May 2012 Bring Improvement to the Following School District Issues:

Transparency:
More often than not the public found via bloggers what was going on with the school district during 2011. From information extracted via OPRA to readers' tips the community has found more about the district than the district was willing to share. May this lack of transparency change for 2012.

Human Resources:
Once again the district was found to do poorly on the 2011 state review of the Personnel files. And once again the district is promoting personnel via interim and acting appointments. May the district and the school board find a good reason to explain these actions on 2012, better yet, may the school board stop this practice on 2012 and demands that corrective actions be taken for the 2010-12 appointments that disallowed an open search as well as excluded those who may had wanted to apply for those vacant, appointed or interim positions.

School Facilities:
May the district and school board see it fit on 2012 to inform the community, via schools, the district's website and newspapers, what the Long Range Facility Plans are and if the proposed construction for Woodland and Barlow was approved by the state. Let 2012 also bring a proper statement, with rationale, of why these two schools were suggested.

School Reconfiguration:
Same as above when it comes to timely and meaningful communications. May 2012 bring us a district and school board that properly explain how they arrived to whatever suggestions they may have regarding school reconfiguration. May 2012 also bring enough parents and community members to speak up if the plan doesn't sound right.

School Restructuring Plans:
May 2012 bring us news and updates on how the school district is implementing the mandated restructuring plans for both Middle Schools, Hubbard and Maxson.

Civil Rights Settlement:
May 2012 bring us a full report from the Plainfield school district's Bilingual and World Languages Department that informs us how the district is complying with the Civil Rights Settlement that seeks the enforcement of the proper delivery of educational opportunities to those students whose English is not their first language.

Governance:
May 2012 bring a school board that sets goals and makes them public; may 2012 also bring a school board that follows its own policies and that requests its administrators to start working on the district's own regulations.

With this said, may 2012 bring a better understanding on school matters to all of us and may improvement of the education delivered to the Plainfield school district's students continue to be the main goal for all of us that follow the school district.

Maria Pellum

How serious is the Plainfield school district about learning?

Those of us who follow school matters often see the Plainfield school district slogan displayed often: "We are serious about learning, No Alibis, No excuses, No exceptions." But what exactly does this mean to the school district? How serious is the school board and the school administration on following their own slogan?

What steps can the district and school board point at right at this moment to say the district is better than it was 2, 4, 6 years ago?

What about you reader, do you feel the district is better today than it was 2, 4, 6 years ago?

And just what value does Plainfield in general gives to the school district?

Your answers, your questions, community members' interviews and my own research will hopefully help answer on 2012 the questions on how serious the district is about learning and what role learning plays in our city.

Restructuring Middle Schools: The district seems to have "been there and done that"

A search at the district's website for restructuring plans for Plainfield Middle Schools turned out more than expected. Just as an anonymous reader had commented on a prior post, the Middle Schools have already been "restructured" more than their share. Another anonymous reader also sent a vision that included a Science and Health Magnet School (a name for a Science Hall was suggested a while ago by a school board member). Below are plans for what seems were past reconfiguration plans that were drafted, adopted, and.... never acted upon by the school district? I wonder who saw these documents before, I know I didn't until I recently started searching for restructuring plans.

Take a look at both documents and if you remember these plans and know why they didn't work many of us will appreciate your comments. (Note: You might have to click the link for the second document to view all pages)

C&I Newsletter Spring 07[1]

Smaller Learning Communities Implementation Plan[1]

If You Are My Owner, or Know Him, Please....

contact the good neighbor that has information on me: Richsudol@gmail.com. Thanks!

Correction: Please note that the e-mail address contains an L not a 1. Sorry for the mix up!

Job Descriptions That You Will Need for Next Couple of Posts

I am posting the job description of school Principal and school Vice Principal because both will come handy for the next post. Things to keep on mind are the qualifications and the adoption date of both job descriptions.

Principal

Plainfield Schools Job Descriptions Various Dec 11

Part VI: Official Documents Tell It All on Plainfield School District Hiring Practices

Official documents obtained from both the school district and the state's Department of Education tell the story on the Plainfield school district hiring practices, all the way to 2003.

Until now much blame has been placed on this or that superintendent or school board for the troubles of the district and we are told every election that who we elect will make a difference. Well, six years here in Plainfield tell me that perhaps is not who gets elected but what parents, stakeholders and voters know to be the issues that can make a difference. Knowledge, and how we request these issues to be addressed can perhaps make a difference.

