The HSA meeting at the high school Tuesday night included a frank and open discussion about the pressures that Ridgewood students feel –as well as where the pressure comes from, what are the effects, and what can/should we, as a community, do about it?
The discussion was sparked by a report from the Global Classroom Conference, which took place at Ridgewood High School last year. A group of students from around the world came to Ridgewood and conducted a research project. The theme they chose for Ridgewood, after speaking with students, faculty and their host families, was pressure. Specifically, the tremendous pressure students are under to achieve and excel. The Global Classroom participants created a video and a written report – the video was shown at the HSA meeting (and hopefully will be available on YouTube or on the RHS website soon).
The video was enlightening, interesting, and somewhat depressing, featuring RHS kids speaking quite honestly about the reality of growing up in Ridgewood and the enormous expectations for college and future success.
RHS Director of Guidance, Jeff Nyhuis, has been working with Dr. Anne Robinson, a Ridgewood parent and pediatrician, to bring the issue of our pressured students to the forefront. The conversation at Tuesday’s HSA meeting was great. Two students spoke about pressures to participate in extracurricular activities regardless of their interest or enjoyment, pressure for grades, cheating, lack of sleep, and the difficulty of meeting parent expectations for grades and college acceptances. Parents complained about teachers who give way too much homework, and children spending too many hours on homework and sports or afterschool activities, leaving little time for relaxation, socializing with friends and SLEEP.
Parents also talked about our own role in creating this pressure. Not only do our children feel how much we want them to succeed, teachers know that parents expect our schools to be “successful,” with higher test scores or better rankings in New Jersey Monthly magazine. This undoubtedly fuels the teachers’ decisions to add more homework, more grades, more tests. Parents in Ridgewood often get nervous when they feel their children aren’t being kept busy enough. Free time, with absolutely nothing scheduled and nothing due, can seem odd or undesirable to many Ridgewood parents. So even if the school were to lessen the load, many parents would fill the space created with more activities, more sports, more drama classes, more volunteering, more scouts...
As the next step in this process, the RHS HSA will be screening a very important and critically acclaimed documentary film, Race to Nowhere. According to the movie’s website, Race to Nowhere’s director “ignites a national conversation in her new documentary about the pressures faced by American schoolchildren and their teachers in a system and culture obsessed with the illusion of achievement, competition and the pressure to perform. Featuring the heartbreaking stories of young people across the country who have been pushed to the brink, educators who are burned out and worried that students aren’t developing the skills they need, and parents who are trying to do what’s best for their kids, Race to Nowhere points to the silent epidemic in our schools: cheating has become commonplace, students have become disengaged, stress-related illness, depression and burnout are rampant, and young people arrive at college and the workplace unprepared and uninspired….Race to Nowhere is a call to mobilize families, educators, and policy makers to challenge current assumptions on how to best prepare the youth of America to become healthy, bright, contributing and leading citizens.”
The film will be screened at BF middle school, sometime during the first week of December, and all Ridgewood parents will be invited. When the date is set I’ll post it here.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
BOE and Village working on arrangement with Verizon FIOS to broadcast BOE and Council meetings.
I'm told by the Ed Center that a deal to get Village Council and BOE meetings broadcast on Verizon FIOS in addition to Cablevision is being wrapped up, and this WILL be happening. I didn't get any kind of an ETA, but I'll check into it after a month or two (if I don't see the meetings on my FIOS).
This will give another alternative to the webcasts for BOE meetings, which are problematic for a few people. (And of course the Village Council doesn't webcast, so adding FIOS will be a great improvement in public access.)
This will give another alternative to the webcasts for BOE meetings, which are problematic for a few people. (And of course the Village Council doesn't webcast, so adding FIOS will be a great improvement in public access.)
New Jersey School Boards Association questions need for administrator salary caps.
From the most recent issue of School Board Notes:
Proposed salary caps for New Jersey superintendents and other central office school administrators are unnecessary and could prevent school boards from securing the best possible leaders for their education programs, according to NJSBA’s review of the proposal. The review took into account recent statute and regulations that have dramatically increased state oversight of local school district finances.
NJSBA President Ray Wiss will formally present the Association’s position to the state Department of Education on Nov. 18 during the first of four regional hearings on the proposal.
