Jump to content

Kearny High School is 230th in the State


Guest Disappointed with Devon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Disappointed with Devon

New Jersey Monthly Magazine ranked Kearny High School number 230 in the State, behind municipalities like Secaucus, Harrison, North Arlington and Bloomfield. Here's their methodology:

School Environment: The sum of the standardized rank scores for average class size; student-faculty ratio; student-computer ratio; percentage of faculty with advanced degrees; and number of AP tests offered, which was calculated as a ratio of grade 11 and 12 enrollment in order not to penalize smaller schools. (Not all of these factors are shown in the published charts. Senior class size is provided for reference only; it is not part of the ranking calculation.)

Student Performance: The sum of the standardized rank scores for average combined SAT score; percentage of students showing advanced proficiency on HSPA; and students scoring a 3 or higher on AP tests as a percentage of all juniors and seniors.

Student Outcomes: A single combined score of graduation rate multiplied by the percentage of graduates going on to post-secondary education. Those going on to a four-year college were given a weight of 1.5, those going to a two-year college were given a weight of 1, and those going to other colleges or post-secondary schools were given a weight of 0.67.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 230-*-terrible

New Jersey Monthly Magazine ranked Kearny High School number 230 in the State, behind municipalities like Secaucus, Harrison, North Arlington and Bloomfield. Here's their methodology:

School Environment: The sum of the standardized rank scores for average class size; student-faculty ratio; student-computer ratio; percentage of faculty with advanced degrees; and number of AP tests offered, which was calculated as a ratio of grade 11 and 12 enrollment in order not to penalize smaller schools. (Not all of these factors are shown in the published charts. Senior class size is provided for reference only; it is not part of the ranking calculation.)

Student Performance: The sum of the standardized rank scores for average combined SAT score; percentage of students showing advanced proficiency on HSPA; and students scoring a 3 or higher on AP tests as a percentage of all juniors and seniors.

Student Outcomes: A single combined score of graduation rate multiplied by the percentage of graduates going on to post-secondary education. Those going on to a four-year college were given a weight of 1.5, those going to a two-year college were given a weight of 1, and those going to other colleges or post-secondary schools were given a weight of 0.67.

There is a very simple reason for this. This town has stopped hiring the best people for jobs in it's schools. The current administration is more concerned with cronyism. Look at the administrators in town, how many were given their positions because of personal or familial relationships to the superintendent starting with his second in command on down!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Jersey Monthly Magazine ranked Kearny High School number 230 in the State, behind municipalities like Secaucus, Harrison, North Arlington and Bloomfield. Here's their methodology:

School Environment: The sum of the standardized rank scores for average class size; student-faculty ratio; student-computer ratio; percentage of faculty with advanced degrees; and number of AP tests offered, which was calculated as a ratio of grade 11 and 12 enrollment in order not to penalize smaller schools. (Not all of these factors are shown in the published charts. Senior class size is provided for reference only; it is not part of the ranking calculation.)

Student Performance: The sum of the standardized rank scores for average combined SAT score; percentage of students showing advanced proficiency on HSPA; and students scoring a 3 or higher on AP tests as a percentage of all juniors and seniors.

Student Outcomes: A single combined score of graduation rate multiplied by the percentage of graduates going on to post-secondary education. Those going on to a four-year college were given a weight of 1.5, those going to a two-year college were given a weight of 1, and those going to other colleges or post-secondary schools were given a weight of 0.67.

On the up side, we were 230 out of 322. In 2008 we were 235, so we are showing improvement. I am guessing it is because of our superior superintendent and his crew. Keep up the good work, we will be number one in the year 2100 or so if we keep up the good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Opinion: Deception, Fiscal Irresponsibility, School Vouchers

The school voucher program can't deliver on its promises, but it can help subsidize private schools across the state

By Gordon MacInnes, January 24

If you watched the Senate budget committee’s hearing on the Christie voucher bill, you would never know that New Jersey is bankrupt. Or that we are in the midst of the most severe crisis to afflict the state since the Great Depression:

New Jersey cannot save the jobs of half of the police force in its most dangerous city, Camden. Nor the jobs of one-third of its firefighters.

