teaneck BOE employees still remains wide.

7- Other process efficiencies exist. For example, is Teaneck exploring the use of adjunctive “virtual” technology to supplement existing teacher methods?

Ardie Walser’s comments relate to the “bruising” budget battle of April 2010 whereby a proposed 8-10% increase in property taxes was defeated by Teaneck residents. The $6.1 million budget reduction DID NOT “ravage” the Teaneck public school system; average class size still approximates NJ State averages. More than half the reduction has already been restored to the BOE budget.

Bottom line: Fiduciary responsibility still required from the BOE. Teaneck residents are still over-burdened with high property taxes. Union contracts require re-negotiation and a semblance of shared sacrifice. Costs saving opportunities must be pursued, wherever possible in a collaborative manner.

According to the Teaneck Teachers Education Association contact, 2008-2011 “employees may accumulate sick days not to exceed ten days, and twelve month employees may accumulate sick days not to exceed twelve days per year.” Most employees, irrespective of the industry are sick less than ten days per year unless they have a chronic illness, more commonly found in those post-retirement. In addition, a liberal sick day policy lends itself to abuse due to the use of this benefit for personal, not medical reasons.

At the June 30, 2010 board meeting, the Teaneck BOE approved payment to Mr. Denham, the interim superintendent in the amount of $44,287.80 for 60 unused vacation days and $249,779.46 for unused sick days as per the terms of his contract. His contract was approved by the County Superintendent of Schools. In total, $294,067.26 — a retirement “bonus”.

Teaneck currently has accrued $4,379,922. The BOE has a $3,334,535 of compensated absences payable or 76.1% of the total. According to Robert Finger CFO, the maximum payment per employee is $20,000. Assuming an average of $20,000 per employee, this would equate with absence ” bonuses” FOR NOT GETTING SICK being given to 167 BOE employees. The real numbers are probably lower given the average tenure of an employee; i.e., more people to potentially get lesser amounts.

The BOE needs to reduce, if not eliminate these bonus payments for not taking sick days — for which they are already being paid. Governor Christie is looking to cap these payments at $5,000. The NJ Legislature Democrats, still beholden to the Unions for campaign contributions and their ability to “get out the vote” are targeting a higher level. In the interim, nothing happens. So much for the ordinary resident.

70% of towns in Bergen County are capped. Teaneck’s cap is too high. It needs to be reduced or even eliminated.

We hope the BOE included a reduction or elimination of the unused sick pay “bonus” in its re-negotiated contract with the TTEA. If not, it’s a breach of fiduciary responsibility and represents another opportunity to re-allocate the savings to the classroom.

Bad teachers have been shown to affect student outcomes in a negative fashion. Firing a bad teacher is nearly impossible given grievance procedures (as shown in the TTEA contract, Artcile IV, pages 8-15) and legal costs that may exceed $100,000 per termination. The debate about evaluation procedures is one more barrier to (a) eliminating under-performing teachers and (b) keeping the concept of “pay-for-performance” as a distant reality.

Annual evaluations of ALL teachers would identify those who excel in their professions (i.e., Master teachers”) and the possibility of paying performance bonuses to those who deserve the recognition. It would also identify those who reside (or should reside) in the NYC equivalent of “rubber rooms”.

On Saturday, December 31, the NY Times published an article entitled, Dispute over Evaluations Imperil [$60 million] Grants for Schools.” This is insanity. A deadline for submission passed on Friday due to an inability of the United Federation of Teachers to agree with Dennis Walcott, the chancellor about a revised evaluation system. The deadline was known for months.

Every industry has an evaluation system for its employees. The principles of Total Quality Management are based on measurement. None of these systems are perfect — but they are better than the current standard.

Benchmarks for evaluation have been studied by educators for over a century. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the lack of an effective evaluation system (and excessive grievance procedures) is to protect mediocre teachers and their positions. There are not many, but they do exist.

Key issues in NYC negotiations include (1) type of assistance provided to under-performing teachers and (2) appeals process of teachers with poor ratings for two years. The latter is easily solved – fire them! Its’ the students that suffer from poor teachers. No mention by the UFT from the “customers” perspective.

The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality published a report in 2008 that provides an overview of the evaluation process http://www.tqsource.org/publications/February2008Brief.pdf. The report identifies the strengths and limitations of current teacher evaluation tools (e.g., lesson plans, classroom observations, self-assessments, student achievement data, student work-sample review), as well as best practices (who evaluates, frequency of evaluation, training and communication).

There are thousands of school districts within the U.S. with teacher evaluations. Millions of dollars have been spent by the government and academia in studying evaluation systems. Why the debate?

Bottom line: The Teacher Unions need to move beyond job protection, particularly for those with mediocre skills to a focus on student outcomes. Teachers have a critical societal role. A ‘pay-for-performance” system would incent excellence and recognize those who are “best-in-class”. Its’ not always about money, but also recognition and self-satisfaction. Perhaps, Teaneck can lead the nation in this regard.

1) Salaries that continue to increase in these “troubled” economic times.

According to a report entitled, “Out of Work and Losing Hope: The Misery and Bleak Expectations of American Workers” from the John H. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers: (1) 58% of Americans are in worse financial shape than two years ago; 28% are the same (2) 52% of formerly unemployed took a pay cut (and a “step down” in their new jobs – 29% took pay cuts of 31% or more! (3) 90% of the unemployed think years of unemployment and the lack of good jobs is ahead.

Fireman contract (Local 42): January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. For fireman hired after August 2009:

0-6 months: $40,000
6 months to 1 year: $52,000
Year 2: $59,000, +47.5%
Year 3: $66,000, +11.9%
Year 4: $73,000, +10.6%
Year 5: $80,000, 9.6%
Year 6: $90,103, +12.6%

Police contract (Local 215): January 2008-December 2012. Effective 01/01/2012

0-6 months: $33,446
6 months to 1 year: $41,226
Year 2: $50,562, +51.2%
Year 3: $61,449, +21.5%
Year 4: $72,341, +17.7%
Year 5: $83,233, 15.1%
Year 6: $101,081, +21.4%

Police & Fire contracts are transparent and easily understood. They are available via an OPRA request from the municipality and BOE. They are also OUTRAGEOUS in their year-to-year increases.

BOE teacher salaries were previously disclosed and discussed on the blog post dated October 23, 2011. Teaneck Teachers are the fourth highest paid in NJ, whereas its Special Education staff are the highest paid. The BOE has frozen the salary STEPS and increases for 2011-12. Details have not yet been disclosed.

Actual levels of custodian salaries have been frozen for the next three years. The potential for outsourcing custodial positions to ARAMARK at a far lower cost set off a “lightbulb” — Teaneck employees are paid exceedingly well — salaries, healthcare benefits, vacations, etc. – given the local economy

2) The use of ARBITRATION rather than mediation that is 100% biased towards the unions and does not reflect the desire of local Teaneck residents or its leadership. Politics, and the need to get re-elected rather than fiscal prudence has contributed to these outlandish salaries.

3) Unused sick days with an accrued benefit upon retirement of $4,379,922; the cost to average homeowner is $335. The majority of this benefit applies to the BOE. Governor Christie would like to reduce the benefit to a maximum of $7,500 per employee. Private sector employees get ZERO accrual of sick days.

4) Health insurance plans with better benefits AND lower co-payments and deductibles than nearly every other employee offerings. The Christie pan is a start, but will still not eliminate the significant gap between out-of-pocket requirements for private and public health insurance plans

5) Pensions based on the highest three years of earnings, and usually overtime-related “padding” prior to retirement. Retirement at 50-55+with full pension is not uncommon; most other Americans need to reach 62-65. Police and Firemen Retirement System taxpayer contributions have increased from $352,000 in 2004 to $5,412,000 in 2011. We will eventually go “broke” based on this rate of increase; at a minimum, a cutback in local services will be required to pay for these pensions.

Bottom Line: Merry Christmas to all union employees who benefit from Teaneck taxpayer largesse. Its’ time for shared sacrifice. Our elected leaders have either inherited or contributed to these contracts from past administrations that had NO concept of fiscal responsibility. We now need to increase the number of salary steps, reduce year to year increases, FREEZE SALARIES and work with Governor Christie to regain local municipal control. We need elected officials to forget about party politics and do the “right thing”; i.e., restore compensation equity to municipal spending WHILE enhancing services and student outcomes. We need increased accountability. A 3-5 year effort will be required.

Rejection of the Garden State Virtual Charter School application allows us to re-visit the busing controversy — a source of community divisiveness. Lower cost solutions are clearly evident that are unlikely to create community acrimony. Shared sacrifice is required from all.

Option #1: Eliminating non-public school busing NOT VIABLE

Reasons include:
(a) Impact on current public school students : Neighborhood school model likely to increase class size and reduce racial diversity; and generate costs associated with retrofitting existing facilities, consulting studies, litigation and administration
(b) High likelihood of public school students within Teaneck living outside the 2.0 and 2.5 mile radius thereby mandating transportation. Only 1 remote student triggers non-public school mandate for busing all 2,405 non-public school students.
(c) Tremendous inconvenience to existing public school parents who will be required to have their children transfer schools. In total, 23.9% or 340 pre-k to Grade 4 students receive busing (mandated, courtesy)
(d) At least 2-3 years will be needed to further explore this option with the possibility of rejection by the NJ Department of Education. Precedents do not exist for a step of this magnitude.
(e) Community divisiveness and litigation is inevitable

Option #2: Collaborate with Jewish and Catholic private schools to identify potential cost savings in a proactive manner; i.e., prior to the generation of a final budget.