Unnecessary NJSBA supports certain aspects of the plan, including the concept of merit-based bonuses tied to educational goals and incentives for small school districts to share administrative services voluntarily. However, recent additions to state law and administrative code, such as the 2-percent property tax levy cap and the Accountability Regulations, render the proposed salary caps unnecessary.
“In practical terms, the new 2-percent tax levy cap, which is part of the governor’s toolkit to control government spending, coupled with reductions in state revenue make it financially imprudent for a school board to grant excessive compensation packages to administrators,” said Marie S. Bilik, NJSBA executive director. “Clearly, a school board that did so would have much to explain to its taxpayers and voters.
“In addition, the 2008 Accountability Regulations require all new contracts for central office administrators to receive approval from the state’s executive county superintendents. Such approval is granted only upon compliance with state-developed criteria that limit compensation, including benefits and salary increases.”
That review process is far-reaching and brings into question the need for rigid salary caps, according to NJSBA. In fact, Governor Christie relied on it last week when he instructed the executive county superintendents not to approve any superintendent contract extensions that exceed the salary caps and which would begin before the Feb. 7 effective date of the regulations.
Disadvantage “We share the goal of controlling the growth of all school district salaries and would consider reasonable constraints,” Bilik explained. “However, the limits proposed by the state might put some New Jersey school districts—especially those in areas with a high cost of living and which border other states—at a disadvantage when hiring superintendents and other administrators.”
When the proposed salary caps were introduced in the summer, NJSBA stressed that the role of the board of education is not to advocate for administrators’ salaries, but to ensure quality school leadership.
Low Administrative Costs Spending on school administration has not been a problem in New Jersey, according to federal statistics.
The latest report from the U.S. Department of Education places New Jersey’s overall spending on education administration below that of 42 other states. Compiled by the department’s National Center for Education Statistics, the data show that New Jersey public school districts devote 9.5 percent of their operating budgets to central office and school building administration, compared to a nationwide average of 10.8 percent. At the same time, the state’s spending on instruction and student support services (71.9 percent of total expenditures) is higher than the national average.
The Proposal The salary caps would be implemented through “commissioner regulations” as an amendment to the state’s Accountability Regulations without the need for approval by the state Board of Education.
Under the plan, salary caps would range from $125,000 for districts with fewer than 250 students, increasing incrementally to $175,000 for those with 6,501 to 10,000 students. Districts with more than 10,000 students would be able to apply for a waiver from the commissioner of education to exceed the top cap. The plan would also allow additional compensation in a district that operates a high school and for an individual who serves as superintendent for two or more districts. (A description of the proposal appeared in last week’s School Board Notes.)
Proposed salary caps for New Jersey superintendents and other central office school administrators are unnecessary and could prevent school boards from securing the best possible leaders for their education programs, according to NJSBA’s review of the proposal. The review took into account recent statute and regulations that have dramatically increased state oversight of local school district finances.
NJSBA President Ray Wiss will formally present the Association’s position to the state Department of Education on Nov. 18 during the first of four regional hearings on the proposal.
Unnecessary NJSBA supports certain aspects of the plan, including the concept of merit-based bonuses tied to educational goals and incentives for small school districts to share administrative services voluntarily. However, recent additions to state law and administrative code, such as the 2-percent property tax levy cap and the Accountability Regulations, render the proposed salary caps unnecessary.
“In practical terms, the new 2-percent tax levy cap, which is part of the governor’s toolkit to control government spending, coupled with reductions in state revenue make it financially imprudent for a school board to grant excessive compensation packages to administrators,” said Marie S. Bilik, NJSBA executive director. “Clearly, a school board that did so would have much to explain to its taxpayers and voters.
“In addition, the 2008 Accountability Regulations require all new contracts for central office administrators to receive approval from the state’s executive county superintendents. Such approval is granted only upon compliance with state-developed criteria that limit compensation, including benefits and salary increases.”
That review process is far-reaching and brings into question the need for rigid salary caps, according to NJSBA. In fact, Governor Christie relied on it last week when he instructed the executive county superintendents not to approve any superintendent contract extensions that exceed the salary caps and which would begin before the Feb. 7 effective date of the regulations.
