|
|
Post by admin on Dec 9, 2007 9:50:08 GMT -5
www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071209/NEWS01/712090412/1004FREEHOLD — Borough school district officials have a shot at receiving thousands of dollars in state aid that they say is needed to provide borough children with an adequate education. Both state Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck, R-Monmouth, and state Assemblyman Michael Panter, D-Monmouth, recently introduced bills seeking more money for school districts that do not meet the minimum "thorough-and-efficient" spending standard. The standard was created in the Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act of 1996. It aims to set the uniform per-pupil regular-education spending amount deemed necessary for students to receive a "thorough" education in an "efficient" manner. School district officials say they need about $1.2 million to reach the minimum spending amount. Officials were told in August that they would receive $494,196 in extra state aid. Beck's bill, revised last week, seeks about $3,540,000 in additional aid for several school districts statewide that still do not meet the thorough-and-efficient spending standard. The bill includes $606,277 for the Freehold school district, money that Beck's bill says would bring the district up to the standard. Panter's bill addresses only the Freehold Borough school district, asking that $605,000 be given to the district. Freehold Borough School President James Keelan hailed the measures. But with both Panter and Beck leaving the Assembly at the end of the month ? Panter lost his re-election bid and Beck is moving to the state Senate ? some are predicting the bills will die with their sponsors' exit. "It's a tough call," said Freehold Borough Schools Superintendent Elizabeth O'Connell. "It's a lame-duck session." The bills have been referred to the state Assembly's education committee, which held its last scheduled meeting of the year on Thursday. "We're continuing to push it (the bill), but we're pretty much up against the clock," said Panter spokesman Bruce Shapiro. Beck will reintroduce the bill when she enters the state Senate, said her chief of staff, Nancy Fitterer. Caroline Casagrande and Declan O'Scanlon ? Republicans newly elected to the state Assembly ? begin their terms in January, and both have pledged to fight for funding for their district's schools. "Several of my first bills will be aimed at securing funding for our District 12 school districts," Casagrande said. O'Scanlon agreed. "Freehold Borough (School District) is an example of one of the schools that has rising population, that has a population that is not inexpensive to educate," O'Scanlon said, explaining that the district has a sizable number of English-as-a-Second Language students. Whoever leads the effort to bring the district more aid, O'Connell just hopes it comes soon. Several positions and programs were cut from the district's 2007-08 budget that voters approved in April. If the district receives the additional funding as a permanent allocation (rather than as a one-shot appropriation), O'Connell has a long wish list of ways the district could use the money. With the aid, O'Connell said, the district could hire an additional full-time librarian, guidance counselor, music teacher and art teacher, so the elementary schools would not have to share these employees. The district also would like to hire another special-education teacher and a math supervisor, purchase materials for its gifted-and-talented program, buy new textbooks, replenish its reserve and make capital improvements such as improving the air-conditioning and heating systems, upgrading the electrical system and laying new carpet.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 9, 2007 10:04:54 GMT -5
Here is Panters Bill www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A5000/4504_I1.HTMINTRODUCED NOVEMBER 19, 2007 Sponsored by: Assemblyman MICHAEL J. PANTER District 12 (Mercer and Monmouth) SYNOPSIS Makes supplemental appropriation of $605,000 to Department of Education for Freehold Borough School District. CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT As introduced. A Supplement to "An Act making appropriations for the support of the State Government and the several public purposes for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 and regulating the disbursement thereof," approved June 28, 2007 (P.L.2007, c.111). Be It Enacted by the Senate and the General Assembly of the State of New Jersey: 1. In addition to the amounts appropriated under P.L.2007, c.111, there is appropriated out of the General Fund the following sum for the purpose specified: 34 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 30 Educational, Cultural and Intellectual Development 31 Direct Educational Services and Assistance STATE AID 03-5120 Miscellaneous Grants-in-Aid............................................... $605,000 Total State Aid Appropriation, $605,000 Direct Educational Services and Assistance..................... State Aid: 03 Supplemental T&E Aid.....………………... ($605,000) The amount appropriated herein shall be used by the Department of Education to provide additional State aid to the Freehold Borough School District to increase its per pupil regular education spending for the 2007-2008 school year to the minimum per pupil T&E amount as calculated by the department pursuant to section 13 of the “Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act of 1996,” P.L. 1996, c.138 (C.18A:7F-13). In determining the amount of aid to which the district shall be entitled, the department shall include any increase in Core Curriculum Standards Aid the district received in the 2007-2008 fiscal year relative to the previous fiscal year when calculating the district’s regular education spending. 2. This act shall take effect immediately. STATEMENT This bill appropriates $605,000 in additional State aid to the Department of Education for the Freehold Borough School District. Freehold Borough is one of the school districts that spends below the minimum T&E amount established by the Department of Education and received additional core curriculum standards aid in fiscal year 2008 to decrease the difference. However, this additional aid only reduced the difference from fiscal year 2007 by half and a significant gap remains in the current school year. The additional State aid would raise the Freehold Borough School District’s spending level to the minimum T&E amount and help the district provide better educational opportunities to its students. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 9, 2007 10:15:58 GMT -5
I have ben looking For Beck's legislation, but have not found it yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 9, 2007 10:45:06 GMT -5
The reason I posted Panters bill and want to post Beck's is that I understand the Borough council is endorsing Panters. I got that from a third party and figured it would be worth looking at both bills to see what is really better.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewd on Dec 9, 2007 21:30:45 GMT -5
First of all, I have to thank both Assemblyman Panter and Assemblywoman Beck for their continued efforts for our schools. There were some who wondered if the bills would get submitted based on the lame duck session, but to their credit, both of our Assemblypeople have not given up on the fight to get the proper funding for our schools.