Thousands of teachers have been laid off in a state where students consistently achieve at the highest level in the country (except for Massachusetts). School boards are told there can be no relief for rapidly rising special education costs.

The governor says we cannot afford a prosperity-building rail tunnel to New York City because the projected deficit is in the hundreds of millions -- a deficit that could be covered by a 50 cent or $1.00 surcharge on train tickets.

New Jersey leads the nation in slashing its support for public higher education. The result: New Jersey families pay the nation’s second-highest tuitions to send their kids to public colleges and universities.

Despite these inconvenient truths, a majority of the Senate budget committee decided this is the time to take a flyer on a massive pilot program for school vouchers -- one that will benefit private, mainly religious, schools.

In fact, the majority voted to amend the original bill to almost triple the cost to $1.1 billion. This at a time when the governor proclaims that he must contend with a $10 billion budget deficit.

Fiscal Emergency

We can agree that in a fiscal emergency there must be shared sacrifice. For decades, the largest item in the state’s budget has been aid to public schools, reflecting the sentiments of its well-educated polity and a Supreme Court that demanded equity for poor districts.

The pay-off has been enormous: New Jersey students consistently outperform those in states like Connecticut, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, which have nothing like the diversity of students found here. Its black and Latino students perform well above the national average and much higher than other states with diverse populations.

Despite this enviable record of achievement, the language of the Christie administration and voucher advocates suggests that public education is a gross, wasteful failure. Instead of pride, we are scolded and shamed. In fact, it is so embarrassing that New Jersey must launch the most generous voucher program ever considered by a state legislature and do it by April 11, 2011.

Magical Thinking

Of course, Jersey schools are not perfect, especially when it comes to educating very poor kids concentrated in the same schools. This is a problem that has dogged the nation for almost 50 years, and one that evades simplistic, magical answers. Like vouchers.

The first part of the grand deception, then, is that public schools are a huge failure. The second part is that we can afford a frivolously expensive voucher program.

The hasty and confusing review given the bill suggests that this governor and this legislature have learned nothing from the practices and policies that dumped New Jersey into such a deep, debt-ridden, high-tax hole.

This voucher bill stampede mimics the enactment of the pension bond issue in 1997, the single most reckless action in recent memory. The parallels are striking: rush through a complex bill with little information and a drumbeat of deceptive advocacy to deflect attention away from the true objective.

The pension bond was Governor Whitman’s way to make up the revenues lost by slashing income tax rates by 30 percent. Her administration floated a $2.8 billion high-interest, taxable bond to replace annual payments to pension funds. By revising the actuarial assumptions of the pension system and by assuming that the then-bull market would never end, the administration produced reassuring and false numbers about the security of pensions. The pension bond measure exploited the confusion and ignorance of legislators about actuarial principles and practices.

The same breathless and artificial sense of urgency is now being employed by voucher advocates. The drumbeat: There are thousands of poor, minority students trapped in 166 schools in thirteen school districts that need to be rescued with vouchers that will permit them to attend nonpublic schools.

The chief sponsors of the bill, Senators Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) and Thomas Kean Jr. (R-Union), hammer on the shame of not throwing a lifeline to these drowning students.

A close reading of the actual mechanics of the bill and close attention to the results of other voucher programs reveal three misleading assertions:

Poor kids in failed schools will do much better in private school: The most heavily researched voucher program is the first one: Milwaukee. After 20 years, there is no reliable and consistent evidence that those attending nonpublic schools outperform their peers in Milwaukee public schools. In fact, the most neutral and reliable evaluation found that an early literacy program in the public schools produced the best results.

The purpose of the bill is to save poor students in failing public schools: In fact, most of the scholarships will not go to students trapped in such schools. Instead, it is likely that most vouchers will benefit students already attending a private school or to students attending effective public schools.

In Elizabeth, for example, only 1,500 of its 22,000 students attend a "failing" school, but the other 20,500 are allowed to apply for a scholarship if they meet the income ceiling. Moreover, already enrolled students are eligible for vouchers even if their schools will not admit students from failing district schools.

Right off the top, 25 percent of the money goes to already enrolled students attending any private school, including those that will not enroll kids from failed schools.

The bill will save 40,000 students in failed schools: There are not enough places in private schools with the experience and interest to enroll the number of students funded in the bill.