Documentation dating back to 2003 and after and the 2011 QSAC results all talk of hiring practices that have ended on one issue or another. So, let's take a look at these practices.

The documented school board hiring practices story starts almost 9 years ago, on 2003, with the hiring of former superintendent whose previous job position was that of an assistant superintendent in a district where she was one of 7 assistants and associate superintendents. Her arrival to Plainfield on September 2003 as what seems the Acting Superintendent coincided with the adoption of a couple of education laws that would eventually catch up with the Plainfield school district.

One law was a mandate for school districts to draft their first 3 year Comprehensive Equality Plan (CEP). The first plan was to cover the years 2004-2007 and on July 27, 2004 the Plainfield school board of that time adopted the district's 2004-07 Comprehensive Equity Plan and on August 25th, 2004 the district was notified that their submitted plan to the state was approved.

The second new 2003 law was the adoption of new professional standards for both teachers and administrators. The new standards, adopted on December 2003, were to align NJ educators with national professional standards. This seems to be the time when subject-matter and certifications became the norm that we know of today.

On 2003-04 the Plainfield district's administrative division went through its own changes under the then new superintendent. We are lucky that public documents exists that tell how some of these changes occurred. One example is on the hiring of a Supervisor on 2003, from this case we can see the district's hiring practices at that time. We can also see, for the first time, when qualifications were lowered for this particular position that gave the Plainfield community such a big headache on 2009.

On 2003, less than month after the new superintendent arrived to the Plainfield school district, she placed an add on the newspaper on October 10, 2003 announcing that the district was taking applications for the position of "Supervisor of Curriculum & Instruction/Assessment and Evaluation." The qualifications required New Jersey certification as supervisor and principal and five years successful experience in the field of public education, including assisting teachers and administrators in school reform. The deadline for filing an application was October 22, 2003." (OAL Case)

THIS OAL case, which was decided on February 2009 and posted on the internet months later, says how the above position was filled on 2003:

[2003 Superintendent] was having difficulty filling the position of Supervisor of Testing and Assessment. Petitioner's qualifications were far superior to the other applicants except that she did not have a New Jersey certificate. On November 18, 2003, the job description for Supervisor of Curriculum and Instruction, Testing and Assessment was amended such that the qualifications stated in part "New Jersey Certificate as Supervisor and principal preferred."

The person who got hired for this position of Supervisor of Testing and Assessment stayed on the job until 2007 when she was terminated by an interim superintendent that stayed with the district from June to December of 2007; the termination for the Supervisor of Testing and Assessment was caused by a letter from the county based on the lack of proper certification for the job title this person was holding. But what caused this person to file a formal complaint was her understanding of tenure. Her complaint was dismissed by the Office of Administrative Law as the person was found to be not entitled to tenure due to her lack of proper certification for the position she held from 2003 to 2007.

The changes made on 2003 to the qualifications for this position, the sudden resignation of the then superintendent on 2007 and the results of the 2007 state review "QSAC" have had much public discussion, we bloggers have written about these issues, this blog has been completely dedicated to school matters and readers have made plenty of comments on school matters that became public on 2009, but it is until now that public documents are beginning to be accessible and we are beginning to, hopefully, see that the Plainfield school district hiring practices, supported by the school boards of the time, have landed staff, the district and more importantly, our students, into trouble. The Human Resources, and the district, are still troubled by the hiring decisions of the not so distant past.

We can not continue to ignore the Plainfield school district's hiring practices, nor should we use ignorance, our own, as an excuse not to demand better from our elected and appointed officials. The improvement of the Plainfield school district is on our hands. We can do it.

Part V: School Administration Certifications and the Role They Play

Picking up few weeks later on the subject of staff certification and job titles for the school district's administrative branch today I will go over, quickly, on the three different kind of certifications the state offers: Certificate of Eligibility, Provisional and Standard.

One of the oaths a school board takes is that one of hiring the "best qualified" applicant. This is a serious oath that deserves careful consideration when talking about certifications since it is not only qualifications but experience that is reflected on the kind of certification any given school staff has, thus looking at the Plainfield's hiring practices can show what a school board's vision and standards are when it comes to hiring the "best qualified" person. Until now "certification" talks have been dominated by scandal, it doesn't have to be that way if we all learn the difference and the quality of each certification.

