So that our residents can cast the most knowledgeable vote, I will attempt to provide an overview of our budget. Keep in mind that this budget was designed through an intensive process that sought to balance the interests of education and interests of taxpayers in containing costs.

The proposed budget is in the amount of $135,953,172. Voters previously approved the Debt Service (expansion and renovations of our facilities) portion of this budget that now totals $10,067,390.00. We are requesting that you vote on the local share of the General Fund Budget in the amount of $94,949,620. It is this amount, when coupled with the State contribution of $24,485,493 (19% of Operating Budget as referenced in Chart #1), our local fund balance for 2007 – 2008 (we deficit fund the 08-09 budget with $3.78 million to reduce the need for a higher tax increase), and some miscellaneous revenue that makes up the total proposed Operating Budget of $123,696,844. The cost increase necessary to support this budget is 5.8 cents per $100 of assessment.

Obviously, no one wants to pay higher taxes. Unfortunately, public schools in New Jersey have only State-prescribed methods to fund their operations. Because of this, property tax represents the funding strategy that must bear the weight of the public schools.

So that you might better-understand this financial plan, let me share some insights and identify the issues that served to shape the proposed 08-09 budget. First of all, education is a labor-intense endeavor. As student enrollment grows, the staff necessary to meet student needs expands, as well. While we experienced a welcomed slow-down in our enrollment growth this year, our projections anticipate an increase of an additional 134 students for the 08-09 school year.

2008 Budget Chart 2A review of our student enrollment (Chart #2) reveals a significant and sustained pattern of growth over the previous 10 years. With an anticipated enrollment of 8,957 students in September, we will have witnessed a 10-year increase of 2,286 students. The result of this continual enrollment has created an ongoing need for more staff and expanded facilities.

I am pleased to report that all of the renovations and expansions to our facilities that were financed through the 2003 Referendum Bond Issue have been completed. While we have a never-ending list of maintenance issues given the number of facilities that we operate, there are no current plans under consideration for a future referendum related to our buildings.

The process that was utilized to shape this proposed budget involved analyzing every area of current spending. This review process allows the administration to ask the questions, “Why do we do this?” and, “Just because we have done this before, do we still need to?” This analysis has revealed, over the years, some time-honored practices that were no longer necessary. In response to the question, “Are there more cost-effective and cost-efficient ways to do what must be done,” we have identified at least fourteen shared services, purchasing consortiums (insurance, energy, technology, supplies, etc.), joint efforts (transportation), and re-financings (School Bonds). In each of these undertakings, the savings have resulted in direct budgetary reductions.

Upon completing the budget analysis, our next step was to calculate the costs associated with our “fixed cost” areas. These are the costs associated with such things as heat, light, water, air conditioning, gasoline, fuel oil, diesel fuel, transportation vehicles, postage, pension costs, salaries, benefits, insurance and legal fees. While this is not offered as a mutually exclusive list, it does represent over 90% of our Operating Budget.

After our students, the District’s most valued and important resource is our staff. Quite frankly, schools are labor-intense organizations that develop reputations based upon the competence and caring nature of the staff. South Brunswick School District’s reputation for excellence is a direct reflection of the commitment and quality of the staff. With all things of quality, there are attendant costs. The cost to keep our existing staff for the 08-09 school year will be $3.4 million.

Continuing with some of the major impacts that shape our budget, energy costs are increasing by $578,000. Anyone who is tracking home heating costs understands the incredible growth in this category. In a related category, our transportation costs will grow by $125,000. This increase is directly related to the spiraling cost of fuel.

Pension costs for support staff are billed, in part, to school districts. There is no way to anticipate this cost locally because it is a reflection of the financial contribution by the State to its pension system and the independent actuarial assessment that is performed periodically. Based upon the State’s financial condition, we anticipate paying an additional $628,000 in this category.

Another area of cost growth involves the 134 additional students that were previously mentioned. To adequately staff this growth, we will need to add 4.67 full-time equivalent staff. The total cost for this need is being budgeted at $301,000.

