This is the Hopewell Borough example, again, the family will remain constant, except there will beno Busing Fee, since Hopewell Borough is outside the Hazardous Busing region for both the middle school and the high school:
Valuation of home: $452,312 (Avg. Assessment)
Number of students: 2, one in middle school, other in high school
Location: Inside the Mandated Busing region
So, lets look at Hopewell Borough:
2006 Taxes paid: $4,790
2006 Activities Fees: $0 (included in 2006 taxes)
2006 Busing Fees: $0 (included in 2006 taxes)
2006 Total Taxes & Fees: $4,790
2007 Taxes (est.): $5,066 ($276 increase, both proposals approved)
2007 Activities Fees: $150 (100% increase)
2007 Busing Fees: $0 (0% increase, outside Hazardous Busing region)
2007 Total Taxes & Fees (est.): $5,216 (8.9% increase)
An 8.9% increase in out-of-pocket costs for a family with two students seems quite high for the same level of services. Of course, the Activity Fees are optional, but many consider the services it funds essential.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Hopewell Township
This is the Hopewell Township example, it was preceeded by the Pennington Example, and will be followed by the Hopewell Borough example. In each example, the family will remain constant:
Valuation of home: $549,400 (Avg. Assessment)
Number of students: 2, one in middle school, other in high school
Location: Inside the Hazardous Busing region
So, lets look at Hopewell Township:
2006 Taxes paid: $6,188
2006 Activities Fees: $0 (included in 2006 taxes)
2006 Busing Fees: $0 (included in 2006 taxes)
2006 Total Taxes & Fees: $6,188
2007 Taxes (est.): $6,153 ($35 decrease, both proposals approved)
2007 Activities Fees: $150 (100% increase)
2007 Busing Fees: $300 (100% increase)
2007 Total Taxes & Fees (est.): $6,603 (6.7% increase)
A 6.7% increase in out-of-pocket costs for a family with two students seems quite high for the same level of services. Of course, the Busing and Activity Fees are optional, but many consider the services they fund essential.
Valuation of home: $549,400 (Avg. Assessment)
Number of students: 2, one in middle school, other in high school
Location: Inside the Hazardous Busing region
So, lets look at Hopewell Township:
2006 Taxes paid: $6,188
2006 Activities Fees: $0 (included in 2006 taxes)
2006 Busing Fees: $0 (included in 2006 taxes)
2006 Total Taxes & Fees: $6,188
2007 Taxes (est.): $6,153 ($35 decrease, both proposals approved)
2007 Activities Fees: $150 (100% increase)
2007 Busing Fees: $300 (100% increase)
2007 Total Taxes & Fees (est.): $6,603 (6.7% increase)
A 6.7% increase in out-of-pocket costs for a family with two students seems quite high for the same level of services. Of course, the Busing and Activity Fees are optional, but many consider the services they fund essential.
Pennington Example
I wanted to examine three identical families in the three municipalities, and consider how the proposed tax increase, Activity Fee, and Busing Fee will impact their annual tax bill.
This is the Pennington Borough example, it will be followed by Hopewell Borough and then Hopewell Township. In each example, the family will remain constant:
Valuation of home: $527,000 (Avg. Assessment)
Number of students: 2, one in middle school, other in high school
Location: Inside the Hazardous Busing region
So, lets look at Pennington Borough:
2006 Taxes paid: $5,713
2006 Activities Fees: $0 (included in 2006 taxes)
2006 Busing Fees: $0 (included in 2006 taxes)
2006 Total Taxes & Fees: $5,713
2007 Taxes (est.): $5,797 ($84 increase, both proposals approved)
2007 Activities Fees: $150 (100% increase)
2007 Busing Fees: $300 (100% increase)
2007 Total Taxes & Fees (est.): $6,247 (9.2% increase)
A 9.2% increase in out-of-pocket costs for a family with two students seems quite high for the same level of services. Of course, the Busing and Activity Fees are optional, but many consider the services they fund essential.
This is the Pennington Borough example, it will be followed by Hopewell Borough and then Hopewell Township. In each example, the family will remain constant:
Valuation of home: $527,000 (Avg. Assessment)
Number of students: 2, one in middle school, other in high school
Location: Inside the Hazardous Busing region
So, lets look at Pennington Borough:
2006 Taxes paid: $5,713
2006 Activities Fees: $0 (included in 2006 taxes)
2006 Busing Fees: $0 (included in 2006 taxes)
2006 Total Taxes & Fees: $5,713
2007 Taxes (est.): $5,797 ($84 increase, both proposals approved)
2007 Activities Fees: $150 (100% increase)
2007 Busing Fees: $300 (100% increase)
2007 Total Taxes & Fees (est.): $6,247 (9.2% increase)
A 9.2% increase in out-of-pocket costs for a family with two students seems quite high for the same level of services. Of course, the Busing and Activity Fees are optional, but many consider the services they fund essential.
Per Student?
