Taskforce Gives Recommendation for Washington Street School

So if I understand correctly. The recommendation is to combine Rand and Renaissance together at the new school? Leaving Rand empty? Or uneeded? if that's the case couldn't Rand have been renovated to accomplish the same goal and the new (and expensive) school would not have been needed.

Is this really how it works. Spend $35 million and THEN figure out if it's needed and how?

Good grief.

Build it and they will come. I agree with ROC. How could anyone have approved this without knowing exactly how it will be used? So the money has been spent, the building is already in progress and NOW the BOE is going to vote on the best course of action? Shouldn't they have done this BEFORE even looking at building plans? And of course the cost of moving or operating expenses are probably not even being discussed.

Quit spending money on Washington now. We don't need it and we didn't need it. We have a spendthrift Board of Education.
Stop construction today and let it sit as a reminder of the stupid decision to build the thing so we don't make the same mistake again.
The School system, BOE-Administrators-NJEA-Teachers-Athletic, appear to be dedicated to bankrupting every citizen of Montclair.
Several 100 homes in Montclair had TAX SALE CERTIFICATES auctioned off for their failure to pay exorbitant property taxes. Pretty soon these people will lose their homes too foreclosure, all so the BOE can build a school we don't need.

Cue the circus music! Before the project is started, wouldn't you know what exactly the school would be used for? Wouldn't the layout and specs change based on whether a kindergartener or an 8th grade student would be attending the school? Given the price tag, you would have thought this may be a more well thought out plan. Maybe the 40,000 of us are just crazy and the 10 people we are relying on to run the town know everything?? Nah!

Some (including me) have raised the possibility of naming the new school after Montclair native Buzz Aldrin.

But given the way the Board of Education is handling the building, I not sure that move could be called an honor.

Yeah, I say vote out the BOE members who agreed to this plan without a plan. Oh, wait, you can't vote them out?

Shucks!

But YOU can vote for the chance to elect (or not) BOE members next month. I suggest you do.

Considering that there's a superintendent's task force of 30 people, to review how to use the building I somehow doubt that the BOE is solely responsible. Plus, the BOSE had to have approved the budget for this one. I agree with Wally. Let's just cut our losses now.

Did anyone mention that the kindergarten class was down 20 students this year?

Every other town buys portable classrooms. In Montclair, we simply build a new unneeded school at 35 million and counting.

Anyone see the resolution the Town Council is trying to pass in support of an appointed board? This is the same town council who chose not to interject when Pegi Adam erred by having the majority of the petition signers sign the so-called illegal version of the petition. Then Pegi got an earful of scolding from Weller and Fried who happen to be the sponsors of this new resolution. And people say that an 'elected board' would bring politics into the school board. You really can't make this stuff up.

The early line on incumbents out on the Montclair town council is now 3 to 1. Cary is fortunately a pick-em and I would put Renee at 3 to 2. :P

There certainly couldn't have been a blatant need for this building if, at this point, they can't decide what to do with it...A circus indeed!

You miss the point Jerseygurl. Why no task force BEFORE the school was planned/built to see what it should be used for? Spend first, ask purpose later? THAT certainly is the responsibility of the BOE.

With all the issues in town, the Washington Street School Usage Taskforce is a calculated distraction. While we're talking about what to use the school for, people tend not to notice:
1) The cost per seat exceeds $70,000.
2) The district goals are vague and not measurable.
3) There has been considerable HR trouble at the administrative level (too many central office admins, too many changes in the principal's offices).
4) The district failed to cut next year's budget despite the community's need to conserve cash.

We changed the mayor, appointed new people to the school board and it's not working.

Time to elect our school board -- vote!

Yes. At $70,000 per seat, it might have been cheaper to send some of our public school students to MKA to get through the temporarily projected, but not occurring class size increase.

"people tend not to notice:
1) The cost per seat exceeds $70,000."

Or perhaps people postulate that the seats will be used more than once. Just a thought...

They may have identified a need for classroom space based on the projected number of students & current available classrooms, allowing for flexibility in the plan.

My question is, doesn't Montclair have to vote on the school budget every year in April like the rest of the state? And if this building came from a bond, didn't the residents have the opportunity to vote on that bond as they do elsewhere for school construction?

Do the posters who complain about this vote "no" in the school elections? Do they make any attempt to organize others to do the same?

