Trenton’s Educational Dilemmas in Perpetuity and How an Elected or Appointed Board Misses the Point

“NJ has created a system of institutionalized inequality by funding schools through property taxes or that basically, an education is only as good as the value of the neighborhood property. Funny how education is so often viewed as an equalizing factor when in actuality, there is nothing equal about it.” Facebook Meme.

A Window into the State of Trenton Public Schools:

Upon entering Woodrow Wilson school in the North Ward’s St. Joe’s section of Trenton, there is the realization a certain peace exists. The hallways are quiet, the office and its staff adeptly working and there are no children in the corridors. Staff voices in the distance melodically banter their morning greetings and then the sounds of classroom doors shutting. There is complete order in this K through 5 elementary school setting. Her first Principal assignment after a long history as a professional educator and literacy professional, Trenton native, Janet Nicodemus, has been in place at Wilson School since September 2016. Hers is an inimitable, dedicated spirit that maintains a well-honed skill set and creative family achievement model;

executed to educate and love the children and employees of the school to success. Exceptional, and like many principals (good and bad; willingly or unwittingly) she takes ownership for the outcomes of the students and their educational achievements.

Senora Nicodemus, has successfully established a standard of new expectations within the brief time of her tenure and it resonates in the orderliness of her hallways, the buy in of employees and the performance of the students. Students of two different age groups, each of about thirty, now filter through the hallway. They are lined up moving in opposite directions past each other. These are children who project feeling safe and secure, speaking softly and smiling at us as they pass. The foundational principle, in this application of educational and family achievement is love, explains the Principal. “It is integrated into the standards and expectations of the school every morning with teachers and students in morning meeting. I explain to them all behaviors and reactions to behaviors, in this school, are borne of love. If it is not love, we don’t do it.”

Comparatively, at the last site of the Trenton Ninth Grade Academy on Calhoun Street in the North Ward, previously Monument School, Governor Chris Christie at that time, spoke with students about their planned career pathways. Partnerships for Trenton, had been requested that morning by the Chair of the Community Stakeholders Committee on Public Education to attend and verify the proceedings. We were graciously received by the assistant principal who recognized us and asked we be introduced to the Principal Hope Grant and District Business Administrator (BA) Jane Howard. Both were candid in sharing their excitement about the governor’s visit and the opportunity it created for students in terms of benchmarks in their lives and aspirations for achievement.

The BA had been under much attack for many gaffes at the board that impact district performance; particularly in the financial and staffing decision making that affects performance outcomes for the TBOE and its students. Understanding our roles as civic activists, we were impressed this day with their seeming authenticity in establishing a good rapport. The school, a middle school 9th grade cohort of students, was also well managed and students awaiting the governor’s arrival were excited and sitting amongst themselves; these included several from the district’s ROTC program. Hope Grant is noted as the Principal stewarding much of the advocacy for Trenton Central High School, during and since its rebuild and opening (KUDOS).

Then entered the Trenton Education Association and the congeniality of our hosts went south. The union president and assistant were immediately on the attack with salient issues they’ve been firing off toward a Governor who despises unions and their control in the educational marketplace. Christie in June of 2016 threatened to flat line state educational spending to $6,599 on each student “to lower property taxes in suburban areas. During the announcement, the governor repeatedly targeted the Capital City’s “failing” school district as to why a formula change is needed.” Such a policy change would have decimated the Trenton district, with estimates of a loss in teachers from 1,100 to 300, the elimination of many operational services and the downsizing of the district from 22 schools to six. Christie was also a fierce advocate of charter schools in line with the latest national efforts from the Trump administration relating to educational policy. On this day, we heard the Association asserting gubernatorial threats to flat line funding across the states, would be a deleterious juggernaut on educational outcomes for poor youth who live in NJ's urban centers. Christie (and the legislature) in passing his last state budget, declined to eliminate education funding and maintained state funding levels for public education.

