Question: Will the "extra money" (tax increase alert!) that we now have to pay people who go to these boutique charter schools also be included in the calculaion of the 2% cap of school tax? If so, does this mean that councilwoman Shapiro favors either to have the school tax to go beyond 2% or the classroom programs for majority of population in town to be cut to benefit a few?

While I can’t speak for Ms. Shapiro, I can say YES: funds taken from local school budgets to offset the cost for students attending Charter Schools will come out of the district's operating budget, and will result in the reduction of programs in the public schools, OR in a tax-increase to continue funding the current curriculum. You're correct: Charter Schools would service comparatively few students, especially since the quality of a Livingston education is so high.

At a crucial moment in education - when we've already seen how quickly funding can be cut by the State - we must preserve the funds we have in order to maintain the exceptional quality of our public schools. The superb quality of our schools is what makes Livingston a destination for those who value education, and what keeps property values high. Once we dilute the bang that our residents get from their school buck, all bets are off. If parents wish to enhance their child's education by immersing them in specific curricula, they should consider a private school. The majority of Livingston Public School students will NOT attend a "boutique" Charter School, and will suffer once we begin channeling money from the public schools to the Charter Schools being proposed.

Another thing to consider:

Once begun, where does it end? How many Charter Schools can the taxpayer bear? If we allow the formation of the Mandarin Charter School, can we deny the applications of Charter Schools for immersion in other languages, cultures, or activities? It truly opens Pandora's proverbial box.

Fortunately, Livingston offers an exquisite education that is envied by many neighboring districts; indeed, Livingston High School is often cited as a "Private Public School." The outstanding performance of our students - in the classroom, on standardized tests, and as successful graduates working in a myriad of professions - is a testament to the superior curriculum that we offer. There is no pressing need to develop Charter Schools in Livingston, and the taxpayer simply can’t afford to indulge a very small percentage of parents who wish to give their children a subject-specific private education on the public dole. Moreover, we as Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to fight for our public school dollars - and to keep them working where they serve ALL children, and not just a select few.

"And, as entrance to the school is by lottery, we hope to draw from all the diverse ethnicities -- thereby further integrating all the diversities into a rich 'whole'.”-Dreborah Shapiro

Your wish to draw from diverse ethnicities is I believe not realistic.I belive this is a ruse by a specific ethnic group to establish a private school at the public's expense. I do wish the Governor recognizes the unintended consequences of what is happening with his wish for more charter schools without local input.
Charter Schools serve a purpose when the public schools are failing their constituents.The state legislature must readdress their mandate.

For those who don't know, I am currently a member of the Livingston Board of Education

To Arthur's point, I agree that the general statement being applied to one of the Charter Schools proposed for Livingston, to wit, "We hope to draw from all diverse ethnicities" is extremely optimistic, and possibly a bit unrealistic. The truth is, we have two private Chinese schools currently operating in the Township, and they serve many children and families from a number of communities. Those schools lease space from the Board of Education, and are operated on the weekend. I am skeptical about the draw for non-Chinese students to a Charter School offering Mandarin-centric immersion. Surely, a few students intersted in linguistics, science, or engineering - who might someday need such fluency in Mandarin Chinese - will be attracted to such a school. But not the masses! And, our public schools are not here to service the few; we are charged with serving ALL students. Unfortunately, I believe that the creation of one Charter School - whatever its focus - will begin the process of segregating individual segments of the student population as additional special-interest groups apply for their own Charter Schools. This is educationally akin to "exclusion." We wouldn't push mainstreamed special education students back into isolated classrooms; why would we want to push any student out of the mainstream, and into an isolated school?

"My Opponent's "an Independent Voice" article:
In reading Livingston Board of Education candidate Barry Funt’s rhetoric on being an “Independent Voice,” I was dismayed with his obvious flip-flopping on the issue of Charter Schools. In recently published campaign statements – and in public debates (which can be seen on Livingston Television) - Funt has staunchly supported parental choice, school vouchers, and the formation of Charter Schools, saying that they will, “Provide competition to regular public schools.” As a Tea Party candidate running for State Assembly in 2009, these unwavering principles were the foundation of Funt’s campaign. And, he LOST. Clearly, Funt’s bid for the Board seat is merely a political ploy – and it is WRONG to bring politics into the educational arena.

