Public tax dollars should be used to provide a well-rounded education for all students, not support themed/niche schools and special interests. If Chinese is necessary for students to compete, let the community decide that the district should offer it. Charter schools do usually accept fewer special ed students, and they often kick students out who show any problems. They do have the potential to damage well-functioning districts such as Millburn by taking a lot of money under the current funding formula. If they move in, Millburn's schools and property values will certainly suffer. Charter school opportunists are currently invading the school system for their own financial and professional advancement. Thankfully we have a superintendent who understands what's at stake for this town.

Where can we find NJ charter school expulsion rate vs. Other public schools?

I attended the NJ Department of Education meeting for charter school applicants this spring and it was made VERY clear that charter schools accept all students that apply, more applicants than spots result in a blind lottery. Furthermore, charter schools are subject to the same exact ed codes as ALL public schools regarding student expulsions. Jessica's misconceptions point to the sad fact that NJ residents are woefully ignorant in regards to education in comparison to residents of other States in this country. In fact, countless friends of mine in California saw The Cartel (about education in NJ) while it seems no one has even heard of this recent documentary in the Millburn/SH community.

It is a shame Millburn's Superintendent, Jim Crisfield, rejected Carlos Perez's offer to be on hand clear up all of our misunderstandings. It seems he is in the field of education yet uses his 'power' to keep everyone in the dark.

Charter schools may serve a purpose in underperforming districts but they have no place draining funds from excellent districts which have already been victimized by budget cuts. Under the current funding formula, charter schools will hurt us. We need to fight back. Kudos to Dr. Crisfield for keeping the interests of the town and its students a priority. And shame on those who would try to serve their own interests at the expense of others.

And why is it that whenever someone objects to these charter schools, advocates assume the objector is ignorant of the facts? I am well aware of the facts; I happen to DISAGREE. That doesn't make me stupid, ignorant, or even racist, which had also been thrown out as a reason for objections.

Mr. Perez, If you and your group feel that Mandarain-immersion is the way to go, why don't you approach the existing public school district and propose an in-district Mandarin-immersion program? Perhaps thre can be one class in each grade, K-2, that fulfills this purpose. Seems like a win-win-win: the Mandarin advocates get Mandarin immersion; the children get to saty in their home district and get all the "specials" and other perks of the Millburn district; and it would be way less expensive than starting an entirely separate school.

I would never call anyone stupid or racist because of their beliefs. However, by ignorant I mean simply that - unaware of how amazing educational choice can truly be - for students, the community and property values. A comparable school district other than Princeton is Palo Alto. No one would think to open a charter there because the district has decided to innovate - they offer Spanish immersion K-8, Mandarin immersion K-6, progressive educational programs, core/traditional educational programs and much more.
http://pausd.org/parents/programs/choice_schools.shtml

If Dr. Crisfield had the best interest of the community at heart - and had the educational knowledge to innovate - he could stop any charter school in its tracks. He simply needs to poll the familes in the community and gauge the need for something other than the 'same old same old.' If families wanted Mandarin immersion or any other innovative program, Dr. Crisfield has the power to create those programs in our schools. No dollars would be lost to charters, and everyone would win. It shouldn't take the threat of a charter to push a district into better serving everyone, but maybe that's what it takes. Rather than stomp out excellent education, we should be embracing it.

Neither Dr. Crisfield nor the voters/taxpayers of Millburn can stop the proposed charter schools. The decision as to whether or not to authorize the schools is entirely at the discretion of the NJ Department of Education. That is a great example of how the existing NJ charter law is broken and needs to be reformed to give local voters/taxpayers control over their school system and how their tax dollars are spent. The law also needs to require greater financial and educational transparency and accountability of charter schools and to increase the demographic representation for special needs, non-English speaking and poor children, all of whom are underrepresented at present in the charter schools of this state.

When it comes to public education, individual choice is just a marketing gimmick. Public education is a collective good, like defense and road maintenance. It is not like buying a sweater. Public education only works when the decision are made jointly, not when a few can hold an entire community hostage to their wishes. The voters/taxpayers of Millburn should be able to decide if they want to pay for a charter school. That decision should not be forced upon them by the state government or a small group of parents who want a particular pedagogical offering that is not supported by the rest of the community.

We are working with the NJ legislature to enact these reforms. You can learn more and join the effort by signing up at www.saveourschoolsnj.org

Good points from "Save Our Schools" except I don't understand why all that is needed. Dr. Crisfield and Millburn (voters/Board of Ed) CAN stop a charter school. By simply offering such a compelling program that people do not choose the charter, Dr. Crisfield and any district can 'stop' a charter school. If there is no need for the charter, no one will choose the charter and it will not exist. Millburn can follow the lead of comparable districts in Palo Alto and and places I've visited in Massachusetts, Madison (WI), Michigan and Minnesota, et al. Millburn could offer language immersion programs and other excellent and effective programs. Millburn and Dr. Crisfield have a choice to stick with the old school programs that are one-size-fits-all while they fight for legislative change or they can do what's in their and their students best interests - innovate.