The teacher’s union, is often seen as out of step; “bold and unprofessional," “berating, belligerent and simply antagonistic,” “eager to play the race card;” and they’ve been described as perniciously persistent, unless they get their way – “then they’re your friend.” In contrast, many of the issues they raise are pertinent and require discussion. They speak to the structural inequalities and the impact of pitting “public” and charter schools against one another – because one funding mechanism penalizes the other; as the funding “follows the student.” They argue it is the teachers who have been asked to stand steadfast in the face of fewer aides, less support, less resources. They and parents point out that too many students with greater needs have been mainstreamed without the paraprofessional support necessary for their optimal functioning in the classroom or during other extra-curricular activities.

The list of inefficiencies is quite staggering. They illustrate how unrealistic it is, to expect stellar outcomes in the face of an educational infrastructure being dismantled at the federal and state policy levels while demanding state performance standards be met with less and less money going directly to education supports and processes. It is simply an exercise in futility for students, parents and personnel while contractors, consultants, administrators, union bosses - bolster political prowess and get fat; feeding on the tax dole in deference to sub-par performance. An elected or appointed TBOE is a moot point.

Brown vs the Board of Education

Politics are central to the functioning of educational delivery systems. Mr. Alexander Brown was a member of the Trenton Board from 1980 to 1986 and was reappointed by Palmer in 1990 to serve two terms, ending in 1996; the next few paragraphs are summary compilation of his expertise on the state of important legislative proceedings that have driven the framework of urban education in New Jersey for the last eighty years. “2004 marked the 50th anniversary of the passage of the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which in part says, ‘segregated schools were a denial of equal protection of the laws, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.’ In addition, in 1955, the court issued a judgment known as ‘Brown II,’ which defined the transition period required to integrate public schools, using the phrase, ‘with all deliberate speed,’ which in time became an oxymoron. Both decisions received a unanimous vote by the Court. Prior to the court’s action, most black children were languishing in low achieving segregated schools; like they do now. During the Eisenhower administration, however, the speed of change would [continue to] advance at a snail's pace.

“Historically, the legal immorality of forced racial segregation in public schools remained validated by the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court ruling upholding the doctrine of ‘separate but equal.’ A result of these rulings, segregation in all forms infused the American culture and retarded the growth and development of African American children for decades. Fifty-five years would pass before another parent would challenge America's public segregation laws. When Brown attempted to enroll his daughter in the white elementary school, the school principal denied his request. With the NAACP in 1951, he filed an injunction with thirteen other parents to end the segregation of public schools in Topeka, Kansas. This series of events initiated Brown v. Board of Education.

‘Though the litigation received a favorable ruling by the Court, the passage of the Civil Rights Act is what signaled the end of “de jure - segregation,” but unfortunately, ushered in the age of defacto-segregation across the country. To counter, NJ political elites applied laissez-faire economics to funding urban schools by using the local property tax model. This indifference helped to perpetuate a race based educational caste system that prevented public school children in urban areas from receiving quality educations, due to shrinking tax bases. “For urban districts, the inequitable reliance on dwindling local property taxes to fund quality schools was not possible and reliance continued discrimination against urban school children. Property rich districts were able to ensure a consistent quality educational experience for their children better than property poor communities.” Other legal actions would be filed on behalf of urban children; in 1970, Jersey City filed suit challenging state statutes for financing public schools based on property taxes. In 1973, the Courts found that the property tax system for funding public schools was unconstitutional. The state legislature responded by passing the Public School Act of 1975, which established minimum state aid per-pupil and included curriculum improvements – but did not address disparity in funding.

“In 1981, another complaint was filed by parents on behalf of their children, claiming the 1975 Act violated the state constitution and the Equal Protection Clause. These events initiated the Abbott v. Burke case. The student named in the complaint was Raymond Arthur Abbott, filed against the Commissioner of Education, Fred G. Burke. Over nine years the state legislature would only give lip service to the issue of finding disparity affecting the education of urban children. In 1990, after the parents of the “Abbott” children reminded the state of its responsibility to address equitable funding, and again contended the 1975 Act did not address funding or educational disparities, legislators came up with the Quality Educational Act that by 1993, was declared unconstitutional by the Superior Court, because once again, it did not ensure funding or address parity with affluent districts. In 1994 the Supreme Court upheld the unconstitutionality of the Quality Education Act. The legislature then, in 1996, began promoting the Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act, which also did not guarantee sufficient funds to urban schools. At this juncture, in May of 1997 the Court intervened and directed the State to provide 100% of funding of the “Urban 30 Abbott Schools.” This was a remedy to ensure parity in per-pupil cost and to implement supplemental programs, health and safety improvements, construction of new classrooms to reduce class sizes, and to put an end to the deliberate discrimination of urban school children. In 2000, the NJ State Legislature passed the unprecedented school construction initiative, which not only provided funds for the Abbott Schools, but also provided necessary funds for suburban schools as well.”1