Disadvantage “We share the goal of controlling the growth of all school district salaries and would consider reasonable constraints,” Bilik explained. “However, the limits proposed by the state might put some New Jersey school districts—especially those in areas with a high cost of living and which border other states—at a disadvantage when hiring superintendents and other administrators.”
When the proposed salary caps were introduced in the summer, NJSBA stressed that the role of the board of education is not to advocate for administrators’ salaries, but to ensure quality school leadership.
Low Administrative Costs Spending on school administration has not been a problem in New Jersey, according to federal statistics.
The latest report from the U.S. Department of Education places New Jersey’s overall spending on education administration below that of 42 other states. Compiled by the department’s National Center for Education Statistics, the data show that New Jersey public school districts devote 9.5 percent of their operating budgets to central office and school building administration, compared to a nationwide average of 10.8 percent. At the same time, the state’s spending on instruction and student support services (71.9 percent of total expenditures) is higher than the national average.
The Proposal The salary caps would be implemented through “commissioner regulations” as an amendment to the state’s Accountability Regulations without the need for approval by the state Board of Education.
Under the plan, salary caps would range from $125,000 for districts with fewer than 250 students, increasing incrementally to $175,000 for those with 6,501 to 10,000 students. Districts with more than 10,000 students would be able to apply for a waiver from the commissioner of education to exceed the top cap. The plan would also allow additional compensation in a district that operates a high school and for an individual who serves as superintendent for two or more districts. (A description of the proposal appeared in last week’s School Board Notes.)
New grading system at RHS
The following information was emailed to parents by Principal Jack Lorenz. As a parent who has gone through 6 years of high school grades, I do think this will result in more accurate and consistent grades. I have some other thoughts, too, following Mr. Lorenz' letter:
[Email from Mr. Lorenz:]
We are in the process of implementing our Skyward student information system and Skyward Grade Book. In preparation for this implementation our faculty through the Curriculum Steering Committee examined the old grading patterns system and reached consensus on a revised grading system.
Parents and students have frequently requested that we include plus and minus grades for each quarter. Students, parents, and the Curriculum Steering Committee requested that we use a percentage grade to arrive at semester and yearlong grades. The system we have adopted provides students and parents with a more accurate picture of student achievement.
Since we are implementing these changes across all grades, the playing field is level and no one has an advantage over another student. The final grade in a semester course will be determined by averaging the two quarters with the mid-term counting no more than twenty (20%) per cent of the 2nd quarter guide. The final grade for a year long course will be the average of four (4) quarters with the final examination counting no more than twenty percent (20%) of the fourth quarter guide. Letter grades will be assigned as follows:
A 93–100
A - 90–92
B + 87–89
B 83–86
B - 80–82
C + 77–79
C 73–76
C - 70–72
D + 67–69
D 63–66
D - 60–62
E* 0–59
For example, a student who receives a 91 percent, 86 percent, 82 percent and 88 percent for quarter grades would have an average of 86.7 percent which would result in a B+ for this final grade. We are confident that this system of grading will yield a positive result for our students.
John A. Lorenz, Principal
***
I have spoken with some fellow RHS parents who were concerned about the implications of this mid-high-school-career change for some students. They are worried about how Ridgewood graduates' grades will appear to college admissions officials. In speaking with several administrators, I learned the following:
First, with the new system, GPAs are just as likely to go up slightly as they are to go down. In terms of individual grades, many students who would have received a B under the old system will now receive a B+.
In terms of how Ridgewood’s GPAs will look to college admissions offices, it’s hard to predict. Over the past 15-20 years, there have been as many as four grading systems at RHS and for each system I'm sure there was a contingency of parents/teachers who were opposed to the system. At one point, colleges were surveyed about their view of high school grading systems and the fact is they do not care -- they have to make sense out of literally thousands of systems -- some numerical, some letter, some narrative, some weighted, some unweighted -- but all in all they recalculate using their own system to standardize for all so they can make decisions in a systematic way. Apparently, colleges are more interested in decile ranges than GPAs created by various different systems.
The good news is that RHS has been known for grading fairly and with integrity and not all schools have such a reputation since grade inflation is rampant in this country. No matter the system, our students should be evaluated fairly.