Just to let you know...the Boro Council apparently approved a resolution the other night endorsing Assemblyman Panter's bill (I was not able to make the meeting due to a BOE retreat) because that was the only bill that had been made public at the time. I don't believe we have yet seen an actual bill number for Jennifer Beck's proposed legislation.
As the article says...both pieces will probably get lost in the lame duck session due the fact that neither of them will be back in their current posts next year. What we need to do is be sure to reach out to Assemblyman elect O'Scanlon, and Assemblywoman elect Cassagrande to make sure they pick up where Beck and Panter left off. Our district has been very fortunate in developing some very strong relationships with our representation in Trenton...we need to keep that going into the new session.
And of course, we need to continue to monitor the situation with the new funding formula which the Governor is apparently trying to push through this lame duck session.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Dec 10, 2007 15:09:50 GMT -5
Becks bill is A-4635
it offers to fund 6 another districts as well as FB to the minimum levels of T&E. Since this bill offers greater coverage, it would be logical that this bill will gain broader, more popular support than a bill that address only one district.
I would expect that the local governing body will be just as enthusiastic to support this bill as well.
This bill can only offer a benefit to the children of the school district of FB!
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Dec 10, 2007 15:48:29 GMT -5
An opportunity for accountability December 8, 2007 - Governor Jon S. Corzine, along with Superintendent Marion Bolden and Rutger's Professor Clement Price, announces the search committee for Superintendent of Newark Schools at the Board of Education Building in Newark, N.J. NEWARK – Governor Jon S. Corzine today announced the formation of a search committee to select the next Superintendent of the Newark school district to replace departing Superintendent Marion A. Bolden. “There is no doubt that Marion Bolden will be a tough act to follow,” said Governor Corzine. “Under her strong and capable leadership, the Newark school district has made tremendous progress in the education of the city’s children. We owe it to her legacy and the solid foundation she has built here to ensure that the next phase of leadership continues the momentum. “My ultimate goal is to have the Newark School district serve as an example of what can and should be achieved in our school districts. Through this selection committee, we will have a transparent and inclusive process in determining the next superintendent who can enact and articulate this vision.” “Marion Bolden has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the children of Newark and to the improvement of the Newark school system,” said Education Commissioner Lucille E. Davy. “She should also be commended for the many innovative partnerships that she created with businesses and non-profit organizations to further enhance the quality of education in the district. “The search committee the Governor has assembled will not have an easy job. Leading the Newark school district will be a complex undertaking, and Ms. Bolden's successor will have to demonstrate extraordinary leadership qualities,” the Commissioner said. Chaired by noted historian and Rutgers Professor Clement Price, the search committee is comprised of a diverse group of administrators, parents, and community and business leaders from the city of Newark. One additional representative will be named in the near future. Clement Price, Professor of History and Director of the Rutgers Institute on Ethnicity, Culture, and the Modern Experience Rochelle Hendricks, Assistant Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Education Dana Rone, Newark City Council Member, Central Ward Carl Sharif, Newark resident Samuel Gonzalez, Chairperson, Newark Public Schools Advisory Board Shanique L. Davis-Speight, Vice-chairperson Newark Public Schools Advisory Board Richard Cammarieri, Member, Newark Public Schools Advisory Board Al Koeppe, CEO, Newark Alliance Gabriella Morris, President, Prudential Foundation Junius Williams, Director, The Abbott Leadership Institute, Rutgers University Willie Thomas, Principal, Newton Street School Reverend Perry Simmons, Jr., Pastor, Abyssinian Baptist Church Casto Maldonado, President/CEO, FOCUS Hispanic Center for Community Development Father Edwin D. Leahy, Headmaster, St. Benedict’s Preparatory School Wilhelmina Holder, Parent Joseph Fonseca, Newark Teacher’s Union "I'm absolutely honored to serve in this important capacity,” said Clement Price. “As a former vice-chair of the advisory board, I have an abiding interest in the future of our children and am committed to ensuring that the search committee engages all of Newark in this process." During Superintendent Bolden’s tenure a number of initiatives have been instituted including standard reading and math programs, assigned literacy and math coaches, and enhanced professional development for teachers and administrators. As a result, Newark’s at-risk 4th graders significantly improved their proficiency in both math and language arts, with math scores increasing by over 25% in a five-year period. Newark is the state’s largest school district with 76 schools and an enrollment of 42,000 students. ### Photos and audio and video clips from Governor Corzine's public events are available inthe Governor's Newsroom section on the State of New Jersey web page, www.nj.gov/governor/news/ |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 26, 2007 8:16:14 GMT -5