In an article in today's Times, there was an article on West Windsor-Plainsboro school district to adjust the formula used to calculate the proportion owed by each municipality to a per-student basis. Is that something we should consider in the Hopewell Valley Regional School District?
I've not been able to come up with accurate numbers on the number of students from Pennington, Hopewell, or Hopewell Township, but if we work backwards we can see how the total number of students multiplied by each municipalities share of the annual school budget to show some interesting numbers.
There are expected to be 4,086 students enrolled in HVRSD next school year, and the municipal portions break down as follows:
Hopewell Borough: 6.83%, or 279 students
Pennington Borough: 9.52%, or 389 students
Hopewell Township: 83.65%, or 3,418 students
I wonder if the above backwards calculations map to the actual ratio of the number of students in the school district from each municipality?
Of the three municipalities, Hopewell Township is certainly the largest contributor of students to the school district, and it also has the greatest potential for adding more students to the school rolls, with Pennington and Hopewell Boroughs being, essentially, built out.
Is this something the taxpayers of HVRSD want to consider, I don't know, but I think it is interesting question...
Your thoughts? Also, if anyone can point me to accurate percentages of students from each municipality I'd really appreciate it.
I've not been able to come up with accurate numbers on the number of students from Pennington, Hopewell, or Hopewell Township, but if we work backwards we can see how the total number of students multiplied by each municipalities share of the annual school budget to show some interesting numbers.
There are expected to be 4,086 students enrolled in HVRSD next school year, and the municipal portions break down as follows:
Hopewell Borough: 6.83%, or 279 students
Pennington Borough: 9.52%, or 389 students
Hopewell Township: 83.65%, or 3,418 students
I wonder if the above backwards calculations map to the actual ratio of the number of students in the school district from each municipality?
Of the three municipalities, Hopewell Township is certainly the largest contributor of students to the school district, and it also has the greatest potential for adding more students to the school rolls, with Pennington and Hopewell Boroughs being, essentially, built out.
Is this something the taxpayers of HVRSD want to consider, I don't know, but I think it is interesting question...
Your thoughts? Also, if anyone can point me to accurate percentages of students from each municipality I'd really appreciate it.
Penultimate 2007-2008 Budget Presentation
This week I’d like to discuss the proposed 2007-2008 budget, as presented by the School Board Friday to municipal representatives and the general public. The budget as presented is not final, but it is a good indication of what will ultimately be sent to the voters on April 17th, 2007 for approval.
In general, I like the budget – I may have issues with elements within the budget, but the reality is nothing will be ADDED to the budget if it is voted down on April 17th.
Do I wish we could retain the auto shop class as an in district offering? Sure I do, but the heart of that program was the instructor – he is the driving force behind every endorsement from parents. The reality is, he is retiring and the program will change. Voting down the budget won’t bring him out of retirement.
Do I wish we could retain Primary Strings for grades 1 through 3? Absolutely – without this class, how many children would be exposed to music in such a hands-on way? The trend across the nation is to cut music offerings to increase “core curriculum” education – here in the Hopewell Valley, that is one trend I am pleased we have rejected. Keeping Primary Strings in the first grade is a reasonable compromise – it offers the exposure to music that is so important. Voting down the budget won’t bring back Primary strings in grades 2 and 3.
Do I wish Hazardous Busing was fully funded in next year’s budget? Absolutely – but keeping busing for students in grades K through 5 in the budget is a great start. In addition, the reduction of the requested parental payment from an estimated $500/student per year to a reduced estimate of $150/student per year is a welcome improvement. Voting down the budget won’t get Hazardous Busing for all students currently served back next year.
With this latest budget presentation, we have some real numbers for the Activity Fee and Busing Fee for those that wish to avail themselves of those services will have to pay: The one-time annual Activity Fee is $50 for grades 6 through 8, $100 for grades 9 through 12, with a per family cap of $200/year. The Busing Fee, is as an annual fee of $150 year per student, with no per-family cap.
For a family living in a house assessed at the township or borough average, with two children in the school system (one in the middle school, one in the high school), but requiring Hazardous Busing ($300 family total) and participating in activities ($150 family total) face total out of pocket school expense increase of nearly 10% in Hopewell and Pennington Borough, and around 8% in Hopewell Township. My example family from Hopewell Borough would see a greater increase, but all students in grades 6 through 12 in Hopewell Borough qualify for Mandated busing. The fees are optional, but the services they fund are considered by many parents to be essential.
I invite you to discuss these, or any other concerns about our school district on my blog, at http://hansen2007.blogspot.com/.
Ken Hansen
Hopewell Township
In general, I like the budget – I may have issues with elements within the budget, but the reality is nothing will be ADDED to the budget if it is voted down on April 17th.
Do I wish we could retain the auto shop class as an in district offering? Sure I do, but the heart of that program was the instructor – he is the driving force behind every endorsement from parents. The reality is, he is retiring and the program will change. Voting down the budget won’t bring him out of retirement.