The 22,500 students attending "failing" schools in Newark, for example, can look to only seven Catholic schools (two of which are already filled), two independent schools and three evangelical schools offering perhaps 500 places (the evangelical schools do not teach to the New Jersey science standards and thus should not be eligible). The same paucity of opportunity prevails in Camden, Paterson and Trenton -- the cities with the largest enrollments in failed schools.

If the sponsors of the bill want to create a program for kids in those 166 schools, it could be easily accomplished by amending the legislation. Strike the 25 percent off-the-top payment to students already in private schools; limit vouchers to students in one of those 166 schools; reduce the ceiling to the original amounts ($6,000 for K-8; $9,000 for 9-12); and reduce the income ceiling to the criterion for reduced lunch prices.

If the bill's sponsors won't do this, we can be sure that their real motivation is to subsidize private schools all over the state -- even if they won’t take students from failing schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is too funny. Being ranked 230th in the State, I mean, we sure do get a bang for our buck! Let's hire a few more vice-principals, that should fix things. INCREDIBLE!!!

Why do we need 3 vice principals in the high school? I`ll tell you why, because our over paid stuperintendant wanted his cronies taken care of. People of Kearny wake up go to the B.O.E. meetings and tell our elected board members enough is enough. F.D. is nothing more than an OVERPAID MUSIC TEACHER who does nothing for our school system. The best thing for our schools is to get rid of F.D. !!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Inside Eyes

Why do we need 3 vice principals in the high school? I`ll tell you why, because our over paid stuperintendant wanted his cronies taken care of. People of Kearny wake up go to the B.O.E. meetings and tell our elected board members enough is enough. F.D. is nothing more than an OVERPAID MUSIC TEACHER who does nothing for our school system. The best thing for our schools is to get rid of F.D. !!!!!!!

One of the VP's is really not as close to FD as he once was--no more beating of the skins with the sticks, which were held incorrectly by a real drummer. I really don't think the other VP's are gumbas either. The spots were created and, rather than doing away with a money pit, people were hired due to being the oldest guy in his area or they couldn't handle being a VP in Washington School under *******. We may have two A**K***ers and a guy who is just running his area into the ground.

Time for a real Superintendent, not a ******* guitar player, to take the system to the twenty-first century. We are still in the 70's doing the same old same old. The technology described in the Observer today by ***** (our technology sage) is really just catching up--where is the pace setting technology that should be in place? Stop looking at the Wall Street Journal--checking your MicroSoft stock--and put some effort into the Kearny School System who has been giving you a place to hang your hat since the early seventies.

As for FD having to leave--he should have never been hired back in the early seventies. Like who did he know--like where do we start? More gumbas for sure. More connections than AT&T at this point. Can you spell ******--that has to be his thinking.

We need HELP!!

Edited by KOTW
Content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Researcher

Why do we need 3 vice principals in the high school? I`ll tell you why, because our over paid stuperintendant wanted his cronies taken care of. People of Kearny wake up go to the B.O.E. meetings and tell our elected board members enough is enough. F.D. is nothing more than an OVERPAID MUSIC TEACHER who does nothing for our school system. The best thing for our schools is to get rid of F.D. !!!!!!!

What were the district's test scores this year? How did we perform under the NCLB requirements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need 3 vice principals in the high school? I`ll tell you why, because our over paid stuperintendant wanted his cronies taken care of. People of Kearny wake up go to the B.O.E. meetings and tell our elected board members enough is enough. F.D. is nothing more than an OVERPAID MUSIC TEACHER who does nothing for our school system. The best thing for our schools is to get rid of F.D. !!!!!!!

I don't disagree with you regarding the over-abundance of administrators in our schools, but blame Frank for Frank's doings - but the 3 HS VPs have been in place for several years - after Frank went to Bloomfield and before his return to Kearny - get your facts straight. I'm sure you can find issues to blame Frank for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need 3 vice principals in the high school? I`ll tell you why, because our over paid stuperintendant wanted his cronies taken care of. People of Kearny wake up go to the B.O.E. meetings and tell our elected board members enough is enough. F.D. is nothing more than an OVERPAID MUSIC TEACHER who does nothing for our school system. The best thing for our schools is to get rid of F.D. !!!!!!!