The reason I posted Panters bill and want to post Beck's is that I understand the Borough council is endorsing Panters. I got that from a third party and figured it would be worth looking at both bills to see what is really better. Today's news transcript has a very good article related to this thread. Apparently there has been some evil emails going around and claims that the council supported Panters bill out of partisanship. In the article, Councilpersons Shutzer and Sims come out swinging in an attempt to set the record straight. If any participants post that article on the site, do so here so that it is in context of our previous discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Dec 26, 2007 10:38:14 GMT -5
The reason I posted Panters bill and want to post Beck's is that I understand the Borough council is endorsing Panters. I got that from a third party and figured it would be worth looking at both bills to see what is really better. Today's news transcript has a very good article related to this thread. Apparently there has been some evil emails going around and claims that the council supported Panters bill out of partisanship. In the article, Councilpersons Shutzer and Sims come out swinging in an attempt to set the record straight. If any participants post that article on the site, do so here so that it is in context of our previous discussions. Brian, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the NT article. IMO, bad reporting (at least by my memory of reading the article this morning). First, the article does not address the nature of the 2 bills and their differences. What are the bill numbers? Since the NT is not givinig any facts, I wish it would point readers to a way of getting the facts. You wouldn't know any facts by reading the article. The article then talks about the timing of the two bills and the timing of the council resolution, but fails to address it with facts only by word of mouth. And if timing was the real problem, did council ever endorse the second bill? If it wasn't partisan politics, did council support Beck's bill? They may have, but you wouldn't know by reading the NT. If, as the APP article and AndrewD point out, the bills are part of lame duck sessions, why wasn't that part of the news - instead the article (and perhaps council) are making mountains out of a molehills. So, if council is worried about bad press, well, here it is. I am not sure about the nature of the "evil" e-mail or any facts behind the matter, well, that is, until I re-read this thread. Thanks Freehold Voice. Another example of poor reporting, in my opinion, by the NT. It appears that the paper's only investigation is done through interviews or prepared statements, not investigating the facts. By the way, the NT homepage is not yet updated. |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Dec 26, 2007 11:48:09 GMT -5
Today's news transcript has a very good article related to this thread. Apparently there has been some evil emails going around and claims that the council supported Panters bill out of partisanship. In the article, Councilpersons Shutzer and Sims come out swinging in an attempt to set the record straight. If any participants post that article on the site, do so here so that it is in context of our previous discussions. Brian, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the NT article. IMO, bad reporting (at least by my memory of reading the article this morning). First, the article does not address the nature of the 2 bills and their differences. What are the bill numbers? Since the NT is not giving any facts, I wish it would point readers to a way of getting the facts. You wouldn't know any facts by reading the article. The article then talks about the timing of the two bills and the timing of the council resolution, but fails to address it with facts only by word of mouth. And if timing was the real problem, did council ever endorse the second bill? If it wasn't partisan politics, did council support Beck's bill? They may have, but you wouldn't know by reading the NT. If, as the APP article and AndrewD point out, the bills are part of lame duck sessions, why wasn't that part of the news - instead the article (and perhaps council) are making mountains out of a molehills. So, if council is worried about bad press, well, here it is. I am not sure about the nature of the "evil" e-mail or any facts behind the matter, well, that is, until I re-read this thread. Thanks Freehold Voice. Another example of poor reporting, in my opinion, by the NT. It appears that the paper's only investigation is done through interviews or prepared statements, not investigating the facts. By the way, the NT homepage is not yet updated. A loud weak offense is a paranoid driven defense! Once again, making it evident we we need a balanced two party system in the Borough. |
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Dec 26, 2007 12:11:03 GMT -5
alright...I have heard quite a bit about this whole topic from a number of people on all sides.