Do I wish we could retain Primary Strings for grades 1 through 3? Absolutely – without this class, how many children would be exposed to music in such a hands-on way? The trend across the nation is to cut music offerings to increase “core curriculum” education – here in the Hopewell Valley, that is one trend I am pleased we have rejected. Keeping Primary Strings in the first grade is a reasonable compromise – it offers the exposure to music that is so important. Voting down the budget won’t bring back Primary strings in grades 2 and 3.
Do I wish Hazardous Busing was fully funded in next year’s budget? Absolutely – but keeping busing for students in grades K through 5 in the budget is a great start. In addition, the reduction of the requested parental payment from an estimated $500/student per year to a reduced estimate of $150/student per year is a welcome improvement. Voting down the budget won’t get Hazardous Busing for all students currently served back next year.
With this latest budget presentation, we have some real numbers for the Activity Fee and Busing Fee for those that wish to avail themselves of those services will have to pay: The one-time annual Activity Fee is $50 for grades 6 through 8, $100 for grades 9 through 12, with a per family cap of $200/year. The Busing Fee, is as an annual fee of $150 year per student, with no per-family cap.
For a family living in a house assessed at the township or borough average, with two children in the school system (one in the middle school, one in the high school), but requiring Hazardous Busing ($300 family total) and participating in activities ($150 family total) face total out of pocket school expense increase of nearly 10% in Hopewell and Pennington Borough, and around 8% in Hopewell Township. My example family from Hopewell Borough would see a greater increase, but all students in grades 6 through 12 in Hopewell Borough qualify for Mandated busing. The fees are optional, but the services they fund are considered by many parents to be essential.
I invite you to discuss these, or any other concerns about our school district on my blog, at http://hansen2007.blogspot.com/.
Ken Hansen
Hopewell Township
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
HVN Candidate Question
The Editor of the Hopewell Valley News, Ruth Luse, has asked each of the candidates to submit a photo, short bio, and an answer to the following question: How would you trim 5% from the current (2006-2007) school budget? Be specific.
I think it is a great question, because it causes candidates to "put their money where their mouth is" and identify what areas they feel can be cut, and which areas shouldn't be cut - our answers will speak volumes about our priorities, as well as provide a mechanism into our problem solving approach.
I spent a few hours looking at the budget yesterday after I got the request from Ms. Luse, and I can tell you this - I am glad I never asserted that our current school board was wasting money.
When you talk about reducing something by 5% it seems trivial - if you are discussing your personal budget, a few simple cuts can make that up without any serious implications, but when you are talking about an already tight school budget, a 5% cut is huge.
Five percent of the current school budget comes out to between $3 and $3.5 Million dollars, which is huge - our entire transportation budget is just over $4 Million dollars, so to think that by cutting a few bus runs you can save some money is folly - you'd have to cut nearly all busing to save the 5%, but you'd run afoul of state requirements and be guaranteed a lawsuit by angry residents (or even the state). What about cutting athletics? Well, the entire athletic budget is just about $750 Thousand dollars, leaving you looking for another $2+ Million dollars to cut, and again, angering nearly all middle and high school parents. What about teachers - what if we put off hiring a few new teachers, and let class sizes grow a small amount - that could work, but then you have the challenge of keeping all classes within state class size requirements and you're still looking for additional monies to cut (only a handful of new teachers were hired last year), and to save over $3 Million dollars, you'd have to cut around 50 teachers. Finally, what if you were to skip the capital investments made this year to maintain our physical plant - well, you could do that as well, but there was only about $1 Million dollars worth of such investments, leaving you still looking for another $2+ Million dollars to cut, and you run the risk of requiring greater capital investments in the near-term when what could have been simple repairs escalate into problems that require complete replacement of failed items (i.e. a new roof versus a repaired roof).
So tell me what you think could be cut to trim 5% off the cu rent school budget - I'm interested in your thoughts as to where monies could be trimmed.
I think it is a great question, because it causes candidates to "put their money where their mouth is" and identify what areas they feel can be cut, and which areas shouldn't be cut - our answers will speak volumes about our priorities, as well as provide a mechanism into our problem solving approach.
I spent a few hours looking at the budget yesterday after I got the request from Ms. Luse, and I can tell you this - I am glad I never asserted that our current school board was wasting money.
When you talk about reducing something by 5% it seems trivial - if you are discussing your personal budget, a few simple cuts can make that up without any serious implications, but when you are talking about an already tight school budget, a 5% cut is huge.