If I can share the way I’m personally looking at this issue: I am glad to know that my son’s grades will now be more mathematically accurate. I hope it moves him up in cases where he is on the fence, but even if it moves him down, at least it will have been fairly reached.
*On a side note, whatever happened to the good old "F"?
[Email from Mr. Lorenz:]
We are in the process of implementing our Skyward student information system and Skyward Grade Book. In preparation for this implementation our faculty through the Curriculum Steering Committee examined the old grading patterns system and reached consensus on a revised grading system.
Parents and students have frequently requested that we include plus and minus grades for each quarter. Students, parents, and the Curriculum Steering Committee requested that we use a percentage grade to arrive at semester and yearlong grades. The system we have adopted provides students and parents with a more accurate picture of student achievement.
Since we are implementing these changes across all grades, the playing field is level and no one has an advantage over another student. The final grade in a semester course will be determined by averaging the two quarters with the mid-term counting no more than twenty (20%) per cent of the 2nd quarter guide. The final grade for a year long course will be the average of four (4) quarters with the final examination counting no more than twenty percent (20%) of the fourth quarter guide. Letter grades will be assigned as follows:
A 93–100
A - 90–92
B + 87–89
B 83–86
B - 80–82
C + 77–79
C 73–76
C - 70–72
D + 67–69
D 63–66
D - 60–62
E* 0–59
For example, a student who receives a 91 percent, 86 percent, 82 percent and 88 percent for quarter grades would have an average of 86.7 percent which would result in a B+ for this final grade. We are confident that this system of grading will yield a positive result for our students.
John A. Lorenz, Principal
***
I have spoken with some fellow RHS parents who were concerned about the implications of this mid-high-school-career change for some students. They are worried about how Ridgewood graduates' grades will appear to college admissions officials. In speaking with several administrators, I learned the following:
First, with the new system, GPAs are just as likely to go up slightly as they are to go down. In terms of individual grades, many students who would have received a B under the old system will now receive a B+.
In terms of how Ridgewood’s GPAs will look to college admissions offices, it’s hard to predict. Over the past 15-20 years, there have been as many as four grading systems at RHS and for each system I'm sure there was a contingency of parents/teachers who were opposed to the system. At one point, colleges were surveyed about their view of high school grading systems and the fact is they do not care -- they have to make sense out of literally thousands of systems -- some numerical, some letter, some narrative, some weighted, some unweighted -- but all in all they recalculate using their own system to standardize for all so they can make decisions in a systematic way. Apparently, colleges are more interested in decile ranges than GPAs created by various different systems.
The good news is that RHS has been known for grading fairly and with integrity and not all schools have such a reputation since grade inflation is rampant in this country. No matter the system, our students should be evaluated fairly.
If I can share the way I’m personally looking at this issue: I am glad to know that my son’s grades will now be more mathematically accurate. I hope it moves him up in cases where he is on the fence, but even if it moves him down, at least it will have been fairly reached.
*On a side note, whatever happened to the good old "F"?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Board of Ed is waiting for legal input before commenting on field lights.
Since the story in last Friday's Ridgewood News failed to present a balanced account of the discussion at last week's Board of Education meeting, I thought it would be helpful to share the following statement, which was made by Board of Ed president Michele Lenhard at that meeting. This statement has been posted on the District website:
We are aware that some members of our community have concerns and questions about the field lights currently being installed at RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields. When the project is complete and fully powered by PSE&G our lighting engineer will undertake tests to measure light output to adhere to the specifications in the design plans. This includes light spill surrounding the fields.
Recommendations for the usage of the fields and the lights will be made by the Fields Committee in the form of policy. They are currently revising the Field Use Policy to reflect the changes to the Stadium and Stevens Fields. The policy will come before both the Village Council and BOE for approval. The spring 2011 schedule of sports activities is being developed and will be posted to both the BOE and Village website when complete.
On October 27th [resident] Jim Morgan presented a statement to the Village Council on behalf of his neighbors, which differed significantly from the concerns recently brought before this Board. In the past when concerns were raised, we met directly with the neighbors and supported requests for adjustments to fencing, traffic, parking and landscaping. Mr. Morgan emailed a copy of the statement to BOE members, and on 10/29 Dr. Fishbein and I met with Colleen Kossoff, Jim Morgan, and Mayor Killion to better understand concerns. Unlike concerns raised to date, it questions Village Council or Planning Board authority over Board of Education activities. Prior to commenting on specific allegations raised by Mr. Morgan we are consulting with legal counsel.