All I am going to do here is present facts...draw from them whatever you will. This is not...I repeat, this is NOT a means of me knocking anyone who was involved in this whole mess, on any side. I simply want to get the facts as I know them out there before this turns into a giant "he said she said" debate. Please note, I can only divulge facts that are public knowledge, and emails that were sent to other members of the public aside from the board of education. Any emails that were sent within the board of education, or privately between BOE members or members of the public, I am not entirely sure that I am able to share that information legally, and so therefore, I will not.
According to the New Jersey Legislative website, on November 19th, 2007 bill A4504 and bill A4583 were introduced and referred to the Assembly Education Committee.
A4504 is sponsored by Assemblyman Mike Panter and appropriates $605,000 from the "General Fund" to the Department of Education so they can in turn provide Freehold Boro School District with the additional funding needed ($605,000) to bring our per pupil spending up to the minimum Thorough and Efficient levels as defined by the state. This bill points out that the Boro is just one of the districts still spending below the T&E minimum despite the additional aid provided in fiscal year 2008.
A4583 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck and appropriates $2,912,000 from the "General Fund" to the Department of Education so they can in turn provide additional aid to districts who still fall below the T&E spending box despite the additional aid provided in fiscal year 2008. This bill is intended for all schools that still fell below the T&E per pupil spending box.
On 11/8, our superintendent forwarded an email to board members and other members of the community from Bruce Shapiro (from Assemblyman Panter's office) referencing the Assemblyman's bill A4504, saying that it was introduced "today"
On 11/26, our superintendent forwarded and email to board members and other members of the community again from Bruce Shapiro with a listing of the members of the Assembly Education Committee, for anyone who wished to reach out to them in support of the bill.
On 11/27, our superintendent forwarded another email to board members and other members of the community from Nancy Fitterer (From Assemblywoman Beck's office) mentioning Jennifer's bill A4583, saying that they had asked Assemblyman Stanley (Education Committee Chair) to post it as well.
On 12/3 the Town Council endorses Assemblyman Panter's bill at their meeting.
At some point after the 12/3 meeting, an email was sent out to several people in town regarding what the sender viewed as partisan politics being played by the Mayor and Town Council.
On 12/5, our superintendent sends out an email to board of ed members and members of the public stating that she had just received a call from Nancy Fitterer stating that Assemblywoman Beck was revising the numbers in her bill, which did not accurately reflect the amount of money that would be needed to bring the several school districts up to the T&E box
According to the New Jersey State Legislative website, bill A4635 was introduced on 12/10 and referred to the Assembly Education Committee.
A4635 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Beck, and appropriates $3,540,000 from the "General Fund" to the Department of Education, who in turn would disperse it to the several school districts that still fell below the T&E per pupil spending box despite additional aid provided in fiscal year 2008.
On 12/10, Councilwoman Shutzer and Councilman Simms were at the BOE meeting (though I was not due to a conflict with work that had been previously mentioned to the Board President and Superintendent).
After going back and doing my homework, I realize that my previous post in this thread was not entirely correct. I had said that "...the Boro Council apparently approved a resolution the other night endorsing Assemblyman Panter's bill (I was not able to make the meeting due to a BOE retreat) because that was the only bill that had been made public at the time. I don't believe we have yet seen an actual bill number for Jennifer Beck's proposed legislation".
Apparently, my statement back on the 9th of December was not correct, and for that I am sorry. You may beat me up as you see fit.
Again, these are simply the facts as I know them, based on public information and emails sent to others outside of the board of education.
