Dollar$ & Sense Education Advocacy Presents to the Senate Education Committee
To the Senate Education Committee:
We make the assumption that all want the best possible education for all children, and that all seek educational quality as well as fiscal efficiency. Our comments will recognize that other education advocacy organizations will discuss the issues of the 4% cap, burdensome regulations, the use of surplus in lieu of aide, salaries and benefits, NJQSAC, charters, vouchers, and even the dollars that public schools pay to parents for busing to private schools.
It is our opinion that hard caps distribute the hurt unevenly, 215 pages of regulations goes much too far, we do not favor using excess surplus that is a taxpayer’s contribution in lieu of aide, we would love to contain the cost of salaries and benefits, monitoring proven performers is wasteful, we’re very concerned about charters, we dislike vouchers, and we think a lot of money used for aide in lieu of busing is improperly allocated. This is all we will say about this, for now. We want to discuss the Department of Education. We will refer to the organization, not the individuals. We will make points; we will not point fingers.
The premise is, if the right model is in place, and the right people perform the needed tasks, there would be little need for legislation. As simplistic as it might sound, we have to recognize that simple is better when we are in trouble, and we are indeed in trouble. There are hundreds and hundreds of education bills already in this session’s hopper. The need for so many bills means that things are flawed at the very core. We believe in addressing first things first.
It is critical to understand that good politics isn’t necessarily good leadership or the best economic choice. We must recognize that when research contradicts rhetoric, the rhetoric has to change. These are business principles with proven value.
Sound business judgment tells us that we must address today’s issues in a manner that insures that we will be prepared for tomorrow. The waste of unintended consequences is the result of bad planning. The economic impact of poor reactive decisions will always leave us trying to catch up. We can’t afford that and we can’t do that to children. They are the ones who will pay the bills we create today. The informed insight of former Assistant Commissioner Gerald Vernotica is right on point; “efficiency cannot come at the expense of educational quality.”
To accomplish our goals, we suggest the most basic business model, a simple pyramid. The base of our model supports everything above it topping off with quality leadership. Executive leadership in business, on successful sports teams, in schools, and in government is successful if the broad base provides support. In contrast, an inverted pyramid, very heavy on the top, is sure to fall. At the top of our pyramid is the Commissioner of Education. The single most important task for the commissioner is the selection of Assistant Commissioners. The responsibility of determining educational priorities and providing the guidelines for implementing them will be the difference between success and failure.
The well-chosen Assistant Commissioners must be educators with an acute sense of fiscal responsibility. They will recognize the need to establish definite priorities of what is most important to the Department of Education. A balance must be determined as to what can actually be accomplished. With clear realistic goals as the guide, energy and resources can be allocated in the most efficient manner. The Assistant Commissioners must have the fortitude to stand up to the pressures of politics.
We propose that the Department of Education (D.O.E.) must include the best educators in the state. The D.O.E. must be the “GO TO” organization for every school district in the state. A performance audit done by KPMG made very clear, the D.O.E. cannot be all things to all people. A Department of Education that focuses on the policing of regulations is not contributing to the advancement of our educational needs. The current economic distress does not lessen our need to prepare for tomorrow. If we act thinking that today’s challenges are the only challenges, tomorrow will be worse than today.
To meet educational demands, economic demands, and political demands, the next level on the pyramid is the Executive County Superintendent and their offices. This is the point where we determine our success. We are very aware of the Transition Team’s suggestion for regional rather than county offices. This is a case where research must overwhelm the rhetoric. (Dollar$ & Sense Education Advocacy is now preparing a paper specifically addressing the value of county and district leadership. We will present this paper in the near future.) The Office of the County Superintendent goes back to 1867. It is safe to say that there have been great accomplishments to learn from. Looking at the current statute 18A, subtitle 4, chapter 7, we see the specific duties of the County Superintendent outlined. They run from A to X. Without a County Department of Education office, who would have these responsibilities? Who would implement the demands of NCLB? How long would it take to get this work done? An efficient County office, properly staffed is the conduit to the local districts. They bring the D.O.E. to our schools. Providing specific local assistance provides educational and fiscal efficiencies. We are all looking to reduce costs. Focusing on specific areas of need is fiscally more efficient than micromanaging the entire system. The well-chosen Executive County Superintendent establishes the relationships that make the difference. These relationships open the doors for the successes we require.