A holder of a "Certificate of Eligibility" is a person that has the educational requirements, or related work experience, to hold a certificated position in a school district. This CE certificate gives the hiring district the green light to hire the holder of the "Certificate of Eligibility". But there is a condition to this:

The hiring district must register the holder of a "Certificate of Eligibility" (CE) into the state's mandated and approved mentoring program and the cost of it is usually paid by the district. Once the holder of this CE gets accepted into the mentoring program his CE then becomes a "Provisional Certificate".

The "Provisional Certificate" can go from one year to two years, this timing is based on the person's educational background and usually means the person will need 2 years of mentoring. Persons with related work experience or out of state professionals are usually required to 1 year of mentoring. Once the mentoring time requirement has been met the Provisional Certificate becomes a Standard Certification, a Standard Certificate is good for life.

With this said one would think that the most qualified person is a person that holds a Standard Certification. But you also want to leave the door open for staff professional growth and I can only imagine that to reach a balance on this matter is not an easy task for those hiring, our school board.

An OPRA request filed with the state for administrators' certifications revealed that the district has a tendency to promote employees or hire people that hold a Certificate of Eligibility. What is more, the OPRA response revealed that the district has a good number of fairly new administrators with some of them just recently getting their Standard certification while others are still holding a "Provisional Certification".

The number of fairly new administrators can be attributed to the 2007-08 personnel shake up that took place due to the state's personnel files review through QSAC. One question here is how the functioning of the district has been affected by the hiring decisions the school board has taken on these past 5-10 years.

More on this subject at the next post. Corrections, clarifications and opinions are welcome.

Plainfield School District Regulations: Is the district in need of a good Spring cleaning?

I was not going to blog on this subject, Plainfield school district regulations, at least not today, but a couple of messages left on my tweeter account left me wondering if I had missed something on this topic these past few days as it seems the thread of Regulations was tweeted and contested and then it developed into something else? (Oy! for my English readers and Orale! for the Bilingual ones)

Anyway. Since a comment on this topic mentioned that there was no need for the district to have Regulations because Policies were already the last word I decided to go ahead and do a bit more research on School District Regulations. Googling Regulations gives a long list of school districts that have both, Policies and Regulations. What is up with that? Why not us here in Plainfield?ls? Something just doesn't seem to be right, so I wondered if perhaps the Plainfield school district calls "Regulations" something else and it was on this "technicality" that my OPRA request was answered. So I searched and found out that maybe the district calls "Regulations" by the name of "Procedures". If so, would I have to file another OPRA and request "Procedures" instead of "Regulations"? Yikes!

The district is now closed for the holiday break so the answer to this will have to wait until then. In the meantime two more questions came up:

The Regulations that were provided to me have an adoption date of 1997, 2001 and 2009, amendments were made on 2009. Someone did see the need for the district to have "Regulations" more than 10 years ago and in 2009 someone did see the need to amend the regulations that were given to me. On 2009 the district was under a different school board majority and under the administration of Dr. Gallon III but two members of that school board still remain: Lisa Logan Leach and Wilma Campbell. Maybe they will have recollection on this topic of "Regulations".

It is a known fact that the district had a tendency to misplace important documents, this was apparent when the state came to do its 2007 complete state review of the district (QSAC) and was found lacking policies that were later found, so if there was once a "Regulations Manual" somebody has to know just as someone knew about the missing policies. Perhaps the job of creating "Regulations" was just placed on the back burner with all the sudden changes that the district has had since Larry Leverett left? Who knows.

I think the district needs to hire a professional organizer that comes and do a good old fashion "Spring and Fall Cleaning" where shelves, closets, draws and boxes get emptied out, sorted out and categorized by content before they are put back, discarded or listed as in need of update. Really.

Felices Fiestas!

What better way to wish you all a very happy holiday season than with a video from our own community kids? The video below belongs to Jefferson School and it was made to send holiday wishes to Jefferson School's "sister school" in Taiwan. You can check all about Jefferson School HERE.

