Teaneck School Officials Urge Residents To Rally for Charter School Reform
Residents sound off on proposed virtual charter school
Teaneck school officials urged residents to lobby the Legislature and state Education Department for changes to charter school laws as public outcry continued Tuesday over the more than $15 million budget projection for a proposed virtual charter school in town.
At issue is a charter application submitted for the Garden State Virtual Charter School, which would offer a statewide online curriculum with a drop-in center in Teaneck. In October, state education officials notified Superintendent Barbara Pinsak that the charter could cost Teaneck $15.4 million. State officials contend the figure is only a guide based on all students coming from Teaneck, but Pinsak said the cost would devastate the public school system.
A meeting between the district and senior state education officials to discuss the projection was largely fruitless, Board of Education President Ardie Walser said at a special public meeting Tuesday night. State officials told Teaneck to take a “wait and see” approach and reiterated that the amount was only an estimate, not a budget requirement.
“We did not leave with the warm-fuzzies,” he said.
Walser said the state did not provide Teaneck with a new budget projection.
The county schools superintendent could toss the district’s budget if it does not allocate funds for the charter school, said Business Administrator Robert Finger.
“What we’re witnessing here is fiscal starvation of the public school system in New Jersey, and we’re also seeing erosion of local control,” said Clara Williams, a Board of Education member.
The exact budget impact would depend on the amount of Teaneck students who attended the online school. Although the school proposed to serve 1,000 students from across New Jersey next fall, Teaneck would only be responsible for residents who enrolled.
The district could ask the state education commissioner for a ruling in the case, said Board of Education General Counsel Philip Stern. New Jersey’s charter school law is more than a decade old and was enacted before virtual schools were being debated.
“Clearly, one of the aspects of what we’re dealing with here tonight is another example of how the law is so far behind technology,” Stern said.
Board of Education member Henry Pruitt urged residents to use email and social networks to advocate for charter school reform.
“We have an opportunity here, in a very political environment, to get people to change their minds,” Pruitt said.
More than a hundred residents attended Tuesday's special public meeting, with most who spoke voicing concern about the proposed school.
Barbara Ostroth, a former school board member, said the charter school issue had implications beyond Teaneck.
"I think it’s time for us to get on the bus to Trenton and scream," said Kevin Barksdale, a township resident.
The district posted information on its website about legislation seeking more local control over charter schools. A form letter urging the state to deny the virtual school’s charter application is also posted on the website.
The funding formula for virtual charter schools is the same as traditional charter schools, with a district responsible for equal to 90 percent of a sending district’s per-pupil costs.
Garden State Virtual Charter School co-founder Jason Flynn has pledged to delay opening the school if the state does not address funding laws for virtual schools.
Flynn said he asked to meet with school officials but did not receive a response. The virtual school’s board tried to ease concerns and “find common ground” with the district, he said.
“The Teaneck BOE is wasting thousands of taxpayer’s dollars on this ‘anti-GSVCS campaign,’” Flynn, a Teaneck public school parent, said in an email Tuesday night. Flynn has said the majority of students would not come from Teaneck and the school would focus on special-needs populations.
Walser said state education officials also suggested a meeting, but the Board of Education did not want to create an appearance of trying to pressure the charter's founders.
Flynn said the charter school also planned to hold its own public meeting to dispel rumors, answer questions and explain the school's programs.
The state will announce in January if the virtual school is approved, according to an Education Department spokesman.
Jim Dunleavy
9:27 am on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Am in full support of changes to the law that would allow local municipalities to be able to vote on whether they want a charter school in their town or not. I also agree that laws need to reflect the ability to use new technology that would lower costs while not sacrificing educational quality. The latter being of great concern to me with these new charter school proposals. I again urge others to consider that your tax dollars are being used to fund these charter schools, which are privately owned entities. While perhaps listed as not for profit companies, the raisng of questions relative to where the difference between actual costs and the revenue taken in are real and need real answers and perhpas potential legal restrictions explored. But again the main issue is that these schools are being funded by citizen tax dollars. Do we want in this state tax dollars being used for a parallel school structure that has limited admission, less oversite and from what I have read dubious educational outcomes for our children. i would like to see more partnering of these new technologies with public school systems rather creating these parellel structures that as citizens who pay for them, have no voice in stopping their creation. I end by again asking the same question I have asked for years and have still not heard a good answer...why do we need charter schools?
Art Vatsky
9:43 am on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Teaneck Board of Ed is in the same position financial/political/educational situation as a steer would be in a meat processing corral. We can go thru any of the gates we see ahead of us but the result is the same - our school system ends up as chopped meat. The only answer is to jump over the fence.