This is the backdrop that the Trenton Board of Education has navigated to frame educational delivery methodologies for their students. The ongoing resistance of the legislature and its many different acts to "help" urban districts raise performance, without supplying additional dollars, consistent with recalibrated urban school curriculums – over and over again - till this day. When this writer joined the Trenton Board of Education as a Child Study Team Social Worker in 1993, the Quality Education Act was the “soup of the day.” That soon evolved into Whole School Reform Act that was again restructured with the Abbott Initiative and all this was before the implementation of No Child Left Behind that redirected curriculum development responsibility, metrics and reporting – again. Structural curriculum and financing deficits are intentional constants in the educational delivery models for NJ’s urban schools. The undermining of district infrastructure and personnel, in deference to legislative shortcomings and policy shenanigans redirecting resources away from student needs, rue any hope of solving daily problems for the children who must attend these schools.

Trenton’s Current Educational Dilemma

On the ground, the Trenton Board of Education, which some would argue is over budget, maintains budget deficits from one year to the next, is understaffed from one year to the next, has had inconsistent district wide core curriculum, maintains ongoing facility, construction and particularly transportation challenges. Trenton schools are woefully challenged to improve performance outcomes and stay within budget. Revenues have wreaked havoc for years with staffing levels consistently needing paring to cut costs by laying off workers; then pending state funds, bringing them back to work or contracting out – some years past it was the security guards and maintenance workers; then special education paraprofessionals.

Many will argue the positives about Trenton Schools are not getting out; that there are great improvements being made. From the raising of the new high school, to increases in the annual graduation rate; Trenton schools are in some capacities, improving. Longitudinally however, Trenton’s consistently poor educational output has translated into an underdeveloped workforce where estimates are up to a third of Trenton’s working age population does not have a high school diploma; and college preparatory programs struggle to mitigate and improve these impacts toward the gainful educational development of our youth.

The Trenton School District consists of 13 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 2 high schools - both brand new - the Restorative Academy, and an alternative high school. The central administrative team currently consists of a superintendent, chief of staff, business administrator/board secretary and executive director of human resources, negotiations and legal affairs. The school district is an independent corporate body operated by a Board of Education and is not a department of the City of Trenton. Student enrollment is approximately 11,000. Their latest budgets have seen a decline in state dollars as more parents opt for charter schools.

The school district is classified as a Type I district with members appointed by the Mayor of the City of Trenton for a term and its budget is adopted by a Board of School Estimate. Trenton Schools had a brief history of state intervention that dates back to 1979 where the High Court affirmed an Appellate Division ruling that the educational system in the City of Trenton was in an abysmal state, almost entirely to the mismanagement and incompetence of the members of the local board of education. During the eighties a referendum was passed to move away from a Type II to Type I district.

More recently, in 2010, the Commissioner of Education re-assigned a state monitor to oversee the fiscal operations of the school district. State monitors have broad intervention powers including veto power over both the actions of the Superintendent and votes of the Trenton Board of Education. The Board of Education sets policy for the school district. The school district is then operated by the Superintendent and his administrative staff. The purpose of the Board of Education is not to run the school district, but to see that the school district is run well. The City of Trenton has contributed approximately $21 million annually for many years now; while assuming very little advocacy from the Mayor’s office to address the district’s educational oversight and achievement outcomes. The board of estimate is silent regarding ongoing annual structural deficits faced by the Board of Education, persistent reductions in force, persistent turnover of superintendents, patronage and nepotism. The district remains under state supervision in 2020.