Budget: Non-public busing $1,912,235;
292 non-public students received aid in lieu payments of $884 = $258,128;
1,992 students receive mandated busing at the cost of $830.38/student = $1,654,107

State mandated maximum is $884.00 per student

B. Pinsak, Superintendent is receptive to meeting with various private school administrators to explore cost saving opportunities. Representatives from a major Jewish elementary and high school have expressed a willingness to begin a “conversation”. The organizers of “Safe Teaneck” are also interested in being proactive with the Board of Education.

An article in this Sunday Bergen Record entitled, “School bus transportation: Cutbacks force creativity” identified opportunities to reduce costs including the consolidation of bus stops (while ensuring safety), tiering school opening and closing times; and sharing services (among districts and schools). Ridgewood uses the same bus for elementary, middle and high school students that start and end school at slightly different times.

These ideas are potentially applicable to the private schools receiving services.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/transportation/135396698_local_issue__SCHOOL_BUS_TRANSPORTATION_Cutbacks_force_creativity.html

Option #3: Identify cost reduction opportunities for Special Education (and field/athletic trips)

Budget: $1.8 million for 300 students or $6,000 per student. The type of disability for each of these students requires determination; NJ law does not mandate record keeping.

The Bergen Record article highlighted Fort Lee administrator Cheryl Balletto who “bought four buses and hired drivers, saving money. The buses also are used by sports teams or bands for weekend events”

Teaneck spends $315,000 annually for field and athletic trips. The purchase of a few buses and the hiring of drivers seem like a “real” cost savings idea.

Bergenfield saves $250,000 per year through the sharing of a special education route with New Milford, Dumont and Tenafly….but not Teaneck. Why? Bergenfield is looking to expand this arrangement.

Option #4: Reduce public school busing costs via a reduction or the elimination of courtesy busing

Budget: Public school busing $874,878
Courtesy busing: $820 x 565 students = $463,300
Mandated busing: $820 x 255 students = $209,100
Vocational school: $913.95 x 79 = $72,202 (No state limit for vocational transportation)
Charter schools: $723.76 x 180 students = $130,276

The elimination of courtesy busing for very young children is not a popular alternative given safety concerns.

Bottom line: Cost savings are possible via a collaborative approach, shared services and perhaps the purchase of buses and the hiring of drivers for Special Education. The buses could be also used for field and athletic events.

The ongoing challenge associated with the Garden State Virtual Charter School highlights the interplay among profit, politics and the public “good”. Pending national legislation and a local marketing campaign from the NJEA highlight “Real Politik” and why the approval ratings for Congress and other elected officials are approaching single digits. Its’ no longer about “doing the right thing”; special interests from all sides rule supreme.

Case study #1:

A headline from the front page of the NY Times on Saturday, December 10 is entitled, “With Lobbying Blitz, Profit Making Colleges Diluted New Rules”. According to the NYT, the “colleges spent $16 million on an all-star list of prominent figures, particularly Democrats with close ties to the White House.” They included familiar names from the past including Anita Dunn, Jamie Rubin, Richard Gephardt, John Breaux and Tony Podesta, as well as investors politically connected to President Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

A U.S. Government Accounting Office report (GAO-10-948T August 4, 2010) entitled, “For-profit colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Marketing Practices ” highlighted for-profit enrollment growth from 365,000 to 1.8 million, and the receipt by students of $4 billion in Pell grants and $20 billion in federal loans by the Department of Education. More specifically:

“Undercover tests at 15 for-profit colleges found that 4 colleges encouraged fraudulent practices and that all 15 made deceptive or otherwise questionable statements to GAO’s undercover applicants. …Other college representatives exaggerated undercover applicants’ potential salary after graduation and failed to provide clear information about the college’s program duration, costs, or graduation rate despite federal regulations requiring them to do so…..GAO’s four fictitious prospective students received numerous, repetitive calls from for-profit colleges attempting to recruit the students when they registered with Web sites designed to link for-profit colleges with prospective students…..Programs at the for-profit colleges GAO tested cost substantially more for associate’s degrees and certificates than comparable degrees and certificates at public colleges nearby. A student interested in a massage therapy certificate costing $14,000 at a for-profit college was told that the program was a good value. However the same certificate from a local community college cost $520.” http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-948T

Despite the GAO report and ongoing legal proceedings, our former and current representatives in Washington “watered down” the final regulations. Money talks to Republicans and DEMOCRATS.

Case study #2:

I exercise every morning while watching CNN, CNBC or ESPN. During the past few weeks, the New Jersey Education Association has “tapped” into their $107 million in annual dues to highlight their concern for education reform. Focus areas include:

1- Nurturing a culture of teaching excellence

2- Public school choice with real accountability

3- Starting early and finishing strong: Quality schools for every child

The NJEA in its website – http://www.njea.org/news/2011/10/28/education%20reform%20done%20right – also identifies “harmful” proposals that must be stopped:
Overemphasis on test scores. Allowing politics into the classroom. Public funds for private benefit.

A few thoughts:

1-Nurturing a culture of teaching excellence. Performance evaluation occur within every sector of the U.S. economy; they are often recognized as imperfect. What is revolutionary about performance evaluations to the NJEA? Bad teachers lead to poor academic performance. Bad teachers need to be fired (after a probationary period). Grievance procedures require revision.In the last ten years, only about 47 out of 100,000 teachers were actually terminated from New Jersey’s schools. The cost of firing a teacher has been estimated to exceed $100,000.

The majority of Teaneck teachers are good teachers supporting the efforts of their students. A small, but not insignificant number are inadequate.

The recently expired Teaneck Teachers Education Association (TTEA) contract is available online on the Teaneck CAUSES website at http://teaneckcauses.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/2008-2011_-_TTEA_Final_Contract_-_Copy_for_Printer2.pdf. Of interest is placement of Article IV: Grievance Procedure (7 pages) at the beginning of the contract, whereas Article XXI: Teacher Responsibilities (< 1 page) is in the back. Note the disparity of length in each section. Obviously, not oriented towards student outcome and teacher accountability.

Are the Teaneck BOE administrators “handcuffed” by the NJEA grievance procedure and union rules?

Education remains nearly the only sector in the U.S. with nearly “guaranteed” employment for life — also known as tenure. Why?

2- Harmful proposals to be stopped; e.g., over-emphasis on test scores. In other words, “shoot the messenger”. The U.S. education system is failing many of its students. A fundamental premise of quality improvement is measurement. Without measurement, improvement is not possible. Low standards reflecting low expectations leads to a passing grade, but not necessarily a job in these difficult times.

For example, opportunities exist to improve STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) proficiency. The local NJASK and HSPA data from Teaneck support this conclusion.

What about the measurement of graduation rates? Approximately 20-25% of Teaneck High School graduates enter 2- year colleges. Did you know that the three-year graduation rates for first time, full-time students completing certificate degrees at public two year colleges in NJ are “mediocre” at best: Bergen Community College (14%), Pasaic County Community College (6%) and County College of Morris (22%)? [Source: U.S. Department of Education, IPEDS 2009-10]

3- Harmful proposals to be stopped; e.g., allowing politics into the classroom. This is another “talking point” that bears no relevance to the truth. The NJEA has been a major benefactor of Democratic candidates for years. More importantly, they influence local elections by mobilizing manpower and financial resources to support specific candidates and initiatives. That is how NJ wound up with tenure, grievance procedures, last-in/first out (LIFO) position eliminations, taxpayer support of union representatives and other regulations that do not benefit taxpayers or more importantly, student education.

Let’s see what happens in the next BOE election. I predict the TTEA will be “all over” Teaneck HS and the broader community to support their self-serving position (as per the budget “battle” of 2010).

Bottom line: Money talks irrespective of the political party. The ability of the NJEA to influence local elections has been a powerful tool in the past. Talking points are not longer sufficient. Start with reforming grievance procedures and getting rid of BAD teachers. There are not many, but they do exist.

Its’ about nurturing a culture of excellence.

In October, the Teaneck BOE received a letter from the NJDOE requesting the allocation of $15.4 million ($15,400 per student x 1,000 students) for the Garden State Virtual Charter School (GSVCS) during FY2012-13, an egregious and potentially, “budget-breaking” amount reflecting statewide enrollment; only 10-20 of the virtual students are likely to reside in Teaneck.

A RALLY has been scheduled for Wednesday, December 7th at 3:30 on the field at Teaneck High School as part of Operation “Write, Rally and Ride” organized by the PTO. A change to the NJ Charter School Law is required to alter the funding allocation formula for virtual charter schools, an entity not considered when the law was originally written.

Importantly, the Teaneck BOE states on its website http://www.teaneckschools.org/site/default.aspx?PageID=1: (1) We are not against charter schools (2) We are not against virtual learning (3) We are not against virtual charter schools (4) We ARE against the present statutes and regulations that allow a virtual charter school application to threaten the very existence of the Teaneck public school system. Therefore, we demand a moratorium on all virtual charter school applications until the laws are changed to protect Teaneck’s and all NJ public schools.

We support the BOE in its statement implying that all charter schools are not bad; virtual education has a role, albeit adjunctive; and regulatory changes are required.