Kit, we neither vote for the BOE here, or the bond, or the budget.

"we neither vote for the BOE here, or the bond, or the budget."

Ain't that the truth ROC. Some of us are working very hard to change this, but don't you know that an appointed board is "for the children?"

So, does the November ballot include the ability to vote on budgets, as well as board members? It seems to me the former is more important.

I thought it was state law to be able to vote on school budgets...how do taxpayers hold the schools accountable?

Reminds me of my hometown in Massachusetts. Luckily property taxes are limited to 2.5% annual increases without specific voter approval. Wish the same could be said for Jersey.

Town: "We need more schools"

Voters: "Hasn't the number of kids enrolled system-wide gone down ~1% per year, every year, for the past 10 years?"

Town: "Yup - so we break ground next month then?"

Kit,

Yes, if the referendum passes, we would get to vote on the budget as well. Currently, there really is 'no accountability' for the budget as the mayor never gets reelected in Montclair, nor do most town council members. Essentially, the mayor of Montclair has a single term limit. This makes it much easier for them to appoint questionable appointees, although I'm not saying this has occurred.

So where are the Renaissance focus meetings? Are my kids' teachers going to come along? Will the school follow the same model? We like Renaissance for many reasons, most of which will change or become moot when it moves.

I know the building is substandard. But, I also feel like the families had no oppportunity to provide input.

Also, stupid to ask for $42 M and not know what the plan is!

We all need to recognize the relationship between the spending by the BOE and the failure of so many homeowners to pay their property taxes. Please look at the list of Homeowers that are being forced into foreclosure by Montclair selling TAX SALE CERTIFICATES on their property.
We,the citizens of Montclair, are taking peoples' homes, and for what? Silly buildings we don't need. We as a community are evil.

Add yourself to the uninformed kjm given that I know the amount the BOE pays for rent at the so called "lousy" building and it is significantly below market rates. You, the taxpayer, is getting a very nice deal (and has for many years) thank you very much IC.

If this is BOE leadership then 10 years of indecision seals the deal.

Vote for an elected board.

JB

Well it's probably a foregone conclusion, but I plan to be at the November 9th meeting to voice my opinion, since I don't recall them asking the families!

Why not make the new building a charter school? Call it Montclair Academic Prep...."MAP out your future NOW!"

"Some (including me) have raised the possibility of naming the new school after Montclair native Buzz Aldrin."

The smart money is on "Alvarez Academy". Nothin like building monuments to yourself. Well, have to jump on the train to the Frank R. Lautenberg Secaucus Junction Station (complete with marble bathrooms).

I highly doubt the 35 million figure. I'll bet that it will end up more. How much more will be difficult to find out given the reluctance of the school administration to reveal information.

The New School project is an in excusable mistake....to say the least.

What a shame.
What an embarrassment.
What a boondoggle.

This is over thirty-five MILLION dollars. How much technology could that expenditure have supported? I have yet to see any real projection of what the ongoing operational expenses will be, too -- whether it's because people would rather not talk about it or that they simply don't know, neither answer is a good one.

How can anyone witness these outrageously expensive shenanigans and still say the status quo should remain? The fearmongering about what will happen with an elected board pales in comparison to the direct evidence of what has been wrought without one.

I'm all for an elected board if it will prevent waste and give taxpayers an opportunity to review school budgets and vote on them. I'm not sure anyone has explained how that process will be different with an elected board. The threat of being able to vote someone off a volunteer board after four years hardly seems as though it would make any difference. For the record, I'm completely indifferent about whether or not the school board should be elected or appointed. But I have yet to hear anyone propose a way for the taxpayers to be able to vote on the school budgets - unless that is something that automatically gets put to a vote every year with an elected board? If that's the case fine. Can someone who is pro-elected board clarify how the budget approval process would be different than it is now? Because unless we change the way budgets are approved, how will changing the faces in the seats make a difference?

In Glen Ridge, the schools present their budgets in the months preceeding the April election. The presentations are simplified pie diagrams, with most of the money typically going to salaries. They are accompanied with the usual mantra of how mean and lean they are, and how the state does not give us any aid, etc. You can ask to see the actual budget, which is a thick packet (I'm sure you can do this in Montclair too; all budgets must be available to the public.) You can also ask to see a list of all school employees and their total compensation.

