Once again The Education Law Center and Bruce Baker shine a spotlight on what matters.
| |||||||||||||
Sharon Krengel
Policy & Outreach Director
Education Law Center
60 Park Place, Suite 300
Newark, NJ 07102
973-624-1815, x24
973-624-7339 (fax)
Showing posts with label Education Law Center. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education Law Center. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
School Funding Matters
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Governor Christie Starving Public Education for a Fifth Year
Governor Chris Christie is still bullying public schools and public school teachers who do not work for his bosses in New Jersey. You know, the ones who are being paid off with favors and punished for not bowing down to him.
The governor who is under investigation for closing bridges and playing games with Hurricane Sandy funds, is once again putting children and families in harms way by not adequately funding public schools. He knows how to keep a promise when it comes to not raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires in his state. After all, why would a governor want to generate revenue for infrastructure, education, medicine and transportation projects when they can keep his friends happy.
Under Christies proposed school budget, The Garden State provides whopping $20 per student increase in funding for 2014-2015 school year.
Let's see, is that extra $20 going to Achieve? or to Pearson? It's hard to tell these days.
The governor who is under investigation for closing bridges and playing games with Hurricane Sandy funds, is once again putting children and families in harms way by not adequately funding public schools. He knows how to keep a promise when it comes to not raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires in his state. After all, why would a governor want to generate revenue for infrastructure, education, medicine and transportation projects when they can keep his friends happy.
Under Christies proposed school budget, The Garden State provides whopping $20 per student increase in funding for 2014-2015 school year.
Let's see, is that extra $20 going to Achieve? or to Pearson? It's hard to tell these days.
| |||
Press Contact:
Thursday, July 05, 2012
Criminals In Charge of Education in New Jersey
Civilizations in the final stages of decay are dominated by elites out of touch with reality.
Chris Hedges
Liars in NJ:
The corporate fascists will go to any extreme to make the numbers match their ideological agenda to destroy any remants of democratic public education so that their friends can suck every last dime and swoop down like vultures on the poorest and the most vulnerable. They are not out of touch with reality, the reality is they are greedy, power hungry bullies who believe they can get away with it. Here's a press release from the Education Law Center in New Jersey, one of the last remnants of social justice and truth in a state that is sacrificing one of the most equitable public education systems in the country so the elites can rake in a few more bucks. Too bad the story won't get much play in the corporate-owned media run by the media elites who have also lost touch with reality.
ACTING COMMISSIONER DRAMATICALLY LOWERS NEWARK'S STATE MONITORING SCORES
Newark Downgraded From High Performing to Failing in Less Than a Year
In a letter dated July 2, 2012, Acting Commissioner Christopher Cerf issued yet another round of scores on the Newark district's performance under the State monitoring system of NJ school districts -- the Quality Single Accountability Continuum or "QSAC." The latest scores dramatically lower the district's ratings in the governance, personnel, and curriculum and instruction areas of QSAC monitoring from the ratings issued by Mr. Cerf less than a year ago.
The new ratings come on the heels of the Acting Commissioner's highly unusual decision to conduct a full review of Newark after certifying the district as high performing in four of the five areas of evaluation under QSAC in July 2011.
The Acting Commissioner is also making the new scores public just days before a deadline to answer a lawsuit filed by the Newark School Board and numerous community groups, parents and taxpayers seeking to overturn Mr. Cerf's July 2011 decision not to return the district to local control despite the district's high level of performance.
In his July 2nd letter to State Superintendent Cami Anderson, Mr. Cerf significantly downgraded the district's performance from July 2011 as follows:
Fiscal management also dropped 5 percentage points, from 93% to 88%, while operations remained the same at 83%.
Under the QSAC statute, a district scoring over 80 in any of these five areas is considered high performing and, for state operated districts such as Newark, the State is required to withdraw control over those areas. A district scoring below 50 is considered failing and subject to more in-depth State evaluation and oversight.
The legal appeal filed by the Newark School Board and community groups is a direct challenge to Mr. Cerf's refusal to restore local control by withdrawing from the governance, personnel and fiscal management areas given Newark's high performance in the July 2011 scoring. In 2009, the former Commissioner Lucille Davy withdrew State control over operations when the district scored over 80 in that area.
The precipitous drop in ratings from high performing in July 2011 to failing in July 2012 occurred under State Superintendent Anderson, hired by Mr. Cerf and Governor Chris Christie in June 2011 to lead Newark's public schools. In announcing her appointment, Governor Christie hailed Anderson "as someone who knows how to execute a plan, and that's what is needed here in Newark."