Two other areas of budgetary growth include social security costs and tuition. As you know, social security costs are associated with salary and we anticipate spending an additional $105,000. Likewise, placement needs of our students that require programming that the District cannot provide will increase by $78,000.

Our ongoing costs for facilities and operating systems of the building will increase by slightly over $400,000 due to rising costs associated with manufactured parts, service, paint, and consultant fees.

While this is not meant to serve as an exhaustive list, it is meant to provide you with a “flavor” of some of the major impact areas that increase our cost of operation. This short list alone totals increases of $5.6 million.

On the instructional front, we utilize a curriculum review cycle that allows for a regular, periodic study of each curriculum. Accompanying this review is an assessment of our textbooks and instructional materials. New and replacement textbooks will cost approximately $450,000.

A review of the Budget Appropriations – Major Categories Chart (Chart #3) reveals the areas of growth and reduction in this proposed budget. Increases in Regular and Special Education, tuition for students in need of out-of-district programs, costs associated with student activities and athletics reflect the commitment of the District to fund student needs. Costs associated with Transportation and Maintenance/Facilities are support services that provide our students with access to school and a safe learning environment. These are certainly the areas of the budget where our money should be spent.

The three administrative areas of the budget, as illustrated, reveal either reductions or in the instance of “school administration,” a less than 1% growth. This chart (Chart # 3) illustrates the commitment of the District to spend budget dollars in support of students while reducing or containing administrative costs.

South Brunswick School District is a member of the New Jersey State Health Benefits Plan for medical and hospitalization coverage for employees. As a result of a reorganization of this plan by the State, South Brunswick will realize a savings in this expenditure category of $1.1 million. This entire savings has been utilized to reduce the growth of the budget.

On the Revenue side of the proposed budget, State Aid is being increased by 20 percent. Previously (2007 – 2008), South Brunswick School District received approximately $20 million from the State. This State contribution has been static for over five years and has changed very little over the past seven years. The increased State Aid will be $4.3 million. For the sake of perspective, 19% (approximately $24 million) of our $135.9 million budget will come from State sources. While this amount will not balance the budget, it is welcomed relief and long overdue.

During this past year and in consultation with professional financial advisors, the District was able to refinance the 1997 Bonds (bonds sold to build the High School) at a net savings of $3.3 million. The savings have been spread over three budget years (08-09; 09-10; 10-11) and are being utilized to reduce the Debt Service portion of the budget. This year’s savings is approximately $1 million.

Two other important actions have been taken to fund this proposed budget. The first involves advancing $3.78 million dollars of unspent revenue from the 07-08 budget to fund the 08 – 09 budget. I have written previously about this State-imposed “deficit funding” model and the inherent danger that it presents, but suffice it to say these dollars offset the need to generate about six pennies of tax. That’s the good news. The bad news is that if a future budget is unable to produce such a year-end balance, significant program and personnel cuts would need to be made.

The second important action being taken involves the use of our Capital Reserve account for major maintenance needs. Approximately $500,000 will be taken from the Capital Reserve account to complete several projects such as replacing the HVAC system (first phase) at Crossroads South Middle School. By utilizing this account, the proposed budget is unencumbered with additional spending, but the needed repairs can completed.

As is done annually, every line item of the budget has been analyzed. The requests for budget additions have been limited to inflationary increases with no new programs being funded. Reductions have been made in areas of general supplies, hourly work, overtime and an administrative position has been eliminated.

2008 Budget Chart 4Problematic for the District is the fact that the Ratable Base (Chart #4) has decreased for the second time in the past four years. As you know, growth in the Ratable Base serves to reduce the need for new taxes. The Township has informed the District that Ratables have dropped $10 million. In simple terms, this means that the current operating budget (07-08) without any changes at all could not be supported in 08-09 without a 7/10 of a penny increase. In effect, .7 cents of this proposed budget tax increase is associated with the drop in ratables.

