Board of Education

sac said:

It doesn't work that way and it SHOULDN'T.  I no longer have children in the district, and haven't for almost a decade, so I no longer "use" the service in that sense.  But it is important to me and should be important to everyone to fulfill every student's right to a good education and siphoning money away from the public school budget to satisfy parents who choose to go elsewhere does not help in that effort. 

It's not about "non use" of the school districts schools. Many families like yourself, mine included, contribute to the school district taxes long after  children have graduated.  I don't see the small transportation reimbursements as a siphon of funds. Perhaps an income test would alleviate some concerns. Those who need the help get it .


the18thletter said:

sac said:

It doesn't work that way and it SHOULDN'T.  I no longer have children in the district, and haven't for almost a decade, so I no longer "use" the service in that sense.  But it is important to me and should be important to everyone to fulfill every student's right to a good education and siphoning money away from the public school budget to satisfy parents who choose to go elsewhere does not help in that effort. 

It's not about "non use" of the school districts schools. Many families like yourself, mine included, contribute to the school district taxes long after  children have graduated.  I don't see the small transportation reimbursements as a siphon of funds. Perhaps an income test would alleviate some concerns. Those who need the help get it .

the income test is being able to afford private school, isn't it?


kmt said:

sac said:

It doesn't work that way and it SHOULDN'T.  I no longer have children in the district, and haven't for almost a decade, so I no longer "use" the service in that sense.  But it is important to me and should be important to everyone to fulfill every student's right to a good education and siphoning money away from the public school budget to satisfy parents who choose to go elsewhere does not help in that effort. 

But is it fair to make somebody pay for a system that has failed their kids?  How else will failing schools be held accountable?

Like, all of these kids I've heard about at MHS who are excluded from classes because they're not white, why should their parents have to pay for a racist system?  Isn't forcing those parents to pay into the M/SO schools actually racist?

MHS as in Millburn HS? The reviews on GreatSchools.org seems to have multiple critiques, including "the school often gatekeeps students from taking the AP classes they want to learn from because they want better students to artificially inflate AP scores to improve the school's rankings"

Millburn Sr High School Community Reviews | GreatSchools

If by "MHS" you were trying to refer to Columbia HS (it's not Maplewood HS) for excluding non-White kids from honors/AP classes, that was a critique in the past. However, the policy was changed so anyone who wants the challenge can register for honors and AP classes. No more gatekeeping here.


kmt said:

sac said:

It doesn't work that way and it SHOULDN'T.  I no longer have children in the district, and haven't for almost a decade, so I no longer "use" the service in that sense.  But it is important to me and should be important to everyone to fulfill every student's right to a good education and siphoning money away from the public school budget to satisfy parents who choose to go elsewhere does not help in that effort. 

But is it fair to make somebody pay for a system that has failed their kids?  How else will failing schools be held accountable?

Like, all of these kids I've heard about at MHS who are excluded from classes because they're not white, why should their parents have to pay for a racist system?  Isn't forcing those parents to pay into the M/SO schools actually racist?

To the extent that there are problems in the public schools they need to be fixed so they need more money, not less to do that in most cases. Taking money away from the public schools to support children in private schools (most of whose families can afford it without the help) just makes that less likely to happen.  And if we follow your logic to its fullest extent, we won't have any more public schools which would be detrimental to society as a whole.  I'm not talking about students with special needs that can't be met cost-effectively in the public schools.  There may be an argument to expand some of the special needs classifications (depending upon what is meant by "schools failing their children") but not just as a matter of routine parental choice.


sprout said:

MHS as in Millburn HS? The reviews on GreatSchools.org seems to have multiple critiques, including "the school often gatekeeps students from taking the AP classes they want to learn from because they want better students to artificially inflate AP scores to improve the school's rankings"

I’ve been gone so long, I forgot to call it CHS, silly me.

The AP policy in Millburn is, I think, too restrictive.  I guess I’m not really upset about it because my son has been able to take all of the AP classes he has wanted, and the classes have been taught very effectively.  But I don’t like the idea of excluding people who are interested in learning something, and I do know some families who’ve left the school system for that reason.

And maybe folks in Millburn should be able to take their money and go to a different school as well.  I don’t think that the argument “failing schools need more money to fail less” makes any sense, at least without a risk of some loss with further failure.

As it is, I had to move from Maplewood to Millburn because I was convinced that it would be much better for my son’s education (and it has been).  But unfortunately, not everyone has that option, though I think we might get better results overall if they did.


sac said:

 And if we follow your logic to its fullest extent, we won't have any more public schools which would be detrimental to society as a whole. 

