Hypocrisy! And Let's Slow it Down!

this legislator is outstanding (0.00 / 0)

nothing to contribute by me concerning diary although i did read. more importantly, how many elected officials are as public as this one?  i see senator weinberg on fb all the time (and here) and it's a good thing.  happy holidays, senator.

"the black sheep can wear the golden fleece and hold a winning hand" Tim Hardin

---

by: gary stein @ Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 14:13:08 PM UTC

"Virtual charter school" (0.00 / 0)

Suggesting to the Teaneck Board of Ed that they consign a massive chunk of their budget to educate the town's kids is just one more example of how education tycoons smelling money are driving NJ education policy.

Just say no. The state not done its homework on education 'reform' and is allowing people with financial incentive and misguided messianic ferver to drive policy. New Jersey needs to get a grip on itself and decide more rationally what its policies and aims are and proceed much more carefully than it's doing now.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 15:39:06 PM UTC

Do you/will you support S2243? (0.00 / 0)

Loretta, you probably know that there was some confusion at the Teaneck BOE's special public meeting last Tuesday as to whether or not you support S2243. Sponsored by your Democratic colleagues Senator Turner, Senator Greenstein, and soon-to-be-"retired" Senate Majority Leader Buono, this bill would require local voter approval at annual BOE elections before the state could establish charter schools in their "host" districts.  The bill's Assembly counterpart, A3852, has already been passed.

At the BOE meeting, a respected woman well-known to you, in asking where citizens could best direct their letter-writing efforts, opined that you certainly support this bill as a matter of course. But then a leader of the Teaneck Education Association got up and said that to the contrary, you are not listed as a supporter on the Save Our Schools website and that there's evidence to suggest the opposite.

So which is it? Do you or don't you support the bill? If undecided, can you be swayed? Or if you don't support it, would you please at least disabuse your supporters of their belief that you do?

It's fine for you to suggest (albeit a decade and a half after you voted for our current charter school law) that the DOE finally get serious about evaluating the schools created through this disastrous legislation. I suspect you also calculate that it's a safe suggestion for you to make, since the Teaneck charter school you endorsed and pushed for 15 years ago seems to be doing a satisfactory job.

But that's really beside the point. Not only was that charter school founded, in my opinion, for all the wrong reasons, but it also lacked the broad public support such a school should have. And 15 years later, districts all over the state, from Princeton to Teaneck, must still fight off ongoing attempts by groups eager to take advantage of this loophole in public accountability, in order expropriate public dollars for their own private purposes.

The charter school law you supported was, and remains, an egregious, anti-democratic example of an unfunded mandate and taxation without representation. You want to take a stand against hypocrisy? Stop with this C.Y.A. and get behind real charter school reform in New Jersey.

---

by: JeffO Teaneck @ Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 20:21:01 PM UTC

Jeff: "CYA"?? "Calculations"??? (0.00 / 0)

Your "calculations" about me and where I stand haven't been right in 15 years so I don't expect you to change now. I guess the 70% of the voters who supported me in the last election don't believe I make "safe suggestions". I do not support S2443 and I never suggested anything to the contrary.  Save our Schools know what I think should be done and how I will work with them to reach those common goals and so does the Teaneck School Board.  Your negative attitude about me has been demonstrated many times over the years. Give it up already and find a more productive way to communicate! You are entitled to your ideas of "real charter school reform". I prefer to meet and talk with advocates so we can find some answers that might really stand a chance to actually pass.

---

by: Senator Loretta Weinberg @ Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:36:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I oppose S2443 as well (0.00 / 0)

Charter schools are by their nature supposed to be independent from local control.  If voters could vote against them, they would do it nearly 100% of the time.

The problem with charter schools is how they are funded.  The split should be changed from 90/10 to 50/50 with the federal DOE matching the state's 50% and the state DOE holding 50% to fund cooperative programs.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 20:03:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed, funding is the ultimate problem. (0.00 / 0)

Eliminate (or drastically reduce) the financial burden on local public school districts, and the need for local voter/taxpayer approval diminishes accordingly. But, talk about proposals that have no chance of getting passed in these tough times! I'd rather take my chances with a bill like A3852 (passed) & S2443 (pending but apparently not-to-be-pushed by our soon-to-be Majority Leader).