2008 Budget Chart 5Again, nobody wants to pay additional taxes. Here in South Brunswick, we have endeavored to build a first-class education system that meets the State mandate for a “thorough and efficient” approach. A glance at Chart #5 (NJ Cost Comparison Guide for 2007) reveals the status of South Brunswick’s per pupil spending when compared to the New Jersey averages. Perhaps more notable is the fact that our students are performing at historic levels. By every indicator, including State testing, SAT scores, National Merit qualifiers and Bloustein Scholars, South Brunswick students have never done better. We have much to be proud of in our students’ performance. While this performance doesn’t offset the need for a tax increase, I hope that every reader will view this budget as an investment in our students, our future and our community. I hope this information will assist your understanding of the proposed 08 – 09 school budget. As always, your support is greatly appreciated.

While this snapshot of the electronic age causes most of us to shudder, it rings true, in part, for some. The issue of communication has always been at the center of effective relationships, regardless of whether we are talking of personal ones or institutional ones. Actually, I believe that effective communication in a personal relationship is much easier to achieve than it is in institutional settings. With this thought in mind, I want to share some of the communication avenues that have been put in place to assist the community in its understanding of our School District.

First and foremost, each of the South Brunswick Schools has an active outreach through the Principal’s office. Frequent communications are sent home to parents through an electronic Friday Folder E-mail, hand-carried memos, PTO/PTA/Site Council flyers and First-class postal mailings. In addition, each school maintains an active Web site that provides news about building events and contact information regarding staff. The Principal’s newsletters provide another avenue for gleaning school news.

Most recently, the District has successfully completed a pilot and begun a project called Family Connect. This initiative provides parents of middle school and high school students with direct electronic access to their youngster’s academic progress (individual class grades) and attendance. As we monitor the use of this system, we have noted “high traffic” and tremendously positive parental feedback.

Another recently deployed communication tool is the District’s new Auto Dialer system. Through the use of this technology, we are able to contact parents at up to six different telephone numbers to advise them of school delays and emergency closings. This high-speed electronic tool can make thousands of calls in a matter of minutes. The expandable nature of this system will allow for many building-based uses. This system is in addition to our use of radio, television, and emergency E-mail to notify parents of emergency situations.

From a Board of Education level, two public meetings are conducted each month (except for July) that provide for public comment. These public comment opportunities allow for either immediate Board response or a promise to research the issue and provide a future answer. To enhance access to the larger community, Board meetings are televised on the locally-provided cable station (Channel 28). The District also uses it as an electronic bulletin board of upcoming events and as a means of re-broadcasting special school events. These special events are created by the District’s Viking Television Network (VTN), giving students valuable hands-on productionexperience while linking school activities to our community.

The Board of Education has sought to express the importance of community connection through the creation of several activities. Every August, the Board of Education receives recommendations for Goals in order to chart the District’s direction and focus of resources. Likewise, each June, the Board examines the outcomes of the Goal work to determine District progress. Both of these sessions occur at public meetings and are televised throughout the community.

The Education Summit is a Board-created event that is publicly held each February for the purpose of examining the State-of-the-District. The information that is presented at the Summit is posted on the District’s Web site so that the public can peruse the information with convenience. The program is designed to note District strengths and acknowledge District challenges.

Each year, the District adopts a budget after conducting several budget meetings and a hearing for Board approval. These forums are open to public participation.

Presently, the District is operating under the regulations developed around the Quality Assurance Annual Report (QAAR). This requirement is met at a public meeting each October, wherein the District shares testing results in response to Federal and State mandates. This presentation is provided to the community on VTN.

Obviously, this column is not exhaustive of the many ways the District communicates. The very forum for conveying this article,Spotlight on Schools, is published five times per year and mailed to the homes of all of our community members. We annually provide parent-teacher conferences, Back-to-School nights and special open house events. In addition, we participate in South Brunswick Township’s Community Unity Day and the South Brunswick Township Police Department’s “National Night Out” event.

I hope you find new avenues for communicating with the District that allow you to be more informed and to participate more fully in District initiatives. You can contact me by phone, mail, or E-mail.

Statewide testing of students in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 in both literacy and mathematics occurs annually. Tied tightly to New Jersey’s Federally-approved No Child Left Behind (NCLB) State Plan, student results are analyzed by State-hired testing companies for adherence to the State regulations that support Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). It is at this point that the first draft of the performance reports is released to school districts.