In their Opinion section on April 21, 2011, the West Essex Tribune stated the following:

“We disagree with Mr. Funt’s position on Charter Schools, which we believe will siphon off significant sums of money from the public school district. He says that the decision to grant a charter school lies with the State, and that the local Board of Education has no control. We think a local Board has the responsibility to fight such entities, and to provide the education that charter school organizers feel is lacking.”

"My Opponent's an "Independent Voice" article:

Guess what? Mr. Funt is dead-wrong! As the Livingston Patch article of April 25 so clearly points out, bringing Charter Schools to Livingston will affect our taxes. Since the Commissioner of Education approves their budgets, he or she can take millions of dollars away from the public schools, which will force the local Board of Education to extract additional funds from the resident tax base. Remember: the Livingston public schools are already 96.1% resident funded!
As Barry Funt’s opponent I, Ray Leibman, have said from the beginning that I’m opposed to Charter Schools in Livingston. We offer a world-class education with more breadth and depth than most private schools. Then too, I agree with the West Essex Tribune – and the warnings from districts such as the Princeton public schools - that Charter Schools will siphon off essential funds from our local school budget. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if we are contributing 90% of the per-child cost for a public school education, and are forced to give that money to a Charter School, that we will lose millions from our public school budget. Who will pay? Our hard-working, taxpaying residents who will have to come up with the difference!

"My Opponent's "An Independent Voice" article:

Princeton’s Charter School currently has an enrollment of 344 students, and is receiving in excess of 5 million dollars from the Princeton public school district to support it. 2.8% of their students have special needs, while Princeton’s public middle school has 15.7 % students with special needs.

Further, Barry Funt continues to state that, “[His] business experience will be valuable in the upcoming contract negotiation, in analyzing and reviewing the school budget, and evaluating and recommending share services solutions.” But, when it comes to the Charter School issue, Barry states that, “The impact [of Charter Schools] on our property taxes and school budget are currently unknown.” Really! What fantasy world is Mr. Funt living in? What kind of business experience ignores the obvious?

"My Opponents" "An Independent Voice" article:

Funt further states, “Certainly, the town should have the right to vote on something that could drastically impact our property taxes and school budget. However, those decisions are made by the State. The Board only gets to deal with the consequences. If elected, I will closely study the matter, and invite community input. If in fact charter schools in Livingston will impose an additional property tax obligation on the community, or otherwise cause a further strain on our school budget, then I will encourage the Board to educate the community on what options we can take to give us input in Trenton”.

This statement differs greatly from the so-called pledges that Mr. Funt made during his 2009 State Assembly campaign. The truth is that Barry Funt’s words are those of a politician who wants to placate all sides in this matter in order to get elected.

My view is clear: I am against the implementation of Charter schools in Livingston, and if elected to the Board I will fight for the rights of all residents - and the majority of students who will not benefit (but will certainly suffer) from introducing them in our district.

Charter school are unique public schools that foster a partnership between parents, teachers and students to create an environment in which parents can be more involved, teachers are given the freedom to innovate and students are provided the structure they need to learn with all three being held accountable for student performance.
In our urban centers the need for charter schools is unquestioned. The public is aware that charter schools have provided high-quality options for children seeking to escape failing public schools.
But the lesser known story in New Jersey is that charter schools are flourishing in what many consider to be “high-performing” districts, such as Princeton. The Princeton Charter School, which opened in 1997 and was awarded federal “Blue Ribbon” status in 2004, is a great example of how an innovative charter school can help raise the standards for all students.
In the Princeton Regional School district, 59.5 percent of the students tested as advanced proficient in the NJ ASK 8th-grade mathematics assessment. That’s impressive; especially considering the state average is just below 30 percent.
But at Princeton Charter School, 84.4 percent were able to score advanced proficient on the eighth-grade math assessment. That’s because the founders of the school believed students needed to focus on math. Princeton Regional has since adopted many of the principals that have proven so successful in the charter school’s mathematics curriculum.

