Now you may know: Superintendent/Principal

After months of questions about the board's intentions, which drew a lot of whispering and murmuring followed by "The board has not made any final decisions," the answer was published yesterday in the Sunday Star Ledger for January 20:

The next superintendent will have dual responsibilities as a principal, and as superintendent.

Surely the board has considered the financial and educational benefits of this dramatic change based on the current interim superintendent's recommendation.  Let's look at the current picture of the district from both perspectives:

• This year's current budget expanded by 7% over the previous year, of which the property tax payers contributed through a 2% tax increase.  The bulk of the operating budget growth came from a new revenue source, the Interdistrict School Choice program, by which students from other districts may attend Wharton and state aid follows them here - a good deal for everyone.
• At the December 6 meeting, the public heard a report from the auditor in which he commended the board for its stewardship of public funds the previous year, allowing the board to make a large "deposit" into surplus.  In fact, the auditor went so far as to caution the board that such large amounts of surplus could create fiscal challenges in future years if the trend were to continue.

Conclusion: Wharton Schools are in very good fiscal condition given the times - a tribute to the work of the board and administration.

• At the same December 6 meeting the board received a report from the education staff - two principals and the Supervisor of Curriculum & Instruction - about the academic performance of the district:
• At Marie V Duffy Elementary, of 260 kids in Grades 3-5 only 52% of them are Proficient in Language Arts Literacy; 71% are Proficient in Math.
• At MacKinnon Middle School, 71% of kids are Proficient in Language Arts Literacy; 73% Proficient in Math.
• The state sets performance improvement goals such that only 59% of the elementary kids need to be proficient in LAL (for example) in order to meet performance targets - not very impressive.

Our mission statement says we are committed to all students achieving educational excellence and becoming lifelong learners.

Conclusion:  Our district is not under-performing financially, we are under-performing academically.  

I want to assume that any changes made to our administrative structure is primarily focused on improving academic outcomes. And even if we don't really care about all students (God forbid), why will families continue to send us their kids from other districts - which is creating value for our tax payers - if we continue to under-achieve academically?

By now we are all asking the same questions, right?

Which principal will have split responsibilities between building and district-wide duties?

How does reducing educational leadership resources by 17% (from 3.6 administrators to 3) improve academic performance?

I am only one member of the board and cannot speak on the board's behalf here or anywhere else.  My short-term goal is for the public - you - to have these questions answered and hear the board deliberate openly at a meeting of the full board (January 31).  The board should be able to articulate how this decision - made months ago - will benefit the district educationally.