As you can imagine, especially if you have a very creative imagination, the reports are fairly complex and require a great deal of insight about some unusual facets of statistical analysis. Just so that you don’t think I am overstating the case, a comprehensive understanding of the report requires insight regarding “bundling” of scores, reportable “N” or group sizes, the mixing of multiple elements for individual students and the qualification provisions of “safe harbor” to name but a few.

Armed with these understandings, we are able to report that seven (7) of our ten (10) schools met each of the forty-one (41) required elements. By doing so, each of these schools are regarded as having met AYP. Our three (3) remaining schools each met forty (40) of the forty-one (41) Stateestablished elements. Greenbrook Elementary School fell short of meeting the literacy element for “students with disabilities.” Crossroads North Middle School fell short of meeting the mathematics element for “students with disabilities.” South Brunswick High School fell short of meeting the mathematics element for “students with disabilities.” In each of these instances, the schools in question met 97.5% of the State-required elements. Unfortunately, under the guidelines of NCLB, these three schools have failed to meet AYP.

Moving from the “look” at each school, the data on the correlating charts illustrates the District’s spring 2007 results by grade level. Chart #1 reveals the percent of all our third, fourth and fifth grade students that were recognized as “proficient” or “advanced proficient” in literacy and mathematics. The State minimum expected level of performance for 2007 for literacy was 75% (and will be 82% for 2008). The State minimum expected level of performance for 2007 for mathematics was 62% (and will be 73% for 2008). In the aggregate, the number of South Brunswick third, fourth and fifth grade students scoring in the proficient and advanced proficient category far exceeded the minimum State performance level.

As illustrated on Chart #2, the performance data of our sixth, seventh and eighth grade students in the content areas of literacy and mathematics for 2007 also exceeds State minimum expected levels of performance (literacy expected level 66%; math expected level 49%). In similar fashion, our grade 11 results (see Chart #3), when compared to State minimum expected levels of performance (literacy expected level 79%; math expected level 64%) reveal results well beyond State expectations.

By way of comparison to State expectations, South Brunswick students, in the aggregate, perform very effectively on State-created exams. It needs to be noted here that the expectation/requirement of NCLB’s dictate that by 2014 all public schools must have all students (100%) performing at the proficient or advanced proficient level is completely unrealistic Presently, Congress is entertaining proposals for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that drives the No Child Left Behind initiative. Much attention is being focused on the issues that have been created by the law. As is so typical of the political process, those who created the law are offering a staunch defense for maintaining the status quo.

To be more specific, members of Congress need to balance several concerns. First of all, accountability is central to assisting organizations and individuals in the attainment of high levels of achievement. But it is important to understand that the “end all and be all” of accountability is far more than a standardized test score. If we are to truly prepare our students for success in a global society, we need to develop their sense of creativity and instill a curious nature that seeks to understand the unknown.

Our least able students, those who struggle with disabilities, are expected to perform to the same levels of achievement on the same paper and pencil tests in the same time frame as their non-disabled peers. To even the casual onlooker, this is an obvious flaw in the law. Making it all the more obvious to educators is the reality that federal legislators have created laws (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]) that serve to protect the individual educational interests of disabled students but then, seemingly forget these “special needs” in the construction of NCLB.

While there is a laundry list of issues that have been raised with legislators about the reauthorization of NCLB and its continuing punitive treatment of public schools, it is important for the South Brunswick community to know that we welcome accountability but hope that it is fairly designed and implemented in a positive manner that truly assists students and schools in achieving at the highest levels possible.

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. Should you wish to discuss this issue or any other, please contact me.

With the 2007 – 2008 school year fully engaged, I want to share a view of the South Brunswick School District that extends beyond that available to the casual observer. The simplistic glimpse of a new school year, while quite nostalgic, belies the incredible efforts that are put in place to begin anew. First and foremost, as a “student first,” goal-driven School District, much planning has occurred to prepare for this new school year. This planning has manifested itself into the District’s Goals and Objectives for 2007 – 2008.