It is not realistic for Millburn Schools to offer every conceivable option that any parent in the district could want. Nor are Millburn voters likely to support the kind of exorbitant taxes that this would require. There are always choices that must be made when it comes to public goods. We don't have sidewalks made from gold and we can't offer immersion in every language that the diverse residents of the district might desire. The point of public education is to make the necessary choices as a community, so that the will of the majority is reflected. Those who want something different can either try to change the minds of their neighbors, move to another district, or send their children to private schools. Public schools are designed to provide a high quality education to every child, not a boutique experience for a few. That is why New Jersey's broken charter laws must be reformed.

Dr. Crisfiled has only been in the district less than a year. Besides, something tells me that the charter people just wnat their own school no matter what. That's why I asked if they have tried to work within the system. Something tells me they have not. How about approaching the district first, before absconding with taxpayer money to form a separate school? And by the way, the charter people keep saying this is legal and it's public school. You can say that all you want, but it doesn't diminish the fact that a disproportionate amount of money is diverted from existing public schools to benefit a very small number of students.

I'm still trying to understand why Mandarin immersion is deemed so important. The international business community has long embraced English as the language of choice. I find it hard to believe that children as young as 5 or 6 already know that they want to conduct business in China when they grow up. This leaves Chinese families as the primary beneficiaries of this program; I see no reason why I should pay so someone else's kids can talk to their grandparents in their native tongue. If anyone wants to convince me that fluency in a foreign language is important, they'd have an easier time with Spanish. The number of Spanish speakers in the US has risen dramatically over the past few years. At least one could make a case for that. But Manadarin fluency is not going to help most of the kids in this district and the schools need to serve the needs of the majority.

I would agree that it is easier to learn a language at a young age. But this still doesn't address the purpose of Mandarin immersion. We're not talking about *teaching* a language; this charter school wants to make its primary purpose FLUENCY. I would still question the usefulness of that.

I mentioned in my previous comment that Princeton is a comparable district. I should have said that it WAS a comparable district. Its ranking went from #6 to 44 in 2 years.
http://njmonthly.com/articles/towns_and_schools/highschoolrankings/top-high-schools-2010.html

Where do you draw the line? Is it Mandarin, Spanish, Hebrew, Arabic, Portuguese?

If you say yes to one language...how can you say no to the rest?

Hanyu is trying to Balkanize the school system...it is just the first brick in the wall...and should be opposed on the grounds that "special interest" funding should have no place in a system that is striving to teach a standardized curriculum at a high level.

The solution is not to add Mandarin to the existing school district. The solution is to tell these parents to pay to fund this immersion education privately...or...to show some respect for the will of the majority in the communities that they live in. In a democratic country, sometimes your interests lose out...Mandarin education is not a human right! All these groups are trying to do is to drive through a loophole in current legislation in order to finance "special interests" on the backs of the larger community.

Shame on Yu!

When I was a kid, "they" said I should learn French. Then it was Spanish, and then Japanese, because, you know, Japan was important.

I did not learn to speak or read any of these foreign languages. None were the least bit necessary. Additional languages should be a private choice, and the fact that Mandarin is increasingly popular with some, just as French, Spanish and Japanese were in my youth, is more likely because it is the fad of the day, rather than a sound educational imperative.

For those of you who don't think Mandarin is needed, I would ask that you look at all the products around your home/office. How many now say "made in China" on them? I work in an industry where 90% of the products are made in China. I go there on a regular basis to visit my factories. I WISH I spoke Chinese!! Yes, SOME of the Chinese management speak SOME English, but usually we need a translator. Also, in negotiations, I believe we are at a significant disadvantage by not knowing some Chinese. They know our language, but we don't know theirs. As an adult, it becomes extremely difficult to learn Chinese. And, even if you don't make products in China, in 10-15 years most of us will be selling products to China and doing a lot of business there.

So - I do NOT agree that Mandarin education is just for Chinese kids to speak to their grandparents. And, for those who don't value learning Chinese, you just need to try to do business there and you will understand the value.

MOMSH, than what about India, or Malaysia or South America for that matter. I see more and more business being done in those parts of the world.
Perhaps what we need to do, is take a look at the current Public School curriculm and have conversations on improving the Global aspect or courses that are given.

Very true, Anne. I do business in those parts of the world as well and have been to each you reference. Based on my own observations, I would agree that Spanish is also a critically important language. In terms of SE Asia, and India, I find more people speak English than in China or S. America. I believe English is one of the official languages of India, for example. In Malaysia, it is the primary language of business... while not "official" it is taught and used from a very early age.
While SE Asia is giving China some competition in terms of manufacturing, the sheer size of the Chinese market still makes it a compelling language to know.

That said, I am not sure we need a charter school focused mainly on teaching Chinese. I think there are extra curricular programs that teach Mandarin in this area for as young as age 3. Perhaps those who are interested sign their kids up for such programs?

I do think our language program, at the elementary school level at least, is very weak relative to today's global marketplace. And, we just cut world language teachers at each elementary school in favor of "books on tape" and video instruction. What a shame!

The charter school founders should read this article before they commit to leaving the mainstream schools. http://nymag.com/news/features/asian-americans-2011-5/ Paper Tigers
What happens to all the Asian-American overachievers when the test-taking ends? written by Wesley Yang an Asian American. Warning long article but I found it fascinating viewpoint although maybe author is confusing personality issues with racial bias issues??

Save public schools over charters.
withdraw or sign against charters here.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nocharterschool/