Besides, charter schools are supposed to be independent of local SCHOOL BOARD control. If a crying need for an alternative can be demonstrated, who's to say that the local voters wouldn't approve it?  

---

by: JeffO Teaneck @ Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 03:15:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Voters... (0.00 / 0)

...aren't usually smart enough to know how important their schools are to vote for their budgets.  They aren't going to be any smarter to know whether a charter school adds value to their community or not.  All they look at is the bottom line and a crying need for something should not necessarily be the determinant as to whether or not it should exist.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 20:20:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but... (0.00 / 0)

I'm not as contemptuous of the voters as you are -- especially not those who turn out at school board elections.

Please see my response to Kelly below.

---

by: JeffO Teaneck @ Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:53:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Devil is in the funding... (0.00 / 0)

...not the details.  I haven't read anything about the "virtual" charter school that you are talking about, but considering the position that you have taken recently on accountability vis-a-vis homeschooling, if this charter school is anything like the homeschooling collectives that I advocated for when I was pursuing my Ed.M. from Rutgers, then it could provide for a far more accountable model for homeschooling than what we currently have.

The primary problem with charter schools is how they are currently funded, which forces them to compete rather than cooperate with traditional public schools, but the scenario that is described in this diary is even more problematic as it seems as if money is being taken from the Teaneck public schools that could be spent on students from other school districts throughout the state.

In the past, when I have advocated for county school districts, I have argued that they could make charter schools less problematic, because they could serve entire counties rather than a few districts and spread the costs more broadly.  A charter school that is allowed to serve the entire state should spread these costs even more broadly, but instead, it appears as if it would be funded solely by Teaneck, which makes no sense.

At their core, charter schools should be laboratories for innovation that can be applied to traditional public schools.  Instead of the current 90/10 model with charters receiving 90% of a district's per student state aid, the model should be 50/50 with a charters receiving 50% of a district's per student state aid and a loan from the federal DOE for the same amount that would have to be repaid by June 30 in order for the school to be allowed to open its doors the following September.  Private contributions to charters that are applied to the repayment of this loan should be federal tax creditable, not deductible.  The 50% of a district's per student state aid that is not given to either the charter or the district should be retained by the DOE for the purpose of granting back to the charter and the district for cooperative programs.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 01:21:20 AM UTC

Where's the innovation? (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Lefkovic, I think you make a useful point that the funding process is a major point of contention. NJ charter school law has the worst of both scenarios: no local control and all local funding. This is a complete mismatch. If the state is the sole authorizer, the state should be the sole funder.  We are the only state with this ridiculous funding/authorizer scenario. While you speak of the virtual school being paid for not just by the sending districts, ALL charter school districts should be paid entirely out of the state budget (since the state is the only entity they are accountable to).

My larger question for you, though, is regarding your statement, "At their core, charter schools should be laboratories for innovation that can be applied to traditional public schools." Mr. Lefkovic, or the general public, can you give me even one decent example of new innovation implemented by a NJ charter school and then applied to our traditional NJ public schools? Ever? Even one?

---

by: kellypage @ Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 03:10:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, but... (0.00 / 0)

...as long as public charter schools and traditional public schools are forced to have antagonistic relationships with one another, there will never be the kind of cooperation needed for innovations to be implemented.

As far as the funding issue is concerned, the reason for the current funding model is that schools receive state aid based on the number of students that they serve.  When a student leaves a traditional public school and goes to a private school, their state money doesn't follow them, but it doesn't stay in the district either.  However, when a student leaves a traditional public school and goes to a public charter school, 90% of their state money follows them, but 10% of their state money stays in the districts.

The problem with this model is that not all education spending is per-student based and while it is better for the district to get 10% than nothing at all, they probably need more than that.  I think that a 50/50 split, supplemented with a federal loan that charter schools would be required to repay by June 30 in order to reopen the following September with federal income tax creditable contributions from private sources serves the needs of both public charter schools and traditional public schools.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 06:26:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That "but" is an erroneous one! (0.00 / 0)

Your logic is flawed - It makes absolutely no sense in light of our States funding formula.