Forget the BOE meetings! Let's all rock out with R Gang!!!!!!! I hope they have FD as a guest!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Inside Eyes

I don't disagree with you regarding the over-abundance of administrators in our schools, but blame Frank for Frank's doings - but the 3 HS VPs have been in place for several years - after Frank went to Bloomfield and before his return to Kearny - get your facts straight. I'm sure you can find issues to blame Frank for.

The fact is that the three VP's were put in place by gumba SV. Prior to that The Athletic Director was just that--not a VP. We had one VP in charge of Curriculum--I use that entire description as being not really true as the people in that position probably can't spell curriculum. We had a Dean of Discipline. Then SV got the AD and the D of D people to be VP's. Thus the three VP's and the positions were in place when FD became the Principal. Good friends became the VP of Athletics, VP of Curriculum, and the token woman PE teacher became the VP of Discipline prior to FD. So FD did not create the positions but he and SV were really close along with good old Dr. M and I would bet that FD did influence the decision making to have three VP's. Dr.CP was a gumba of SV and FD prior to leaving and now that she is back you can see the pieces fitting into the puzzle.

The Dean of Discipline (1960-1990's) had only a Bachelor's Degree and held the job for years. The AD had some classy guys and some "no class" guys in that position. Master's Degrees seemed to be in place for all the AD since 1973 or so. Big Jule ran the school (1976-1994?) with one VP Big Joe and D of D Big Bob-AD's were in place for varying periods of time as TB left to go to Florida, FR was around for a time, then JC--who became a Principal at WS. Then we get into SV time (1990's) and things changed for the good of those gumbas that got the VP jobs.

Sorry my friend, you need to get your facts straight. Yes FD did appoint VP's when he became Principal of KHS. Two of the guys are still in their positions as of this date. JM being the new guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest You Forgot

The fact is that the three VP's were put in place by gumba SV. Prior to that The Athletic Director was just that--not a VP. We had one VP in charge of Curriculum--I use that entire description as being not really true as the people in that position probably can't spell curriculum. We had a Dean of Discipline. Then SV got the AD and the D of D people to be VP's. Thus the three VP's and the positions were in place when FD became the Principal. Good friends became the VP of Athletics, VP of Curriculum, and the token woman PE teacher became the VP of Discipline prior to FD. So FD did not create the positions but he and SV were really close along with good old Dr. M and I would bet that FD did influence the decision making to have three VP's. Dr.CP was a gumba of SV and FD prior to leaving and now that she is back you can see the pieces fitting into the puzzle.

The Dean of Discipline (1960-1990's) had only a Bachelor's Degree and held the job for years. The AD had some classy guys and some "no class" guys in that position. Master's Degrees seemed to be in place for all the AD since 1973 or so. Big Jule ran the school (1976-1994?) with one VP Big Joe and D of D Big Bob-AD's were in place for varying periods of time as TB left to go to Florida, FR was around for a time, then JC--who became a Principal at WS. Then we get into SV time (1990's) and things changed for the good of those gumbas that got the VP jobs.

Sorry my friend, you need to get your facts straight. Yes FD did appoint VP's when he became Principal of KHS. Two of the guys are still in their positions as of this date. JM being the new guy.

You forgot a few new appointments that FD has made since the torch was passed. A secretary at the BOE office who is ** daughter, a Director of Curriculum who is a long time friend of ** and good buddie of the new Principal at the high school, the high school principal who is a long time friend of **, the VP at Schuyler appointed by ** after *** ***** ********** for 2 months to keep ** ** ***** and numerous other appointments. When the Gov gets done with passaic valley he should come to Kearny BOE next!

Edited by KOTW
Content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that the three VP's were put in place by gumba SV. Prior to that The Athletic Director was just that--not a VP. We had one VP in charge of Curriculum--I use that entire description as being not really true as the people in that position probably can't spell curriculum. We had a Dean of Discipline. Then SV got the AD and the D of D people to be VP's. Thus the three VP's and the positions were in place when FD became the Principal. Good friends became the VP of Athletics, VP of Curriculum, and the token woman PE teacher became the VP of Discipline prior to FD. So FD did not create the positions but he and SV were really close along with good old Dr. M and I would bet that FD did influence the decision making to have three VP's. Dr.CP was a gumba of SV and FD prior to leaving and now that she is back you can see the pieces fitting into the puzzle.