Typically, the schools campaign for their budget, and the majority of voters are mobilized by the schools thru backpack notices. It's a low-turn-out election. But occasionally an opposition forms thru a taxpayers association.

Should a budget fail, in GR the Borough Council determines where cuts will be made. On the rare occasions when the school budget failed to pass, the cuts were minor, and property taxes were raised.

Really, until our state legislature comes up with an equitable system to fund public education through some other means than property taxes, and until our 600 districts agree to some kind of consolidation, the outcomes are going to be the same.

JG,

There are 2 basic types of school districts in NJ. Most towns (including GR & Bloomfield) have Type II districts. The proposal on the Montclair ballot is to change from a "Type I" school district to a "Type II" school district, here is a U.S. census website that briefly describes the different forms of government in NJ:

http://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/2007/nj.pdf

Public education begins in the middle of the second column on page one.

Basically, Montclair would switch to a system where there would be Board of Ed & Budget elections in April.

There is a proposal in the legislature to move these elections to November, but since the school year starts in the summer, the logistics for such a switch are considerable.

Thanks, Carl. Makes more sense now.

While I agree with much of Kit's post, a few points:

1) You don't need to ask the school board for salary info, it is available online:

http://www.nj.com/news/bythenumbers/

Go to the public payrolls section. In fact, the by-the-numbers site is a must read for anyone who cares about tax issues.

2) Kit writes:

Should a budget fail, in GR the Borough Council determines where cuts will be made. On the rare occasions when the school budget failed to pass, the cuts were minor, and property taxes were raised.

This is not always true (of course, what constitutes "minor" is opinion). It is true that the last time the budget failed (it was a tie, it has to be 50% +1), the council passed it "as is".

The previous time the budget failed, it failed by a more significant margin (I don't recall exactly how much, if someone cares, I can probably dig up the figures), the Council cut over $400,000 (I think the Bd of Ed budget was about $17 million at the time). The State then restored about half the cuts.

That's the (simplified) process, the budget goes to the public for a vote, if it fails, it goes to the Council, which can make cuts. The Board of Ed can then appeal those cuts to the State. A few years ago (about five I think), the State Legislature changed the law to make it a little harder for the state to completely override the municipal cuts, but I'm told that there is still much restoration at that level.

It's also important to note that while the Council can suggest the cuts on specific line items, it can't actually force the Board to make the cuts on those items, only on the equivalent dollar amount. What some Board of Educations do is they cut something much more popular with the public and say "The council forced us to cut X", then the next year they use that argument to get the next budget passed.

how do taxpayers hold the schools accountable?

God bless you, Kim, for asking the question.

3) While I agree with Kit that there are serious flaws in the "Type II" system with regard to protecting the taxpayer, I think that having to submit a budget to a vote, and having to face a public election, does at least serve as something of a brake on spending.

Also, another important - perhaps most important - (and most relevant to this specific thread) feature of "Type II" school districts is that Schhol Bonding must also be presented to the voters. In Glen Ridge, the voters knocked down a $20 Million dollar bond for school building improvements, and the Board came back with a different plan for $13 Million.

4) Kit implies that consolidation will somehow save money. While there may be circumstances where that could be true, just as with munis, there is no evidence to support the widely-made contention that forcing smaller schools to consolidate will save money, and there is much evidence to the contrary. Small districts tend to cost less than big districts.

A good exammple of this is what happened earlier this year. With great flourish and much publicity, Governor Corzine forced some very small school districts in NJ to consolidate. Receiving significantly less publicity was the fact that property taxes in those school districts went up, not down - in the case of Loch Arbour, taxes more than doubled:

http://asumag.com/dailynews/loch-arbour-new-jersey-school-funding-20090527/

Interesting. The original plan (the one I first heard about seven years ago) was pretty straightforward. Move Rand into the new school. Move Renaissance into Rand. Good news for Rand, obviously, and good news for Renaissance, moving out of a cramped rental into its own space. That was the deal on paper, anyway.

What happened was that the progress of the project (sloww, but let's not go there),coincided with an increasing urgency to do something to reduce the cost of out-of-district placements.

So a third student population came into play -- students with special needs who currently have out-of-district placements. It would be desirable to start an in-district program to serve this population. (In-district programs have been shown to be far cheaper than busing students elsewhere.)