You said, "when a student leaves a traditional public school and goes to a public charter school, 90% of their state money follows them, but 10% of their state money stays in the districts."

What about the towns that receive little to no educational aid from the State (a number of which have increased under this administration)?

---

by: kellypage @ Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 18:31:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not really (0.00 / 0)

If my logic does not make sense to you, it is probably because you aren't reading it carefully.  The current funding formula is the reason why public charter schools and traditional public schools have a competitive rather than cooperative relationship.  This is why I propose a different funding formula.

As far as towns that receive little or no educational aid from the state are concerned, charter schools are the least of their concerns, because under the current funding formula, there would not be enough, if any, state money to sustain a charter school.  I do not know if the state has come up with a different source of funding for charter schools that were started in these towns before their aid was cut.  If they have, then they are still not a concern of the local school district.

Either way, since charters are funded solely with state dollars rather than local dollars, there is no reason that local taxpayers should have a say as to whether or not a charter school should be approved.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 20:29:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

misinformed (0.00 / 0)

This is not true: "since charters are funded solely with state dollars rather than local dollars."  Charter schools are paid for by the sending district, at a rate of 90% per pupil spending + transportation costs.  

The majority of my town's school budget (and this is not out of the norm) is paid for by local property tax dollars.

---

by: kellypage @ Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 23:32:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Kelly, for pointing out this huge error. (0.00 / 0)

Bertin --

The amount of state aid a public school district receives is irrelevant to the amount it's forced to pay for the charter school(s) imposed upon it. Whether it receives a lot or a little state aid, it must fork over 90% of its per-pupil cost. And since, as they say, all money if fungible, it's the local taxpayers who end up paying for state-imposed charter schools, whether they want to or not. (Voting "no" on a school budget does no good, since charters are sheltered from rejected budgets the first year, and cannot be reduced more than the overall budget reduction in the next year.)

This is a pretty substantial misconception on your part, which I assume will force a rethinking of pretty much everything you've said on this thread.

---

by: JeffO Teaneck @ Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:41:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If... (0.00 / 0)

...I am wrong about that, the only thing that would need to be rethought is the funding model for charter schools as I do agree that local property tax dollars should not be used to pay for charter schools.  It would be great if one of you could cite something that proves that you are right about this and I am wrong.

That said, even before this conversation, I have argued for an education funding model whereby all education spending is paid for with state income tax dollars instead of local property tax dollars.  This model would make even more sense insofar as it would make charter schools less problematic.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 05:20:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Spreading wrong information hurts us all (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Lefkovic,
Why are you making these comments regarding charters schools, when you are so misinformed on the very basics of NJ charter schools? It really is harmful to those of us who are actively trying to help the situation.

The Senator actually states it in her post above, but if you were doubting her the right thing to do is to always check the primary source.

The Act can be found at http://www.nj.gov/education/ch...

Section 18A:36A-12:b states,

"The school district of residence shall pay directly to the charter school for each student enrolled in the charter school who resides in the district an amount equal to the lower of either 90% of the program budget per pupil for the specific grade level in the district or 90% of the maximum T&E amount."

---

by: kellypage @ Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 18:38:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The bigger problem is... (0.00 / 0)

...that the battle over charter schools has devolved into trench warfare with opponents being opposed to them under any and all circumstances and proponents supporting them regardless of the harm that they might cause in certain situations.

This leaves people like Senator Weinberg and myself, who are not looking for a fight and are looking to solve problems, stuck in no (wo)man's land, unable to find reasonable people on either side of the issue.

I have consulted for several charter schools over the last decade-plus and it has always been my understanding that charter schools are funded solely from the state aid that a district receives, not from local property tax dollars.  It is unclear from reading the following that I am wrong.

