Unanswered questions and lack of contingency plans dominate August 23rd Board of Education meeting
Since the Item (August 25) and the Independent Press (August 31) reported on the recent Board of Education (BOE) Meeting, WeLoveMillburn.com has received a number of questions regarding the proceedings of that particular meeting. There was tension resulting from a collective frustration among the attending residents with the School Administration and the BOE as they failed to answer direct questions. Highlights of the meeting are as follows:
- The Administration failed to answer four consecutive questions from the public on a single topic — whether the BOE was aware of the NJ Dept. of Education methodology for projecting demographics into the future that is required for the project application for state funds. Instead the Administration replied by demeaning the validity of the state's methodology as well as that of the BOE commissioned Weissman study. The State and Weissman both demonstrate much lower enrollment projections than the BOE's demographic projections (BOCES). The Administration and Board President refused to allow the Board members themselves to answer the question, but finally Board member Josh Scharf responded and stated that he was not told about this requirement prior to the vote to proceed with the application. We remain concerned that the Administration has omitted from the Board and also from the LRPC (Long Range Planning Committee) such information that does not support its position.
- The question also was raised as to whether the Administration has developed alternatives to the proposed bond referendum, or a contingency plan in the event that it is defeated. This was a follow-up question to a similar one posed in a June BOE meeting where the Administration and the BOE stated that they would be developing such a plans and alternatives over the summer and would be able to speak to these issues in September. This time the Administration denied ever having suggested it would provide such a plan, and stated that it, "...will not provide the community with alternatives or contingency plans". Obviously, we have grave concerns about their unwillingness to consider these issues given the highly uncertain outcome of this bond referendum.
- The Administration did discuss their expectation for a higher than expected Kindergarten enrollment this year. It projected that the incoming Kindergarten class will be 352 and claimed that this single data point alone validates the BOCES projection and indicates that the Weissman and State DOE projections are "wrong". While this is an important statistic, it was not mentioned that kindergarten class sizes are volatile and that the BOCES projections significantly overestimated those same class sizes just a year ago. As a note, Kindergarten enrollments have fluctuated broadly in the past 10 years between 300 and 375, but the overall trend of Kindergarten enrollment is clearly down and is likely to continue in this direction given the consistent and significant decline in birth rates that this town is experiencing.
- Board members stated that enrollment issues were not the only impetus for the substantial $40 million bond referendum, but also "program" changes and upgrades were driving the overall cost. These program upgrades were not specified in the meeting, but it is interesting to note that this was a different rationale for the expansion than the pure capacity constraints and projected school population which has been the primary reason cited throughout most of this year.
- Later in the meeting one of WeLoveMillburn.com's advisors Dave Dwyer seized the attention of all participants — Administration, BOE and residents alike — by reading from archived Editorials and Letters to the Editor from The Item in the aftermath of a similar bond referendum and school expansion in 1966. The parallel between that situation and today's dilemma was apparent to all. Both situations occurred with virtually an identical level of town population and school population, and similar growth/decline dynamics. The year 1966 turned out to be the high water mark for school enrollment at 4,400, followed by 23 consecutive years of declining school population to a low of roughly 2,200 in 1989. The history read by Mr. Dwyer told how after having spent significantly to build and expand school facilities in the early to mid '60s, the district ultimately closed a total of 3 schools including the old Washington School, Short Hills (Hobart Ave.) School, and South Mountain School. Particularly painful was the sale of the Washington School, which occurred only 8 years after having been built. Understandably, the editorials during this period were blistering in regard to the competence and judgment of the Administration and the BOE. Dwyer went on to pose the question of how do we know weêre not repeating this history. Reading this history seemed to give all in attendance pause to realize that there are natural limits to growth and that school populations are cyclical. Board member Brenda White commented that consideration of this history was an important factor in her vote against proceeding with the $40 million referendum plan.
- Notably, Board member Scott Kamber stated flatly that "the buck stops here" with the Board — that the Board is ultimately responsible for the decisions and direction regarding education in town. It is for others to propose but for the Board to ultimately decide.
- In response to a citizen's question Mr. Kamber also replied that the notion of a single architect who has essentially acted as an architect of record and as a construction architect is a significant conflict of interest that needs to be addressed. Kamber apparently agrees with WeLoveMillburn.com that there are no checks and balances on our district's architect, who gets paid in direct proportion to the amount our school system spends on construction. This appeared to be the first time that a member of the Board has acknowledged the conflict inherent with the School District's "Architect of Record" relationship.
Finally, In The Item's article, WeLoveMillburn.com was identified as, "opponents to a proposed $40.2 million bond referendum". Spokespeople for the group took exception to this characterization in the August 23rd meeting. The group is not opposed to a bond referendum but rather lacks confidence in the objectivity and creativity exhibited in the current plan proposed by the School Administration and the Board of Education. Members of WeLoveMillburn.com and other interested parties involved in this debate recognize that there are needs for improvement to the district's school facilities. The frustration is with a plan that ignores the reality of demographics and creates a jumbo-sized Millburn Middle School — studies show that such large scale schools are not conducive to effective education. The group believes there are alternatives that have not been seriously considered which provide attractive solutions that can be implemented substantially faster, are less disruptive to our students (particularly at the middle school) and are less onerous to Millburn's already high property tax burden which unfortunately has the distinction of being the highest of any municipality in the State of New Jersey.
WeLoveMillburn.com
September 4, 2005
|
