LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 06/14

From the June 14 edition of the Register-News

By:
Programs yield

substantial grants

To the editor:
   
We are thrilled that the Open Space and Farmland Preservation programs that were introduced and developed when our party controlled the Township Committee has yielded substantial grant money for the residents of Bordentown Township.
   Last Sunday, we were present for the Burlington County Freeholders’ presentation of $1.2 million for the township’s Open Space Program. This was the largest grant in Burlington County this year.
   When you consider the $1.17 million that we received last year from Burlington County, the second largest grant in the county that year, and the Green Acres matching funds of $500,000 and $750,000 from the state over the last two years, you can understand our pride in the Open Space Program.
   We are happy that the County Freeholders and state officials have recognized the effectiveness of our program.
   These grants were made possible by you, the residents, when you passed a 3-cent tax for the township’s Open space Program in 1999.
   As a result of that tax, we were able to submit proposals to the county and state in 1999 and 2000 which resulted in the $3.62 million in grants listed in the previous paragraphs.
   Every penny of these grants were applied for by Democrat-controlled township committees. This aggressive program to preserve open space will benefit our community by continuing the progress we have made to stop the explosive growth experienced in Bordentown Township during the 80s and early 90s.
   The Farmland Preservation Program also was started in 1999. Already, one farm is preserved in the township.
   We will continue to work to expand this program to preserve our rich farming heritage. The land that we set aside for farmland and open space will enrich our community, children and future generations.
   We hope you agree with us that we need to preserve as much open space and farmland in Bordentown Township as possible. With your help, we will continue to work to ensure the quality of life in Bordentown Township is the best in New Jersey.
Carol A. de Groot

Pauline Angelo

Committeewomen

Bordentown Township

‘Flawed’ report

is troublesome

To the editor:
   
Any time a governmental organization says it is "here to help you," we shudder.
   When the New Jersey Department of Education makes this comment, we should all be very worried.
   Although the recent publication of violence and vandalism statistics is an example of another department idea gone very awry, it is only one of a series of recent fiascoes. Below are some examples:
   1. Fourth Grade Testing. For years, parents and educators throughout the state told the Department of Education that it was moving too quickly on fourth-grade testing. The state refused to listen.
   It took up to June 6, 2001 for the state to finally realize that what the experts were saying was true. An indication that someone is listening came by way of a memorandum from our present commissioner, who indicated that assessment in comprehensive health and physical education, visual and performing arts and world languages would be delayed until the other areas were perfected.
   2. Make up Testing. For years, the Department of Education has championed the cause of testing. Recently, in a decision that left many scratching their heads, the department eliminated make-up tests for students who are absent from school on the day(s) of testing.
   If the test is so important, especially the high school test, who would students be denied a make-up test? This decision has since, due to great outcry, been reversed.
   3. Graduation requirements. New options providing for graduation requirements are a positive move forward. But, who on earth was responsible for the fiasco of attempting graduation requirements?
   Could there have been such a disaster or projection of elitism? Again, this decision had to be reversed after a public outcry that could have been prevented if input had been received prior to the directive being issued.
   4. Violence and Vandalism reporting. This is now another fiasco the department has to deal with. Since the release of the report, the department has issued a number of disclaimers about ambiguity.
   Another newspaper, in a recent editorial asked, "Why issue a report at all if you have to add such a disclaimer?" This is exactly the position of our school district.
   There are a number of problems with the state violence and vandalism reporting mechanism. We do not know what information was released to the newspapers, but the reporting provides a totally inaccurate picture of what is happening in this district and, I would suspect, in many other districts.
   We know that our district attempted to follow the spirit of the reporting. We did not know that the department would attempt to portray districts in a negative light.
   For instance, to my knowledge, the department is not explaining the various categories under their main headings. Violence ranges from a simple threat to a serious extortion.
   Further, the department does not publicize the definition of the various terms. "Threat" is a good example.
   The department defines this as "attempting by physical menace, e.g. verbal threats, to put another in fear of serious bodily injury." This definition makes it the job of the district to get into the minds of the students to determine motive and feelings and then determine if it should be reported.
   Our district reported 12 such instances for the entire year. We cannot imagine that any district is without threats, especially if a district contains adolescents who constantly verbalize their feelings about one another.
   There is no way to determine from this report if threats were serious, involved extraordinary actions, or were simply a part of, unfortunately too-common, behavior in a school community.
   Another interesting category is "vandalism." This includes anything from arson to fireworks offenses! Nowhere is it reported that our district, as part of the reporting mechanism, had only one incident involving damage to school property, with a total cost to the district of $70.
   By any measure this is an extraordinary record. It is also difficult for us to imagine that any district can go through a year without having graffiti or damage to a window, school bus, or other items. Yet, many districts reported "O" in this category.
   One final area is "substance abuse." This category covers substance use, possession, and distribution.
   "Use" is defined as any positive test completed on a student. Nowhere in the reporting is there a place to indicate whether the student had used the substance in school, at home, or at the home of a friend.
   For instance, our district had only three such instances during the 1999-2000 school year. All three of the cases were the result of staff recognizing symptoms, followed by investigation deterring that students had gotten high, but not in school.
   There is a need to report violence and vandalism, but I question the motives of the violence and vandalism Report.
   What readers need to know is that this has been done for years and it has been a requirement to report such statistics to the public for a long while.
   If the department believes that the reporting mechanism is flawed, why did they release the information? This is reminiscent of last year when state grade four testing was flawed but statistics were released anyway.
   Our district is just one of the many outstanding public school districts in the area. We are a community of about 2,000 students and 300 staff members who come together on a daily basis to work and learn.
   A flawed report that promotes sensationalism is an injustice to our staff and, more importantly, an injustice to our students.
   It is time that the Department of Education re-look its mission and philosophy and realize that they should be supporting public education, not hindering its progress.
John Polomano

Superintendent

Bordentown Regional School District