18A:36A-12. Definitions; per pupil payments to charter school

a. As used in this section:

"Maximum T&E amount" means the T&E amount plus the T&E flexible amount for the budget year weighted for kindergarten, elementary, middle school and high school respectively as set forth in section 12 of P.L.1996, c.138 (C.18A:7F-12);

"Program budget" means the sum in the prebudget year inflated by the CPI rate published most recent to the budget calculation of core curriculum standards aid; supplemental core curriculum standards aid; stabilization aid, including supplemental stabilization aid and supplemental school tax reduction aid; designated general fund balance; miscellaneous local general fund revenue; and the district's general fund tax levy.

b. The school district of residence shall pay directly to the charter school for each student enrolled in the charter school who resides in the district an amount equal to the lower of either 90% of the program budget per pupil for the specific grade level in the district or 90% of the maximum T&E amount. The per pupil amount paid to the charter school shall not exceed the program budget per pupil for the specific grade level in the district in which the charter school is located. The district of residence shall also pay directly to the charter school any categorical aid attributable to the student, provided the student is receiving appropriate categorical services, and any federal funds attributable to the student.

c. For any student enrolled in a charter school in which 90% of the program budget per pupil for the specific grade level is greater than 90% of the maximum T&E amount, the State shall pay the difference between the two amounts.

d. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of this section, in the case of a student who was not included in the district's projected resident enrollment for the school year, the State shall pay 100% of the amount required pursuant to subsection b. of this section for the first year of the student's enrollment in the charter school.

e. The State shall make payments required pursuant to subsections c. and d. of this section directly to the charter school.

L.1995,c.426,s.12; amended 2000,c.142,s.2.

However, if my understanding of this law is wrong, I can agree that if local property tax dollars are part of what a local school district is required to send to a charter school that serves students in that district, it would make sense for the voters in that district to be able to vote for or against that portion being sent to the charter school in question and if a majority of the voters do vote against sending this portion to the charter school in question, the state should be required to make up the difference.  I do not believe that local voters should be able to vote for or against the existence of a charter school in their district.

That said, I still believe that most of these problems can be solved by consolidating local school districts into county school districts and by funding education solely with state income tax dollars instead of local property tax dollars.  Home rule, more than anything else, excluding poverty and including but not limited to charter schools is the greatest structural impediment to a thorough and efficient public education.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 20:05:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about facts and figures before opinions? (4.00 / 1)

Mr. Lefkovic,I couldn't disagree more. The larger problem is
ideologues (and I include the Gov and Cerf here) choosing to follow
blind ideology over the facts and figures. Based on her diary above, I
think the Senator could support that.

You say in your comment above, "I haven't read anything about the
"virtual" charter school that you are talking about, but..." and then
you give your opinion on something you just admitted you don't know
anything about." THAT, sir, is the problem. Ideology, instead of
informing yourselves first.

Also, by saying that advocates on each side are only interested in
trench warfare, aren't you doing exactly what you just condemned? That
is to say you are hurling an accusation at a particular advocacy group
instead of concentration on their content.

So far, the organizations that I have heard defending public education
from this privatization onslaught have been more interested in
educating the public with sound academic data about charter schools,
and trying to promote beneficial alternatives such as the
Inter-district School Choice Program, or as you pointed out, Regional
Schooling. These two programs may have their own disadvantages, but we
should be looking all the possible solutions and the risks and
advantages associated with each, instead of blindly pushing agendas.

(In addition, if you are still confused about the funding, a call
would to the charter school unit of the DOE would only take you a
minute or two.)

---

by: kellypage @ Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 20:51:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are the ideologue (4.00 / 1)

You are part of the camp that just wants to do away with charter schools by any means necessary instead of seeing that they have as much of a place in the education reform discussion as Inter-District School Choice and Regional Schooling, which are also excellent ideas.  The unfortunate thing is that you and I probably agree on more than we disagree, but because I do not agree with you 100%, I suddenly become your adversary, instead of your ally.

If knowing everything about something was a prerequisite for having an opinion, nobody would ever be able to express themselves about anything.  It is very possible that I might have learned something new as a result of this discussion.  That should be a good thing, not a reason to be dismissive.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 23:15:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

While you are learning the basics about charter schools... (0.00 / 0)

here in NJ, it might also be worth your time learning about who charter school reform advocates actually are, instead of slinging false accusations again...