The proliferation of Charter Schools and per student attachment to State funding (for every parent that chooses a charter, their district funding moves with them) has also encouraged regular annual structural deficits faced by the Trenton Board of Education. In succeeding years, it has been a factor resulting in millions of dollars moving with students to charter schools. This was briefly compounded by the gubernatorial threat to further redirect dollars away from public to charter schools and flat-line cost per student funding to $6,599 across the State; a cut of two thirds for Newark, about the same for Trenton, and even deeper in Camden. Newark’s Mayor Ras Baraka responded to this bully pulpit harassment in the Star Ledger, noting that “no school district in NJ has ever experienced that type of carnage… the majority of African American children in NJ (61%) live in school districts that would get whacked… so do the majority of Latino kids (55%) and poor kids (58%). The winners by race are white kids (85%) and Asians 89%. Those numbers were crunched by Stephen Sterling and Adam Clark of NJ Advance Media.” Jackson, the mayor at that time didn't utter a word.

Further, in Trenton there is a need to improve district wide priorities around special education. Accountability in Special Education evaluation and assessment is seriously lacking, many in need of services are yet to be assessed and many classified for services are not able to receive them. Recently a child was sexually molested in the back of a bus with aide and driver on the bus en route; this has not been the only such incident. The following letter comes from the New Jersey State Legislature bearing the signatures Senate President, Steve Sweeny, Vice Chair of the Senate Education Committee, Shirley Turner, and 15th District Assembly Persons, Reed Gusciora and Elizabelth Maher Muoio. Dated May 12th, 2017 it is addressed to theTBOE Board President, Gene Bouie; President of the New Jersey School Boards Association, Mark Biedron, and the Acting Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education, Kimberly Harrington:

“Dear Presidents Bouie and Beidron and Acting Commissioner Harrington,

“The safety and well-being of our children should be our highest priority. When parents send their children to school they expect them to be well taken care of. But reports across the State, and in particular, Trenton, tell a different story. There have been numerous reports of students with special needs being physically and sexually assaulted on school buses. These buses are often lacking staff, overcrowded and combining students with a variety of abilities and ages together.

“As legislators, we hope policy never has to be created because something horrible has happened. Unfortunately for students with special needs that were assaulted, the legislation we are championing is long overdue. Districts do not need this legislation to ensure buses are a safe place for all children; however, it is clear that this legislation is needed to ensure districts do the right thing.

“S.2757 would require there be at least on aide for every 15 students with special needs. By providing proper supervision on a bus, parents can once again feel safe sending their children to school. While this bill moves through the legislative process, we ask that districts, the State Board of Education, and the Department of Education evaluate their policies on student transportation, and immediately implement safe practices to protect students who are riding the bus.” Signed by the TBOE"2

This background, up until this juncture, fails to mention the superintendent

was replaced by new leadership in 2016, whose superintendent experience manifested with his appointment - on the job; not that Dr. Frederick McDowell wasn't wholly capable from a theoretical place, and he did to some degree, validate his capacity to lead the district, a district with recalcitrant problems that have been demonstrated, longitudinally, in this writing. His predecessor, Nelson Ribon, serving in an interim role, found the Trenton school unions and city council wanted him out a couple days into his appointment. The TEA head stated that “Ribon did not qualify to fill the interim superintendent vacancy for which he applied. City council followed suit by passing a resolution to oppose Ribon’s appointment.”3 Seems this could have been said of McDowell, but nary a word was raised. I am unclear what the depth of experience of the new interim superintendent of schools is for Ronald C. Lee as of 2019.

Prior to Ribon’s appointment, the previous interim Superintendent Lucy Feria tendered her resignation during a botched search that failed to identify any qualified candidates to fill a permanent position. Through parent and activist outrage, the tendered candidates were rejected and the search reopened; the subsequent search for a permanent Superintendent was also fraught with problems of transparency, but concluded with the recommendation of Dr. McDowell; who has now left the district. So through the series of superintendents just described, the Trenton Schools have averaged one school superintendent per (2-3) years for the last (12) years. The verdict is out on the new superintendent and we are tempted to include the beginnings of his tenure in this manuscript - but are choosing to demarcate his inaugural months in the new role from the mire of inefficiency leveled thus far.