The Dean of Discipline (1960-1990's) had only a Bachelor's Degree and held the job for years. The AD had some classy guys and some "no class" guys in that position. Master's Degrees seemed to be in place for all the AD since 1973 or so. Big Jule ran the school (1976-1994?) with one VP Big Joe and D of D Big Bob-AD's were in place for varying periods of time as TB left to go to Florida, FR was around for a time, then JC--who became a Principal at WS. Then we get into SV time (1990's) and things changed for the good of those gumbas that got the VP jobs.

Sorry my friend, you need to get your facts straight. Yes FD did appoint VP's when he became Principal of KHS. Two of the guys are still in their positions as of this date. JM being the new guy.

I say "inside eyes" should be sued for defamation of character! To all proud Italian Americans, let's get this poster!

Edited by KOTW
Moved Quotation [/quote] to have quote appear correctly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say "inside eyes" should be sued for defamation of character! To all proud Italian Americans, let's get this poster!

Yeah, right! As you sit watching Jersey Shore too...right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Joker

Kearny High School @ 230? Kearny has sunk to a new low. I am so ashamed. At one time KHS produced doctors, lawyers, inventors, etc. Now, it produces rats and whimps. Get rid of the Vice Principals, and things will get better, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kearny High School @ 230? Kearny has sunk to a new low. I am so ashamed. At one time KHS produced doctors, lawyers, inventors, etc. Now, it produces rats and whimps. Get rid of the Vice Principals, and things will get better, period.

Whoever wrote this is a complete idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bob Kirk

KHS suspends students at will for any reason. The cost is enormous. from paying for legal fees ************* to paying teachers to go to the library and "home school" kids, it is a GIGANTIC cost. And do these kids really have to be suspended? 99% of the time there is no threat to other students, it is just ** proving his worth and trying to justify his own gigantic salary. Its all about the money. This is for sure; kids in Kearny back in the seventies and eighties were doing much worse things at school, and no one was getting suspended att the rate they do today. Kearny has the highest suspension rate in the State of NJ, that is a verifiable fact. Yet our school is ranked 230. Doesn't anybody see the correlation here?

Edited by KOTW
Content. Assertions may not be accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest can't read

You forgot a few new appointments that FD has made since the torch was passed. A secretary at the BOE office who is ** daughter, a Director of Curriculum who is a long time friend of ** and good buddie of the new Principal at the high school, the high school principal who is a long time friend of **, the VP at Schuyler appointed by ** after *** ***** ********** for 2 months to keep ** ** ***** and numerous other appointments. When the Gov gets done with passaic valley he should come to Kearny BOE next!

The editing make this impossible to understand, a little help KOTW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is too funny. Being ranked 230th in the State, I mean, we sure do get a bang for our buck! Let's hire a few more vice-principals, that should fix things. INCREDIBLE!!!

Whoever wrote this is a complete idiot. Get a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGREE OR DISAGREE?

vouchers would wrongly use taxes for schools with religious affiliations

Published: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:00 AM By Bob Braun/Star-Ledger Columnist

TRENTON — At recent Sunday masses, churches in the Newark Archdiocese showed a film urging parishioners to donate money to Catholic ministries, including schools. The voice-over on the film noted that Catholic education "conveys the message of Christ."

That is, of course, appropriate. Catholic schools should convey the message of Christ — but the furtherance of that message should not be accomplished with public funds that come not only voluntarily from Catholics but also involuntarily through taxes from Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, other believers and non-believers.

I am Catholic. A graduate of a Catholic elementary and a Catholic high school. I contribute weekly to my parish, monthly to a Catholic hospital, and annually to my high school.

Voluntarily.

It is just plain wrong to use taxes to promote a religious message.

That is what the Legislature, at the urging of Gov. Chris Christie and political bosses in Camden and Essex County, are about to do within weeks, if not days.