The only true difference between Ray Leibman and me on charter schools in Livingston is that he says that he is against them without the benefit of any additional information, and I want to understand the facts before making a decision. A candidate who says "no" on an important issue without any background information may well vote "yes" on something of great importance without background information. We should demand more from our public officials. We both agree on the merits of charter schools outside of Livingston. Of course, under current state law, our opinions on this issue matter little.

There is a long road from charter school application to charter school approval. Much needs to be learned by all relevant stakeholders. I wish Ray had this much to say about how we can achieve educational excellence in the Livingston Public Schools today in light of ongoing changes to the school curriculum. On this matter he remains unfortunately silent.

Mr. Funt's negative, antagonistic approach to his campaign leaves one wondering what HIS ideas are for achieving "educational excellence" in the Livingston Public Schools. Not once have we heard what his plan for increasing achievement is; rather, all we have heard is how much "integrity" the Board lacks, and how he plans to "restore integrity" without explaining what his plan is.

Two important points: (1) Mr. Funt's lack of insight is evident, as the Livingston Public Schools ARE achieving excellence in many areas - including Special Education; and (2) the only lack of integrity that existed on the Board was eliminated one year ago, with a former Board member's loss of election.

Once again, it's easy to criticize and attack as Mr Funt has done from day one. It's much harder - and it takes more knowledge than one can glean from attending a few Board meetings AFTER deciding to run for office (and taking the advice a small cadre of malcontents) than Mr. Funt realizes.

The differences between candidates runs deeper than whether they are for Charter Schools, or their position on budgets and tax increases. The differences ring true in their motivation...

As a relatively recent transplant from Los Angeles where everyone with children is in favor of charter schools, I am surprised by the view that a charter school takes money away from a public school. Dollars for education are disbursed on a per child basis (ADA) which would mean that the dollars follow the children. If parents choose to send their child to a charter, the money should follow them to that school. If fewer children attend the neighborhood school, there should be a need for commensurately fewer books, classes, teachers, etc. The 'fat' at the top (central administration, for example) does not adjust depending on the number of students, true, but perhaps we should be leaner in the dollars we allot to people who rarely, if ever, step foot into the classroom.

Most central to this discussion seems to be the feeling that a school district that is suburban and 'not failing' should have the right to vote against a charter. That seems unnecessary. If there is 'no need for a charter' because the neighborhood school is so good, then people will simply not send their children to the charter and there is no problem. If, however, parents are opting for the charter, even in these supposedly fantastic school districts, perhaps that is sending a message to the district that they may want to be a little more innovative, effective, or otherwise responsive to children's needs.

Dvora, you make a logical case. However, New Jersey funds schools differently than Los Angeles (which I'm quite familiar with), and the fear - and possibility - is that the Charter Schools that open in high-performing districts such as Livingston will become popular with specific segments of the school/community population. And, you are correct: if the school district is of exceptional quality, comparatively few parents will choose to send their children there (unless they desire full immersion in whatever the Charter School specializes in). The problem is that the local school district will be forced to pay the Charter School(s) a per-pupil cost that will take money away from the operation of the public school budget. Essentially, in addition to paying to support the continuance of a high-quality public school education, taxpayers will also end up paying additional costs for the small percentage of Charter School students. That's simply unfair. If a parent desires to remove their child (or children) from the public schools, and "immerse" them in a language, religious, or activity-specific curriculum, they should send their child (or children) to a private school. In New Jersey, district like Livingston are receiving less and less State aid, which means that both the public AND Charter Schools would need to be funded solely by taxpayer dollars...

Some have painted a rosy picture about suburban charter schools. It is good for a soundbite until you start putting a rough number to it. Again, we should not confuse the issue with the urban charter schools. Let's say, a K-5 language immersion charter school which has 200 students from 6 towns. Make it simple, say 33 students from Livingston. So perhaps, that six-grade charter school gets about 5 to 6 students in each grade from Livingston. Let's say, that the students are spread across all of our six elementary schools. So, we have one less student in each grade level in each elementary school. I could not imagine any saving with one less student in each grade. Obviously, it's not enough to reduce school costs. Perhaps, some water, construction papers and toilet papers can be saved. That's added up to what, a few hundred dollars saving at most?