ELC Executive Director David Sciarra noted that Mr. Cerf issued his new QSAC scores just days before the extended deadline for the State to answer the Newark Board's legal appeal seeking local control. "The process, timing and results of Mr. Cerf's actions call into serious question the credibility of, and public confidence in, the State's monitoring of local school districts under the QSAC framework established by the Legislature," Mr. Sciarra said.
Mr. Sciarra also noted that Mr. Cerf's dramatic downgrade of Newark from high performing to failing in less than a year also raises concerns about the management and direction of Newark schools under State's own leadership. "Mr. Cerf needs to explain why Newark's quality review scores dropped so dramatically one year after bringing in highly touted new leadership, and why the State Education Department allowed the district's performance to deteriorate so dramatically, so quickly," he added.
On July 2nd, the same day that Mr. Cerf issued his letter downgrading Newark's ratings in district governance, the State Superintendent vetoed the Newark Board's decision to reject Anderson's plan to close several Newark public schools and lease the buildings to charter school operators. The Board refused to sign-off on the school closings and charter leases after failing to receive assurances that the district had complied with State regulations governing school closures and state public bidding laws.
Education Law Center Press Contact:
Sharon Krengel
Policy and Outreach Coordinator
skrengel@edlawcenter.org
973-624-1815, x 24 815, x 24
| |
Monday, June 04, 2012
Stopping Christie's Corporate Feeding Frenzy in Camden
A former NJ DOE employee continues to send us news of from his/her former workplace, where incompetent and corrupt corporate toadies now pretend to do the work once done by educators and administrators concerned with the welfare of children and their education. To demonstrate the point, see what is happening in Camden and other New Jersey areas blighted by poverty.
If it were not for organizations like the Education Law Center in Newark, the corporate raiders running the DOE would have already turned over urban public education in New Jersey to the corporate foundations and hedge fund managers to feed upon, as they use their unmonitored charter schools to miseducate, to culturally sterilize, and to behaviorally neuter the children of the poor.
Below is the Camden story from the Courier-Post Online, and below that is David Sciarra's letter referenced in the piece:
If it were not for organizations like the Education Law Center in Newark, the corporate raiders running the DOE would have already turned over urban public education in New Jersey to the corporate foundations and hedge fund managers to feed upon, as they use their unmonitored charter schools to miseducate, to culturally sterilize, and to behaviorally neuter the children of the poor.
Below is the Camden story from the Courier-Post Online, and below that is David Sciarra's letter referenced in the piece:
The Education Law Center is questioning a request for proposal made under the Urban Hope Act, and approved by the school board earlier this month.
The ELC, which advocates for poor urban districts, including Camden, called the district’s proposal, seeking plans for four Renaissance charter schools “premature” because state regulations for the schools are not yet complete, according to a letter written by ELC Executive Director David Sciarra.
Also, the failure of the RFP to adequately solicit the public input and comment “is a glaring omission, and the schedule should be revisited to provide explicit times and locations at which public input can be solicited and considered,” his letter concluded.
Lanning Square School activist Mo’Neke Ragsdale read portions of the ELC’s letter to the school board Tuesday night and promised to provide full copies.
The Department of Eduation responded by saying, “We have provided technical guidance to Camden as they developed their RFP. As we pursue regulations that will be in place prior to our approval of any projects, the Camden RFP also allows the district to request additional information from applicants to conform with the new regulations, if needed.”
The main points that are unaddressed by either the DOE or the district, according to ELC’s review, are:
• Whether students in designated “attendance areas” would be eligible for automatic enrollment in a school built on land conveyed by the School Development Authority, or SDA, and/or Camden to a nonprofit entity, or whether those students would be given only an enrollment preference.
• Whether Camden is prohibited from conveying district-owned land for a Renaissance project without first determining that the tract in question is “no longer desirable or necessary for school purposes.”
• A significant unanswered question is whether the SDA can convey any site in which it has expended public funds for site remediation, site development and design, all of which under the Hope Act must be undertaken by at the “sole” expense of the non-profit entity.
• The RFP does not specify any time, place or mechanism through which public input and comments, which are required, can be heard and the expedited schedule does not provide enough time for the notice of a public hearing.
Also not spelled out, according to the ELC are: site lease or sale information, financing details, details about what defines an attendance area, financial assurances from the proposed operator, various attendance eligibility issues, teacher and staff recruitment and retention, plans for meeting proficiency goals and plans for parental and community involvement.
Sciarra’s letter closed by saying: “We strongly recommend that Camden withdraw the RFP for further development, and to await regulatory guidance. We are prepared to meet with the board its representatives to discuss these concerns and to assist in revising the RFP to ensure that the interests and needs of Camden public school children are properly addressed in any future Renaissance school proposal.”
The board offered no response to the comments after Ragsdale spoke.
