Avery W. Grant
Guest Column
S1701 Law, passed by the state Legislature and signed July 1 by Gov. James McGreevey as Public Law 73 of 2004, may be a wake-up call for public school educators at all levels, from the state Board of Education, the New Jersey Department of Education, the local boards of education to the local school administrators and staff.
The general intent of S1701 was to create more efficient and effective spending practices by reducing the cap on annual school district budget increases, reducing the amount of the school budget surplus that districts can keep, limiting some administrative costs, and limiting spending on courtesy busing, special education and other costs. This legislation was part of Gov. McGreevey’s plan to reduce the property tax burden due to public school education.
Why might S1701 be a wake-up call for public school educators? It was reportedly written, passed and signed without consultation and input from the New Jersey Department of Education, the state Board of Education, local school districts or the various education-related organizations and unions. The Legislature has an education committee and a budget and appropriations committee that drafted the bill, but should it raise serious concerns among public school educators that they were not consulted about such wide-ranging legislation? Public school educators should be asking why.
At the New Jersey School Boards Association conference in October, many members of the state Board of Education, association officials, local school board members and district administrators on several program panels publicly stated they had not been consulted on the preparation of S1701.
At the New Jersey State League of Municipalities conference in November, many legislators expressed some concerns about S1701, and felt it would be amended but not repealed. Currently, there have been several bills introduced in the Senate and Assembly to amend or repeal S1701.
There seem to be several major factors against repealing S1701; paramount are, how funds are being spent by school districts, and the urgent need to eliminate a projected $4 billion state budget deficit.
At the School Boards Association conference, petitions for the repeal of S1701 were circulated, and members of the state Board of Education, Department of Education, and association officials were strongly urged to become more proactive in this effort.
As a local school board member, I think it is also incumbent, actually mandated, that board members become more proactive as advocates for public school education, and as stewards of the public funds for which we are entrusted. As elected and appointed members, we are best qualified to present the true picture of school spending and associated student achievement.
School board members must be very vigilant to disallow all practices that may negatively impact on this true picture of spending and achievement. A very subtle example of this is the growing trend to allow superintendents and administrators to be reimbursed annually for unused sick leave. Formerly, reimbursement for accumulated unused sick leave would only occur upon their retirement, and then only for a very limited amount. Such a practice not only “muddies” the picture of efficient stewardship, but it also could represent a significant salary increase and budget expenditure. Such a practice tends to trivialize a hard-fought-for personal benefit, which is intended to alleviate financial hardship — not to enrich.
As school board members, we are volunteers, dedicated and continually striving to thoroughly and efficiently educate our children. As board members, we must guard against the contagion of “we are an autonomous body that can do anything we vote to do,” as is sometimes articulated by state officials.
S1701 is not carved in stone, it can be amended or repealed, but the underlying guidance should be that everyone, legislators, educators, the public — and parents — must constantly revisit the ethical mandate for properly educating all children. S1701 may not be a scapegoat or carrot by which legislators try to appease property taxpayers — it may not even be the proverbial pot of gold at the end of a not-so-pretty rainbow — it just may be a true wake-up call for public school educators in government and the 600 school districts in New Jersey.
Avery W. Grant is a member of the Long Branch Board of Education