But what are you saying?  If parents had the option to put their kids in a better school for their kids than the local public school system, almost all of them would do it?

I’m completely mystified that you would conclude that what follows from that is that we have to support public schools.

It sounds like you’re even more skeptical of the value of public schools than I am!


kmt said:

sac said:

 And if we follow your logic to its fullest extent, we won't have any more public schools which would be detrimental to society as a whole. 

But what are you saying?  If parents had the option to put their kids in a better school for their kids than the local public school system, almost all of them would do it?

I’m completely mystified that you would conclude that what follows from that is that we have to support public schools.

It sounds like you’re even more skeptical of the value of public schools than I am!

No, I'm saying that if you take more money away from public schools, they are more likely to deteriorate.  Explain to me why you don't agree with that assumption.

What I am skeptical of is the societal value of subsidizing people's choice to leave the public schools, especially when they can well afford to pay the tuition themselves.  And it seems that many of the people crying loudest about this ARE able to afford it because they are already there.


kmt said:

As it is, I had to move from Maplewood to Millburn because I was convinced that it would be much better for my son’s education (and it has been).  But unfortunately, not everyone has that option, though I think we might get better results overall if they did.

I mean, yes, if everyone had the financial option to move and/or attend whatever school they wanted to, then we would probably get better results overall. But although you may find this hard to believe, many in SOMSD who could live in Millburn do want to be here, and don't see SOMSD as a consolation prize. (The one person I met in a playgroup who made it obvious they wanted to live in Millburn did leave SOMA before their kid started elementary school).

I think our sons are the same age (or a year off?), and mine has thrived at CHS as a STEM kid. To brag a bit, he scored a 5 on the AP test for Calc BC this past spring (end of 11th grade). He accomplished that without tutoring, although he did go to the teacher a couple times for extra help during the year. This year, he's enrolled in five advanced STEM courses at CHS, and enjoying them without being too stressed (so far). For him, SOMSD has been a good fit.


sprout said:

But although you may find this hard to believe, many in SOMSD who could live in Millburn do want to be here, and don't see SOMSD as a consolation prize.

I didn't say anything like that, geez you make me sound like such a comical snob.  I know that many people in Maplewood can buy places in Millburn and choose not to.  It's not like I think Millburn is the greatest place possible, it's just where I live.

I'm glad that your kid has done well.  Enjoy.


kmt said:

Do I know you?

Only on MOL. Allow me to reintroduce myself: I’m a voter in South Orange-Maplewood BOE elections, which explains my interest in this thread. What brings your avid participation?


sac said:

No, I'm saying that if you take more money away from public schools, they are more likely to deteriorate.  Explain to me why you don't agree with that assumption.

What I am skeptical of is the societal value of subsidizing people's choice to leave the public schools, especially when they can well afford to pay the tuition themselves.  And it seems that many of the people crying loudest about this ARE able to afford it because they are already there.

That's just true if most people decide not to fund public schools, which could happen in many different ways, but I don't assume that enough people would pull out (even with the option) to have that effect.

We're not talking about subsidizing people's choice to leave public schools, unless you believe that public schools are entitled to their money.

I think that in the last few years, a lot of people have rejected this idea that schools should have this kind of unaccountable one-way relationship with parents and taxpayers, e.g. this fiasco in Loudon County, VA.  We'll see what that eventually translates to, if anything, in terms of institutional change.


DanDietrich said:

the income test is being able to afford private school, isn't it?

Not if the student is there with the help of a scholarship or financial aid. Not to mention families that make a sacrifice in order to provide what they feel is the best for their children. 


the18thletter said:

DanDietrich said:

the income test is being able to afford private school, isn't it?

Not if the student is there with the help of a scholarship or financial aid. Not to mention families that make a sacrifice in order to provide what they feel is the best for their children. 

Good points.

I think there are three, somewhat overlapping, categories of private school students.

  1. High-income kids for whom the cost of private school is no-big-deal.
  2. Scholarship kids who pay very little.
  3. "Sacrificers," for whom the cost is substantial, but who pay it anyway because it's really important to them.


Jeffrey_Bennett said:

Good points.

I think there are three, somewhat overlapping, categories of private school students.

  1. High-income kids for whom the cost of private school is no-big-deal.
  2. Scholarship kids who pay very little.
  3. "Sacrificers," for whom the cost is substantial, but who pay it anyway because it's really important to them.