Fear and hatred of Catholics has vanished in this country, mostly because of the contributions of immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Poland and other Catholic nations. No one winced the other day when nuns testified for the voucher bill and bishops sat in the direct line of sight of Albert Coutinho, the chairman of the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee. We are now as American as apple pie. As Christie himself proves, Catholics are more than mainstream, they are in leadership.

But what if these were not Catholics? What if they were, oh, say, Muslims? What if, every time a nun extolled the virtues of Catholic schools, it was, instead, an imam promoting the values of the Quran in madrassas? What if, instead of helping Catholic schools convey the message of Christ, the bill — which it surely could — helped Islamists convey the message of Muhammad?

Why not? Yeshivas in Lakewood will get money from these vouchers. Why not Muslim schools? Will the architects of this bill help only some religions, not others?

While I might endorse the Catholic message, not everyone does — not even all Catholics. I’ve heard Catholic priests use pulpits to urge the defeat of marriage equality. I’ve heard them use pulpits to condemn abortion and birth control. Must all people, through their taxes, pay to endorse these messages — even if these beliefs offend the beliefs of others?

Wasn’t that issue settled by the First Amendment — and the specific ban on tax money going to religious ministries in the New Jersey Constitution?

The Senate voucher bill creates an $800 million, five-year "pilot" program, with much of the money, 25 percent, going, not to children "trapped" in failing urban public schools — as Christie likes to say — but to children already attending Catholic and other private schools.

It won’t go to the poorest, but to families at 250 percent of the poverty line — almost $65,000 for a family of five. Eligible children will remain eligible even if their circumstances improve — if, say, an unemployed parent gets a job and makes $100,000 or more.

If not all the available vouchers are used in the 13 target districts in this so-called "pilot," then the legislation allows the money to be redistributed among now non-eligible districts. The public also will have to pay for the transportation of these students to their religious schools.

That’s what makes the "pilot" description of the program a joke. Once enacted and funded, will the state actually take vouchers away from children who receive them?

In a few days, the Christie administration must appear in court to justify why it cut public schools by $1 billion. In arguments before the state Supreme Court, Christie’s lawyers said the state simply did not have the money to pay for a mandated public school-aid formula.

Vouchers will reduce tax revenues by up to $800 million. If it’s true that New Jersey no longer has the money to support public schools, how in the world will it have the money to support private religious schools, whether they be Catholic schools, yeshivas, or madrassas?

I am a Catholic. Catholics should support Catholic charities and schools voluntarily. The church hierarchy should reorder its finances to keep urban Catholic schools alive — although, as former Essex Catholic students and alumni will attest — the Archdiocese’s record is not good.

But no Catholic — neither I nor Chris Christie — has the right to expect Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers to support our causes, convey our messages, involuntarily through their tax dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By The Associated Press

State Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne began hearing testimony today about whether Gov. Chris Christie was within his constitutional rights last year when he cut aid to local schools by about $1 billion.

Doyne was appointed by the State Supreme Court to help determine whether the cuts violated the state's obligation to fully fund a formula for distributing money to districts.

The Christie administration says the cuts, though painful, were needed to balance the budget.

The Education Law Center, a group that advocates for students, challenged the cuts.

This morning, Jon Martin, Deputy Attorney General for the State, questioned Robert Copeland, Superintendent of the Piscataway School District, who testified to staff cuts and program eliminations made after the district lost nearly $5 million in state aid.

Testimony will continue in the Abbott v. Burke school funding case before Judge Peter Doyne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Braun: N.J. star witness connects student performance with level of school funding

Published: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 7:00 AM Updated: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 7:48 AM

By Bob Braun/Star-Ledger Columnist

TRENTON — The Christie Administration’s case against the state’s school aid formula has exploded like a trick cigar in the faces of the state lawyers trying to make it. A judge in Hackensack warned members of the Attorney General’s staff their approach misses the point of what the state Supreme Court wants done.

"I am questioning the appropriateness of the argument in this forum," Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne told Jon Martin, leader of the Attorney General’s team.

Worse, it all happened while a woman thought to be the state’s star witness was testifying. The state Department of Education’s chief statistical expert ended up agreeing on an essential point the lawyers challenging the administration’s view are trying to make—that money spent on schools does matter.

Doyne repeatedly told the state team its approach to the case headed in the wrong direction. The state, he said, was trying to argue the wisdom of the school aid formula itself, not the impact of Gov. Chris Christie’s $1 billion cut in aid to public schools.

