PACKET EDITORIAL, Feb. 18
By: Packet Editorial
The Princeton Regional Board of Education is making all the right moves as it pieces together the second question it plans to submit to the voters in April, seeking approval to exceed the district’s state-imposed budget cap by about $1.8 million.
The question is: Will all the right moves get the board where it wants to go?
The need for a second question is undeniable. S-1701 the law that tightens the state budget caps this year, and included a retroactive provision stripping the district of most of its surplus last year leaves Princeton with virtually no room in its budget for discretionary spending. This means no new programs can be implemented, no matter how necessary or meritorious, unless the board wins voter approval of a second question to exceed the state cap.
What the board is crafting is a spending plan that includes a little something for everybody, broken down into three general categories: academic interventions and support, enrichment and safety/school climate.
Proposed programs falling into the category of academic interventions and support include an extended school year for math and literacy academies for elementary and middle-school students; a behavioral specialist for the elementary grades; after-school tutorials; early intervention teachers; preschool education for 4-year-olds; and an in-house program for preschool autistic students.
Enrichment programs include expansion of the instrumental music and athletic programs at the middle school, additional technology equipment for the high school and upgrades to the middle-school and high-school playing fields. Safety/school climate proposals include defibrillators for every school, "full-time monitors" at the middle school and high school and "administrative assistance" at the high school to upgrade school security.
It is the last of these proposals that is generating the most controversy. "Full-time monitors" and "administrative assistance" could mean anything from a couple of nondescript onlookers standing unobtrusively in the hallways between classes to prominently positioned, uniformed, armed police patrolling the school grounds all day long. At Tuesday’s board meeting, several parents made it clear that anything less than uniformed, armed officers visible at every turn would be ineffective and unacceptable to them. And several board members made it equally clear that anything more than plainclothes, unarmed civilians tucked quietly into offices would be offensive and unacceptable to them.
Superintendent Judy Wilson, who has been in Princeton less than three weeks, has her work cut out for her on this one. It falls to her to find some sort of compromise between these pitched positions and to do so in a way that doesn’t cause those who may not be entirely pleased with the outcome to abandon support for the entire second question. It would be unfortunate indeed if disagreement over this single component of a comprehensive package of new and innovative school programs caused the entire package to unravel.
This is the risk that accompanies the something-for-everybody approach. The more there is for some residents to like, the more there is for others to dislike. For every voter who supports after-school tutorials, there is another who opposes upgrading playing fields. For every taxpayer who thinks adding early intervention teachers is essential, there’s another who thinks expanding instrumental music is a frill.
Unless a reasonable compromise is reached on the form that enhanced middle-school and high-school security will take, we fear some voters may have philosophical misgivings in addition to financial ones about supporting the second question. And that is something, at all costs, that should not be allowed to happen.