Understanding our neighbors’ concerns is an important part of our evaluative process as we look to institute policy to manage the use of RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields. We hope that we can continue to work together to achieve mutual satisfaction for the neighbors, the Board of Education, and most importantly the children of the Village of Ridgewood, whose best interest we strive to serve.
Believe me, I wish we could just talk more freely as we work everything out (and I personally believe we will work it out), but once the possibility of lawsuits was raised, the Board had an obligation to consult our attorneys. Hopefully we'll be able to say more at our next BOE meeting, on November 15.
We are aware that some members of our community have concerns and questions about the field lights currently being installed at RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields. When the project is complete and fully powered by PSE&G our lighting engineer will undertake tests to measure light output to adhere to the specifications in the design plans. This includes light spill surrounding the fields.
Recommendations for the usage of the fields and the lights will be made by the Fields Committee in the form of policy. They are currently revising the Field Use Policy to reflect the changes to the Stadium and Stevens Fields. The policy will come before both the Village Council and BOE for approval. The spring 2011 schedule of sports activities is being developed and will be posted to both the BOE and Village website when complete.
On October 27th [resident] Jim Morgan presented a statement to the Village Council on behalf of his neighbors, which differed significantly from the concerns recently brought before this Board. In the past when concerns were raised, we met directly with the neighbors and supported requests for adjustments to fencing, traffic, parking and landscaping. Mr. Morgan emailed a copy of the statement to BOE members, and on 10/29 Dr. Fishbein and I met with Colleen Kossoff, Jim Morgan, and Mayor Killion to better understand concerns. Unlike concerns raised to date, it questions Village Council or Planning Board authority over Board of Education activities. Prior to commenting on specific allegations raised by Mr. Morgan we are consulting with legal counsel.
Understanding our neighbors’ concerns is an important part of our evaluative process as we look to institute policy to manage the use of RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields. We hope that we can continue to work together to achieve mutual satisfaction for the neighbors, the Board of Education, and most importantly the children of the Village of Ridgewood, whose best interest we strive to serve.
Believe me, I wish we could just talk more freely as we work everything out (and I personally believe we will work it out), but once the possibility of lawsuits was raised, the Board had an obligation to consult our attorneys. Hopefully we'll be able to say more at our next BOE meeting, on November 15.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Bullying: no easy solutions (except, perhaps, the Golden Rule).
As attention on bullying – the old-fashioned playground kind, the new-fashioned cyber-kind or the equally insidious (and no doubt perennial) spousal, workplace, elderly, political and other varieties – seems to swirl around and around us like Fall leaves on a windy day, the calls to “end bullying” are reaching a frantic pitch. Naturally, some would argue, schools are the primary target. Bullying ground zero. With all those hours kids spend in our classrooms, surely our teachers and principals and administrators can be doing more to discourage, reduce or, what the heck, just end bullying.
Last week, some New Jersey lawmakers announced proposed new legislation that would become the toughest anti-bullying law in the nation. The “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights” requires “training for nearly all school employees on how to spot, prevent and report acts of intimidation. Each district must form a ‘school safety team’ that reviews complaints, lead by a counselor designated as an ‘anti-bullying specialist.’…The measure (A3466) would also require school employees to report harassing actions they learn about that take place off school property — and those who don’t could face disciplinary action.”
It all sounds so sensible and sensitive and powerful. Tough talk designed to get results and whip this bullying monster once and for all.
The trouble is, as with most things in life, it’s not as easy, not as cut and dried and not as black and white as it seems. You see, on Monday you can be all about bullying, and the answers – in the form of laws and regulations and school polices – can seem so obvious. But then Tuesday rolls around and guess what Tuesday’s focus is – oh, a little concept our founding fathers called “freedom of speech.” Suddenly it’s hey, remember all those laws we came up with yesterday to solve the bullying “epidemic?” Did anybody run those through the freedom’o’speech detector? Yeah, didn’t think so. Houston, we have a problem.