When the blue-ribbon panel first convened and this third goal was announced as one of the situations in the mix, I thought: Now that's a bit of a pickle. Instead of two populations and a straight building swap, there's three populations to split between two buildings. And the sort of population that needs special outside placements, well, they need lots of space for their programs. How would all this square up?

Two things that jump out:

1) It sounds as if there isn't really room in the new school for an *entire* Rand plus Renaissance, plus whatever special-needs program the district wants to put in there. So what then? Break of a piece of Rand's population into a shiny new magnet program at the new place? (Rand's pretty much stuffed to the gills.) *Are* special needs programs indeed going into the new building? That's implied but not explicitly stated in your story.

2) Even so, Rand is kind of getting hosed. The population there was told they'd move en masse into a shiny new school and now the answer appears to be ... not quite. After almost a decade of promises, promises, and dealing with a building that has been going to pot (because there'll be a new school!) it's coming down to ... Focus Groups? Really? More uncertainty? Thanks a lot. The district is really showing that school how much they care about morale there, which is to say, not a lot.

3) Renaissance parents have reason to be pissed off, as well. They've been dealing with a lot of uncertainty too, and it's not clear how well one building can serve three very different populations equally well.

Carl, thank you for the clarifications. When I refer to consolidation, I am thinking more in terms of administrative resources. I didn't think a county-wide superintendent was such a terrible idea, for example, although I wasn't crazy about appointing one rather than electing one.

Conceivably, districts could consolidate their top administrative staff and retain their individual status.

Years ago, before I was on the board of the GR Taxpayers Association, a previous board did an in-depth study on the cost effects of consolidating with Montclair. It turned out to be more expensive, primarily due to busing.

There already was a County Superintendent, the just renamed it "Executive", gave it some more power to interfere (but not in the Abbott districts). They would have saved a lot more money by just eliminating the County Sup & their office.

I agree that eliminating excess administrative overhead is a good thing, in many cases the positions are there because of mandates. The state should restore local control to districts that are well run, and concentrate on the districts that are poorly run, but that's not the way the campaign contributors want it, so don't expect it any time soon.

Of course, all those things are just the "Deck Chairs" - as you allude to in your post, the biggest problem is the inequitable way that schools are funded in New Jersey.

Thanks Nocturne - nicely put!! Please consider printing your post and bringing it to the meeting on 11/16! Or send it to Alvarez!

I feel totally cheated, misled, and deceived. There are so many things they haven't yet told us! What will the new magnet program be? If Rand decides to move to the new school (I guess we Renaissance families don't have a say in this) will we become part of the Environment magnet? Will our hours become the same as the K-5 kids or will the middle school kids continue their same schedule? Which principal will get to run the place? Will provisions be made for our support staff, such as our guidance counselor? (Middle school kids have vastly different needs than the little ones!) How do they propose to differentiate between them?

Part of the Renaissance bonus (IMO) is that the kids get to walk everywhere - soccer, YMCA, Sharron Miller, library... will that now be 'unjustifiable'? This changes the entire face of Renaissance. To put it bluntly I feel we are getting screwed. Aside from the fact that some classrooms at Renaissance are crammed to the rafters, the class sizes are great, the staff is wonderful, and I like the model, the hours, and the location. Since this almighty Taskforce has changed plans mid-stream, all of that has gone down the drain.

Thanks a lot, BOE. My taxes have almost quadrupled since 1990 and now I am getting the 'we know what's best for you' schtick!

By the way, if the hours *do* change, perhaps I will simply deduct the cost of after care and/or transportation from my tax bill! Or, they will have to make a one-tenth mile exception for the school bus!

Grrrr!!

(the prof is intimately familiar with the Renaissance School-- from it's humble beginning, to what it is today. Sadly, over the years, it seems to have strayed from its initial mission, yet it continues to be different and gives our parents a 3rd option for Middle School. But now, folding it into this new school, while facilities wise is a bonus, Kay points directly to how the Renaissance specialness will probably be lost... Unless they get a new Principal who knows the Renaissance model, taught there for years, knows the younger population, is smart, creative and open other ideas...... I wonder which current principal fits that model......)

Prof, I know who *I* would pick ... but given how things are going so far, and Murphy's law being what is is... I doubt if that's who the BOE will choose.
(sigh)