Our “crystal ball” says the $15.4 million allocation is highly unlikely to happen, though it potentially remains a short-term bureaucratic-driven nightmare for Teaneck administrators:

1- The NJDOE may not approve the charter school application in January; it was previously rejected.

2- According to a NorthJersey.com article from November 11, http://www.northjersey.com/news/133733943_State_says_not_all_costs_on_Teaneck.html?page=all
“The district will only be responsible for the cost of the students who live in the township, spokesman Justin Barra said Friday. The district will be able to make adjustments to its budget after enrollment numbers for Garden State Virtual Charter School become available, he added…..”They are not required to put aside $15 million”, Barra said. “And second of all, since they are not required to put it aside, of course, they can make adjustments as they go along when they find out how many students are applying, etc.”

Adjustments will occur “AFTER ENROLLMENT NUMBERS IN THE GSVCS BECOME AVAILABLE”; i.e., regulations run amok.

3- According to a NorthJersey.com article from November 21, http://www.northjersey.com/news/134304018_School_won_t_open.html :
“Should the New Jersey Department of Education … approve our charter application, but … restrict it to just a single school district, our board intends to decline the charter approval and not implement the school,” Jason Flynn, a Teaneck resident and parent of a Teaneck public school student, wrote to school officials over the weekend. “Rather, the school would await specific legislative or regulatory changes that would permit unrestricted statewide student enrollment prior to launching our program…..
Flynn, who reiterated his comments in an interview Monday, said the K-12 statewide virtual charter school, which applied for state approval last month, will likely draw most of its students from urban areas such as Paterson and Newark. ”

Key GSVCS issues:
1- The GSVCS proposes educating children from kindergarten through Grade 12, whereas other full-time virtual education programs target specific age groups; i.e., those a bit older with already developed social skills or a modicum of computer literacy. At what age are children “able” to be taught full-time on a virtual basis?

2- The GSVCS plans appears to be targeting Abbott districts for its full-time virtual offerings. According to the Education Law Center (http://www.edlawcenter.org/ELCPublic/AbbottvBurke/AbbottProfiles/All_Districts_Detail_2007.pdf), Abbott districts are disproportionately African American (40.2%) and Latino (44.6%). Only 55.3% of Abbott district students graduate based on the traditional Grade 11 HSPA exam (NJ: 80.8%); 32.5% graduate based on the alternative (SRA) exam.

Gail Collins posted an Op-ed article in the NYTimes on Saturday, December 3 entitled, “Virtually Educated” and asks: “Does full-time online learning really work for disadvantaged kids who may be alone at home all day?”

3- Ms. Collins also mentioned K12 Inc. http://www.k12.com/, an online private education business with 2,000 students in Union County, Tennessee co-founded by a former Goldman Sachs investment banker.

K12 Inc. is publicly traded. In the three months ending September 30, 2011 it had revenues of $193 million and generated income from operations of $8,267 or 4.3% or revenues. Revenue growth has been driven by organic growth and the acquisition of companies with virtual students. In its ten years of existence, K12 Inc. has invested $240 million in its curriculum and technology platform. During their first two years of existence (FY03-04), K12 Inc. LOST approximately $25 million.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTE1NjU5fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1

Let’s compare these financial results to the GSVCS.

(a) The GSVCS is profitable from Year 1, a VERY unusual position for a start-up company. Revenue of $15.4 million and expenditures of $10.7 million result in an ending fund balance (profit) of $4.7 million or 30.5% of revenues. Compare the level of GSVCS profitability at the early years of K12 Inc. (net loss) and its most recent financial statement (4.3% operating income after ten years of operation).

(b) Total instructional expense $6.7 million, Administration $3.4 million and Support Services $0.5 million. Capital outlay is ONLY $140,000. Profitability increases with leverage of the fixed cost infrastructure (e.g., administration) in Years 2,3 and thereafter. Does that imply profitability of 40-50% in subsequent years?

(4) Connections Academy appears to be providing all the infrastructure and technology support to the GSVCS. The former are owned by Pearson, a multi-billion dollar company http://www.pearson.com/ with 2010 revenues approximating $8.0 billion. Why isn’t the Connections Academy directly approaching the NJ DOE rather than working through an intermediary to get regulatory approval?

(5) The GSVCS application highlights the acceptance of Connections Academy students by a variety of 4-year colleges and universities. What was the socio-economic profile of those students? How many were full-time vs. part-time virtual students, and for how long? What was their motivation for virtual schooling; i.e., home schooled, drop-outs, rural and athletes/musicians focused on longer-term career opportunities? A detailed analysis is required.

(6) The for-profit education sector has not been a good investment for enrolled students (e.g., graduation rate, enhanced employment) and government payers. The GSVCS is a for-profit entity.

For example, in August 2011 the U.S. Department of Justice and four states sued the Education Management Corp (EMC), the second largest for-profit company in the U.S. “claiming it was not eligible for $11 BILLION in state and federal financial aid from July 2003 through June 2011″ [NY Times, August 8, 2011]. Goldman Sachs has a 41% ownership stake in EMC.

Goldman Sachs has been described by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone magazine (July 11, 2009) magazine “The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” As mentioned, K12 Inc. was co-founded by a former Goldman Sachs investment banker, an individual highly knowledgeable of acquisitions. K12 Inc. has seen its growth accelerated via acquisition. We do not believe students should be considered as fungible asset “for sale”.

Does Pearson, the parent of Connections Academy and education “partner” of the GSVCS also intend to grow via the acquisition of students?

(7) Show me the data!!! Do full-time virtual schools enhance outcomes for the targeted demographic?
Pilot studies are needed with pre-defined primary and secondary endpoints to ensure the findings can be applied to a broader population. Details can be found at http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Glass_Virtual.pdf

Bottom line: NJ should reject the application of the GSVCS. Its profit target is egregious and highlights a focus on profits and not academic achievement. A focus on the under-performing communities in Newark , Paterson and elsewhere also emphasizes the potential lack of accountability on student outcomes. Peer-reviewed data should be required prior to NJ DOE approval for use of virtual technology on a full-time basis.

Between 2001-10, Teaneck property taxes increased 58.8% compared to the national CPI of 26.3% — or more than double the rate of inflation (124% to be exact). A more relevant comparison may be the NJ CPI rate of 32.0%, implying an “excess” property tax increase of 83.3% — still a very high figure. During the same period, Teaneck’s overall population (2001: 39,587 to 2010: 39,776), as well as its student population (2001:4,324 to 2010:4,303) were relatively constant.

http://php.app.com/proptax/results.php?COUNTY=Bergen&MUNICIPALITY=Teaneck+Township&Submit=Search

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/consumer_price_index/historicalcpi.aspx

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services. More simply, think of the CPI as a measure of inflation experienced by consumers in their day-to-day living expenses. Details are provided for Teaneck and the Consumer Price Index on a year-by-year basis:

2001: Property taxes +3.7% vs. CPI +2.8% Difference: +0.9%
2002: Property taxes +5.6% vs. CPI +1.6% Difference: +4.0%
2003: Property taxes +4.8% vs. CPI +2.3% Difference: +2.5%
2004: Property taxes +5.4% vs. CPI +2.7% Difference: +2.7%
2005: Property taxes +5.2% vs. CPI +3.4% Difference: +1.8%
2006: Property taxes +6.3% vs. CPI +3.2% Difference: +3.1%
2007: Property taxes +7.8% vs. CPI +2.8% Difference: +5.0%
2008: Property taxes +2.5% vs. CPI +3.8% Difference: -1.3%
2009: Property taxes +4.0% vs. CPI -0.4% Difference: +4.4%
2010: Property taxes +2.3% vs. CPI +1.6% Difference: +0.7%

From an analytical perspective, Teaneck residents should compare the rate of rise in property taxes to the CPI for evidence of cost control. The difference is compounded over time. In aggregate, there is NO evidence of cost controls OR productivity savings, though a few isolated programs may have generated either/or both.

What are we paying for? Where is the value of our investment? Levels of academic achievement have not improved in our schools. Neither has the responsiveness our municipality. An example given by many residents is the Building Department and delays associated with gaining approval for “anything” – resident or commercial – due to inefficiencies associated with bureaucratic delays. We don’t even have garbage pick-up!

The salaries of Teaneck’s unionized workers skyrocketed, along with their benefits and pensions while the 99% of “other” Americans stagnated. At the same time, costly grievance procedures, combined with disincentives for productivity enhancement limits the ability of management to make fundamental and/or incremental changes.

The decision to manufacture signs internally, combined with the potential allocation of $3.5 million for renovation of the police station (via a debt offering) highlights a continuation of past practices and a fundamental misunderstanding of cost accounting principles. Just like with pensions, the bill eventually comes due for debt repayment.

Bottom line: Times are changing. The elected leadership and even the unions are hearing the clarion call of Teaneck residents: “No More Taxes” and the need for “Shared Sacrifice”. A two-tier contract along with “real” pay (and not salary level) freezes are required to bring Teaneck to normalized (median) NJ pay levels. Assistance is also required from Loretta Weinberg and other prominent elected officials to reform the pension system. Teaneck already spends 10% of its municipal budget for Police and Fire pensions — a figure that has increased 617% since 2005. “Rightsizing”, technology, responsiveness and accountability need to become part of the management lexicon.

Change won’t happen overnight. A 3-5 year strategic plan is required.