1. Back to DanDietrich’s question.

2. Private schools have the means to subsidize tuition but not transportation?

3. I’ve been reading and hearing a lot about transportation sacrificers in the public system. Where do they get in line?


DaveSchmidt said:

1. Back to DanDietrich’s question.

2. Private schools have the means to subsidize tuition but not transportation?

3. I’ve been reading and hearing a lot about transportation sacrificers in the public system. Where do they get in line?

2. Yes. They even provide discounted meals if eligible. 


DaveSchmidt said:

Jeffrey_Bennett said:

Good points.

I think there are three, somewhat overlapping, categories of private school students.

  1. High-income kids for whom the cost of private school is no-big-deal.
  2. Scholarship kids who pay very little.
  3. "Sacrificers," for whom the cost is substantial, but who pay it anyway because it's really important to them.

1. Back to DanDietrich’s question.

2. Private schools have the means to subsidize tuition but not transportation?

3. I’ve been reading and hearing a lot about transportation sacrificers in the public system. Where do they get in line?

I think those that choose to attend private school out-of-district should not receive a financial subsidy from the public schools for busing.  This law has never made sense to me.  These funds would be better utilized by helping in-district students get the transportation they need.


Not everyone thinks that their kids would be better off in Millburn schools than SOMSD.  And some of those who feel that way are (or have been) teachers in Millburn schools, so they aren't making that decision without good information.


NJT offers discounted monthly passes to private school students riding the train to and from school too.  You wanna get rid of that too?  Very “progressive”.


sac said:

kmt said:

sac said:

 And if we follow your logic to its fullest extent, we won't have any more public schools which would be detrimental to society as a whole. 

But what are you saying?  If parents had the option to put their kids in a better school for their kids than the local public school system, almost all of them would do it?

I’m completely mystified that you would conclude that what follows from that is that we have to support public schools.

It sounds like you’re even more skeptical of the value of public schools than I am!

No, I'm saying that if you take more money away from public schools, they are more likely to deteriorate.  Explain to me why you don't agree with that assumption.

What I am skeptical of is the societal value of subsidizing people's choice to leave the public schools, especially when they can well afford to pay the tuition themselves.  And it seems that many of the people crying loudest about this ARE able to afford it because they are already there.

In fact, it is we who are “subsidizing” your choices by throwing our portion of the school taxes back in the pot for you and your utterly dysfunctional BOE to waste as you see fit.  You’re welcome, by the way.


BarneyGumble said:

NJT offers discounted monthly passes to private school students riding the train to and from school too.  You wanna get rid of that too?  Very “progressive”.

Back to DaveSchmidt's question, private schools can subsidize tuition but not transportation?


BarneyGumble said:

In fact, it is we who are “subsidizing” your choices by throwing our portion of the school taxes back in the pot for you and your utterly dysfunctional BOE to waste as you see fit.  You’re welcome, by the way.

You’re subsidizing the civic value, flaws and all, of a public education system. Don’t expect a thank you, like you’re doing society a favor.


DaveSchmidt said:

1. Back to DanDietrich’s question.

2. Private schools have the means to subsidize tuition but not transportation?

3. I’ve been reading and hearing a lot about transportation sacrificers in the public system. Where do they get in line?

I've been passionately & publicly arguing for more transportation for the last three months, and even in 2020 and 2021 I sent emails to the BOE about how they were going to hurt people by not providing transportation to III kids getting distant placements.  I was only making a tangential point about private schoolers above.

Regarding transportation for people who are in stress/difficulty/hardship, please read this transportation Q & A from the Village Green.  I consider Regina Eckert, Nubia, Wilson, and Bill Gifford to have answers which are much more sympathetic and fair than what Pancholy and Meyer say.

Keeping with their candidate announcements, Nubia Wilson, Regina Eckert, and Bill Gifford show anger at the initial decision to not provide bussing to III kids and cut it for Boyden and Marshall-Bolden.  Gifford says "The community was not genuinely engaged in the decision and no real explanation provided as to why busing was cut in the first place."  Nubia Wilson says "the personal accounts are eye opening to the various family homelife situations that can negatively impact how a child who lives shy of 2 miles from school can get to school efficiently and safely without a bus. Many parents are stressed. I do believe that the Board should re-evaluate hazardous routes and its transportation policies with respect to hardships in policy 8600."