Trenton maintains standing among the three lowest graduation rates in the state. One third of Trenton’s population lacks a high school degree and 50% of teachers quit after five years across the board. Each year the city of Trenton loses new teachers because of the difficulty they experience trying to understand the needs of the students and how to best merge into the Trenton district, its broad community cultures and political climate. The district appears on par to remain perpetually locked into structural deficits as dollars continue to constrict, while pensions, health benefits and student enrichment needs are compounded or incrementally expand; and its leadership recoils from the efforts of the community to assist TBOE transparency; and from a toxic union leadership that carries a big stick, but lacks in negotiation and student advocacy.

The now defunct Community Stakeholders Committee on Public Education ratified its values and mission statement in the last quarter of 2016 to court an audience with the TBOE toward approving its institutionalization as an advisory group to the Board. The Committee was formed to support and promote dialogue in the Trenton community on various issues relating to the creation of the Trenton school district’s annual budget and its effects on staff reduction, student support and quality of educational programs. The Committee spent two years bringing these issues to the attention of Trenton residents, stakeholders, school board leadership, the superintendents of schools, the Mayor of the city and members of City Council. To further accomplish this, the committee proposed that the school board adopt the Community Stakeholders Committee on Public Education to work in an advisory capacity with the school board’s finance committee. The City of Trenton and the board leadership was at that juncture oppositional to formalizing a community input process. To that end, the Committee approached the State Senator in this legislative district for support who joined our collaboration in the advancement of legislation, Senate Bill 3356 (S. Turner), requiring Type I school districts and charter schools to establish citizen input committees that would mandate citizen budget input for school’s state wide.

Making Sense of the Educational Cacophony: Is An Elected School Board Viable? Now, the district is front and center again in 2020 as some representatives of City Council have called for a resolution to change the TBOE from a Type I to a Type II school district. Primarily to move from an appointed school board to an elected one, "While there are a number of distinctions between those districts classified as Type I and Type II, the primary distinction is that in Type I districts, the mayor annually appoints board members to rotating three-year terms, while in Type II districts, board members are elected to such terms by the electorate. However, another important distinction is that Type I districts have a board of school estimate which works in conjunction with the local municipality in order to secure funding for capital projects. Generally, in a Type I district, the Board of School Estimate will adopt a resolution seeking bonding for capital projects; the municipality will then adopt a bond ordinance supporting that project. However, in Type II districts, bonding for capital projects must be approved by public referendum."4

Historically in NJ "over the years, there has been a slow but steady move away from appointed boards, with only 29 remaining in the state's 567 municipalities. Hoboken, Plainfield and Salem are among the cities that have recently switched to the elective system, and voters in Summit and Elizabeth decided whether they want to change or not. There have been some notable exceptions to this trend. Trenton had an elected school board at one time and in the early 1980's, the City switched from an elected board back to an appointed one."5

Further, while some advocates for the change point out the process of appointments is less than democratic, it has been observed "elections at any level of government aren’t perfect. One common concern in representative democracy is electoral participation. Approximately 40–50 percent of the electorate actually votes in midterm congressional races, and roughly 60 percent vote in presidential elections. With only half of adults voting in some of these races, many have expressed concerns about the vibrancy of American citizenship. But in comparison to school board races, national elections are veritable models of participatory democracy... Most turn out a measly percentage of registered voters — often less than 20 percent"6 These rates are demonstrated even in the face of other items of local referendum on the ballots examined like massive tax hikes and major bonding referendums. "So yet still, even with these seemingly critical matters on the ballot, only 19 percent of the electorate bothers to vote."ibid "Voters are not really motivated to vote in these low-visibility contests. Weak motivation is almost certainly a spot-on assessment. But further dampening public participation, may be determining if board elections are held “off cycle” — in non-congressional election years — when average voters aren’t paying attention to elections. Without the draw of high-profile candidates on the ballot, only the most attuned voters (or the most self-interested ones) participate in local school races."7

Examples like these are key to the overall success of students in the Trenton district. We must embrace a multifaceted vision that first and foremost establishes a standard and value upon education. It is an understanding that the city’s future is premised on this precept; that its leadership has the ability to educate and train its workforce and to attract families with children that can pay taxes. This must be aligned with overall family achievement and educational enrichment supports; like libraries, adequately staffed community centers and lots of extracurricular activities. And it must be reinforced with fiscal responsibility and community budget oversight. Holding educators alone accountable for addressing the causes of low academic achievement within Trenton, in isolation of the family, social and hierarchical structures that are present, isn’t particularly smart or proactive.