New Jersey seeks “relief” from No Child Left Behind

NJ, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Tennessee applied for waivers. The waiver would apply to the requirement that all students be proficient in math and English by 2014.

As noted on the October 12 blog post: “The NCLB Act will strengthen Title I accountability by requiring States to implement statewide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems must be based on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind”.

Four of Teaneck’s schools (Hawthorne & Lowell elementary schools, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson middle schools) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress standards in 2011 for selected student sub-populations; focused intervention is required.

Overall, 56% of NJ schools failed to achieve NCLB benchmarks. As with Teaneck, failure may result from an inability to meet proficiency standards for specific subgroups and not necessarily the entire student population.

It remains unclear as to the State requirements to “develop their own locally designed school accountability systems, create new education evaluation systems and overhaul the lowest performing schools” [NY Times, November 16, page A18].

Preliminary accountability systems involves dividing public schools into at least the following categories: PRIORITY, those with the worst performance (bottom 5%) — that may require the replacement of staff or a longer school day; FOCUS, those with wide achievement gaps between students of different races, needs, and income — and where poverty is less a determining factor (bottom 10% of schools); and REWARD, those eligible for performance bonuses.

According to http://b4njkids.org/go.cfm?do=News.View&nid=154:
“The plan includes a new version of report cards for individual schools, which will include students’ proficiency on annual state tests but also several new measures, such as the year-to-year growth of different racial and economic groups, more data on SAT scores, and passing rates on Advanced Placement tests. It will even spell out each school’s rates of dropouts and graduation, broken down by racial groups, the disabled and the poor.

The reports will rank schools statewide and compare them to “peer” schools with similar demographics. The administration plans to convene a working group of educators, parents and school board members to determine the indicators’ various weights in the new scoring system, which would be introduced in the 2012-13 school year.”

Will re-classification affect student outcomes? Once re-classified, what happens?

A scoring system provides a baseline for improvement but does not imply execution. Local administrators are still required to facilitate process innovation (“doing things differently”), change management, the adjunctive use of technology, and parent engagement. NJEA reform is also required. It’s about “doing more with less” in these economic times.

Congress decides NOT to reform school lunches

Proposals by the Agriculture Department to add more fruits and vegetables to lunch menus (while reducing the amount of consumed French fries, pizza and salt) were blocked by Congress. The winners include the National Potato Council, American Frozen Food Institute, Coca-Cola and others that benefit from the “fattening” of America.

Two-thirds of adult Americans are overweight (32%) or obese (35%). Obesity is associated with diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, gallstones, sleep apnea and an increased incidence of certain cancers.

20% of children aged 6-11 are obese; 18% of those 12-19 — a tripling in percentages since 1980. Another 10-15% are overweight. In total, one-third of children and adolescents are obese or overweight.

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), obese children are more likely to have pre-diabetes, risk factors for cardiovascular disease, bone and joint problems, stigmatization and poor self-esteem. Longer-term health effects include a higher risk for many type of cancers.

Has Teaneck reformed its own lunch program?

Bottom line: Performance standards and evaluation systems, essential to the success of any enterprise (private AND public) remain mired in politics and bureaucratic delays. Excellent benchmarks must exist somewhere in the U.S. that can be replicated in Teaneck (if needed).

The obesity epidemic CAN and MUST be addressed locally NOW before the predicted health issues become endemic.

According to the November 11 Bergen Record [quoting a Department of Education spokesman], Teaneck ” will only be responsible for the cost of the students who live in the township….The district will be able to make adjustments to its budget after enrollment numbers for Garden State Virtual Charter School become available”.

Implications:

1- The Garden State Virtual Charter School is no longer a potential “catastrophe” to Teaneck. It does, however, remain an issue of significant concern.

2- The Teaneck community is not divided on this issue (among others) — as shown by the concern raised by many residents. Student achievement and the allocation of adequate resources to the public school system are essential.

3- The Virtual Charter School highlights gaps in the Charter School laws that were written 15 years ago – before the advent of advanced telecommunications (e.g., videoconferencing, bandwidth, etc.). In addition, a 30.5% profit margin forecast by the Garden State Virtual School is an egregious abuse of public funding.

4- Two other virtual charter schools have been approved in NJ: A Monmouth school for high school dropouts and another school in Newark. A full-time virtual school for drop-outs only has an “upside”. Full-time virtual schools for K-12 grades as an alternative to traditional schools has not been proven. The NJDOE should require peer-reviewed studies (as commonly required in medicine) prior to widespread acceptance.

5- The potential of supplementary virtual schooling requires a closer “look see” by the Teaneck Board of Education. The MIT OPENCOURSEWARE http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm highlights the potential of virtual learning on an adjunctive basis. Virtual learning could potential provide students with access to “master” educators as well as courses that could be leveraged across several schools at the same time. Cost savings will result.

The BOE and Teaneck Teachers Education Union needs to recognize that the education model in the future will change and requires the blending of traditional methods and technology. This is not about job preservation, but potentially an enhanced method to educate students.

YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and iPADS did not exist 10 years ago. The world has changed.

6- The NJ Assembly recently approved a bill to require local voters to approve all charter schools. We disagree with the bill. We believe passage of the bill by the State Senate would potentially limit the number of charter schools in the future. Charter schools are the bane of the NJEA, an organization with the ability to influence local elections through the use of their $107 million war chest. They are committed to its limitation — despite overwhelming evidence that the current public education system requires change.

Please note, however, we do agree that being a charter school does not always ensure a good education; accountability is required.

The Teaneck Community Charter School (TCCS) is an example of a successful charter school. Its mission is “to provide a nurturing environment in which students realize their full intellectual potential and become self-directed learners, who make both pragmatic and creative use of basic skills and who understand and appreciate the cultural diversity of our society”. Supporters of the TCCS are engaged in their children’s education.

http://tccsnj.org/files/filecabinet/folder112/Parent_Handbook___Directory__2009_2010_.pdf

7- Is the real “market” for virtual schools the home schooling population? http://www.state.nj.us/education/genfo/faq/faq_homeschool.htm. Parents of home schooled children see no incremental personal cost associated with signing up for a full-time virtual school; i.e., “something is better than nothing”.

Bottom line: The future has arrived. Virtual schooling as an ADJUNCT to traditional schooling requires consideration. The attempt by the Garden State Virtual Charter School to position itself as a full-time within Teaneck is an egregious attempt at excessive profitability at the expense of local students. State regulations need to be updated to reflect the advancement of telecommunications

The Garden State Virtual Charter School, if approved in January would require Teaneck BOE to set aside $15.4 million for its funding in FY12-13. The “set aside” would eventually be substantially reduced to reflect the actual number of students originating from Teaneck.

Why Teaneck among all other districts within New Jersey? The original base was in Jersey City, but that was rejected by the NJ Department of Education. The Garden State Virtual Charter School chose Teaneck for its center based on its exceedingly high per pupil costs of $22,942 and the opportunity to obtain 90% of per pupil spending (adjusted) from taxpayers. Expenses were kept constant for the Jersey City and Teaneck proposals.

The Virtual Charter School intends to have a small drop-in center in Teaneck “where 36 teachers will lead classes by Web conferencing and coach students who come in for extra help”. Their goal is to immediately enroll 1,000 virtual students from Grades K-12 statewide, and 3,500 students within four years.

According to the October 21 Bergen record, the Virtual Charter School “expects to have $4.7 million in the bank” after subtracting $10.7 million in expenses. The profit margin of 30.5% ($4.7/$15.4) is exceedingly high, a figure exceeding that of nearly every U.S. industry! Greed is “alive and well” in America, and is not solely restricted to Wall Street.

Their business model requires (a) no major capital investment for classrooms and related overhead expenses such as utilities, maintenance, etc. (b) no busing (c) no sports and (d) no special education services. Thus, the “exorbitant” level of profitability.

On August 9, 2009, The U.S. Justice Department filed an $11 billion fraud lawsuit against the Education Management Corporation charging that it was not eligible for state and federal financial aid between 2003-11. A whistleblower claimed the company paid recruiters to recruit students. Education Management Corporation is 41% owned by Goldman Sachs.

The Garden State Virtual Charter School is the brainchild of Connections Academy, a component of Connections Education, purchased by Pearson in September 2011 for $400 million. Connections Academy sales are projected at $190 million in 2011 and provides online education for 40,000 students; the average cost per student is $4,750 implying adjunctive classroom use.

http://www.connectionseducation.com/connections-education/home.aspx

Online learning as a full replacement for classroom learning has yet to be fully evaluated for high school students. The adjunctive use of technology at the college and graduate levels, such as that of the MIT OpenCourseWare has been proven.

Pearson is publicly traded and describes itself as the “world’s leading education company”, with 60% of sales generated in North America. The press release from September 15 announcing the acquisition of Connections education can be found at http://www.pearson.com/media-1/announcements/?i=1476. Pearson’s senior management is very sensitive to any public opinion that can affect its brand equity.

Bottom line: The Garden State Virtual Charter School represents an egregious attempt at profit making at the expense of Teaneck residents and students. Its proposal must be defeated. A multi-pronged political (BOE, Township, State Senate & Assembly) and non-political (Pearson, media coverage) effort is required.

Goldman Sachs highlighted the abuses seen among many for-profit and online universities. A replay may be in the works at a far higher cost to the affected students.