Now, all Livingston residents have to pay these 33 privileged students to have a special world language program. The district has to pay out 90% of per-pupil cost which is about $12K per student each year. The total for the payout to the charter school will be about $400,000 per year. With that amount we could have restored and enhanced the world language program in ALL elementary schools in Livingston, not just 33 lucky ones. 

Change the word "Mandarin" to "Visual Arts" or "Computer Technology". How would that sit? Can those who are against this move be sure that they are not being a bit xenophobic? Visual Arts or Computer Technology are areas that most of us see as being important in a student's development and preparation for the future beyond public schools. I am only proposing that the Mandarin language is a bit "foreign", for lack of a better word, to many.

With China's explosive emergence into the world market, it will more and more important that our communication with their business leaders and politicians be made easier and more direct. School systems across the country are already doing this with Spanish so why the hesitancy with Mandarin? I know this all costs money. The school system for which I taught in Maryland (Montgomery County Public Schools, the 16th largest school system in the country with over 144,000 students and 22,000 employees) has three special programs in Visual Arts, Computer Technology, and Fine Arts as well as Language Immersion Programs, Ecology Science, and International Baccalaureate programs.

The education of our children must be looked upon as the greatest collective investment we can make If I were the parent of a student in a Union school and attending an immersion program in Livingston meant paying a premium, perhaps those who set these schools up will help in a financial aid program if I were unable to afford it.

While the intentions are worthwhile and honorable, several factrs that should be considered have not been commented upon. Of these, the most important is the siphoning away from the public arena of the diverse cultures whose participation and contribution to the general welfare of a community will be sorely missed. In Livingston, in particular, this culteral diversity and the participation of its citizenry of all diverse cultural backgrounds has made the community stronger and the educational system a nationally recognized one. The proposed charter schools are limited in their scope (language and/or culture only) and will only foster insularism, not community-wide participation.

Mr. Lee,

It shocks the conscience that you would consider those who have made rational points on this thread to be "xenophobes" - or, basically, people who have a hatred or fear of foreigners, or of their politics or culture. If you are a Livingston resident, you know first-hand how diverse our community is - and how our school system bends over backward to service and applaud the achievements of ALL students, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes - you can substitute ANYTHING you wish for "Mandarin Chinese," and my opinion would be the same: Livingston Public Schools offer a superb education marked by breadth, width, and diversity. And, if we DON'T offer a particular course, we encourage students to take them at an accredited institution, and we give them full credit for it. Unfortunately, it's people like you who have a myopic view, and instantly jump on the bandwagon to play the "race," "culture," "religion," or "ethnicity" card, which is truly divisive (and shameful, too). I would have the same opinion whether one proposed a Charter School that focused on Italian, Spanish, Hebrew, Indian, Latin, African American, Catholocism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, athletics, art, or basket-weaving: we CANNOT AFFORD TO FUND IT FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOL BUDGET.

I moved to Livingston so I could send my kid to a great school system. If you want to send your kid to boutique school I recommend you move to Jersey City, then you at least could justify the need - your tax dollars are not spent well and you don't have much of a choice. But don't try to destroy something that works and that will ultimately decrease the value of our homes.

J, you are thinking along the same line that I am. I am a huge proponent of creating specialized "tracks" within our high school. We offer a plethora of opportunities for those who wish to focus on academic pursuits; we do not, though offer a career specific track designed for students who wish to pursue fine arts, music, dance, etc. Those students do not need the intense math and science track that others do - they need courses tailored to their creative endeavors, and coaching to prepare for the rigorous auditions that performing arts colleges require. We COULD (and should) be creating such tracks within our district - and I've discussed it during my five years on the Board.

Unfortunately, the funds simply don't exist to place such emphasis on the arts (or certain other areas of interest). That said, we DO offer outstanding arts and music programs, and a lot of other courses that appeal to creative students (such as our TV studio and Music Technology program). It would be nice to approach such specialties" from within, but with the ever-shrinking aid to districts such as our, it is impossible to do. I cannot speak for other districts, but Livingston has such a wide variety of course offerings that Charter Schools are not remotely essential for student success. That comes at a price, of course - perhaps a price that the other districts you mention aren't willing to invest in their systems...