We should also recognize that the regional offices suggested by the Transition Team were last implemented when Dr. Librera was Education Commissioner. The result of that effort spoke for itself. The offices were closed.
Next on the pyramid are the district Superintendents. This is where the real heavy lifting is done. We see throughout business and sport, that great managers are needed to make great teams great. The SCI report of a few years ago brought specific abuses to light. Beyond the few incidents that required immediate correction, the report did harm that we have not recovered from today. The SCI research team looked at 11.5% of our school districts. A picture was painted with a very broad brush that does not represent the great majority of our district leaders. Our local superintendents are a critical ingredient in the success of our team. When we look at the many successes of New Jersey schools, we must first look to our students. Next, we must look to our district leadership.
At the base of our pyramid are our local Boards of Education. There are no public officials in all of New Jersey that are as well trained as Board of Education members. Home rule, often considered an indulgence, provides the most specific insights into the needs of every child. Decisions must be economically practical, but they also must be educationally sound to meet the specific needs of a child.
Local Boards make the decisions about our district administration and there are those who find fault. This is another time where the research contradicts the rhetoric. Frank Belluscio, NJSBA’s Director of Communications not long ago shared, “A U.S. Department of Education report ranks New Jersey 38th among the states in school administrative spending. The data provides an objective, fair comparison. Yet, even though the Legislature’s own commission on business efficiency backs the data, certain key lawmakers reject the report.” We further express our support for local Boards of Education by asking all to consider the return on investment. New Jersey schools and our students are at the top of the success lists. We must continue to do our best to insure that this is true for all tomorrows.
Education advocates have a sense of educational needs, but we also have a sense of the same reality that is motivating this Legislature and our Governor. We know that schools must use business judgments to create greater efficiency. We try to impress upon those who make the critical decisions that the best possible economic decisions recognize that fiscal efficiency without educational quality would be a bad business decision.
It must be recognized that schools can’t be looked at as if we were a business. We cannot control our inventory. We cannot control the quality of our raw materials. We accept all children, regardless of abilities and needs. Our cost of goods sold cannot be regulated or made consistent. We cannot choose the market we wish to sell. We cannot regulate our mark-ups. Our outcomes are not predictable. Our work force and how we manage them is substantially regulated by legislated mandate. We cannot reward high performance and we cannot eliminate those who perform poorly.
We were asked to present testimony on our educational priorities for the current legislative session. Below is our summary:
1) Restructure the Department of Education to provide the leadership and the technical assistance required to meet the educational needs of a global society, the current economic challenges, and to insure that we are prepared for tomorrow.
a) A strong base that supports the educational needs of our children and our communities. Local Boards of Education and home rule can be productive and economical.
b) The pyramid builds up to district Superintendents. They administer to day-to-day student, family, and community needs. Their local education leadership is critical for educational success and economic efficiency.
c) Continue to build with well-chosen Executive County Superintendents. Empower them to represent the requirements of the Department of Education, the Commissioner, and the Legislature. They should represent the greatest educational assets of the D.O.E.
d) Assistant Commissioners choose the right people for the right positions to accomplish the educational needs along with fiscal efficiencies.
e) The Commissioner does what successful leaders do, they delegate in a manner that is consistent with the mission of the Department.
2) Recognize that economic efficiencies are a natural result of educational efficiencies. Targeted interventions provide the best and most efficient results.
3) Rid us of the broad brush that paints our most talented majority with the taint of the few who choose to abuse the system. This applies to educators, politicians, and business people.
4) Put our most talented people in positions where they can do the most good.