Today Bergen Record headline: “Cops cash in on sick time”. According to the article, Bergen County Police Departments have taken “21,754 hours in paid sick leave — or nearly 2,700 eight hour shifts during the past three years….The contract allows PD Department officers to accrue unused sick time with each year of service…..A direct link [exists] between longevity and the amount of sick time used by an officer….A correlation [also exists] between capped payouts and the use of sick time. A Countywide review is ongoing.” Privacy laws prevent asking about the reason for calling in sick unless greater than five consecutive days.

In 2001, the Bergen County Police and Union agreed to cap unused sick time payouts to a maximum of $25,000 — a figure that should be reduced to $15,000 as suggested by an editorial in the November 8 Bergen Record. Does a cap exist for Teaneck police?

Teaneck taxpayers are already burdened with excessive police and fire pension costs that will eventually “crowd out” other services; i.e., payment for pension obligations will reduce the amount of municipal resources available to serve current residents.

Teaneck residents are also liable for a $4.1 million payout in December 2008 to a former police officer, John Shouldis who suffered retaliation for testifying on behalf of a female officer, Diane Mancini, the first female police officer in Teaneck who won a $1.5 million verdict in 2000 (reduced to $625,000).

Today headline reminds me of Dr. Spencer Denham and his retirement payout; i.e., the receipt of a contracted post-employment buyback of unused sick days, vacation days and personal days accrued during his long career. During a Google search on Dr. Denham, I found the following at http://www.myshortpencil.com/schooltalk/cgi-bin/board-profile.cgi?action=rate&topic=2522&page=5261&post=20139

“It took Teaneck four years, two sets of tenure charges and a payout of six month salary to get Ronald Shaw to permanently leave the district. Administrators first filed charges against the tenured science teacher in 1995. they alleged he failed to organize effective teaching techniques, couldn’t manage his middle school classroom and was insubordinate. ..”He wasn’t doing the things he was supposed to do,” said A. Spencer Denham, Teaneck’s Assistant Superintendent. ..”There was concern raised by a number of parents, colleagues and administrators”…..After a brief stint in Plainfield, he landed in Newark where he makes $77,827 as a high school science teacher”.

The same situation exists today — 16 years later — regarding tenure, grievance procedures and Last-in, First-out firing. We are told this is a NJ State issue. The TTEA, if desired could facilitate change focusing on the needs of students.

Bad teachers lead to under-performing students.

Tom Friedman, in his new book, “That Used to be Us” quotes Eric Hanushek of Stanford University on the importance of teacher quality (see Education Week, April 6, 2011): “My analysis suggests a teacher in the top 15% for performance can move an average student from the middle of distribution (50th percentile) to the 58th percentile or more. That implies that a year with a teacher in the bottom 15th percentile can push the same child below the 42nd percentile.”

Bottom Line: Union contracts in Teaneck, inclusive of tenure, grievance procedures, pension requirements and more are affecting the Teaneck quality-of-life. Bad teachers lead to under-achieving students. They should be fired. We should pay MORE to “Master” teachers.

Last night, the BOE had a well-regarded consultant present alternative options to reduce transportation costs. The vast majority of time was spent discussing the steps necessary to eliminate non-public school busing for 2,405 Teaneck children. Elimination would require compliance with the NJ State [Stimulus] Mandate: “Only resident district Boards of Education which provide transportation to remote public school students attending public school programs other than vocational, special education or other specialized programs are required to provide transportation services to eligible nonpublic school students”. According to the consultant, “Only one remote public school student transported to school stimulates the need for all non-public school students to receive bus service of Aid-in-Lieu ($884.00/student)”.

Background:
Gus Kakavas, a transportation consultant was hired by the Board of Education to identify opportunities to reduce costs. Primary focus was given to the possibility of eliminating non-public school busing at a potential cost savings of $2.1 million. No attention was given to the $1.8 million spent for the transportation of 300 students with disabilities ($6,000 per student), another source of potential cost savings.

Pre-k and Kindergarten students are currently assigned to the Bryant School. Students in Grades 1 through 4 are currently assigned to either Hawthorne, Lowell or Whittier. Students are placed into alternative schools based on multiple criteria including facility capacity, racial balance and the availability of specialty services for students with IEP’s.

Key issues:
1- A shift to a neighborhood school model is likely to affect class size — deemed extremely important, especially to younger students

2- A shift to a neighborhood school model will affect racial diversity within the respective schools

3- The costs associated with potential implementation were NOT part of the study. This is a major limitation of study design and should be considered in all future studies. Potential costs include (a) construction costs to retrofit the existing facilities (b) several consulting studies to examine the impact of the proposed change (c) litigation (d) administrative costs associated with implementation

4- According to a knowledgeable meeting attendee who reviewed Google Maps data, there are at least several dozen homes outside the 2.5 mile radius area that would mandate school busing. A new resident with children could mandate re-implementation of busing to all 2,405 non-public school children. The possibility of this event was deemed being of high risk by Mr. Kakavas

5- The cost of replacing existing low cost busing contracts (assuming the elimination of non-public busing) with higher cost busing contracts needs to be considered given the risk of having only 1 new remote student triggering the re-implementation of busing for all 2,405 students

6- The inconvenience to existing public school students and parents would be significant

A- The Bryant School, pre-k to 1st grade has 385 students; 172 or 44.7% receive busing
B- Hawthorne: Grades 1-4, 128 of 317 students, 40.4% receive busing.
C- Lowell: Grades 1-4, 44 of 344, 12.8% receive busing
D- Whittier: Grades 1-4, 244 of 374 students, 65.2%

In total, 340/1,420 or 23.9% of elementary school students – Grades pre-k to 4 receive busing.

7- 48.0% (681/1,420) of Grades 1-4 students the receive courtesy busing. Student safety would be endangered by the elimination of courtesy busing.

8- A precedent does not exist for the magnitude of an effort required by the Teaneck BOE to eliminate non-public busing. The NJ Department of Education will examine the issues very closely.

9- At least 2-3 years of effort will be required for an activity unlikely to be successful anyway

10- Litigation and additional community divisiveness is a certainty

Bottom line: The elimination of non-public school busing is impractical. The major opportunities to reduce costs within Teaneck are in the salaries of teachers (3rd highest in NJ among 106 districts), custodians (compensation: $80,753 vs. Aramark proposal of $48,345, 40% lower!) and Education Support Services (#1 salaries in NJ among 106 districts); identifying non-Teaneck students (as per Tenafly and its 4% discovery rate); and administrative inefficiencies.

The BOE needs to consider the baseline level of spending in its deliberations; a 14.1% increase in teacher salaries during the past three years was clearly “excessive” and reflects the historical dominance of the TTEA and NJEA; the latter has recognized Teaneck as a salary bellwether for neighboring Bergen County districts.

The Teaneck School system is already among the best funded in NJ at $22,942 per student. Higher future spending is likely to be met with taxpayer angst.

A public offer has been made by a few members of the Orthodox community to work with Mr. Kakavas to explore opportunities to reduce busing costs, if any. “Conversations” are two-way and require a dialogue based on facts and not a selective focus on cost reduction.

During the past couple of months, I have been analyzing the Teaneck municipal finances to assess its level of fiscal responsibility. Like the Board of Education, major opportunities exist to increase financial oversight, utilize metrics to measure performance, re-negotiate contracts with unions and improve service levels.

Unlike the Board of Education, a significant proportion of pension contributions for Police and Fire are obtained directly from Teaneck taxpayers via property taxes. The laws were mandated by politicians solely interested in labor peace and getting re-elected, and had nothing to do with longer-term financial solvency. The history of pension legislation in NJ is “mind-boggling”; special interests and politicians run amok. The use of an assumed 8.5% investment return on pension contributions by the State and employee union was nothing less than “highway larceny”. Everyone knew the return on investment (ROI) was not achievable. WE ARE ONLY NOW GOING TO PAY THE REAL PRICE.

Generous pension benefits, combined with poor returns on investment =cutback in services or even, local bankruptcy. That future is already occurring in locales across the U.S.

Abuses are everywhere. The LIRR employees claimed a 80-90% disability rate prior to retirement for many years. I am aware of others who claim a job-related hearing loss or loss of mobility – common conditions related to aging and not usually, employment. Promotions prior to retirement are “standard” in many departments to further raise final three year baseline salaries. Overtime is allocated to those retiring. Retirement at 50-55 after 20-25 years of services allows for another paying position. And, the politicians, with exception DO NOTHING.

Democrats cite Wall Street for abuses. They are correct; a pervasive culture of greed exists. Democrats also need cite the unions and the destruction being caused to local municipalities. Tenure, grievance procedures and other regulations perpetuate a lack of accountability.

We need cutbacks either within or outside collective bargaining; action rather than obfuscation.

I raise this since funding for Police and Fire pensions implies less funding for the BOE and other essential services. For too long, NO ONE in Teaneck considered the financial ramifications of BOE spending relative to the Township and visa versa. This needs to change. It all comes out of the same Teaneck residents as property taxes.

Teaneck Police and Fire Pension Contributions ( % total municipal budget):

2004 $352,000, 0.7%
2005 $877,000, 1.7%
2006 $1,750, 3.1%
2007 $2,790,
2008 $4,101
2009
2010 $4,623, 7.3%
2011 $5,412, 8.3%
2012: Request made to Township for expectations re: future growth in obligations

Note, pension obligations do NOT benefit current residents. It is a payment for prior services – a luxury most Americans no longer have in the private sector.