Wilson, Eckert, and Gifford also criticize the decision to completely outsource transportation and sell the busses, because it deprives us of flexibility.

Regina Eckert gives a very strong answer and says she wants changes in January, when she takes her seat. "If elected, I will immediately support changes to the transportation policy for those in hardship and those who are closest to 2.0 miles. If you look at the Berkeley plan, which ours appears to be based on, they provide a bus to all elementary children 1.5 miles from home. In all of the times I’ve been watching Board meetings, I have not seen a utilization report or cost comparison report presented for discussion openly regarding this plan. From what I’ve been hearing from the community, they are seeing a lot of the buses at half capacity and it seems to me there’s an opportunity to help fill those empty seats. I would start with reevaluating hazardous routes, which is in fact a Board responsibility. If new hazardous routes are determined, this could be a starting point to filling some of the empty seats on buses."

Ritu Pancholy and Will Meyer, by contrast, do not say anything critical about what the BOE has already done, except that the news came on short notice (which echoes Rachel Fisher and their own campaign website). They both say they are comfortable with the BOE's existing March 31st policy review process.  They also see subscription bussing as acceptable, although it sounds like they would want lower prices for lower-income people.  Quoting Meyer "Subscription busing would be a welcome model for many families and would limit the budgetary impact on the district, but should only be offered in a manner that is equitable and reasonable, especially on middle income and working class families." Pancholy says "(3) considering a subscription model that allows for families who need transportation to opt into the service."

I disagree with what Pancholy and Meyer say about the budget here.  The busses are so empty that the district could bus hundreds of more kids without incurring additional costs. If it does need to create a new bus route, the cost is only $60,000.  Costs could further be managed by allowing transfers, either to schools that are close enough that the parents wouldn't expect a bus or beyond 2.0 miles, where the children would qualify for state transportation aid.  

As it is, people are paying for transportation, but it's by parents in M-B, Boyden opt-ins, and III families with bad lottery numbers. No one likes raising taxes by perhaps few extra hundred thousand dollars, but it's better for the costs of transportation to be borne by everyone and not concentrated among a few unlucky people.  It's insensitive of Pancholy and Meyer not to consider the costs to them who just got crappy III lottery numbers, who volunteered for Boyden, or who got stuck in Marshall-Bolden.


The Pancholy/Meyer campaign is managed by the former board member who is most responsible for the current plan, so I wouldn't expect much criticism of the current busing situation from them. 


You know, everyone is in favor of bussing.  It's the how that is the issue.  If it is all to be done by efficiency and rerouting, do we have the people in place who can really plan that out?  It's not really easy.  If it requires more spending where is the money coming from.  I'm in favor of whatever is needed, and I'm willing to pay my share if it costs more, but I want people to directly address it.


chalmers said:

The Pancholy/Meyer campaign is managed by the former board member who is most responsible for the current plan, so I wouldn't expect much criticism of the current busing situation from them. 

Mr. Latz?


yahooyahoo said:

Mr. Latz?

He means Annemarie Maini, who is officially the campaign manager and likely a very large donor.  Maini also managed Shannon Cuttle's 2021 BOE campaign and donated $2398.  When the C-1s are published we'll know about the size of Maini's donations.
ETA: The above is wrong about what Maini donated to Cuttle in 2021. Maini donated $698.  

Rachel Fisher and Rhea Beck are involved too.   Pancholy and Meyer had Beck speak for them at the kickoff.  Pancholy and Meyer's recent transportation statement echoes Fisher's Facebook letter on transportation in that they support the elimination, but they admit the news came too late.  

https://www.njelecefilesearch.com/searchcandidatereports


Thank you for the clarification.


yahooyahoo said:

Thank you for the clarification.

Pancholy & Meyer campaign manager Annemarie Maini has defended the decision to eliminate "courtesy" bussing. She said in August 2022 in the Village Green:

“Courtesy busing was provided precisely because our former structure resulted in the need to assign students to the schools that had space rather than the one the district lines would have designated. So courtesy busing was an outgrowth of our former model — which had become ineffective because it led not only to segregation but also to a mismatch between the size of school buildings and the number of children zoned for them, necessitating that we assign students to schools outside of their zone and thus provide a courtesy bus. The integration initiative never included courtesy transportation, as that was a holdover from the previous zoned structure, which had led to a reality that was both inefficient and unfair. The integration initiative actually takes proximity into consideration in the algorithm, so it is more fair to everyone equally than the previous system, which gave some people their zoned school and others an arbitrary school only because of space availability, and went against our community’s values by leading to segregation. Now we have a system that expresses our values by achieving integration while taking proximity into consideration.”