I must continue to agree with folks like Jim: Charter Schools would not best serve their intended purpose in Livingston...

That said, there's no reason why a compromise couldn't be reached in which voters are given a choice, via referendum, in their own towns...

Dvora, I don't know how it works in California, but in NJ dollars are NOT "disbursed on a per-child basis." Simple economics tells us that it does not cost $14,000 (or thereabouts) to educate each child on an absolute basis. It is an average, a mean -- it is not the incremental cost of educating each student. If a district loses one child to a charter school, the district does not lower its expenses by the average per-pupil cost of the district. You can't get rid of a teacher if you lose one 5th grader, one 2nd grader, and one 3rd grader. Much of the average per-student cost goes to resources that do not travel with the student -- like heat/utilities, building maintenance, mandated busing, and expenses that have nothing to do with that particular K-2 student, like special ed costs, high-school-related costs, and out-of-district placements. If a family of four has a household income of $100,000, you wouldn't say that the cost of supporting each person in the family is $25,000. If one person left the family, the family's expenses wouldn't suddenly be reduced by $25,000.

Mr. Granata,

You don't know me and I don't know you. I grew up in Maplewood in the '50's-'60's. Those who do know me would have laughed out loud when they saw your comment about me playing the "whatever-card" let alone taking a "myopic view" of this situation. You are an educated man and I dare say a well educated man. I, too am an educated man and if not well educated, I have at least learned how to take a realistic look at life. Though there may not be a xenophobe in all of Northern New Jersey, I still maintain that there are some people who would rather see a charter school for something they can relate to through their own experience than something they don't know much about. Because one group is against the charter schools for Mandarin, it does not mean they are indeed xenophobes. Of course I knew that. That's a simple no brainer. My reason for suggesting the possibility of a bit of xenophobia going around was to make people stop and think for a moment...question themselves and their motives for wanting or not wanting these charter schools. Seems I did that and the moment you took was offensively long. I didn't mean to make you angry.

Funding for every for nearly project has been cut. I know that things are particularly bad in New Jersey and, because I haven't been a citizen of NJ for over 40 years I don't understand why. That's a question for you folks to figure out. You'll decide how important these schools are to your children's future. Good luck.

Sorry to have misread your intent, Bob. I certainly respect diversity - and am not against the concept of Charter Schools when and where they're needed. I guess there's a lot of hesitation because there are no clear rules for how the State will help offset the costs of Charters in individual communities - if at all. And, I don't pretend to have the answers; I can only speak to how Charter Schools could affect a district such as Livingston's. It IS, as you point out, a frustrating and uncertain moment for education in New Jersey. Technology is changing rapidly, and schools barely have the chance to invest in the latest technological innovations before they're outdated. Academics, athletics, technology, and the arts - not to mention the maintenance of school facilities - all place great demands on a school district's resources, making Charter Schools in places such as Livingston a luxury rather than a necessity. I appreciate your candor and your clarification, and respect your willingness to share your opinions on this critical topic...

Part of leadership at any level is having a good ear besides a strong voice. Knowledge is power we need more of the former to make educated decisions, and in the long run recognize that their are lots of ways to raise bright children with a passion for lifes offerings. How you make it work is the product of hard work, open mind and the will and determination to do so. Their is always a bit of fear in anything new. We need to see how we can make it work.

Look at what the BC Teachers Union says about the real reason the business community wants to privatize education. (The Canadians are a lot more honest about discussing this kind of issue. they want to "FREE TRADE" away good US jobs for access to foreign markets and US-tax-exempt overseas CASH)

http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=11192
http://www.google.com/search?q=GATS+charter+school
"Even with the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS), education is one of the least liberalized services and has not been opened up to real trade yet. Education is open to GATS only if a country is prepared to put it on the table. Most countries fear a loss of cultural control and have not risked opening that Pandora’s box."

"liberalised" means the exact opposite most Americans think. "Liberalisation" means deregulation, privatization and free trade agreements that are irreversible eliminations of formerly public resources. The WTO rules strongly prohibit them. Thats why Medicare is being privatized, we committed to it in 1993.

The Friedmann/Chicago kind of economics..