Governor Brown of California is calling for “an increase in the retirement age of new employees, higher contributions from workers to their own pensions, and the elimination of abuses that allow retirees to inflate their pensions far beyond their usual salaries” [NY TIMES, October 28, page A15]. Governor Brown, a Democrat has been known as the poster child for liberal spending.

Bottom line:
The BOE and Township Council need to consider themselves as collaborators rather than competitors for increasingly scarce property tax dollars. Growing pension obligations will begin to “crowd out” spending for needed services. Re-negotiated union contracts are essential for existing employees and especially, for new employees. Salaries far beyond the NJ median are no longer affordable. Longer-term debt must be used judiciously and not for a $3.5 million replacement of municipal offices.

The Teachers contract is undergoing negotiation. Police, Fire and Municipal contracts are next. Teaneck residents are tired of being among the most highly taxed residents in the U.S. They also want more accountability for results (student achievement, customer service levels, etc.). It’s that simple.

The Board of Education has scheduled “The Future of Busing” presentation on Wednesday, November 2 at the Eugene Field School on One Merrison Street. A consultant retained by the BOE will make a “presentation [that] will include a discussion of the feasibility of changing district attendance areas to create local elementary schools to reduce busing costs. There will also be a discussion of how to reduce the cost of nonpublic busing.”

The overall numbers http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/education/csg/11/csg.pl:

2009-10 Total spending: $95,495,096
2009-10 Average daily enrollment plus sent pupils: 4,162
2009-10 Costs amount per pupil: $22,942
2009-10 Costs rank within group [>3,500 students]: 101 [of 106 districts]
2009-10 % Classified students to total students: 15.4% (excludes tuition out-of-district)
2009-10 Revenue source, local taxes: 83%
2010-11 Ratio of students to classroom teachers: 12.0
2010-11 Ratio ranking within group: 86
2010-11 Teacher salary: $85,550
2010-11 Salary ranking within group: 104
2010-11 Educational support service salary: $104,734
2010-11 Salary ranking within group: 106
2010-11 Administrator salary: $132,397
2010-11 Salary ranking within group: 88
2010-11 Total Operations and Maintenance of Plant per pupil amount: $2,353
2010-11 Per pupil ranking within group: 88

Teaneck BOE employees are among the highest, if not the highest paid in NJ. Benefits at 26.4% of total salaries are also high. Salaries and benefits account for the majority of expenses. There is NO pay-for-performance; i.e., relationship between salary and student achievement. Negotiations are ongoing with the Teaneck Teachers Education Association. An opportunity to substantially reduce custodial costs was rejected by the BOE last year.

The transportation (busing) numbers according to the BOE:

2010-2011 actual: $5,188,006
2010-11 Public school: $863,528 (includes courtesy busing Grades 1-4 at cost of $300,000)
2010-11 Nonpublic school: $1,912,235 (includes unconsolidated bus stops; potential savings $85,000)

The following 2011-12 transportation data are directly obtained from Robert Finger, CFO:
Special Education: $1,800,000 for 300 students in-district and out-of-district ($6,000/student)
Salaries: $90,000
Field/athletic trips: $315,000
Charter schools: $130,276 for 180 students ($723.76/student) – 78 meet state mileage requirements and 102 that are courtesy bused
Vocational school: $72,202 for 79 students ($913.94/student)
Shalom Academy: $97,522 for 96 students ($1,015.85/student)
Routing software: $11,000

Bottom line: Cost reduction is a NEW strategic focus for the BOE; prior savings have been minimal relative the size of its budget. The busing “controversy” reflected $300-400,000 or less that 0.5% of the entire BOE budget. Opportunities may exist to better engage those who are most affected by the potential consolidation in bus stops; and generate a satisfactory solution, if any.

Opportunities also exist to re-negotiate the salary structure of BOE employees; re-allocate teachers to the classroom; improve administrative efficiency; and better identify those students who don’t live in Teaneck. That is what the numbers tell us and it’s not divisive. It’s the truth. It’s also somewhat difficult to implement given the “power” of unions within Teaneck.

Robert Finger CFO of the Teaneck Public Schools has clarified the BOE position regarding teacher salaries in 2011-12. Teachers will not receive a year-over-year increase in salaries this year despite one additional year in seniority . I stand corrected and apologize for any confusion.

The 2008-11 Teaneck Teachers Education Association contract recently expired. Re-negotiation is ongoing. Details are not available. Opportunities exist for (a) a multi-year salary freeze (b) an increased number of levels (c) a reduction in the size of annual increases (d) the creation of a two-tier salary system for new teachers.

In the private sector, a 0% salary increase means NO CHANGE in actual income for individual employees on a year-over-year basis; i.e., from 2011 to 2012. The current BOE position, as relayed by Mr. Finger is consistent with this definition.

Details:

The following is extrapolated from the Teaneck Teacher’s Education Association (TTEA) contract, pages 93-95 and can be found under the Facts & Figures tab of the Teaneck CAUSES website. This information in PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

Our example assumes MA ; i.e., a teacher with a Masters Degree. Other Education Attainment categories include BA, MA+32 and Doctorate.
75-80% of Teaneck teachers have Masters Degree — a statistic that does not necessarily correlate with student achievement. The average tenure of 10 -11 years approximates that of other districts.

2008-09 Teacher Salary Guide (Schedule D1 (A)), page 93
Year 9 STEP $65,575
Year 10 $70,250
Year 11 $75,625
Year 12 $81,500
Year 13 $87,875

2009-10 Teacher Salary Guide (Schedule D1 (B)), page 94
Year 9 STEP $68,815, +4.9% year-over-year increase in the STEP
Year 10 $73,190, +4.3%
Year 11 $78,065, +3.2%
Year 12 $83,440, +2.4%
Year 13 $89,315, +1.6%

2010-11 Teacher Salary Guide (Schedule D1 (C)), page 95
Year 9 STEP $71,405, +3.8% year-over-year increase in the STEP
Year 10 $75,720, +3.5%
Year 11 $80,435, +3.0%
Year 12 $85,550, +2.6%
Year 13 $91,065, +2.0%

If the Teacher Salary Salary Guide is unchanged with the same SALARY STEPS as 2010-11, the following applies:

Year 9 STEP $71,405,
Year 10 $75,720, +6.0% year-over-year increase in SALARY for teachers going from 9 years to 10 years of work experience ($75,720 – $71,405 = $4,315 salary raise divided by prior year salary of $71,405 = 6.0%)
Year 11 $80,435, 6.2% year-over-year increase in SALARY from 10 years to 11 years
Year 12 $85,550, 6.4% year-over-year increase in SALARY from 11 years to 12 years
Year 13 $91,065, 6.4% year-over-year increase in SALARY from 12 years to 13 years

However, according to Mr. Finger, this in NOT the case. TEACHERS WILL GET NO SALARY INCREASE SINCE THEY WILL BE “FROZEN” AT THE PRIOR YEAR SALARY. A TEACHER WITH 10 YEARS EXPERIENCE WILL STILL GET PAID AT YEAR 9 STEP; I.E., $71,405 TWO YEARS IN A ROW.

This is the source of my error. I had assumed an increase to STEP 10. This is incorrect. Teachers will remain at the FY10-11 STEP for this academic year.

Bottom line: Our math is corrected. A “true” salary freeze as communicated by Mr. Finger is a positive step signaling increased fiscal constraint. Negotiations are ongoing and are likely to be “challenging”. Questions remain. Will the 2012-2014 contract still have a “true” salary freeze? For how many years? Or, will there be a freeze with subsequent “adjustments”?

The Teaneck Teachers Education Association members are (a) the second highest paid in NJ (b) received a 14.1% increase in the past three years (4.5% x 3 years), as compared to the average American whose income declined (c) were unwilling to “freeze” their salary during the $6.1 million budget “cut” process in May 2010 (d) are supporters of tenure, last-in-first-out firing despite performance and costly grievance procedures (e) have only 13 steps to maximum as compared to 25 for NYC teachers (f) have large annual salary increases relative to other Bergen County districts and (g) fail to recognize that more money in their pockets means less for others — students, etc.

It’s even worse for Teaneck Police whose salary triples in six years to nearly $100,000 reflecting a compound growth rate in the annual salary increase of 20%. The unions, media and Town Council reported a 1.75-2.75% annual increase reflecting the “slowing economy”.

The Martin Luther King memorial was dedicated today. Martin Luther King was not only a civil rights activist, but was also affiliated with the anti-war movement [Vietnam] and economic reform, inclusive of the “War on Poverty”. He changed America.

I thought it would be helpful to share the text of the “I Have a Dream” speech delivered August 28, 1963 at the Lincoln memorial in Washington D.C.

“I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: “For Whites Only.” We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until “justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest — quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; “and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.”

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day — this will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim’s pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was passed in late-2001. According the the U.S. Department of Education (http://ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html), The NCLB Act “increased accountability for States, school districts, and schools; [provides] greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending low-performing schools; [offers] more flexibility for States and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the use of Federal education dollars; and [requires] a stronger emphasis on reading, especially for our youngest children.”

Increased Accountability

“The NCLB Act will strengthen Title I accountability by requiring States to implement statewide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems must be based on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. School districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards.”

The Federal government had established a goal for all students achieving grade level by 2014. President Obama is allowing states to seek waivers around key provisions in the law, including the 2014 deadline for proficiency. According to the NY Times (October 12, 2011) relief would require an “overhaul of low performing schools and a more rigorous teacher evaluation system…. States that qualify for the waivers would be allowed to design their own school accountability systems.”