5) All Legislative initiatives regarding education should be subject to a fiscal evaluation by the Department of Legislative Services and an educational evaluation by a representative group of Executive County Superintendents. Rid us of unintended consequences.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Snyder
Executive Director
917-301-4247
We make the assumption that all want the best possible education for all children, and that all seek educational quality as well as fiscal efficiency. Our comments will recognize that other education advocacy organizations will discuss the issues of the 4% cap, burdensome regulations, the use of surplus in lieu of aide, salaries and benefits, NJQSAC, charters, vouchers, and even the dollars that public schools pay to parents for busing to private schools.
It is our opinion that hard caps distribute the hurt unevenly, 215 pages of regulations goes much too far, we do not favor using excess surplus that is a taxpayer’s contribution in lieu of aide, we would love to contain the cost of salaries and benefits, monitoring proven performers is wasteful, we’re very concerned about charters, we dislike vouchers, and we think a lot of money used for aide in lieu of busing is improperly allocated. This is all we will say about this, for now. We want to discuss the Department of Education. We will refer to the organization, not the individuals. We will make points; we will not point fingers.
The premise is, if the right model is in place, and the right people perform the needed tasks, there would be little need for legislation. As simplistic as it might sound, we have to recognize that simple is better when we are in trouble, and we are indeed in trouble. There are hundreds and hundreds of education bills already in this session’s hopper. The need for so many bills means that things are flawed at the very core. We believe in addressing first things first.
It is critical to understand that good politics isn’t necessarily good leadership or the best economic choice. We must recognize that when research contradicts rhetoric, the rhetoric has to change. These are business principles with proven value.
Sound business judgment tells us that we must address today’s issues in a manner that insures that we will be prepared for tomorrow. The waste of unintended consequences is the result of bad planning. The economic impact of poor reactive decisions will always leave us trying to catch up. We can’t afford that and we can’t do that to children. They are the ones who will pay the bills we create today. The informed insight of former Assistant Commissioner Gerald Vernotica is right on point; “efficiency cannot come at the expense of educational quality.”
To accomplish our goals, we suggest the most basic business model, a simple pyramid. The base of our model supports everything above it topping off with quality leadership. Executive leadership in business, on successful sports teams, in schools, and in government is successful if the broad base provides support. In contrast, an inverted pyramid, very heavy on the top, is sure to fall. At the top of our pyramid is the Commissioner of Education. The single most important task for the commissioner is the selection of Assistant Commissioners. The responsibility of determining educational priorities and providing the guidelines for implementing them will be the difference between success and failure.
The well-chosen Assistant Commissioners must be educators with an acute sense of fiscal responsibility. They will recognize the need to establish definite priorities of what is most important to the Department of Education. A balance must be determined as to what can actually be accomplished. With clear realistic goals as the guide, energy and resources can be allocated in the most efficient manner. The Assistant Commissioners must have the fortitude to stand up to the pressures of politics.
We propose that the Department of Education (D.O.E.) must include the best educators in the state. The D.O.E. must be the “GO TO” organization for every school district in the state. A performance audit done by KPMG made very clear, the D.O.E. cannot be all things to all people. A Department of Education that focuses on the policing of regulations is not contributing to the advancement of our educational needs. The current economic distress does not lessen our need to prepare for tomorrow. If we act thinking that today’s challenges are the only challenges, tomorrow will be worse than today.
To meet educational demands, economic demands, and political demands, the next level on the pyramid is the Executive County Superintendent and their offices. This is the point where we determine our success. We are very aware of the Transition Team’s suggestion for regional rather than county offices. This is a case where research must overwhelm the rhetoric. (Dollar$ & Sense Education Advocacy is now preparing a paper specifically addressing the value of county and district leadership. We will present this paper in the near future.) The Office of the County Superintendent goes back to 1867. It is safe to say that there have been great accomplishments to learn from. Looking at the current statute 18A, subtitle 4, chapter 7, we see the specific duties of the County Superintendent outlined. They run from A to X. Without a County Department of Education office, who would have these responsibilities? Who would implement the demands of NCLB? How long would it take to get this work done? An efficient County office, properly staffed is the conduit to the local districts. They bring the D.O.E. to our schools. Providing specific local assistance provides educational and fiscal efficiencies. We are all looking to reduce costs. Focusing on specific areas of need is fiscally more efficient than micromanaging the entire system. The well-chosen Executive County Superintendent establishes the relationships that make the difference. These relationships open the doors for the successes we require.