Questions on Reconfiguration

Ideas and hopes are good, but to carry on ideas and hopes when it comes to our Plainfield students should require that the school district and the school board do a little bit more than offer their ideas and hopes. Here are some questions that I would like to get answers to:

1- Who has been involved on the planning of school reconfiguration and for how long;

2-What will be the estimated size and type of enrollment in any given proposed school for reconfiguration;

3-What provision will be there for Special Education students that require special accommodations;

4-What additional space requirements will be there for all functions of an efficient use of the school day (example: Science Labs, sports, cafeteria, library, music hall, etc);

5- What layout of special areas and what equipment will be needed for such areas;

6-What curriculum will the district be offering at the proposed reconfigured schools? When will this curriculum be adopted? Who will write it?

7-Will there be class size equality at all schools after a reconfiguration?

8-Does the district have the needed, and properly certified, teachers to implement the curriculum at all schools after a reconfiguration? Will the district need to hire new teachers?

9-Will there be a need to transport students to the reconfigured schools? If so, at what cost to the budget?

And cost important questions that seldom get asked:

10-What is going to be the total cost to reconfigure schools?

11-Has the district done a cost analysis and a 5 year cost projection of various school reconfiguration plans?
I am sure there are more questions, please add them on. Don't let the district catch you by surprise this coming January 2012 when it has been said that the superintendent will present her recommendation for school reconfiguration.

OPRA Reveals Major Broken Link on Plainfield Schools Regulations

Much has been said about the school board setting policies for the district. And much policy work took place after the 2007 NJQSAC (State Review) revealed that the Plainfield school district lacked updated policies and that it was missing vital policies. The school board of back then, and still the one of today, have been working to update, amend and adopt needed policies and they are to be commended for such action. I really mean it.

But while policies are quite important, they are the basis for Regulations. It is through Regulations, based on school board adopted policies (which in turn are adopted after legislation), that superintendents, administrators and staff know and do their job. Regulations, in my opinion, also ensure continuation regardless of who comes and goes at the school district. In short, the school board adopts policies, but superintendents write, and amend with the blessing of the school board, all regulations.

So, I filed an OPRA with the Plainfield school district for few of these Regulations. I was expecting to be denied access to one or two even though they are public documents, but what I was not expecting was the response my OPRA produced:

I requested copies of 17 Regulations based on 17 Policies. I received 4. I asked if the other 13 Regulations were being denied, which the school board and district sometimes do(challenging their denials is then the fun part). But no. The 13 missing Regulations were not denied, they just didn't exist.

What????

You mean to tell me that the school board has allowed superintendent after superintendent to come and go and they have not requested one single superintendent on the past 4-6 years to update, or write up the district's own Regulations based on school board adopted Policies?

You gotta be kidding. Really. Google school district regulations and you will get an idea that Regulations are a pretty important component of a district and while not all districts post them at their website, many do. Woodbridge does and so does Vineland.

With this said, Regulations is one more thing in the district that is broken. This broken school system of ours has been allowed to go on and on to the detriment of not only the students that attend Plainfield public schools but also to the detriment of the community; a failing school district lowers the community pride, scares away investors and demoralizes, or detaches, those residents that stay foot here in the Queen City. It is time to demand that existing Regulations be posted at the district's school website and that those non-existent or in need of update get the attention of the district's top administration and the current and future school boards.

As someone recently told me: Plainfield is a trip. Yes. Plainfield can be pretty unbelievable. It is up to us to change it for the better.

The following policies are the ones I requested, the ones on dark are the only ones I received (link).

Plainfield Public Schools Policies
-- 4000/4010 Concepts and Roles in Personnel
--4111 Recruitment, Selection and Hiring
--4111.1/4211.1 Non-Discrimination and Affirmative Action
--4112.2 Certification
--4112.8/4212.8 Nepotism
--4113/4213 Assignment and Transfer
--4115 Supervision
--4116 Evaluation
--4119.21/4219.21 Conflict of Interest
--4121 Substitute Teachers
--4211 Recruitment, Selection and Hiring
--4215 Supervision
--4216 Evaluation
--4123 Classroom Aides (Paraprofessionals)
--4131/4131.1 Staff Development/In Service Education
--4231/4231.1 (same as above)
--4222 Non-Instructional Assistants

A School Reconfiguration Vision from an Anonymous Reader

The following is a comment that was left at yesterday's post. Please read it and share your opinion on the proposed vision as it seems to me doing so will provide a spring that can be used to clarify a little bit more where parents, community and staff would like to see the schools go. Thanks to anonymous reader for providing us with a clear cut vision that can be used to expand the conversation on the reconfiguration of the schools.

