Thank you for giving the people of Jersey City the opportunity to comment on theprogress of the state takeover of our public schools. As you listen to tonight's testimony, Ithink you will find that the majority of residents, parents, and taxpayers of Jersey City supporta rapid return to local control of our schools.
Why is the takeover so unpopular in Jersey City? Because, quite frankly, the takeoverhas been a failure. It has failed to improve the quality of education that our children receive,and it is burdening our residents with runaway spending and higher taxes.
First, let's examine the academic progress of our students since the takeover. Regardless of how you measure academic performance, Jersey City ranks near the bottom. Graduation rates have not significantly increased, and we continue to have fewer than halfof our ninth graders graduating from high school. High School Proficiency Test scores havebarely budged. And given the preliminary results of the Early Warning Test for 8th graders,we do not see any reason to expect significant improvement.
Have there been any significant changes during the four years of state control?Yes, spending is up 48%, or approximately $87 million per year. This dramatic increase inspending has caused the school portion of our local tax rate to increase by 47%, despite thefact that the State has given us an extra $72 million per year to operate our schools. Onewould think, after this substantial increase in state spending, that our financial situation wouldnow at least be sound. But in fact, our fiscal situation looks terrible! Let's take a look at thedistrict's FY '94-'95 budget. Not only are local tax rates being increased by millions of dollars,but an estimated 200 employees are being subjected to layoffs. And if the unions do not agreeto a one year deferment of their pay increases, local school taxes may be raised even higher.
Simply stated, we are facing a social and fiscal disaster. The State can no longer affordto lavishly increase its aid and the state controlled district shows no signs of reigning in itscosts or dramatically improving the quality of the education provided in the district. Localtaxpayers, who already pay some of the highest property taxes in New Jersey, are absolutelyfrustrated because there is absolutely no evidence that spending more money on the sameflawed system will produce better academic results. Yet, year after year we are told that if wewere only willing to spend millions more, things would get better.
cheap hotels in Nice I have proposed legislation which would replace political control of our schools withparent and teacher control. But while we are waiting for this legislation to be enacted, I believe that the Jersey City public school system should be returned to local control. Without local control, there is simply no direct accountability for the quality and cost ofeducation which our children receive.
The current takeover law requires a one year transition period before complete localcontrol is re-established. Therefore, I propose that the transition period begin on October 1,1994 with Board members appointed by the mayor. At the end of the '94-'95 school year, localcontrol should begin to devolve to these newly appointed board members, with completetransfer of power in effect by October 1995.
The reason why I believe that Board members should be appointed by the mayor ratherthan be directly elected is because school board elections generate relatively low voter interestas compared to municipal elections, and are far more likely to be dominated by the influenceof special interest groups who benefit from the current bureaucratically rigid system.
Residents often hold their local executive responsible for the fiscal policies of the publicschool system. If local executives are to be held accountable for the School Board's spending,it is only appropriate that the executive have some direct influence over the Board'smembership. An appointed Board allows members to exercise independent judgement, yetthrough the Mayor, still be held accountable to the broader citizenry.
Judging from the lack of improvement in the past five years, extending the takeover foranother two or three years will not improve the quality of education. In fact, it may actuallydelay the implementation of reforms which are necessary to turning our schools around.
If the state is truly serious about increasing the quality of education in Jersey City'spublic schools, it should give the people of Jersey City the power to reform the current systeminto one which gives principals and teachers the opportunity to use their creativity and talentsto design innovative programs that specifically address the special needs of our children.
That is why the legislation I am introducing seeks to fundamentally reform oureducation system in our public schools by giving teachers the power to create a wide varietyof innovative programs, and by empowering parents through tuition vouchers to send theirchildren to a non-governmental school if they so choose.
After five years of state control, only one question remains: are we really serious aboutincreasing the quality of education in Jersey City, or are we content with simply spendingmore money on a failed system so that we can say, "Look, we're doing something."
I trust that when you look at the evidence and listen to the people of Jersey City, youwill be convinced that comprehensive reform under local leadership, or even better, parentand teacher leadership, offers the children of Jersey City the best opportunity to have aproductive future.
Once again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts with you onthis vital public policy issue. The people of Jersey City look forward to your decisioneagerly.
Bret Schundler
Mayor, Jersey City, NJ