Actually, I can't think of a worse way for education to move ahead in NJ than the way this issue is being handled by the state. It seems vindictive and politically motivated. "Let's see, the applicant sleeps in Teaneck. OK, we'll make Teaneck the test case! That gets the rest of our school districts off the hook. Further, Teaneck plays by (our) rules so they can't win. Let's destroy their conventional, stressed, reasonably progressive, integrated school system first. State Bureaucracy in NJ trumps Local Education!"
We need to tell Trenton that this steer will not go quietly down the chute they tell us to take. We are going to go to the other end of the corral and sharpen our horns instead. Don't mess with Teaneck!
Jessica Brown
10:04 am on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
I have done my research on this matter. The GSVCS, or any statewide charter school, won't impact any school district inappropriately. Rather, a school district only pays for children from within that district that enrolls for the charter program. If a district has 0 children enrolled in the GSVCS, it will pay $0 [this includes Teaneck]. If a district has 5 children enrolled, the district will pay for those 5 students. In other words, this should not financially impact any single district significantly. I understand there is a 90% funding rule for charter schools, but I also have heard that Trenton is working on an overhaul that will reduce that figure for virtual charter programs.
Another thought I had. For strong school districts, no matter how strong a charter school program exits, why would any parent remove their child from the local brick and mortar school district? I could understand for very weak performing school districts some parents may choose to check out another option, like a charter school. My suggestion to local school districts – strive to be a strong academic program, produce quality results, strong test scores and strong and diversified programming, and the possibility of even having five children leave the school district for a charter is relative small.
Lisa Rhodes
5:39 pm on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Agree with you, Jessica. Doesn't the district understand that,too? GSVCS seems like it might be great for some students but certainly not all. If the district is meeting the needs of its students, why are they so opposed? For some students, this might be a great option and even prevent some students from dropping out of school. What about students who can't physically be in school for a period of time or have issues that make it very difficult in the traditional classroom? This could be a life changing option for those kids. I think we should allow parents and students choice. I hope that future discussions in Trenton, Teaneck and throughout the state have a similar goal of "what is best for kids?"
DMAB6395
11:15 am on Friday, December 2, 2011
I totally agree with you, Jessica. Some kids are not able to function well in a "conventional" school-so why not give them the chance to learn in other ways. I also agree that this should cut down on students who quit school as soon as they reach the age of 16. My son was one who quit because he couldn't function in a regular school environment but if he was able to do it at home & on the computer he would have had the chance to stay in school & graduate. Instead he went & got his GED. I'm not too clear on how they are going about to pay for it. But if we are already pay taxes for the "conventional" brick schools-shouldn't this cover those who are going into the newer charter schools. I also think that this is a better choice than what that woman did about a year ago when she "lied" about where they lived so her children were able to go to a better school in another district & they were putting her in jail for fraud. If the charter school was set up where she is she would have had a better choice. Our dropout rates are getting higher & higher & with all the budget cuts that we are facing & are being affected by why not have this as an option.
This has nothing to do with Teaneck, but where my niece goes to school, (Carteret High) they can not take books home because there are not enough, they have no more paper-no homework because there's no books. This can happen here as well, Virtual Charter Schools will stop this from happening here & to our kids.
Art Vatsky
10:33 am on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Jessica, read your comment. It makes perfect sense. But this is NJ. As I understand it, NJ state government is requiring that the Teaneck Bd of Ed set aside $15.4 million as a contingency that ALL the students for the GSVCS come from Teaneck. I offer this counter solution: How about all the 660+ school districts in NJ put in a "placeholder fee" of 1.5 students (to get to 1,000 - the proposed registration) for the first year of the GSVCS. That would give each school district an equal burden and opportunity for a state-wide school and get Teaneck out from under this absurd letter and threat of punitive action if Teaneck doesn't comply. Even in NJ, logic should trump politic once in a while.
Fay Lee
11:18 am on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Great idea, Art. The key issue here is the state law, not this school, or that school. Time for the law to catch up with today's world. Also agree with Jessica that solid districts like Teaneck should have little concern about charter schools. Virtual charter schools especially seem to draw 'niche' students - very above or below grade level, competitive athletes, etc. - who by definition are few and far between in the traditional public school system.
Tom Abbott
10:43 am on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Nation's December issue article, How Online Learning Companies Bought America's Schools at http://www.thenation.com/article/164651/how-online-learning-companies-bought-americas-schools is worth reading.