"I do not view this case as starting anew," said Doyne, who already heard a case two years ago challenging the school aid formula, known as the School Funding Reform Act, or SFRA. On his recommendation, the state Supreme Court upheld SFRA—if fully funded.

Because Christie refused to fund SFRA fully, school districts—urban and suburban — went back to the Supreme Court and the justices remanded the case to Doyne, asking him whether the formula, with the cuts, could provide students with a "thorough and efficient" education.

"I do not consider the remand as including whether the SFRA formula was appropriate," Doyne told Martin. "I do not consider my role as looking to the wisdom of the SFRA formula. That argument is more appropriate in a different forum."

Although Doyne did not specify the "forum," it was clear he meant the Legislature. If Christie wants to change the school-aid formula, Doyne was saying, he would have to go back to the Legislature and get it to agree. The court was not the proper forum.

But Doyne’s lecture was not the only bad news for the Christie team. Its chief witness the other day was Bari Anhalt Erlichson, director of the education department’s Office of Education Data. She came to testify with a raft of charts that, Martin said, showed there was no correlation between student performance on state tests and the level of school funding.

Doyne had immediate problems with the charts. Among the most obvious—all the student test data predated the Christie cuts. But that wasn’t the worst of it. Martin went through the charts in a slow and halting manner and, hours into it, an idea appeared to occur to Doyne like a lightbulb flash—but it certainly wasn’t the idea Martin had in mind.

"If we look at these charts, could one also conclude that the school districts with the greatest level of poverty have a lower pass rate than wealthier districts?" Doyne asked Erlichson.

"Yes," she replied.

That wasn’t the conclusion Martin sought. He wanted Erlichson to testify that there was no correlation between spending and student performance. She finally did, in a way, but not in a way that helped the state’s case very much.

Erlichson pointed out that the charts did not exactly show that because the data did not try to correlate actual spending with test scores. Rather, she said, it correlated test scores with how close districts came to spending at a level considered an "adequacy budget," a kind of statistical fiction that lies at the heart of the SFRA.

On cross-examination, Erlichson told lawyer David Sciarra that she had no opinion whether the adequacy budgets were "fair or appropriate." She also agreed the charts—prepared at the administration’s request—did not "tell us anything about growth over time."

Sciarra, head of the Education Law Center, then asked the question that seemed aimed right at the heart of the Christie Administration’s theory of the case: "Is it your testimony today that money doesn’t matter?"

"No," answered Bari Anhalt Erlichson. :blink:

© 2011 NJ.com. All rights reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It terrible. We have some wonderful teachers in Kearny but they are overshadowed by the bad ones and the administators just out for themselves. Just last week the ******* of *** ******* ** was ********** *** **** **********...this is who we entrust out children to. *** was the ********** at ******** who spent all of *** time in the office the last few years in order to get that promotion.

Edited by KOTW
Content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GIVE TO THE RICH TAKE FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Hard to believe the state is as broke as the Gov claims when there is no problem designating:

-- $250 million in tax credits for the privately owned Revel hotel.

--$800 million in tax credits for private/charter school vouchers

And the Gov's veto of the "millionaires tax" which would have kept the 2009 top state income tax rates in place for 2010. That was another $600+ million...Millionaires have suffered enough!! give the 600K crowd a tax break, or take from the public schools and give to the private schools. The man is a CON MAN nothing less.

Don't forget his lets Raise the Tolls stance.

Hopefuylly there are no more schemes to steal local property taxpayer provided school surpluses which are funds that can be put towards next years school budgets. Last years heist was basically a $400 million local property tax increase from Trenton since these funds have to be replaced by local property taxpayers when needed.

DON'T FORGET HIS DEBACLE OF RACE TO THE TOP ..LOST FUNDING..ANOTHER 400 MIL.

ITSA LOTTA MONEY LOST.

What I don't understand is why the state of NJ sends so much money to Washington in tax dollars but gets so few back. The Federal tax dollars NJ gets back are the lowest of any state. Why isn't Christie fighting Washington for more tax dollars?

MAYBE HE SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT TO GET HIM OUTTA HERE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...