Five percent of the current school budget comes out to between $3 and $3.5 Million dollars, which is huge - our entire transportation budget is just over $4 Million dollars, so to think that by cutting a few bus runs you can save some money is folly - you'd have to cut nearly all busing to save the 5%, but you'd run afoul of state requirements and be guaranteed a lawsuit by angry residents (or even the state). What about cutting athletics? Well, the entire athletic budget is just about $750 Thousand dollars, leaving you looking for another $2+ Million dollars to cut, and again, angering nearly all middle and high school parents. What about teachers - what if we put off hiring a few new teachers, and let class sizes grow a small amount - that could work, but then you have the challenge of keeping all classes within state class size requirements and you're still looking for additional monies to cut (only a handful of new teachers were hired last year), and to save over $3 Million dollars, you'd have to cut around 50 teachers. Finally, what if you were to skip the capital investments made this year to maintain our physical plant - well, you could do that as well, but there was only about $1 Million dollars worth of such investments, leaving you still looking for another $2+ Million dollars to cut, and you run the risk of requiring greater capital investments in the near-term when what could have been simple repairs escalate into problems that require complete replacement of failed items (i.e. a new roof versus a repaired roof).
So tell me what you think could be cut to trim 5% off the cu rent school budget - I'm interested in your thoughts as to where monies could be trimmed.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
NJSBA Meeting Last Night
Last night (19 March, 2007) I went up to North Brunswick High School for a preparation meeting for School Board candidates - it was pretty informative.
The meeting was really intended, as best as I can figure it, to set expectations as to how to conduct yourself as a School Board member (should you be elected), and what resources are available to (me) as a new School Board member (should I be elected). The real education was in the Q & A session afterwards, when I got a chance to hear the issues that are driving other candidates in other districts to run for office. There were stories of having to work-around an uneffective superintendent, getting information from reluctant boards on what they are actually doing, etc. Some of the more troublesome districts had just a few hundred students (400 - 600 students).
Anyway, I've included a link to the website for the NJ School Board Association on the right, in case you are interested in some additional information on the legislation and pressures that impact School Boards across the state. Interesting viewpoints on S-1701 and other recent changes - I encourage you to check it out.
The meeting was really intended, as best as I can figure it, to set expectations as to how to conduct yourself as a School Board member (should you be elected), and what resources are available to (me) as a new School Board member (should I be elected). The real education was in the Q & A session afterwards, when I got a chance to hear the issues that are driving other candidates in other districts to run for office. There were stories of having to work-around an uneffective superintendent, getting information from reluctant boards on what they are actually doing, etc. Some of the more troublesome districts had just a few hundred students (400 - 600 students).
Anyway, I've included a link to the website for the NJ School Board Association on the right, in case you are interested in some additional information on the legislation and pressures that impact School Boards across the state. Interesting viewpoints on S-1701 and other recent changes - I encourage you to check it out.
Activity Fee
A lot of confusion surrounds the proposed activity fee for the coming academic year, so I thought I'd gather all the threads I've heard and list them here. As of today (Tuesday, March 20th, 2007), I have not been able to find any firm numbers around this proposed fee.
What do we know?
We know that the school board is planning on assessing what they refer to as Parental charges for participation in activities and athletics.
We know that the proposed fee is a one-time fee charged per year.
We know that some activities will be free, while others will require payment.
We know that this will only impact students at the middle school and high school.
We know that there will be some provision to accomodate those who can document they can't afford the Activity Fee.
How do we know the above? These have been the consistent elements of numerous discussions held recently around the district introducing the proposed/tentative budget for 2007-2008.
What we don't know
How much will the Activity Fee be?
How much money is the fee expected to generate per year?
Where will the monies collected be applied to the budget?
What activities will require payment?
Will any new activities be provided, now that parents are being asked to fund activities?
What will happen if there is an insufficient number of students that are interested in a particular activity - will it be cancelled?
It's easy to pick apart a plan that is still being developed, but this is the situation the school board has put us in. The budget has been in development since November of last year, it is frustrating that so few details are available about this part of proposed budget at this late date.
It is my opinion that this fee is little more than a ploy by the school board to placate certain groups of voters who traditionally vote NO on the school budget each year, to demonstrate that the board is reigning in extra-curricular activity costs by asking parents to fund these activities, at least partially.
Bottom Line
I fear that this attempt to placate certain groups of voters will, in reality, cause more confusion and frustration with the school board by a number of local voters, and when voters are confused or frustrated, I believe they will be inclined to vote NO on the budget, because it is their one chance each year to vote on the performance of the school board despite the effect a failed vote will have on the school district.
I believe most parents will agree to pay the fees, but this issue won't raise their interest in the school budget election enough to cause them to actually go out and vote for the budget. As witnessed by last year's vote, as few as four hundred voters can overturn a proposed budget and toss the school district into confusion as it attempts to recover from that defeat and formulate a new smaller budget and plan for the coming school year.
I wish the school board would drop the activity fee immediately, come up with a real plan for implementing an activity fee in 2008-2009 school year, and take the coming school year to consider how the activity fee could fund not only existing activities, but also fund new activites previously impossible to offer, due to budget constraints. If the parents are funding activities, the school can offer activities previously not possible, and it could provide funds to enrich those activities.