According to yesterdays Bergen Record (October 11), four of Teaneck’s schools (Hawthorne & Lowell elementary schools, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson middle schools) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress standards in 2011.

Specific deficiencies were found at:

Hawthorne – Students with disabilities: language arts and literacy test
Lowell – Hispanic students – language arts and literacy
Benjamin Franklin – All students: language arts and literacy
Thomas Jefferson – All students: language arts and literacy

More broadly, slightly more than 65% of eight grade students scored proficient or higher in math (vs. a Federal standard of 80%).

Opportunities also exist to improve math proficiency at Teaneck High School, where only 63.1% of students are proficient or higher; 36.9% score partial proficiency. See September 7 blog post for THS data.

2009-10 NJ ASK & HSPA data can be found under the Student Achievement Tab of Teaneck Causes.

Bottom line: A need exists to better understanding the widening gap in performance, particularly in math as students advance through the Teaneck public schools. A public discussion highlighting deficiencies and steps to narrow the gap is a positive development. Increased transparency and measurement are essential to increase accountability. Math proficiency is essential to our knowledge-based economy requiring the use of basic analytical skills.

1) U.S.: According to the New York Times (October 10), between June 1999 and June 2011, inflation adjusted median income declined to $49,909 or -6.7% — more than the -3.2% reported during the “Great Recession”. During this period, the Teaneck Teacher’s signed a contract which provided an increase of 4.5% to their salary steps or on a compounded basis, +14.1%. This represents a GAP of 20.8% (14.1% + -6.7%). I highlight this data to emphasis the need for an “adjustment” to baseline spending via an increase in the number of salary steps, the increase per salary step or even a two-tier contract system for new teachers. Many teachers outside of Teaneck, including my brother who works as a math teacher in Elizabeth, New Jersey are “envious” of the local salary structure.

2) NYC: According to the NY Times (October 8), “672 jobs are lost in largest single agency layoff under Bloomberg…… The union negotiated the layoff of school aides, parent coordinators, family workers and others who work in support jobs at 350 schools”. When Corporations downsize, they usually layoff the highest paid employees to obtain the “biggest bang for the buck”; i.e., the greatest cost savings for the fewest number of positions. Unions via seniority rules, tenure, etc. limit the ability of administration to fire the under-performers. It makes no sense! Bad teachers = Bad student outcomes.

As an aside, 25% of NYC students are now in over-crowded classrooms. The average classroom size in Teaneck is far lower and in-line with NJ averages.

3) “Tenafly Loses 142 students in re-registration” (Bergen Record, October 7). The drive was necessary to ensure students live in the district. Last year, Tenafly had 3,572 students. 142/3,572 = 4.0% of students.

Applying a 4.0% figure to Teaneck’s 4,162 students implies that 166 students do not belong in the school system — a figure far higher than the reported “actual” number. Cost per pupil is $22,942. Assuming an incremental 80 students be identified implies a cost savings of $1,835,360 — more than enough to pay for additional classroom activities for Teaneck residents. Assuming cost per pupil of $15,000 (34.6% lower) still results in a savings exceeding $1.0 million.

Bottom Line: Opportunities exist to “find” additional cost savings in these difficult economic times.

I saw Michael Lewis be interviewed by Fareed Zakaria this morning. He is an insightful non-fiction author and financial journalist best known for (a) Moneyball, a popular movie starring Brad Pitt (b) The Blind Side about Michael Oher, an offensive tackle on the Baltimore Ravens that starred Sandra Bullock (c) The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (d) Liar’s Poker and (e) An Accidental Guide to Fatherhood.

Wall Street has contributed to the destruction of the American Economy. Mortgage-backed securities, combined with excessive capital leverage and risky trading had nearly resulting in the “second coming of the Great Depression”. Instead we have the “Great Recession”.

What is less well know is the destructive impact unions have had on the local municipal finances. Michael Lewis said it best, “Unions and their political supporters have cheated the future for the present”. Contracts signed 10-20+ years ago did not consider the longer term consequences to society, especially with regards to salaries, pensions and healthcare benefits.

My comments are not about performance, but the deviation of Teaneck salaries from surrounding communities in Bergen County, NYC and New Jersey. Note, union contract prevent rewarding the best and firing the worst employees with financial incentives. Its not a meritocracy.

A few recently discovered facts about Teaneck and its municipalities:

1- The median teacher salary in Teaneck is $85,500, +9.6% from the prior year. We are ranked #2 of 105 districts with > 3,500 students. Is that fair? Note: There is NO correlation between salaries and academic achievement since the union does not allow “Pay for Performance”. The average tenure of 10 years is consistent with the NJ average. Tenure prevents the firing of BAD teachers — an estimated 5% of the total. And, the work year is 180 days vs. a U.S. average of 250.
2- In the 2008-11 TTEA contract, the magnitude of the salary increase was based on years of experience and level of education attainment; 75-80% have a Masters Degree. A 0% raise applied to the 2008-11 salary scale (steps, % increase per step) would result in a 4.1-6.4% increase in salary for teachers with 5-13 years experience.
3- Teacher benefits average $22,585 for a total compensation of $108, 135. Healthcare co-payments and deductibles, as well as contributions were minimal until this year. They are still “far better” than average
4- The salaries of police officers in Teaneck increase from a starting salary of $33,115 to $99,148 during Year 6 — a tripling in six years. Is that fair?
5- Pension calculation are based on an average of last three years of salary — a period of substantial overtime. Is that fair?
6- The Police hierarchy is not flat (relative to a private sector organization). I revieewed an organization chart this week and was “staggered” by the layers of management. Teaneck has huge number of sergeants and lieutenants relative to regular officers. Higher rank = higher salaries = higher pensions. Teaneck did not have a Director, Human Resources until recently to manage “rank inflation”. Great for the Police Department; lousy for taxpayers.
7- Only five towns within Bergen County have Fire Departments. Teaneck has 93 fireman and two civilian personnel. An analysis of NYC data suggests a need for 39 fireman, implying an excess of 54 personnel.
8- Perhaps, certain activities of Police and Fire Departments could be undertaken by lower cost personnel.

9- The scariest statistic of the week: Nearly 10% of Teaneck’s municipal budget is spent on police, fire and other pensions. $6.4 million. In 2005, it was $925,000. How much of our pension obligation is defered?
10- The second scariest statistic is our debt level — Interest payments are $1.8 million. It was $900,000 in 2006. Assuming a 5% interest rate implies municipal debt of $36 million. The actual debt figure might be less ($27 million?), but is buried in the financial disclosures “somewhere”. You need to be a forensic accountant to figure this “stuff” out. The added debt this year is $9.0 million — $3.5 million for a new administration building we don’t need; modest renovations would be cheaper

Bottom line: Its time for our elected officials, as well as union representatives to increase financial transparency of local finances and municipal contracts. The more I learn, the more frustrated I get about the lack of a strategic focus on cost management, objective performance and accountability. The BOE is continuing its negotiations with the Teaneck Teacher’s Education Association. A 0% increase in steps is a start, but not sufficient to stem rising costs.

Its not about politics. It’s about keeping Teaneck affordable, strengthening student achievement and providing good services to among the most highly taxed towns in America.

The New Jersey Department of Education recently updated its analysis of local Board of Education spending. http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/education/csg/11/csg.pl. Teaneck data:

2009-10 Total Spending: $95,495,096
2009-10 Average Daily Enroll plus Sent Pupils: 4,162.4
2009-10 Costs Amount per Pupil: $22,942
2009-10 Costs Rank Within Group per Pupil: 101

Median Classroom Teacher Salary
Teacher Salary (2009-10): $78,065
Salary Ranking Within Group (2009-10): 100
Teacher Salary (2010-11): $85,550
Salary Ranking Within Group (2010-11): 104

Teaneck is now in third place among all districts in New Jersey with >3,500 students. The year-over-year increase is “stunning” given the high level of unemployment, growing instability of the economy and the retirement of long-term teachers.

Local taxpayer salaries are barely increasing.

A previously discussed, a 0% salary step freeze applied to the now expired union contract is not a 0% salary freeze for all employees. The 2008-11 TTEA union contract salary steps based on years of experience is as follows:

Year 1: $54,360
Year 2: $54,860, +1.0%
Year 3: $55,360, +1.1%. Granting of tenure
Year 4: $55,860, +1.0%
Year 5: $58,145, +4.1%
Year 6: $60,860, +4.7%
Year 7: $63,975, +5.1%
Year 8: $67,490, +5.5%
Year 9: $71,405, +5.8%
Year 10: $75,720, +6.0%
Year 11: $80,435, +6.2%
Year 12: $85,550, +6.4%
Year 13: $91,065, +6.4%

The 2008-11 TTEA contract expired during the summer. The BOE is currently in negotiations that may include a change to the number of steps and/or the % year-to-year change in each step. A new two-tier pay structure may also be possible.

Personal Services – Employee Benefits are also part of compensation. They increased 15.3% last year.