We should also recognize that the regional offices suggested by the Transition Team were last implemented when Dr. Librera was Education Commissioner. The result of that effort spoke for itself. The offices were closed.
Next on the pyramid are the district Superintendents. This is where the real heavy lifting is done. We see throughout business and sport, that great managers are needed to make great teams great. The SCI report of a few years ago brought specific abuses to light. Beyond the few incidents that required immediate correction, the report did harm that we have not recovered from today. The SCI research team looked at 11.5% of our school districts. A picture was painted with a very broad brush that does not represent the great majority of our district leaders. Our local superintendents are a critical ingredient in the success of our team. When we look at the many successes of New Jersey schools, we must first look to our students. Next, we must look to our district leadership.
At the base of our pyramid are our local Boards of Education. There are no public officials in all of New Jersey that are as well trained as Board of Education members. Home rule, often considered an indulgence, provides the most specific insights into the needs of every child. Decisions must be economically practical, but they also must be educationally sound to meet the specific needs of a child.
Local Boards make the decisions about our district administration and there are those who find fault. This is another time where the research contradicts the rhetoric. Frank Belluscio, NJSBA’s Director of Communications not long ago shared, “A U.S. Department of Education report ranks New Jersey 38th among the states in school administrative spending. The data provides an objective, fair comparison. Yet, even though the Legislature’s own commission on business efficiency backs the data, certain key lawmakers reject the report.” We further express our support for local Boards of Education by asking all to consider the return on investment. New Jersey schools and our students are at the top of the success lists. We must continue to do our best to insure that this is true for all tomorrows.
Education advocates have a sense of educational needs, but we also have a sense of the same reality that is motivating this Legislature and our Governor. We know that schools must use business judgments to create greater efficiency. We try to impress upon those who make the critical decisions that the best possible economic decisions recognize that fiscal efficiency without educational quality would be a bad business decision.
It must be recognized that schools can’t be looked at as if we were a business. We cannot control our inventory. We cannot control the quality of our raw materials. We accept all children, regardless of abilities and needs. Our cost of goods sold cannot be regulated or made consistent. We cannot choose the market we wish to sell. We cannot regulate our mark-ups. Our outcomes are not predictable. Our work force and how we manage them is substantially regulated by legislated mandate. We cannot reward high performance and we cannot eliminate those who perform poorly.
We were asked to present testimony on our educational priorities for the current legislative session. Below is our summary:
1) Restructure the Department of Education to provide the leadership and the technical assistance required to meet the educational needs of a global society, the current economic challenges, and to insure that we are prepared for tomorrow.
a) A strong base that supports the educational needs of our children and our communities. Local Boards of Education and home rule can be productive and economical.
b) The pyramid builds up to district Superintendents. They administer to day-to-day student, family, and community needs. Their local education leadership is critical for educational success and economic efficiency.
c) Continue to build with well-chosen Executive County Superintendents. Empower them to represent the requirements of the Department of Education, the Commissioner, and the Legislature. They should represent the greatest educational assets of the D.O.E.
d) Assistant Commissioners choose the right people for the right positions to accomplish the educational needs along with fiscal efficiencies.
e) The Commissioner does what successful leaders do, they delegate in a manner that is consistent with the mission of the Department.
2) Recognize that economic efficiencies are a natural result of educational efficiencies. Targeted interventions provide the best and most efficient results.
3) Rid us of the broad brush that paints our most talented majority with the taint of the few who choose to abuse the system. This applies to educators, politicians, and business people.
4) Put our most talented people in positions where they can do the most good.
5) All Legislative initiatives regarding education should be subject to a fiscal evaluation by the Department of Legislative Services and an educational evaluation by a representative group of Executive County Superintendents. Rid us of unintended consequences.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Snyder
Executive Director
917-301-4247
Comment
About
© 2010 Created by Dollar$ and Sense on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Dollar$ & Sense Education Advocacy to add comments!
Join Dollar$ & Sense Education Advocacy