You know what would be a really interesting idea? The School Board should develop a purely Voulntary Fund to collect an activity contribution to improve current activities above and beyond the funding provided by the proposed 2007-2008 budget. Parents could choose to contribute or not, and participation in activities would be open to all, if they have contributed or not.
What do we know?
We know that the school board is planning on assessing what they refer to as Parental charges for participation in activities and athletics.
We know that the proposed fee is a one-time fee charged per year.
We know that some activities will be free, while others will require payment.
We know that this will only impact students at the middle school and high school.
We know that there will be some provision to accomodate those who can document they can't afford the Activity Fee.
How do we know the above? These have been the consistent elements of numerous discussions held recently around the district introducing the proposed/tentative budget for 2007-2008.
What we don't know
How much will the Activity Fee be?
How much money is the fee expected to generate per year?
Where will the monies collected be applied to the budget?
What activities will require payment?
Will any new activities be provided, now that parents are being asked to fund activities?
What will happen if there is an insufficient number of students that are interested in a particular activity - will it be cancelled?
It's easy to pick apart a plan that is still being developed, but this is the situation the school board has put us in. The budget has been in development since November of last year, it is frustrating that so few details are available about this part of proposed budget at this late date.
It is my opinion that this fee is little more than a ploy by the school board to placate certain groups of voters who traditionally vote NO on the school budget each year, to demonstrate that the board is reigning in extra-curricular activity costs by asking parents to fund these activities, at least partially.
Bottom Line
I fear that this attempt to placate certain groups of voters will, in reality, cause more confusion and frustration with the school board by a number of local voters, and when voters are confused or frustrated, I believe they will be inclined to vote NO on the budget, because it is their one chance each year to vote on the performance of the school board despite the effect a failed vote will have on the school district.
I believe most parents will agree to pay the fees, but this issue won't raise their interest in the school budget election enough to cause them to actually go out and vote for the budget. As witnessed by last year's vote, as few as four hundred voters can overturn a proposed budget and toss the school district into confusion as it attempts to recover from that defeat and formulate a new smaller budget and plan for the coming school year.
I wish the school board would drop the activity fee immediately, come up with a real plan for implementing an activity fee in 2008-2009 school year, and take the coming school year to consider how the activity fee could fund not only existing activities, but also fund new activites previously impossible to offer, due to budget constraints. If the parents are funding activities, the school can offer activities previously not possible, and it could provide funds to enrich those activities.
You know what would be a really interesting idea? The School Board should develop a purely Voulntary Fund to collect an activity contribution to improve current activities above and beyond the funding provided by the proposed 2007-2008 budget. Parents could choose to contribute or not, and participation in activities would be open to all, if they have contributed or not.
A tale of two budgets...
Last week, the Trenton School Board (TSB) approved a $271.9 Million dollar budget for the upcoming school year, amid fears the state may not provide all the aid they require, causing a potential short-fall of between $1 and $9 Million dollars.As in the last two years, the Trenton School Board anticipates to collect state aid of around $219 Million dollars.
Also last week, the Hopewell Valley Regional School District (HVRSD) approved a budget for the upcoming school year of between $68.7 and $70.4 Million dollars. Unlike last year, HVRSD is expecting to collect just over $4.26 Million dollars in state aid, an increase of almost $125 Thousand dollars over the previous year.
Understand, TSB is a larger school district, and it has numerous challenges that thankfully we in HVRSD don't have to face, but look at that disparity in state aid: TSB is expecting $219 Million in state aid toward a $271.9 Million budget, and HVRSD is expecting $4.26 Million in state aid toward a $70.4 Million budget (let's just pretend the second question is approved)...
The TSB is expecting the state to pick up about 80% of their budget, HVRSD is expecting about 6% of their budget to be paid by the state.
If we in the Hopewell Valley are to see any real reduction in our property taxes, a stated goal of nearly all in Trenton (with each legislator having a different opinion on how to achieve it), we will need to see a significant increase in state aid, and soon. Our school budget will only increase year after year, and unless the state steps up and increases it's level of funding to HVRSD, local property taxes can only increase.
As a private citizen, I have almost no ability to effect such a change, and if I were to be on the HVRSD School Board, I would just as frustrated in my personal efforts, but hopefully, as all 600-plus school boards in New Jersey work together with the legislature over the next few years, we just might be able to make a change... Maybe.
The kind of change I think is appropriate would be for the state to step up and assume a significant financial responsibility for Special Needs students. The 2007-2008 HVRSD school budget projects instruction costs directly related to Special Education programs at about $3.2 Million dollars for services provided in-district, and just over $4 Million in Special Education Tuition for services provided out of district. If those two line items were to be assumed by the state, that would provide an approximate $3 Million dollar increase in state aid and provide a nice start towards property tax relief.
Of course, I would prefer the state to contribute additional monies to HVRSD, but taking these expenses off the backs of the local tax payers it would insure that all the services needed by our Special Needs students are provided for, and not left to the local voters, who only have the ability to vote a budget up or down in it's entirety, and as recent elections have shown, one offensive line item in the budget can doom the entire budget to a process best described as sub-optimal.