Last week, not two hours after I read about New Jersey’s anti-bullying legislation, I read another article that was a stark counterpoint. A student In California had videotaped herself and some friends talking trash about another student, calling her a slut and other bullying-type things. They posted the video on YouTube. About 15 students watched the video, and it was brought to the attention of school officials, who suspended the “videographer” for two days. The suspended student claimed – successfully – that the suspension for out-of-school cyberbullying was a violation of her right to free speech. (Disclaimer: what this girl did was wrong, stupid, immature, mean and not nice. She deserved to be punished – by her parents, certainly. By her school, not sure.) The problem is: teenagers have freedom of speech, in school and out of school, and subsequent court decisions have set very clear reasons under which school officials can limit and/or punish that speech.
What are schools, teachers and administrators supposed to do, with all these conflicting laws and court cases? How are we going to decide (and who is going to decide), day to day, minute to minute, this speech is OK, that speech is mean, this speech is free, that speech is bullying? What is bullying's "yelling fire in a crowded theater" exemption from free speech?
And as distasteful as it is to bring money into the discussion, one has to ask: who's going to pay for all this? At the end of the day, every 15 minutes spent on anti-bullying activities, Open Circle, school safety team meetings and state bullying reports is 15 minutes not spent on math or reading, and it's 15 minutes that a teacher or administrator must be paid. I'm not saying any of these things, per se, isn't "worth it." But let's be realistic and understand what it is we're legislating.
This is all a roundabout way to get to my main point – I don’t think the laws and the courts are going to be able to fix this problem, folks, and we shouldn’t expect them to. Bullying, being “mean,” talking trash, whatever you want to call it...instead of focusing solely on controlling the behavior, or punishing the behavior, maybe we should focus more on where this behavior is coming from.
Which leads us to the Golden Rule. My question isn't “do they teach that in schools?” but rather, “doesn’t anybody teach that at home anymore?” We shouldn't need a law to enforce the Golden Rule.
Last week, some New Jersey lawmakers announced proposed new legislation that would become the toughest anti-bullying law in the nation. The “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights” requires “training for nearly all school employees on how to spot, prevent and report acts of intimidation. Each district must form a ‘school safety team’ that reviews complaints, lead by a counselor designated as an ‘anti-bullying specialist.’…The measure (A3466) would also require school employees to report harassing actions they learn about that take place off school property — and those who don’t could face disciplinary action.”
It all sounds so sensible and sensitive and powerful. Tough talk designed to get results and whip this bullying monster once and for all.
The trouble is, as with most things in life, it’s not as easy, not as cut and dried and not as black and white as it seems. You see, on Monday you can be all about bullying, and the answers – in the form of laws and regulations and school polices – can seem so obvious. But then Tuesday rolls around and guess what Tuesday’s focus is – oh, a little concept our founding fathers called “freedom of speech.” Suddenly it’s hey, remember all those laws we came up with yesterday to solve the bullying “epidemic?” Did anybody run those through the freedom’o’speech detector? Yeah, didn’t think so. Houston, we have a problem.
Last week, not two hours after I read about New Jersey’s anti-bullying legislation, I read another article that was a stark counterpoint. A student In California had videotaped herself and some friends talking trash about another student, calling her a slut and other bullying-type things. They posted the video on YouTube. About 15 students watched the video, and it was brought to the attention of school officials, who suspended the “videographer” for two days. The suspended student claimed – successfully – that the suspension for out-of-school cyberbullying was a violation of her right to free speech. (Disclaimer: what this girl did was wrong, stupid, immature, mean and not nice. She deserved to be punished – by her parents, certainly. By her school, not sure.) The problem is: teenagers have freedom of speech, in school and out of school, and subsequent court decisions have set very clear reasons under which school officials can limit and/or punish that speech.
What are schools, teachers and administrators supposed to do, with all these conflicting laws and court cases? How are we going to decide (and who is going to decide), day to day, minute to minute, this speech is OK, that speech is mean, this speech is free, that speech is bullying? What is bullying's "yelling fire in a crowded theater" exemption from free speech?
And as distasteful as it is to bring money into the discussion, one has to ask: who's going to pay for all this? At the end of the day, every 15 minutes spent on anti-bullying activities, Open Circle, school safety team meetings and state bullying reports is 15 minutes not spent on math or reading, and it's 15 minutes that a teacher or administrator must be paid. I'm not saying any of these things, per se, isn't "worth it." But let's be realistic and understand what it is we're legislating.