Our first goal area deals with curriculum and instruction. We feel strongly that the heart and soul of a quality program needs to be reflected in this goal area and to that end much work is planned. Consistent with our South Brunswick Curriculum and Review Cycle, we will be finalizing our Mathematics implementations and working to refine those efforts through additional professional development with teachers and supervisors.

In the area of Health Education, we will be adding a Cyber safety unit in Fifth Grade, a harassment unit, also in Fifth Grade, and a research task for Twelfth Grade. We are revising our Social Studies curriculum with an in-depth review of our concepts and standards. A revision of our World Language areas of Spanish and French is just being finished and Latin will just begin. In addition, we are reviewing and revising our Library-Media Program, as well as working to update our High School Special Education course outlines.

We are entering our second year review of our K-8 Science courses, our Art curriculum, and we are looking to create a first draft of our English Language Learners (ELL) curriculum (for non-English speaking students).

A “first” year review of Language Arts, Music, Character Education and Business Education will be started. As with all of the other areas previously mentioned, this work will extend and be refined over the next several years.

A second goal area involves Professional Development. This area supports the curriculum by providing training opportunities for all staff so that they can become more effective in carrying out their job responsibilities. In addition to providing professional development opportunities in all of the curricular areas previously mentioned, this goal area will support training in National- and State-mandated areas such as preventing sexual harassment and bullying, Individualized Education Plans, Section 504 Plans and many others.

A third goal area deals with Information Technology. In this area, we will be emphasizing a new system for online grades, assignments and student attendance. Through this initiative, parents and students will be better able to track student progress and have closer contact with staff members. We will also be implementing our recently completed Three-Year Technology Plan that drives every use of technology in the District.

A fourth goal area deals with Facilities and reflects our Comprehensive Facility Plan. We will complete our referendum projects (December 2003 Referendum) this year with our concluding work at Crossroads North and South. In addition, we are exploring energy-saving sources that will allow for cost reductions. Another goal area deals with Cost Effectiveness and Cost Containment. We are studying a multitude of areas that have savings potential in order to reduce taxpayer increases.

School Safety represents the sixth goal area. We continue to work closely with the South Brunswick Police and the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office in designing practices that represent state-of-the-art safety behaviors. The final goal area includes a variety of important areas such as the revision of school policy, the creation of an Education Foundation and the conversion from the State-mandated Quality Assurance Annual Report to the new requirement, known as New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum.

While this column is limited to providing a sampling of our ambitious goal areas and the supporting objectives, I hope you will review a complete listing of this initiative on our District Web site, www.sbschools.org.

As you read about our work, feel free to call me should you have any questions about South Brunswick School District. I welcome your inquiries.

So that our residents can cast the most knowledgeable vote, I will attempt to provide an overview of our budget. Keep in mind that this budget was designed through an intensive process that sought to balance the interests of education and interests of taxpayers in containing costs.

The proposed budget is in the amount of $131,544,937. Voters previously approved the Debt Service (expansion and renovations of our facilities) portion of this budget that now totals $11,024,927. On April 17, we are requesting that you vote on the local share of the General Fund Budget in the amount of $94,583,348. It is this amount, when coupled with the State contribution of $20,160,884 (16.9% of Operating Budget) as referenced in Chart #1, our local fund balance from 2006 - 2007 and some miscellaneous revenue that makes up the total proposed Operating Budget of $118,851,732.00. The cost increase necessary to support this budget is 11.8 cents per $100 of assessment.

Obviously, no one wants to pay higher taxes. Unfortunately, public schools in New Jersey have only State-prescribed methods to fund their operations. Because of this, property tax represents the funding strategy that must bear the weight of the public schools.

So that you might better-understand this financial plan, let me share some insights and identify the issues that served to shape the proposed 2007 - 2008 budget. First of all, education is a labor-intense endeavor. As student enrollment rows, the staff necessary to meet student needs expands, as well. While we experienced a welcomed slow-down in our enrollment growth this year, our projections anticipate an increase of an additional 221 students for the 2007 - 2008 school year.