Our school district deserves greater contributions from the state, our Special Needs students deserve the best we have to offer, and it should be guaranteed by the state.
Also last week, the Hopewell Valley Regional School District (HVRSD) approved a budget for the upcoming school year of between $68.7 and $70.4 Million dollars. Unlike last year, HVRSD is expecting to collect just over $4.26 Million dollars in state aid, an increase of almost $125 Thousand dollars over the previous year.
Understand, TSB is a larger school district, and it has numerous challenges that thankfully we in HVRSD don't have to face, but look at that disparity in state aid: TSB is expecting $219 Million in state aid toward a $271.9 Million budget, and HVRSD is expecting $4.26 Million in state aid toward a $70.4 Million budget (let's just pretend the second question is approved)...
The TSB is expecting the state to pick up about 80% of their budget, HVRSD is expecting about 6% of their budget to be paid by the state.
If we in the Hopewell Valley are to see any real reduction in our property taxes, a stated goal of nearly all in Trenton (with each legislator having a different opinion on how to achieve it), we will need to see a significant increase in state aid, and soon. Our school budget will only increase year after year, and unless the state steps up and increases it's level of funding to HVRSD, local property taxes can only increase.
As a private citizen, I have almost no ability to effect such a change, and if I were to be on the HVRSD School Board, I would just as frustrated in my personal efforts, but hopefully, as all 600-plus school boards in New Jersey work together with the legislature over the next few years, we just might be able to make a change... Maybe.
The kind of change I think is appropriate would be for the state to step up and assume a significant financial responsibility for Special Needs students. The 2007-2008 HVRSD school budget projects instruction costs directly related to Special Education programs at about $3.2 Million dollars for services provided in-district, and just over $4 Million in Special Education Tuition for services provided out of district. If those two line items were to be assumed by the state, that would provide an approximate $3 Million dollar increase in state aid and provide a nice start towards property tax relief.
Of course, I would prefer the state to contribute additional monies to HVRSD, but taking these expenses off the backs of the local tax payers it would insure that all the services needed by our Special Needs students are provided for, and not left to the local voters, who only have the ability to vote a budget up or down in it's entirety, and as recent elections have shown, one offensive line item in the budget can doom the entire budget to a process best described as sub-optimal.
Our school district deserves greater contributions from the state, our Special Needs students deserve the best we have to offer, and it should be guaranteed by the state.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Introduction/Letter to the Editor
Hello, my name is Ken Hansen, and I am a candidate for one of the two open seats on the Hopewell Valley Regional School District (HVRSD) School Board to represent Hopewell Township. The election is being held on April 17, 2007, not even five weeks from the publication date of this letter.
As you may remember, last year the $68.7 million dollar school budget proposed by the HVRSD School Board was not approved by the voters, being defeated by just over four hundred votes out of the 2,689 ballots cast (1,141 for the budget, 1,548 against the budget). The participation level of last year's election was just 18.2 percent of registered voters. After being defeated, the budget was passed to the elected officials in each of the municipalities to approve a revised budget - their response was to trim a record $2.14 million from the budget, and the HVRSD School Board accepted the recommended cuts and a new budget was approved.
It is my hope that we can not only increase the number of voters, but also increase the number of registered voters in our upcomng election. To this end, my campaign is currently focused on increasing participation in the next election by registering new voters and assisting currently registered voters to apply for absentee ballots if they can not make it to the polls on April 17th. Residents must register to vote 21 days before the election, and absentee ballots can be requested up to 7 days before the election by mail, or in person until 3:00 PM the day before the election. Newly registered voters may request absentee ballots, but they must wait until their registration is completed before they may request absentee ballots.
Forms to either register to vote or to request absentee ballots can be obtained either in your local municipal offices, on the web at either http://www.njelections.org (the web site of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General) or http://www.lwvnj.org (the website for The League of Women Voters of New Jersey), or by calling 1-877-NJVOTER (1-877-658-6837). Or, if you like, feel free to leave me a message at (609) 537-1283 and I'll be happy to come by and drop off any copies of either form and/or discuss your concerns with the school board. As the campaign continues, I'll also be updating my blog, and I encourgage everyone to stop by and see where I stand on various issues as they arise over the course of the campaign. My blog is at: http://hansen2007.blogspot.com - you can leave comments on any statements I make, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
I can't tell you how I feel about the school budget this year, mainly because it is still a work in progress, but I encourage every interested resident, whether or not you have children in the school district, to attend any of the upcoming School Budget workshops being held by the HVRSD School Board and make sure your questions are answered. I would also encourage residents to either attempt to attend or watch the League of Women Voters School Board Candidate Debate planned for March 29th on the local cable channel. Once you have the answers to your questions, vote in the school board elections.