From Anonymous:

As for school configuration, it is clear that no parents showed up to ask for an expansion of the old middle school model. As much as administrators try to push it, nobody is buying it.

Visiting the middle schools right now will not tell you anything
because they are currently underpopulated. What people remember is what a disaster the middle schools were when they were fully populated. It is clear that Plainfield parents are done with traditional middle schools.

We have to great buildings that can be put to better use. We need to be
discussing better ideas for these buildings.

We know that parents are clamoring to get into the K-8 Centers and
PAAAS. So, why don't we replicate those models and provide more
choice.

We know that PAAAS is going to run out of space as it moves towards
full implementation to twelfth grade.

I suggest that PAAAS be moved to the Hubbard building so that it can
grow to full fruition. Moving PAAAS would open up space at their current location that can be used to open another K-8 Center or to expand Jefferson School into another K-8 Center.

Maxson School could be converted into a 7-12 Magnet School like PAAAS, but with a different theme. I suggest that the theme be Science with concentrations in Engineering as well as Health Sciences.

I think that if we run the numbers, this configuration will help alleviate overcrowding as well as provide parents more positive choice within our school district.

We need to move away from complaining about the past. Lets move forward and debate ideas on how to move forward. I invite people to provide feedback on my ideas. I would also like to hear other peoples ideas about how to give the community what we want and need.

Thanks Maria for providing this space for discussion on this very
important issue.

Schools Reconfiguration Meeting As Per Readers: Thanks for sharing

Thanks to all four readers that shared their experience at the School District Schools Reconfiguration Meeting held this past Monday at Hubbard Middle School. I am posting all comments here as a post for those who missed them at the comment's box. Thanks again for sharing and we all look forward to hear more on how this matter gets resolved.

Thank you Maria for the opportunity to share information about the meeting.
Cedarbrook had the largest group of people out, one parent was from Emerson and
one parent was from PAAS PTA's. There was a presentation by the Superintendent,
then an activity was done in a group break out session, that was geared towards
what our ideas and thoughts were about reconfiguration. There wasn't any
particular plans that was revealed. Parents did press to get the Superintendent
to state when changes would occur.

Mrs. Pyles stated there would be a recommendation at the January board meeting and the Board of Education would have to vote on the recommendation that she presents. The recommendation would probably go into effect in September if the BOE agrees with the recommendation of the Superintendent. There were many valuable points that came up from the passionate parents. The points are as follows:

* Parents really don't want their children in the middle schools. (Mr. Asante) Principal of Hubbard asked why and invited parents to visit the school and he was open to hear the parents suggestions.
*Curriculum is the real issue, Why hasn't it been fixed?
*Preception is key, Plainfield needs to do more about getting the positive news out about the success of our children.
*Plainfield should concentrate on the particular schools with the over population problem and serious curriculum problems, the other schools shouldn't be involved.
*Genesis still isn't being utilized to it's maximum potiental.
*Parents are willing to send their children to private school, rather than sending them to the mediocre charter and failing middle schools.
*Kudos to the Superintendent for staying very late and listening to the parents concerns.

--------

I attended PPS configuration meeting and although there was a presentation and discussion regarding the configuration. The parents were not taken the interim-superintendent reasoning as good enough. At the end of the day most parents don't want their children to go to the middle schools regardless of overcrowding or not. The same question kept coming up regarding verifying children true school location. The complaint from many parents was that there are children from other areas or towns which do not correspond with school attend. Ex. someone living on the west side of Plainfield attending Cook or the east or the opposite. Another thing which came up was with schools that have a K-8 the curriculum for the upper grades does not provide enough diversity or challenges. My feeling is if the BOE decides to move forward with this plan there more problems which will develop. 1. All schools which have K-8 will increase in student body or parents will either send their kids to charater or private schools still leaving the current middle schools with low enrollment. One parent suggest that all the schools be reconfigured equally on both the east and side as well as the high school which would provide the community with
better student to teacher ratios and a even playing field for our students. Nothing has been finalized but it clear that some decision will be made hopefully more thoughtful than the principal relocation.

