Editor’s note: Joe Stampe served four years as president of the UFRSD Board of Education and is currently the vice president of the board. This letter represents his views and not those of the board or school district.
I am writing in response to Mr. Ron Taft’s letter in last week’s paper (Upper Freehold Regional School District (UFRSD) budget rejected due to bloated costs) to correct the inaccuracies he presented. This letter is not intended to speak for the Board of Education; it is my personal response.
First, the taxable property value in Upper Freehold Township decreased from $1.35 billion in 2009-10 to $1.29 billion in 2010-11. This reduction in ratables alone resulted in an increase in school taxes of $295 on the average home in Upper Freehold irrespective of school expenditures. Even had there been no increase in the UFRSD budget, taxpayers would have been hit with an increase simply because the town’s ratables decreased.
Second, it defies logic to assume that costs for the district would not increase in a year when we are opening a new school, which represents a 33 percent increase in our building space. Even though we are not adding a single teacher, administrator, librarian or school nurse with the new school, we have the additional costs of heating, water, sewer and electrical. Add to that an increase in maintenance to clean the new building, and we have additional costs of over $700,000. It is a shame that our community passed two separate referendums to construct our much needed and long overdue middle school, but when it came time to open it, our community failed the budget that could have staffed it appropriately.
Your opinion that our budget increase was the result of “wasteful, unnecessary and bloated administrative and other costs resulting from the actions of the superintendent and school board” and not the direct result of a loss of over $1.7 million in state aid is irrational and completely erroneous. The data to prove this is readily available to anyone who would take the time to review it. To suggest that having three vice principals for 2,350 students is “bloated” or “wasteful” demonstrates an ignorance of what these individuals do each and every day — much of which is mandated by state law. Our administrative costs are below the county and state averages, which you can confirm by viewing our report card on the Department of Education’s website, as is our ratio of administrators to students. Still, the Board of Education reduced the number of administrators for next year and continues to look for ways to trim administrative costs.
Similarly unapprised opinions voiced at the budget hearings called for the elimination of our assistant superintendent by residents who have little or no understanding of what the position entails. Besides ensuring that we have a strategic and comprehensive plan for teacher development district wide, Mr. Cochrane makes certain that our curriculum meets all state standards; not some stale list but a myriad of thousands of constantly changing standards, across all subjects and across all grade levels. In addition, Mr. Cochrane has been working with teachers on new curriculum for reading, writing and mathematics and those changes have led to dramatic improvements in our student achievement and performance tests. A few years ago New Jersey instituted the Quality Single Accountability Continuum(QSAC); this review is done every three years and one of the most critical elements is ensuring we have comprehensive written curriculum. Without Mr. Cochrane, our district would have failed the QSAC review, as we had no written comprehensive curriculum in our district prior to his efforts. What would this have done to our property values?
As good teachers are cut and class sizes explode, Mr. Taft decries the injustice of the loss of courtesy busing? This frustration should be directed toward the Upper Freehold Township Committee that had been providing courtesy busing funds for the last 12 years; (because nobody ever bothered to ask builders to build sidewalks) then reneged on their promise this year — a year when $811,036 of our funds were stripped by the state mid-year in addition to the $1.7 million lost for next year. The courtesy busing proposal was part of the original budget — not some afterthought when the budget failed.
Our district represents a $37 million enterprise, with over 300 employees and 2,350 students. Unlike a factory turning out widgets, our schools are charged with the important and complex task of educating children who possess varied skill levels and needs so that they can become productive citizens of this country and can compete in a global economy. Public school districts continue to push forward in the face of budgetary constraints, hundreds of state mandates and increased demands for academic rigor, character development, special education, technology and the general health and safety of our students.
If you are looking to place blame for the “punishment” our district’s children will receive next year and beyond, Mr. Taft, you best look far beyond the UFRSD Board of Education and district employees.
Ironically, Mr. Taft also suggests eliminating our information officer, a position that is part-time and includes responsibility for seeking grant funds. Sir, judging by your lack of understanding of our school district, we need our information officer more than ever. Before writing such a grossly uninformed letter to the paper, I would suggest doing your own homework. Your first assignment could be to attend board meetings so you have your facts straight. Then you might consider volunteering your time to solve problems instead of pointing fingers.
Joe Stampe
Upper Freehold