This is all a roundabout way to get to my main point – I don’t think the laws and the courts are going to be able to fix this problem, folks, and we shouldn’t expect them to. Bullying, being “mean,” talking trash, whatever you want to call it...instead of focusing solely on controlling the behavior, or punishing the behavior, maybe we should focus more on where this behavior is coming from.
Which leads us to the Golden Rule. My question isn't “do they teach that in schools?” but rather, “doesn’t anybody teach that at home anymore?” We shouldn't need a law to enforce the Golden Rule.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
'Jeffrey and The Bossy Frog' event for Village youth
Received this message this AM:
Thursday Nov 4th at 11am Jeffrey and The Bossy Frog character will do a special Thursday morning music concert for the Ridgewood, NJ Parks and Recreation Department. Community Center at Village Hall, 131 N. Maple Ave., Ridgewood, NJ 07450
$5 for all attendees. Pre-school Audience
Tickets sold in advance at Ridgewood Parks & Recreation, The Stable 259 N. Maple Ave. Ridgewood, NJ 07450 or call (201) 670-5560
Thursday Nov 4th at 11am Jeffrey and The Bossy Frog character will do a special Thursday morning music concert for the Ridgewood, NJ Parks and Recreation Department. Community Center at Village Hall, 131 N. Maple Ave., Ridgewood, NJ 07450
$5 for all attendees. Pre-school Audience
Tickets sold in advance at Ridgewood Parks & Recreation, The Stable 259 N. Maple Ave. Ridgewood, NJ 07450 or call (201) 670-5560
Thursday, October 21, 2010
"Other than the lights, are there no other pressing issues in the village?"
Funny thing happened last night at Village Hall. I went to a Village Council Candidates Night, and a Board of Ed debate broke out. (That's supposed to sound like the old joke about going to a fight and a hockey game broke out...sound familiar? Anybody?)
Well, not really a BOE debate, more like a repetitive airing of grievances and misinformation.
I thought it was odd how so much of the conversation focused on the new lights at RHS Stadium and Stevens fields, as well as the Council's handling of the defeated school budget last spring. And by "conversation," I obviously mean mis-statements and vague promises.
Contrary to one of the candidates' statements, at no time did the school district approach the Village for funding of the lights, and the current funding arrangement was not developed following any "heated discussions" of any kind.
It was odd to hear such criticism of the users of the lighted fields, consistently referred to as "them," as those "others" who are somehow benefitting. Hello? They are the thousands of children of our town, children of our taxpayers. They are us, and we are all going to benefit from better, more efficient use of our limited field space.
To those candidates who lamented the short timeframe the Council had in which to cut (or not cut) the school budget (with the implication being, if they only had more time, they could have cut the budget more): Board of Ed members and Dr. Fishbein were all over town prior to the budget vote, offering to review the budget in detail and answer any questions. Long before the vote, the Board invited the Councilmembers to a meeting to review the budget and answer any questions -- in as much detail as desired. And as for the "new" idea that a Village councilperson could serve as a liaison to the BOE -- there has been one for a long time. Anne Zusy was the liaison to the BOE...prior to that Jacques Harlow was the liaison. My point is, there are many opportunities for communication and (no pun intended) education between the BOE and the Council. I don't believe communication or lack of time is what determined the Council's decision on the budget. As I've said before, the leading factor was undoubtedly the fact that we had already cut $6.9 million from the budget. There really was not room to cut more without damaging the district.
Anyway, back to the Candidates' Night: it was surprising to me how few questions there were from the audience. Not sure what that means...more voter apathy, I suppose.
I heard the Stop Valley people will be naming "their" candidate soon (possibly tonight). It should be an interesting couple of weeks till the election.
Well, not really a BOE debate, more like a repetitive airing of grievances and misinformation.
I thought it was odd how so much of the conversation focused on the new lights at RHS Stadium and Stevens fields, as well as the Council's handling of the defeated school budget last spring. And by "conversation," I obviously mean mis-statements and vague promises.