Ken Hansen
Hopewell Township
As you may remember, last year the $68.7 million dollar school budget proposed by the HVRSD School Board was not approved by the voters, being defeated by just over four hundred votes out of the 2,689 ballots cast (1,141 for the budget, 1,548 against the budget). The participation level of last year's election was just 18.2 percent of registered voters. After being defeated, the budget was passed to the elected officials in each of the municipalities to approve a revised budget - their response was to trim a record $2.14 million from the budget, and the HVRSD School Board accepted the recommended cuts and a new budget was approved.
It is my hope that we can not only increase the number of voters, but also increase the number of registered voters in our upcomng election. To this end, my campaign is currently focused on increasing participation in the next election by registering new voters and assisting currently registered voters to apply for absentee ballots if they can not make it to the polls on April 17th. Residents must register to vote 21 days before the election, and absentee ballots can be requested up to 7 days before the election by mail, or in person until 3:00 PM the day before the election. Newly registered voters may request absentee ballots, but they must wait until their registration is completed before they may request absentee ballots.
Forms to either register to vote or to request absentee ballots can be obtained either in your local municipal offices, on the web at either http://www.njelections.org (the web site of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General) or http://www.lwvnj.org (the website for The League of Women Voters of New Jersey), or by calling 1-877-NJVOTER (1-877-658-6837). Or, if you like, feel free to leave me a message at (609) 537-1283 and I'll be happy to come by and drop off any copies of either form and/or discuss your concerns with the school board. As the campaign continues, I'll also be updating my blog, and I encourgage everyone to stop by and see where I stand on various issues as they arise over the course of the campaign. My blog is at: http://hansen2007.blogspot.com - you can leave comments on any statements I make, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
I can't tell you how I feel about the school budget this year, mainly because it is still a work in progress, but I encourage every interested resident, whether or not you have children in the school district, to attend any of the upcoming School Budget workshops being held by the HVRSD School Board and make sure your questions are answered. I would also encourage residents to either attempt to attend or watch the League of Women Voters School Board Candidate Debate planned for March 29th on the local cable channel. Once you have the answers to your questions, vote in the school board elections.
Ken Hansen
Hopewell Township
School Busing
This week, I’d like to write about school busing and let everyone know I stand on the issue. First off, let’s define what is on the table – the label school busing covers a lot of ground. For this discussion there are “flavors” of busing: Mandated, Hazard, and Courtesy busing. Mandated busing is state-mandated busing for students that reside beyond a certain distance from their school – elementary school students that live more than 2 miles from their school, and middle and high school students that live more than 2.5 miles away from their school are required to be offered a bus ride to and from school by the school district. Hazard busing is state-mandated busing for students that live too close to their school to qualify for Mandated busing, yet the route to the school is considered hazardous as defined by any one of several entities (state, municipal, and/or other government agency). Hazardous busing is required by law to be offered by the school district. Courtesy busing is the term used to describe any bus service offered to any students that live close enough to their school (less than 2 or 2.5 miles from their school), and have an otherwise safe path to their school (does not meet any government definition of Hazardous). Courtesy busing is not required by law, hence the name “Courtesy”.
Why is busing an issue? What changed? Simply put, the state decided to reclassify busing expenses, causing them to fall under a budget increase cap of 4 percent a year, part of legislation referred to as S-1701 – a misguided attempt to reduce property taxes by imposing simple-minded limits on school spending.
Here in the Hopewell Valley, our school district has decided to progressively withdraw funding for hazardous busing, opting to transfer the burden to the local municipalities over the next three years in an effort to create some breathing room inside the budget cap imposed by S-1701, and allow our school district to continue to offer an excellent educational experience to our children with minimal cuts over the previous year. While their actions have a certain logic, I feel the real answer lies elsewhere, but I doubt we’ll have much choice in the near-term.
In my opinion, School busing is the responsibility of the School District – period.
What’s the answer? For the New Jersey Legislature to correct not only S-1701 and pull busing out from under the four percent annual budget cap, but to also amend other laws to redefine Mandated and Hazardous busing to impose more reasonable limits given today’s environment – I think a half-mile walk for elementary age students, and a one mile walk for high school age children is more in line with what most parents feel is reasonable, but this change can’t happen before the start of the next school year (if ever.
I welcome your comments on this position, and encourage anyone that is interested to vist my web presence at http://hansen2007.blogspot.com to see where I stand on this, and other topics.
Ken Hansen
Hopewell Township
Why is busing an issue? What changed? Simply put, the state decided to reclassify busing expenses, causing them to fall under a budget increase cap of 4 percent a year, part of legislation referred to as S-1701 – a misguided attempt to reduce property taxes by imposing simple-minded limits on school spending.
Here in the Hopewell Valley, our school district has decided to progressively withdraw funding for hazardous busing, opting to transfer the burden to the local municipalities over the next three years in an effort to create some breathing room inside the budget cap imposed by S-1701, and allow our school district to continue to offer an excellent educational experience to our children with minimal cuts over the previous year. While their actions have a certain logic, I feel the real answer lies elsewhere, but I doubt we’ll have much choice in the near-term.