“With the roll out of the III this past year, there was no courtesy busing for those kindergartners, and the idea of a zoned school no longer existed so moving forward there would be no exceptions for qualifying for courtesy busing. It was generally agreed that it was not equitable to have a set of students who lived between 1 and 2 miles from Marshall/Bolden qualify for courtesy busing based on the previous zoned model, when they could be living next door to a kindergarten neighbor who was walking 1.5 miles to Clinton or South Mountain [schools] based on the new integration model. Now everyone is treated the same way as we phase out our previous segregated zoned model. This may require some adjustment on the part of those few who happened to be advantaged by the previous model, but it also creates a greater fairness and equity which is the goal of the community at large.”

I strongly disagree with what Maini says here and I think her line that this "requires adjustment" is callous, since the "adjustment" means an hour+ of additional driving per day or making a child bike/walk nearly two miles.

The algorithm Maini and the BOE approved places students much more arbitrarily than over-capacity students were placed pre-III, since it never asks parent parental need, preference, and capacity are.  

The Taylor-Maini algorithm works by assigning them a random number which determines the order in which they are placed.  It then places students at the nearest school with an available seat at their Diversity Tier.  Randomness and arbitrariness are related concepts, are they not?  

For 60% of kids, the system works, since they are placed at the nearest school, but for the other 40% of kids they could be placed anywhere and it is irrelevant to a struggling family if other families on their block get to go to the nearest school.  In 2021-22 the most distant placement was 3.8 miles and 115 were placed at the high-stress 1.0-2.0 mile zone.  

I disagree with the comparison to over-capacity kids.  Pre-III, over-capacity kids were assigned to schools they weren't zoned for, but it was the nearest school that had any kind of open seat, without the Diversity Tier limit.  Also, non-Hilton kids could opt into Seth Boyden and Hilton kid could opt-into Marshall-Bolden, almost always with bussing, so parents had a choice then which they lack now.  Additionally, kids could transfer prior to 2021, so if an over-capacity student had a really bad placement, it need not have lasted for the entirety of the student's elementary school career.

The Taylor-Maini system still is arbitrary and unfair since the BOE has an absolute difference in policy between kids just over 2.0 miles and those below 2.0 miles, where those slightly over get a district-funded bus and those below 2.0 miles have to figure it out themselves.  There is also unfairness between those whose route is designated "hazardous" and those whose route doesn't have that designation.

I have met multiple people who actually are over 2.0 miles but since the BOE relies on inaccurate VersaTrans measurements the district is refusing to bus them.  At the September 29th BOE meeting one parent, Ben Smith, spoke about how VersaTrans says, literally, that he is 1.99 miles from Marshall and not getting a bus.  Due to hilliness and that VersaTrans is merely a curb-to-curb calculation, he definitely is over 2.0 miles.  So are the Mortensons and the Allsops and several others whom I won't mention because they haven't gone public.  

I also reject anyone in Marshall-Bolden or was a Boyden opt-in was "privileged."  Marshall-Bolden kids, when they went the other town's school, were traveling nearly two miles.  Since many Marshall-Bolden families had kids split between schools and/or couldn't utilize a bus in both directions, it was still a tough placement.   Likewise with Seth Boyden opt-ins.  The district didn't provide a bus for them for the hell of it, it provided a bus because they were also travelling a greater difference.  

Providing different services in different situations isn't "privilege," it's equity.  The district provided a bus for Marshall-Bolden and Boyden because that's a large distance, not to advantage the families over other families.

Since there were only 27 kindergarteners in 2021-22 who were 1.5-2.0 miles from their school, the district easily have bussed them all while continuing bussing for Marshall-Bolden and Boyden families at similar distances.


Jeffrey_Bennett said:

Maini also managed Shannon Cuttle's 2021 BOE campaign and donated $2398.  When the C-1s are published we'll know about the size of Maini's donations.

The C-1 form I see says Cuttle raised $2,398.78 in total, of which Maini donated $698.78.


DaveSchmidt said:

The C-1 form I see says Cuttle raised $2,398.78 in total, of which Maini donated $698.78.

I do not think this is correct, although I'm also capable of making a mistake.

On the C-1 for 2021, Maini is listed as giving $2,000 in currency on August 25th and then on October 5th she is listed as giving $2,398.78 for lawn signs.  



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.