A review of our student enrollment chart (Chart #2) reveals a significant and sustained pattern of growth over the previous ten years. With an anticipated enrollment of 9,011 students in September, we will have witnessed a ten-year increase of 2,729 students. The result of this continual enrollment has created an ongoing need for more staff and expanded facilities.

As you already know from past correspondence, the District has renovated and expanded Brunswick Acres, Greenbrook, Constable, Cambridge and Monmouth Junction elementary schools in conjunction with the 2003 Referendum Bond Issue. Presently, from that referendum, we are constructing an addition on Crossroads North Middle School. The final work will be completed as air conditioning projects in the gym areas of both middle schools. Obviously, this construction activity was carried out as a response to our growing student enrollment and has been a major impact on our budget in the areas of personnel and facilities.

The process that was utilized to shape this proposed budget was different than past efforts. Made abundantly clear to all by our State government officials was the fact that property tax reform would create new budget constraints for schools. In this instance, the legislature has passed a bill on to the Governor that places a four percent cap on each school district’s tax levy. The tax levy cap provides for a few exceptions that ultimately yielded a 4.8% growth ceiling for our budget planning.

Knowing the financial limitations of the tax cap, as well as the financial burden on our community, we began to examine our existing circumstance. We calculated the cost of advancing our existing staff into the 2007 - 2008 budget year. This process involves calculating the salary and fringe benefit costs based upon negotiated agreements with teachers, maintenance staff, custodians, paraprofessionals, bus drivers, secretaries, supervisors, and administrators. This represents approximately eighty percent of the total cost of our operating budget.

Our next step was to calculate the cost associated with our fixed cost areas. These costs are associated with such things as heat, light, water, air conditioning, gasoline, fuel oil, diesel fuel, buses, postage, increased pension costs for support staff, insurance and legal fees. While this is not offered as a mutually exclusive list, it does represent about twelve/thirteen percent of our operating budget.

The final area of cost calculation represents all that remains that we traditionally call the “instructional costs.” All curriculum materials, supplies, textbooks, instructional support items and equipment and professional development for staff are funded from this portion of the budget.

When we added the costs associated with maintaining our existing staff, funding our fixed costs and supporting our instructional costs, the total exceeded the amount allowed under the tax levy cap.

As we analyzed the key factors that have caused the budget to expand, enrollment growth of 221 additional students played a major role. Related directly to this enrollment growth are the costs associated with the expansion of Crossroads North (10,900 sq. ft.). Continuing our existing staffing patterns for our projected 9,011 students represents the centerpiece of this budget. As mentioned earlier, we are a labor-intense organization and the School District’s exceptional results are directly related to the quality of our staff.

Rising energy costs will add approximately $225,000 additional dollars to this proposed budget. Likewise, we anticipate our increased transportation costs to be $760,000. The State of New Jersey bills South Brunswick for a portion of the pension costs of support staff members (custodial, maintenance, secretarial, etc.). With an increase of $243,000 in this category, the District will be paying approximately $900,000 for this line item.

Given these rising costs and the limits of tax levy cap, approximately one million dollars of cost reductions were made to the budget. This is particularly significant in that no new initiatives or cost categories were included in this budget. New requests were neither solicited nor accepted. The areas of budget reduction included personnel, transportation, professional development, memberships, supplies, related programs and travel. The personnel reductions will occur through attrition, reorganization and non-renewal. It is important to note that classroom instruction was not affected directly by these cost reductions and class sizes will continue at present levels.

A review of the Budget Appropriations: Major Categories chart (Chart #3), reveals the areas of growth and reduction in this proposed budget. Increases in Regular and Special Education, tuition for students in need of special programs and clubs and athletics reflect the commitment of the District to fund student needs. Transportation growth is a direct student service and the rising cost is associated with bus replacement (12-year State requirement), fuel costs and salaries/benefits. Cost reductions in General Administration and Business/Technology Administration as well as the almost flat funding of the School Administration category demonstrate the District’s commitment to contain administrative costs.