In my opinion, School busing is the responsibility of the School District – period.
What’s the answer? For the New Jersey Legislature to correct not only S-1701 and pull busing out from under the four percent annual budget cap, but to also amend other laws to redefine Mandated and Hazardous busing to impose more reasonable limits given today’s environment – I think a half-mile walk for elementary age students, and a one mile walk for high school age children is more in line with what most parents feel is reasonable, but this change can’t happen before the start of the next school year (if ever.
I welcome your comments on this position, and encourage anyone that is interested to vist my web presence at http://hansen2007.blogspot.com to see where I stand on this, and other topics.
Ken Hansen
Hopewell Township
Computer Technology in the Classroom
This week, I’d like to share with you my thoughts on Computer Technology in the classroom. Classroom Technology accounts for a significant portion of our school district’s annual budget, and it has been the source of great debate recently.
The role of technology in the classroom is, in my mind, very simple: to amplify the efforts of the teacher and his/her curriculum. In some cases, textbooks are offered with “interactive” components that can be used to supplement the material in the textbook, which may or may not be required to cover all the required material in the classroom. We need to ensure we have complimentary technology that can support these interactive components. In addition, technology can be deployed for hands-on use by the students (activities like desktop publishing, computer programming, Computer Aided Design (CAD), on-line education (Virtual High School), and research.
There is much debate about Open Source vs. Closed Source software in the classroom, and in my opinion you have to tread carefully when you consider deploying such software. True, there are many fine applications that in many cases more than exceed the actual needs of our students (Linux, Open Office, Firefox, etc.), but unless the curriculum supports those specific tools, in some cases it would take a great effort to integrate them into the courses. For example, if a Computer Aided Drafting class uses a textbook that assumes the student is using the latest version of AutoCAD, the differences would cause constant issues in the classroom, as the teacher has to explain how the tool in use is different than the one described in the book. There are some truly wonderful Open Source software packages that could be of tremendous value to our students, but once you get past the low cost of acquisition you have to integrate the tools into the curriculum. While the software is in many cases freely available, the curriculum that builds on that software usually is not.
Our school district has a very good student to computer ratio in our classrooms, but I question the level of integration in each particular class. As an exercise, I encourage each parent to ask their son or daughter questions like “How often do you use computers at school?” and “What do you do with the computers at school?” I think the answers will be enlightening. When I ask my son how often he uses a computer in his classes, it comes out, on average, to less than one hour a week – it is not unusual to not use the computers in the classroom for days.
Technology, properly integrated into the curriculum, can be an effective tool for the teacher, but the smallest issue with the technology can become a huge distraction in the classroom – the challenge is to offer teachers the tools they need to teach our students, and minimize the distractions they bring.
As always, I encourage your participation in a discussion on this topic on my blog at http://hansen2007.blogspot.com.
Ken Hansen
Hopewell Township
The role of technology in the classroom is, in my mind, very simple: to amplify the efforts of the teacher and his/her curriculum. In some cases, textbooks are offered with “interactive” components that can be used to supplement the material in the textbook, which may or may not be required to cover all the required material in the classroom. We need to ensure we have complimentary technology that can support these interactive components. In addition, technology can be deployed for hands-on use by the students (activities like desktop publishing, computer programming, Computer Aided Design (CAD), on-line education (Virtual High School), and research.
There is much debate about Open Source vs. Closed Source software in the classroom, and in my opinion you have to tread carefully when you consider deploying such software. True, there are many fine applications that in many cases more than exceed the actual needs of our students (Linux, Open Office, Firefox, etc.), but unless the curriculum supports those specific tools, in some cases it would take a great effort to integrate them into the courses. For example, if a Computer Aided Drafting class uses a textbook that assumes the student is using the latest version of AutoCAD, the differences would cause constant issues in the classroom, as the teacher has to explain how the tool in use is different than the one described in the book. There are some truly wonderful Open Source software packages that could be of tremendous value to our students, but once you get past the low cost of acquisition you have to integrate the tools into the curriculum. While the software is in many cases freely available, the curriculum that builds on that software usually is not.
Our school district has a very good student to computer ratio in our classrooms, but I question the level of integration in each particular class. As an exercise, I encourage each parent to ask their son or daughter questions like “How often do you use computers at school?” and “What do you do with the computers at school?” I think the answers will be enlightening. When I ask my son how often he uses a computer in his classes, it comes out, on average, to less than one hour a week – it is not unusual to not use the computers in the classroom for days.
Technology, properly integrated into the curriculum, can be an effective tool for the teacher, but the smallest issue with the technology can become a huge distraction in the classroom – the challenge is to offer teachers the tools they need to teach our students, and minimize the distractions they bring.
As always, I encourage your participation in a discussion on this topic on my blog at http://hansen2007.blogspot.com.
Ken Hansen
Hopewell Township
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)