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Dec 27, 2007 6:22:29 GMT -5
Today's news transcript has a very good article related to this thread. Apparently there has been some evil emails going around and claims that the council supported Panters bill out of partisanship. In the article, Councilpersons Shutzer and Sims come out swinging in an attempt to set the record straight. If any participants post that article on the site, do so here so that it is in context of our previous discussions. your wish is my command my liege... newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/1226/Front_Page/004.html |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Dec 27, 2007 8:04:41 GMT -5
www.state.nj.us/education/sff/leg/leg.pdfRather than focusing on he said, she said from a private email there is a much larger issue of concern that impacts every taxpayer, and every child. Its call the NEW FUNDING FORMULA. This draft (see url above) has been available for about a week. The new funding will determine if our children will build rocket-ships, or work in rock-quarries. While it is important for our School Board to have an opinion about this, it is of equal, if not greater importance that our Mayor and council express an opinion as it will effect local tax levies, as well as impact the quality of life of all Borough children today and far into their future. We live in a state with a 36(+) billion dollar budget, plus 32(+) billion dollars of additional debt, it is reasonable to question, how this is all going to be paid for too! A discussion about funding is needed, but an open dialog HONEST dialog about REVENUE Streams is critically necessary too. Every Citizen, whether you sit on a school board, municipal council, work in a pet shop, are a lawyer, or standing in front of 6-12 waiting for a job with a contractor, whether your an INTERNET troll or employed with boarder patrol, we ask entitled to know where is the revenue for state mandated programs coming from.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Dec 27, 2007 8:26:53 GMT -5
www.state.nj.us/education/sff/BACKGROUND On Wednesday, December 12, Governor Jon S. Corzine and Education Commissioner Lucille E. Davy announced a new school funding formula: "A Formula for Success: All Children, All Communities." Approximately $7.8 billion will be distributed to K-12 education for the 2009 fiscal year, an increase of $532.8 million. All school districts will receive a state aid increase of at least 2 percent during the first year, and no school districts will see a decrease in state aid during the first three years of the program. Governor Corzine and Commissioner Davy are presenting this formula to the Legislature in its current session and hope to have it implemented by Jan. 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Dec 27, 2007 8:28:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Dec 27, 2007 10:21:01 GMT -5
www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12/gov_jon_corzines_new_78.htmlCorzine's $7.8B school funding plan to be debated today by Claire Heininger/The Star-Ledger Thursday December 27, 2007, 5:50 AM Gov. Jon Corzine's new $7.8 billion school funding plan will be debated today at a joint hearing of the Assembly budget and education committees, a rarity in what is traditionally a holiday week. Corzine and legislative leaders want the proposal -- which would impose sweeping reform of the way the state funds public education -- approved in the current legislative session, which ends Jan. 7. The powerful New Jersey Education Association, however, opposes the bill as currently drafted, and its president plans to testify at today's session. The plan says more than half of New Jersey's districts are spending too much to educate their children, and upwards of 100 could be forced to pass much of their projected state aid increases directly to local taxpayers. That's due to the tax relief provision of the bill, which says all districts spending more than deemed "adequate" under the state's new formula -- and also receiving more than the minimum 2 percent aid increase next year -- must return the difference to taxpayers. The new funding law spells out what the state thinks local districts should be spending to educate a child. The formula starts with a baseline of $9,649 per elementary school student and rises as children age. The number also rises for children with special needs, developmental disabilities, low-income backgrounds or limited proficiency in English. The draft bill also would rewrite the specifics of how school construction money is distributed to districts when, and if, additional funds are provided by the state. An $8.6 billion pot of money approved for school construction in 2000 has all been spoken for, with at least some of it disappearing amid allegations of waste. The plan also includes $532.8 million in new spending in an attempt to give cash-strapped older suburbs and fast-growing communities a bigger share of state aid.
|
|
|
|
Post by pricewepay on Dec 31, 2007 9:39:35 GMT -5
"'Education and children are my life,' Shutzer said. 'We are with this board and with the school community in this battle. Under no circumstances am I going to sit back and allow someone to destroy that relationship as the e-mail attempted to do. Please know that I do not give a rat's behind who writes a bill as long as Freehold Borough's children get what they deserve.'"
"Reading from a prepared statement, Sims told the group there has been regular communication via phone or e-mail with school board President James Keelan since 2003. He cited several examples of the council and board working together.
Sims spoke about the relationship between council members and school board members."
"Among those was an example concerning the vacant Bennett Street School, which the council has been attempting to sell. Sims said discussions at the council have led to a decision to give some of the proceeds from the sale of the building to the school board."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First - The Council was sleeping (which was not unusal) until Kevin Coyne made them aware of the situation in the schools. They had no idea what was going on in the schools, and hardly ever attended any school function. I understand they had bad feelings toward the then Superintendent, but they did nothing for the kids, who all live in the Borough. Ms. Shutzer can be as outraged as she wants, which is not unusal whenever anyone has the audacity to critize the mayor or council, but their inaction helped to create the problems the schools face.
Second - As far as Mr. Sims' comments go, just what portion of the sale of the old Police Station proceeds will the schools get? 5%,10%,50%,100%? Also,it was the new Superintendent, Phil
Meara, who reached out to the Council to try and improve the relationship. If it wasn't for Mr. Meara and Mr.Coyne, one has to wonder, based on past history, what the relationship between the Council and Board would be. That is not to say that since that time the Council has not supported the schools - it has. However, twisting history to support political comments should not go unchallenged.
|
|