--------

I also attended the meeting and heard the same thing reported here - no middle school interest from parents, "fix only the school's that were overcrowded not the ones that work", and why was this done by the previous superintendent when there was no thought into how crowded it would make some schools. The group work was helpful as our group was made up of parents from Cook, Cedarbrook, Emerson, a teacher and coach from one of the schools, and a school principal (Jefferson). What was clear from that discussion is that there are many considerations
involved in this discussion from a parents, neighborhood, and schools
perspective. Parents need to feel that their children are getting a quality
education and schools need to have the space, class sizes, and resources to meet the needs of the students they serve. I thought the superintendent did a great job answering questions and being very accessible during this meeting. More meetings should be structred this way.

------

I agree that although there is discussion regarding this problem the solutions is not going to make any one parent truly happy. The middle schools in Plainfield have not had a very good reputation. Although Plainfield is diverse regarding race and culture there is not much of that diversity shown throughout the district schools. Which again says very loudly that until the PPS provide the quality of education they are looking for more and more parents will be sending their children outside of the district either after 5th, 6th or 8th if their school goes to that level. During the meeting it was mentioned that the conversion was tried before with no real success so why was it push again a few years ago? Now due to overcrowding they want to go back to the old format which doesn't address the real problem. Why do parent feel so uncomfortable with the middle schools. Over the past few years every school has shown lower AYP scores and NJASK scores which again brings to mind what is missing from this equation?

We know whatever school is doing well more parents will try to get their children in there. What also needs to be done is a plan which incorporates the successes from every school to create a model which could be use to bring the district forward. We also need to enforce student location zoned for their school. Too many students are attending schools which they are not zoned for.

--------

Did you attend the School Reconfiguration Meeting Last Night?

I didn't for I will attend tonight's school board Business Meeting and can only take one night out for school matters now and then and tonight is that "one night". But if you attended last night's meeting and would like to share what went on please use the comment box to send your comments. Readers of this blog and I will appreciate it.

There is also the possibility that the school board will make some kind of statement, or power point presentation, with their proposal and post such information at the school district's website. This would be nice if it happens.

Are there any positive comments on Plainfield's Special Education?

If you have a positive comment on the Plainfield school district's Special Education Program other readers, and I, would like to hear them. Please use the comment box to share a positive comment on one of the toughest branches of the district. Thanks!

More Info on Plainfield's Special Ed

Comments left at my Special Ed post of last night raised more questions, at least for me since I know next to nada when it comes to Special Education. So, I searched the district's own website and found a lot more information on what the district's department of Special Education is. If you are interested in learning more about this branch of the district click HERE and go to page 5.

It is worth noting that the federal mandate of posting the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for the found irregularities the monitoring of ARRA funds highlighted seems to have been fulfilled by the district making the ARRA CAP part of its "State of the District" presentation and which can only be found at the superintendent's window at the district's website. Findings mainly came, or at least it seems that way, from the district's Special Education department. Those who are well versed on Special Education matters here in Plainfield might want to take a look at the link posted above. And if you are not well versed on Special Education, still go ahead and take a look, as my grandmother used to tell us: knowledge doesn't occupy any space on your brain, read!

New Special Education Program Established at Barlow, Clinton and Woodland?

Going through my school board meeting notes I ran across one of those last minute items that gets introduced as the meeting is happening, this time it was a Resolution to Establish a Special Education Program at three schools: Barlow, Clinton and Woodland. Apparently approval by the county had to be sought and the resolution was the application for such permission.

The services described on the October 18, 2011 resolution offered by this new program are geared to students with Autism, language learning disabilities and PSD (Preschool Disabled?).

The district needed to provide to the county rationale for each proposed special education new program/service. This rationale, and the answer from the county superintendent, is public information and can be obtained either at the district or the state via an OPRA request. Perhaps tomorrow at the community meeting the school board and/or the district can offer information of the status of this application and what the response was, especially now that the district is thinking of reconfiguring schools and add new construction to Barlow and Woodland.

To view the resolution you will need to look at the October 18, 2011 Minutes, page 55. Click HERE for the BOE Minutes.

Parents and Community: Do they receive meaningful information from Plainfield Public Schools?

A comment left yesterday by an anonymous parent shared that she/he was not unhappy with communications from his school and she believed that the school website was more informational than in previous years. I spent the evening thinking about this anonymous parent and here are my thoughts on this when it comes to school-parent communications (district-parents-community communications will be tackled in a future post).