Contrary to one of the candidates' statements, at no time did the school district approach the Village for funding of the lights, and the current funding arrangement was not developed following any "heated discussions" of any kind.
It was odd to hear such criticism of the users of the lighted fields, consistently referred to as "them," as those "others" who are somehow benefitting. Hello? They are the thousands of children of our town, children of our taxpayers. They are us, and we are all going to benefit from better, more efficient use of our limited field space.
To those candidates who lamented the short timeframe the Council had in which to cut (or not cut) the school budget (with the implication being, if they only had more time, they could have cut the budget more): Board of Ed members and Dr. Fishbein were all over town prior to the budget vote, offering to review the budget in detail and answer any questions. Long before the vote, the Board invited the Councilmembers to a meeting to review the budget and answer any questions -- in as much detail as desired. And as for the "new" idea that a Village councilperson could serve as a liaison to the BOE -- there has been one for a long time. Anne Zusy was the liaison to the BOE...prior to that Jacques Harlow was the liaison. My point is, there are many opportunities for communication and (no pun intended) education between the BOE and the Council. I don't believe communication or lack of time is what determined the Council's decision on the budget. As I've said before, the leading factor was undoubtedly the fact that we had already cut $6.9 million from the budget. There really was not room to cut more without damaging the district.
Anyway, back to the Candidates' Night: it was surprising to me how few questions there were from the audience. Not sure what that means...more voter apathy, I suppose.
I heard the Stop Valley people will be naming "their" candidate soon (possibly tonight). It should be an interesting couple of weeks till the election.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
On the agenda for the 10/18 Board of Ed meeting.
The Ridgewood BOE will meet at 7:30 p.m. tomorrow (Monday) at the Ed Center, third floor. A few highlights from the agenda:
-- Annual report on school violence and vandalism, presented by Basil Pizzuto, Assistant Principal at Ridgewood High School. Mr. Pizzuto will also review school activities designed to reduce and prevent violence
-- Approval of out-of-district placements for 2010-11. There are a total of 93 students placed in non-Ridgewood schools, primarily for special education needs specified in the students’ IEPs (Individual Educational Plan).
-- Acceptance of various donations, including $25,000 allocated by the Fields Committee for the RHS field lights.
-- Approval of agreements with West Side Presbyterian Church for parking for GW staff, and with the Ice House for ice time for RHS hockey
-- Approval of various change orders for construction projects
As always, the meeting will be broadcast on Cablevision channel 77, and webcast on the District website (click here).
-- Annual report on school violence and vandalism, presented by Basil Pizzuto, Assistant Principal at Ridgewood High School. Mr. Pizzuto will also review school activities designed to reduce and prevent violence
-- Approval of out-of-district placements for 2010-11. There are a total of 93 students placed in non-Ridgewood schools, primarily for special education needs specified in the students’ IEPs (Individual Educational Plan).
-- Acceptance of various donations, including $25,000 allocated by the Fields Committee for the RHS field lights.
-- Approval of agreements with West Side Presbyterian Church for parking for GW staff, and with the Ice House for ice time for RHS hockey
-- Approval of various change orders for construction projects
As always, the meeting will be broadcast on Cablevision channel 77, and webcast on the District website (click here).
Friday, October 15, 2010
Congrats Ridgewood Girls' Cross Country: Big North Champs!
Congratulations to Coach Jacob Brown and the Ridgewood girls' cross country team for their Big North league championship yesterday at Darlington. I am happy to see the team picking up some steam again. I miss those days watching my daughter run, along with Ridgewood stars Meredith Jones, Ashlyn Llerandi, Justine Lupo, Meg O'Connell and others. It looks like we are creating some new champs!
Good luck tomorrow at the Ridgewood Invitational at Vets Field (girls run at 3:15, boys at 3:40). Come on out and watch -- it's impressive to see teams from 17 schools take off across Vets Field. Next Friday Ridgewood will run at the Bergen County Championships, back at beautiful Darlington Park.
Go Maroons!
Good luck tomorrow at the Ridgewood Invitational at Vets Field (girls run at 3:15, boys at 3:40). Come on out and watch -- it's impressive to see teams from 17 schools take off across Vets Field. Next Friday Ridgewood will run at the Bergen County Championships, back at beautiful Darlington Park.
Go Maroons!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