% of Total Salaries (2009-10): 25.1% x $78,065 = $19,594
% of Total Salaries (2010-11): 26.4% x $85,550 = $22,585

Total median compensation: $85,550 + $22,585 = $108,135

Bottom line:
Teacher salaries in Teaneck increase no matter the baseline (ranked 104/105 districts in New Jersey), the economy and individual performance. A 0% increase in the salary steps for the next three years applied to the now expired 2008-11 would still result in significant salary increases for most teachers (as shown above). Its time for a fundamental contract re-negotiation to avoid “crowding out” the classroom and other activities. The BOE has not yet “unveiled” the new TTEA contract.

Higher salaries for ALL teachers (without performance incentives) DO NOT equate with student achievement. Union-mandated tenure, grievance rules and Last-in, First-out (LIFO) employment rules prevent the elimination of “bad” teachers — a proven determinant of poor outcomes.

A recent survey in NYC found that 256,000 students or 25% of total enrollment spend at least part of the school day in over-crowded classrooms. The NYC Teacher’s Union contract limits class size for kindergartners to a maximum of 25 students; Grades 1-6: 32 students; middle schools: 33 students; and high schools: 34 students. Last year, in NYC, the average class size for elementary school was 23 students; middle school: 26.8 students; and high school 26.6 students.

The average classroom size in Teaneck are far lower than those of NYC and reflect (a) a high level of funding and (b) a constant student population (1995: 4,336 vs. 2011: 4,308). Classroom size in Teaneck are fairly consistent with NJ State averages — despite the $6.1 million budget reduction of two years ago. The Teaneck figures are substantially below the NYC averages.

Teaneck Elementary school students per class (NJ State average: 18.2):
Bryant School: 16.0;
Lowell: 17.8;
Hawthorne: 18.3;
Whittier: 21.4;

Teaneck Middle School students per class (NJ State average: 20.0):
Thomas Jefferson: 20.8
Benjamin Franklin: 22.2

Teaneck High School: 20.5 (NJ State average: 19.7).

Specific grades within the Teaneck school system may be above or below the category average in terms of class size. For example, at Teaneck High School, Grade 9 has 21.6 students/class; Grade 10: 25.5; Grade 11: 18.6; and Grade 12: 17.9.

Leonie Haimson, Executive Director, Class Size Matters (http://www.classsizematters.org/), a NYC advocacy organization has noted a substantial increase in average NYC class size during the past four years. The economic downturn is clearly having an impact on local taxpayers, as well as state and federal subsidies. According to a review of the research, “smaller classes in the lower grades lead to significant gains in achievement, higher graduation rates, more student engagement and lower disciplinary rates.” The small size of elementary school classes in Teaneck is consistent with this statement.

Bottom line: Despite the declining economy, the average Teaneck class size remains comparatively small. Class size is not a driver of the local achievement gap. The pending Teacher’s Union contract, combined with the administrative management of other cost drivers will be a major determinant of future class size. It’s about the allocation of resources, which until recently has been unrestrained by the Board of Education.

I read a fascinating article in the NY Times Magazine Education Issue of September 18, 2011 entitled, “The Character Test”. Dominic Randolph, Headmaster of the Riverdale Country School and David Levin, co-founder of the KIPP network of charter schools have both explored the importance of character traits as a predictor of future success and happiness. Common character traits include

Traditional – bravery, citizenship, fairness, wisdom, integrity; Emotional – love, humor, zest, appreciation for beauty; Day-to-day human interaction – social intelligence, kindness, self-regulation, gratitude

The full list had 24 character traits common to all cultures — an unmanageable number.

Mr. Levin mentioned that only a 33% of students who graduated from a KIPP Middle School 10+ years ago graduated from college — better than the 8% national rate for children from low income families children and 31% overall in the nation. The KIPP goal for alumni to graduate college is 75%.

He noticed, “the students who persisted in college were not necessarily the ones who had excelled academically at KIPP; they were the ones with exceptional character strengths, like optimism and persistence and social intelligence”.

Angela Duckworth PhD from the University of Pennsylvania stated, “The problem, I think is not only the schools, but also the students themselves. ……To help chronically low performing but intelligent students, educators and parents must first recognize that character is at least important as intellect.” Dr. Duckworth developed the GRIT SCORE which reflects a “passion for a single mission, combined with an unswerving dedication to achieve that mission.”

A revised list of character traits focused on 7 elements: zest, grit, self-control, social intelligence, gratitude, optimism and curiosity. A student character inventory was developed that potentially is predictive of life satisfaction and high achievement. These traits focus more on performance character, rather than moral character (fairness, generosity, integrity) but are useful nevertheless.

The remainder of the article highlights the challenges of implementation. Over-indulgence by affluent parents potentially limits opportunities for character development. “Some” hardship and disruption creates challenges and potentially, a strong motivation for growth.

Bottom line:
Robert Sternberg, a Yale Professor wrote in the American Psychologist, November 1995: “Between 75% and 96% of the variance in real world criteria such as job performance cannot be accounted for by individual differences in intelligence test scores.” Character matters!

The U.S. Postal Service deficit will reach $9.2 billion this fiscal year. The elimination of Saturday mail delivery, the closing of 3,700 postal locations and the elimination of 120,000 positions (20% of the total) may be required.

Why? Two reasons — the internet and unionized labor contracts. Labor represents 80% of Postal Service costs, as compared to 53% at UPS and 32% at FedEx. Postal workers receive better health care benefits and pensions than just about any Federal employee. In addition, restrictive work rules hinder the potential of technology applications to eliminate labor.

According to its website, “UPS leverages technology to empower customers with personalized solutions that simplify global trade and optimize supply chains. No matter what a customer is shipping or where, UPS helps its customers grow, manage costs and improve their customer service.” UPS is focused on the needs of its customers and to provide maximum value (quality/cost).

“Federal Express was among the first express transportation companies to realize the benefits of technology. As early as 1978, just five years after it began operations, the company pioneered the first automated customer service center. The company’s couriers operate SuperTracker® hand-held computers, to record the transit of shipments through the FedEx integrated network. With FedEx, businesses can determine the status of their packages at all possible locations along the delivery route in real time.”

How does the U.S. Postal Service relate to education?

Its a case study for the potential of education obsolescence without significant change. Restrictive work rules (tenure, LIFO, grievance procedures), combined with comparatively high salaries and benefits within Teaneck will foster the development of alternative systems (charter schools) and the innovative use of technology. An increased focus on customer requirements (i.e., academic achievement) is required to maximize value in a period of economic uncertainty.

A crumbling of traditional classroom borders has begun. MIT OpenCourseWare is a collection of over 1,800 college-level class materials available at no-cost to the public. Anyone is free to learn from the educational material provided by studying the lecture notes, completing assignments, reading study guides, and watching lecture recordings.

Master teachers, as well as others in short supply can now be shared across classrooms and schools. The outside world can be brought into the classroom via the internet. Yeshiva He’atid (Future), a new private school in Teaneck is implementing a 21st century model of education based on supplementary computer-driven autodidactism (self-learning). Teachers will still have an important role at the school.

Bottom Line: The future has not yet arrived in education. However, as FedEx foresaw in 1978, opportunities exist to leverage technology into operations; i.e., educating students. Technology is an enabler of learning, and not a substitute of teaching excellence. It has also been shown to be cost-effective.

The Teaneck BOE has sent a message to its athletic students: academics matter! Participants will now be required to have a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.3 (C+) for 2012-13 and 2.5 (C+/B-) for 2014-15. The current requirement for athletic participation is 2.0. According to the Bergen record, only 7/250 students who play fall sports did not meet the current minimal standard.

We suggest other bars be raised for the Teaneck public school system.

According to the 2009-10 High School Proficiency Assessment, Teaneck High School generated the following results: (http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc10/dataselect.php?datasection%5B2%5D=performance&c=03&d=5150&s=050&lt=CD&st=CD)

Language Arts Proficiency: THS (District Factor Group, NJ STATE)
Partial proficiency: 7.8% (5.9%, 12.0%)
Proficient: 77.5% (70.7%, 69.3%)
Advanced: 14.7% (23.4%, 18.7%)

Can Teaneck increase its “Advanced” percentage to DFG and NJ State averages? Raise expectations? Generate measurable results?

Mathematics Proficiency: THS (DFG, NJ State)
Partial proficiency: 36.9% (16.2%, 25%)
Proficient: 50.3% (52.9%, 50.7%)
Advanced: 12.8% (31.0%, 24.3%)

Teaneck is clearly lagging in mathematics – a cornerstone for a more knowledge intensive, data-driven world.

HSPA passage
84.1% of students pass HPSA, as compared to a NJ State average of 90.6%. Passage is not equivalent to subject competency, as shown by the math results.

SAT results – 75th Percentile Scores – THS (DFG, State)
Mathematics: 530 (610, 600)
Verbal: 520 (580, 570)
Essay: 520 (590, 580)

The best students in THS (75th percentile) are still lagging their DFG and NJ State average counterparts.

Advanced Participation (AP for Grades 11-12):
Teaneck High School 9.1% vs. a NJ State average of 19.9%.

Bottom line: Opportunities exist to raise academic expectations and improve performance relative to other District Factor Groups (DFG’s) and the NJ State average; ie., to shift the “distribution curve” rightward. Raising the bar also requires measuring the actual results. Initiatives towards closing the achievement gap AND raising academic standards requires an objective assessment of their impact, if any.

Proficiency gaps within Teaneck public schools widen with grade advancement. Passing the HSPA is not ‘good enough” for an increasingly competitive employment environment. Increasing the percentage of students attending 4-year colleges appears to be an attainable goal.