Among the other issues that impact our budget, three stand out as worthy of mention. The first of these is Township ratables. As you know, every taxable property (business, industrial, residential) in the Township is assessed (valued) in relationship to its market value (sale price). The total amount of all of the property-assessed values has come to be known as the “ratables.” Annually, the ratables are totaled to determine the tax base (Chart #4). It is this tax base that is utilized to calculate the budget revenue from local sources. A two percent ratable growth has been assigned for this proposed budget. Keep in mind that growth in the ratable base creates revenue that helps to offset tax increases.

The second issue is State funding. South Brunswick received, after five years of relatively flat funding, a five percent increase from the State. The existing State-created funding formula has been ignored and the promise of a new funding formula remains unfulfilled. All of this means that local sources of revenue must fund an even greater share of the budget.

The third issue of note impacting our budget is the continuing negative outcome of a New Jersey Legislative action (Act 73/S-1701). This legislation has created the need for “deficit funding” of our budget on an annual basis. In a nutshell, each year the District must conclude its financial operations with $3,860,000 left in the budget. In other words, our District budget can never be fully spent. The $3.86 million dollars is needed to fund the next budget. The General Fund budget is funded by recurring taxes except for this amount.

As we endeavor to make our budget proposals lean, we must always remember that the budget must yield this $3.86 million dollars of non-recurring revenue. Obviously, this ongoing exercise becomes more difficult each year. If we were to experience a situation where this balance was not available, we would need to reduce program and personnel costs to balance the budget.

Again, nobody wants to pay additional taxes. Here in South Brunswick, we have endeavored to build a first-class education system that meets the State mandate for a “thorough and efficient” approach. A glance at Chart #5 (NJ Cost Comparison Guide for 2006) reveals the status of South Brunswick’s per pupil spending when compared to the New Jersey averages. Perhaps more notable is the fact that our students are performing at historic levels. By every indicator, including State testing, SAT scores, National Merit qualifiers and Bloustein Scholars, South Brunswick students have never done better. We have much to be proud of in our students’ performance. While this performance doesn’t offset the need for a tax increase, I hope that every reader will view this budget as an investment in our students, our future and our community. I hope this information will assist your understanding of the proposed 2007 - 2008 school budget. As always, your support is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Gary P. McCartney

This edition may change the norm. I want to reference a recently published study entitled, “Tough Choices or Tough Times,” with the hope that I might spark a reaction. To that end, I am including a Web site address that will provide access to an executive summary of the report and its supporting documentation: www.skillscommission.org.

The “Tough Choices or Tough Times” summary is a report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce and was funded by the combined support of the Annie Casey Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and the Lumina Foundation.

Necessarily connecting the U.S. economy and our public school systems, the report states:
“The core problem is that our education and training systems were built for another era…It is not possible to get where we have to go by patching that system: We can get where we must go only by changing the system itself.”

For those of you who have read, “The World is Flat” by Thomas Friedman, you will sense a de ja vu with this report. The economic condition of our Nation is reported in the same language Friedman utilizes and is tied to the skills and abilities of the workforce. The report offers that the fate of our Nation is in a serious decli
ne economically and unless we redesign our public schools, “the American standard of living will steadily fall relative to those nations” that are doing a better job.

With this backdrop, the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce recommends, among many others, the following:

• States, not districts, would take on the entire funding responsibility for schools;
• States would administer rigorous board exams to students after the tenth grade. These tests would open the pathway to technical schools, colleges or other further school study;
• Teachers would be hired, paid and trained by the state;
• Many states would have private contractors operate the schools.

To accomplish much of the report, local school boards and districts would relinquish much of their control over the day-to-day operation of schools. The report calls for the hiring of more able teachers, the development of a universal, high quality early childhood program for all 3 and 4 year-olds, creating more rigorous assessments that measure, among other things, teamwork and creativity, and providing the necessary resources to assist our nation’s disadvantaged students in achieving high standards.

In addition to those aspirations already mentioned, the Commission recommends “parental choice” in the selection of schools, complete governance discretion by school contractors as long as they meet accountability requirements imposed by the state and opportunities for adult members of the workforce to pursue further education.

The report is the result of two years of intense study and field research and has been published by Jossey-Bass Publishers. My purpose in sharing this information is to inform you of the beginning of a serious debate that will ensue regarding how to improve the country’s education system.