Charter schools and more so virtual charter schools have become big business. Though charter schools in NJ are by law are formed as not-for-profit, this does not stop a non-profit charter school from handing over it's operations, management and money to a private for profit company. This appears to be the case for the proposed "Garden State Virtual Charter School".
There has been much talk about the gap between the $10,000,000 proposed budget and the $15.000,000 Teaneck is being asked to set aside for the new charter. However, the profit for the management company will come from the $10,000,000 and as a private company their finances will not be open to public scrutiny. By the third year, the charter proposes to have 3000 students statewide with a $30,000,000 budget.
JamesTS
11:52 am on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Why would the school not even meet with Mr. Flynn? He seems ready to work with them to address this issue and answer concerns. Why not just have a simple meeting?That doesnt make sense to me and sounds like politics
JeffO
8:02 pm on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
JamesTS, There are a number reasons why the Teaneck BOE might not want its school leaders to enter into discussions with the GSVCS, and the public gave it couple more last night. Here are two that I think are especially compelling:
1. First and foremost, the issues raised by the NJ Department of Education's letter to the district, which were inadequately addressed at a subsequent meeting with the DOE, are not issues that Mr. Flynn and his GSVSC can resolve. A ruling is needed from the acting Commissioner of Education, and that is where the focus needs to be.
It's all well and good that the GSVCS has pledged in the newspapers that it won't open until the state changes its charter school funding laws for virtual schools, and we can all hope they follow through on that pledge. But that's another good reason why the two bodies should keep a healthy distance from each other.
2. As the district in which the GSVCS has its "address of record," Teaneck is also required to respond to all aspects of the charter application -- including educational issues, which should be addressed from a purely educational standpoint. It would be in both parties' interest to avoid any appearance of a "quid pro quo," e.g., a delay in the virtual school's opening in return for less than due diligence in Teaneck's application response.
Jim Dunleavy
1:38 pm on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
No one would enter this type of project to lose money, so I assume profit has a motive here. Iam not against profit to be sure, but do I want my tax dollars going to create that private profit for a service that, with commitment of the educational community could be provided within the current public school system. Has the educational community been heard screaming for such? Fix the laws and make these initiatives part of our current, public tax dollar paid for school system.
Art Vatsky
2:17 pm on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Jim: I think you left out some key words. Don't you mean, ". . . I DO NOT want my tax dollars going to create that private profit for a service that, with commitment of the educational community could be provided within the current public school system"?
Further, what For Profit schools have done to higher education is the equivalent of the 2008 mortgage crisis. Students, some unprepared, are recruited to these schools who encourage them to get federally insured loans to pay tuition. Those that can't keep up drop out and the federal government ends up paying the schools. Appalling!
Jim Dunleavy
2:49 pm on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
You are correct Art I meant "not" just typing too fast. I believe our society has a responsibility to educate effectively for the future progress of our society. To put this important element of society in privately owned hands is wrong. I know Mr. Flynn and he is good man with a good heart, I just disagree with this method and hope that public education looks at the merits of different delivery models that can be incorporated into our public systems
Art Vatsky
3:17 pm on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Jim: That's OK. I do the same thing from time to time. But you gotta be careful here in Teaneck. If the unintended statement is printed, you could end up being censured.
Jessica Brown
5:53 pm on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Lisa...I agree with you. I know a few families that are very interested in GSVCS. Some of them have their children on long bus rides / with special transport, to distant, out of district buildings, that can handle their child's needed physical condition or other services. This costs the home district serious money - often over $50,000 a year per child. However, this is not just about the money. The family, the child / student does not enjoy the long, difficult commute daily to this out of district facility. The child comes back so "down and tired". These children and families have been seeking alternatives for a long time - now, NJ may catch up with many other states and offer it.
I don't know many star youth athletes that compete internationally, but a friend of mine does. The students have a very weak educational structure during their rigid training, but students in other states with this profile, do not fall behind due to the flexibility of the virtual charter school.
I for one, and many of my neighbors, are very excited to learn about this option. It may not be right for all my children, but we at least want to learn more. My interest has been captured. If not appropriate for my children, I am happy those with special circumstances will now have this option available to them in New Jersey.
Diane Schwarz
12:26 pm on Friday, December 2, 2011
Classified children's parents can address the "down & tired" aspect of kids travelling at regular IEP meetings, or with the child's case manager at any time. Virtual classes, plus other remedies can be addressed WITHOUT an actual separate school. Many of these children have needs like PT, SLT, OT, etc. that could NOT be "virtual". Classified kids are entitled to the LEAST restrictive environment, which sitting at home with a TV would not be.