Re: Request for Proposals, Renaissance School Project
Dear Ms. Ragsdale:
I am writing in response to your request for Education Law Center
(“ELC”) to review the Request for Proposals for Renaissance
School Project (“RFP”), dated May 18, 2012, recently made
available by the Camden City Board of Education (“Camden”). As
you know, ELC serves as counsel in the landmark Abbott v. Burke
case and, in that capacity, represents children attending public
schools in Camden. Based on an initial review of the RFP, our
preliminary comments are set forth below.
First and foremost, Section 13 of the Urban Hope Act (UHA)
requires the Commissioner of Education to adopt regulations to
effectuate the purposes of the Act. N.J.S.A.18A:36C-13. We are
unaware as of this date that the Commissioner has issued the
required rules, even in draft or proposal form. As a result, the
RFP is premature and should not have been issued by Camden,
especially since there are a several significant issues that
require State guidance. Some of these issues include whether
students in designated “attendance areas” would be eligible for
automatic enrollment in a Renaissance School built on land
conveyed by the School Development Authority (“SDA”) and/or
Camden to a non-profit entity, or whether those students would be
given only an enrollment “preference.” N.J.S.A. 18A:36C-8. As
you are aware, this is a major area of concern related to the
Lanning Square project if Camden abandons having the NJ School
Development Authority build a new Camden school in order to
facilitate a non-profit Renaissance School project on the site.
Another major issue necessitating regulatory guidance is whether
Camden is prohibited from conveying district-owned land for a
Renaissance School project absent a determination that the tract
in question is “no longer desirable or necessary for school
purposes.” N.J.S.A.18A:36C-12. Further, there remains a
significant question as to whether the SDA can convey any site in
which it has expended public funds for site remediation, site
development and design, all of which under the UHA must be
undertaken by at the “sole” expense of the non-profit entity.
N.J.S.A. 18A:36C-7 and 12.
In addition to these issues, the RFP, as drafted, fails to
address critical elements for any proposal to finance, construct
and operate a Renaissance School project. Some of these
deficiencies include:
1) information and details on the site and whether it will be
acquired or leased, the prospective terms of the lease or sale,
and the parties, including any third parties or governmental
entities to be involved in the transaction;
2) information and details on the proposed financing of school
construction, including the extent to which per pupil revenue
will be needed to support servicing the anticipated construction
debt;
3) identification of the proposed enrollment attendance area, the
student and family demographics of the students to be enrolled in
the proposed area, and an assessment of those particular students
for academic, social and health services, and other needs to be
addressed by the proposed school project;
4) the financial ability of the non-profit to pay for planning,
design, code compliance and other necessary professional
services, since these costs are the “sole” responsibility of the
non-profit entity under the UHA;
5) the manner in which the proposal will address the admission of
students to the Renaissance School, including the prohibition in
the UHA against any discrimination on the basis of intellectual
or athletic ability, measures of achievement or aptitude, status
as a handicapped person, proficiency in the English language, or
any other basis that would be illegal if used by Camden;
6) the manner in which the proposal will ensure automatic
enrollment of all students residing within the designated
attendance area, and the policies and procedures to be employed
in such key areas as special education, school discipline,
alternative education, and student transfers to other schools;
7) if the attendance area will not be subject to automatic
enrollment in that area, the manner in which the students will be
admitted, including any proposed lottery for student selection;
8) a plan for attracting and retaining effective teachers and
other support staff, in light of the prospective academic and
other needs of the prospective student enrollment;
9) the plan for achieving the student proficiency goals
established for renewal in the UHA;
10) the cooperative arrangements, if any, that will be made to
coordinate educational programming, curriculum, assessment,
support services for students with disabilities and other special
needs, and other critical areas with the Camden district and
other Camden public schools; and
11) plans for parental and community involvement in the school.
Finally, the UHA requires that the selection process be subject
to public input and comment. N.J.S.A.18A:36C-4(b)(15). While
the RFP notes this statutory requirement, the timeline provided
in the RFP does not specify any time, place or mechanism through
which public input and comments could be collected or heard.
Furthermore, the expedited schedule does not provide sufficient
time for provision of notice for a public hearing at which public
input and comments could be heard. The failure of the RFP to
make any provision to satisfy the public input and comment
requirements of the UHA is a glaring omission, and the schedule
should be revisited to provide explicit times and locations at
which public input can be solicited and considered.
In light of the absence of State regulations implementing UHA,
and many concerns highlighted above, we strongly recommend that
Camden withdraw the RFP for further development, and to await
regulatory guidance. We are prepared to meet with the Board its
representatives to discuss these concerns and to assist in
revising the RFP to ensure that the interests and needs of Camden
public school children are properly addressed in any future
Renaissance School proposal.
Sincerely,
David G. Sciarra
Executive Director
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)