I submit this to you:  http://www.njsba.org/blog/?p=370

---

by: kellypage @ Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 19:25:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You don't want... (0.00 / 0)

...to reform charter schools.  You want to eliminate them.  That can be the only outcome of giving local voters the right to approve or reject them.  If you wanted to reform them, you would be proposing reforms to how they are funded so that they would not be an unfair burden on the local school districts.

If, as you and the writer of this article claim, charter schools are funded more with local property tax dollars than state income tax dollars, then the appropriate reform would be to change the funding formula so that charter schools are only funded with state income tax dollars.

I would go so far as to argue that all schools should be funded with state income tax dollars and all local school districts should be consolidated into county school districts, but something tells me that you like home rule just fine, regardless of how costly and inefficient it is.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 00:36:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you really think (0.00 / 0)

there's a snowball's chance in hell that the law will be changed in one fell swoop to provide that our financially strapped state come up with the money for the charter schools it imposes on local school districts? As I said before, I'd rather take my chances with bills like A3852 (passed) and S2443. By granting "a say to those who pay" and forcing greater accountability in the charters themselves, such measures are far more likely to a.) slow down the charter approval process and ensure it is more deliberative; and b.) ultimately lead to changes in the funding formula that are more in line with every other state.

Your presumptions in this discussion have proven to be woefully misinformed. Rather than be humble and gracious about it, you have now doubled down with the unfounded accusation that a contributor doesn't really want charter school reform and is just fine with home rule. I submit that such accusations are borne of the same boorish ignorance.  

---

by: JeffO Teaneck @ Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 20:03:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Christie won't sign... (0.00 / 0)

...your bill and any Republicans who might vote for it won't vote to override.  If I am reading Senator Weinberg's response to your comment correctly, she does not support it either.

Yes, a wholesale overhaul of how public education is funded, including but not limited to an elimination of home rule, is probably a harder fight to fight, but not necessarily an impossible fight to win.

The question is whether or not people like yourself and kellypage, who are clearly opposed to charter schools under any and all circumstances, are also opposed to the elimination of home rule as well.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 21:19:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not under any and all circumstances (0.00 / 0)

And it's dishonest of you to say so. But I am opposed to the imposition of charter schools on districts that are then forced to pay for them. And, as you seem to acknowledge, my solution is more possible than your apparently all-or-nothing solution.

As far as home rule goes, I'm not opposed to the sensible consolidation of municipalities or of school districts. So stop with the red herrings.

---

by: JeffO Teaneck @ Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 22:20:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I acknowledge... (0.00 / 0)

...nothing of the sort.  I know for a fact that even if your bill passes both the Assembly and Senate, Christie will veto it and his veto will not be overriden.

My proposals are just that.  There is nobody in Trenton advocating them at the moment.  Hopefully, they will.  That said, they are hardly all or nothing, unlike yours.

Your bill would probably have a better chance to get signed if it allowed voters to just block the usage of local property tax dollars to fund charter schools and created an alternative funding source, similar to the one currently being proposed by voucher proponents.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:13:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Innovation... (0.00 / 0)

is motivated by competition.

With no competition, there is no incentive to innovate.

As far as funding goes, the same 'lack of control' could be applied to every Abbot district.

How does Hoboken get to build schools with swimming pools with the state's money (that we supplied via income taxes) without the rest of state voting on it?

Does your district have a high school pool? Probably not, mine doesn't either. But we both paid for Hoboken's. So am I concerned that the money we supply to Hoboken may go to a charter without the local's consent? Not really.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 15:17:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Competition... (4.00 / 1)

...is never going to drive a traditional public school to innovate.  There is far too much institutional memory in our traditional public schools for that to be possible and competition with charter schools is not going to change that.  They will just continue to try to do more with less like they always have when faced with funding challenges.

However, if the environment could be modified so that public charter schools and traditional public schools could have a cooperative rather than a competitive relationship, I believe that charter schools could be the laboratories for innovation that they are supposed to be and traditional public schools could benefit from them.

But for that to happen, the funding formula has to change and the forces that are currently driving educational reform have to change their priorities to support a not-for-profit model rather than a for-profit model.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 20:38:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]