Improved educational outcomes for Trenton’s students will also require consistency in the delivery of educational methods and curriculum. Consistency and longevity on and in the faces of its ambassadors and advocates. It requires a shift in Board visioning that values district accountability to the parents and students, not to political patronage and the demands of the unions - the question is will an elected school board change or exacerbate this last dynamic? The TBOE is a political beast whether it is classified as Type I or Type II - that is a given. More important, regardless of appointed or elected, the Board must demonstrate and value the longevity of good superintendent leadership; with a qualified superintendent who understands that poverty impedes achievement through magnitudes of familial or community stressors - before and during each student’s period of public school enrollment.

“The pedagogy of poverty; its depth of despair, the chaotic character of responses to it in everyday life are often barriers. Why are some of the urban poor unapproachable? What are the complexities in trauma and resistance to parents being fully present for self and for their children? Understand that we must recognize the humanity of the poor and journey with them. We must value persons and ask permission to enter into their reality and their families. Once that is done, we can start identifying on a case by case basis, what is most important to the achievement of the child and the family. We believe the family can change and we need to offer parent engagement solutions to transforming public schools and how parents can transform their families. We should provide them with extraordinary experiences; whole family experiences so they can be exposed and have something wholesome to talk about around the dinner table; more access to relevant history and contemporary culture. Parents are so confused about meeting market demands, understanding themselves, and meeting social welfare policy requirements, that they cannot step back and identify what to do for self and family.”7

As Wanda Webster Stansbury, Executive Director Emeritus of the Center for Child and Family Achievement states above, a kind and wholesome commitment to education, and a vision for achievement on the part of students and their families, must be mined further; reinforced with holistic policy responses and infrastructures, that support and encourage individual student and family achievement; and autonomy. Policy practices must undergird the development of social capital and engender methods that point the way for Trenton’s children and families toward success. How will an elected school board assist in addressing these inter-related social and community based factors that require immediate attention and a reinforced continuum of care to mitigate them?

The challenges of 21st Century urban education and academic achievement in Trenton, stem from the lingering effects of federal, state policy and judicial decrees; from a history of racial antagonism and discrimination. They stem from the consequences of abject poverty, localized neighborhood trauma and a myriad of other challenges - children, families and educators face in adhering to educational models that are moving targets; and that are unsustainable to guarantee academic achievement outcomes. In tandem, Trenton residents are bound by a web of rules, procedures and protocols behind which stands an iron fist of union regression and interests, designed to control and maintain non-responsiveness to public input.

These barriers stand between the students, the school board and central administration in terms of creating a progressive, reciprocally guided framework for children attending Trenton public schools. The board must operate with a high level of transparency and honesty. Poor performance administratively, and in education delivery and outcomes, requires a different approach to board stewardship, how the board is appointed and provided guidance. What is the required thought leadership to establish and manifest new standards in expectations and outcomes for Trenton’s board, its administration, school leadership and students? I am hard pressed to believe an elected school board, and the anticipated cadre of resistance pending referendum, will contribute to addressing the broader factors and history of inefficiencies, the District is attempting to mitigate in the interest of student achievement and improved outcomes.

References:

1. Brown, A., Brown vs Board: The Evolution of Abbott School Funding in NJ; TAG Resources Inc., Newsletter, September, 2004; Used with Permission.

2. SENATE, No. 2757STATE OF NEW JERSEY217th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED NOVEMBER 10, 2016; ftp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/20162017/S3000/2757_R1.HTM

3. https://www.njsba.org/news-publications/school-board-notes/may-2-2017-vol-xl-no-37/court-prevents-change-elected-board/

4. Ibid.

5. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/06/nyregion/school-boards-elected-or-appointed.html

6. https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/commentary/elected-school-boards-and-dangerous-illusion-democracy?fbclid=IwAR30Q6K5QRvj3BYSZaisE9-O58JEKk6uaGF37r-uOEl_AGEu-BEZ4gfofFk

7. Wanda Webster Stansbury, Statement on Pedagogy, Executive Director Emeritus of the Center for Child and Family Achievement