Having spent five years at PPS as a parent and now as a concerned resident/watchdog/blogger (whatever you want to call me), what I have witnessed so far is a lack of consistency on how schools communicate with their parents. I rarely hear of a school communicating with its surrounding community but it does happen here and there.

I have no knowledge if the district has official and written district-wide guidelines on how to communicate, or what needs to be communicated, to parents and community, but communication to parents here in Plainfield is a fragile item that can easily be broken by a school that lacks strong leadership, or worst, by a school that is trying to do too much with fewer and fewer tools. Sure, fliers might go out, and maybe Global Connect (recorded phone messages) is used for parents on regular basis at some schools, but most of the time what I have seen fliers for is for events or mandated information that the school or the district must send to parents, same for Global Connect. So, I pose the next two questions?

Shouldn't communication with parents and community include the effort to help us all understand the issues the district and students face?

Or are parents and community mostly viewed as passive recipients of information?

I hope you think about these two questions.

I close this post with the following quote from Dr. Maurice Elias and which I thought is quite pertinent when it comes to our school district, parental-community involvement and students' failure here in Plainfield:

Caring emerges from relationships in which people are given the time and space to understand deeply what they are doing and why it matters."

BOE Agenda for Tuesday Is Now Posted

Among the interesting items: A school board member resigned on December 13; the BOE is planning to select his replacement, if I understood well the agenda, this coming Tuesday. With money, as well as orders from OCR (Office of Civil Rights), the district is hiring from Teacher Assistants to Supervisors with Bilingual Teachers in between (OCR mandates). School specifications for the proposed construction seem will be adopted this Tuesday, which means once adopted they can be requested via OPRA (note: if you do want to OPRA the documents, try the state which is far more responsive than the district); new policies on school board members attendance and meeting procedures final reading are also up for adoption, these and much more on the Tuesday's agenda, which can be found HERE.

School Reconfiguration: Who said this on 2009 regarding the last reconfiguration?

What nonsense.

Larger classes, more discipline problems, taking rooms away from teachers who support math, literacy, social studies and otherwise connect & support the academics.

Many students learn volumes by this support. Cramming students and staff and taking rooms away from specials isn't the answer.

The elementary schools were once failing and due to dedication, many hours and often painful work, they have turned around. Gallon afraid to tackle the problems in the Junior Highs? He's creating more problems instead of fixing what needs to be fixed.

What happens to all those empty rooms in the Junior High? What happens to the teachers who will now have many free periods since all these students will be missing? Will they be moved to the elementary schools? I say SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF THE JUNIOR HIGHS AND NOT CREATE MORE.

The Alpha Academy only has 50 students and many of them cut classes. That's a huge building. It previously housed an entire elementary school. Should 5&6 be there? Give it some thought before you make more problems.

2 years and eleven months ago a Q&A from Bernice, Plaintalker, to former superintendent, Dr. Gallon III on the 2009 reconfiguration of elementary schools brought a comment, posted above, that I had not read until today. Whoever wrote that comment back then hopefully is still around as her/his comment came true to many of us who stayed at PPS due to the fact that 6th Graders could stay at their elementary schools "one more year". Big mistake. Overcrowded classrooms and corridors, overextended teachers, rushed lunch time and cranky staff, all these "thanks" to the added 6th grade.

So, who had the foresight back then but was not listened to? Are you still here?

A NJBOE Testimony's Excerpt: Claims of Favoritism, Cronyism and Nepotism Talk of Equal Employment Opportunity Violations

Because of my ability to exercise my First Amendment Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech by speaking out at various Advisory Board Meetings regarding:

1)The exposition of wasteful spending of hard-earned Federal and State Tax Dollars,and,

2) Exposing a small portion of the corruption, cronyism, nepotism, favoritism, and,

3) Exposing the favoritism that's being demonstrated in hiring,promoting, and placing unqualified and incompetent administrators over well seasoned veteran administrators, under the "guise" of "interim", (acting), and/or temporary placement, and,

4) Exposing the gross violations of Constitutional laws regarding Employee Rights under the Civil Rights Act,the Equal Employment Opportunity Act;as well as, numerous violations of the District's own labor Relations laws, and rules of engagement concerning ample and proper notification regarding the hiring,promotion, and transfer of employees;

The above excerpt from a testimonial delivered to the NJ Board of Education made me think of our own school district, Plainfield. Since 2007 the Plainfield school district has seen on and off "interim" and "acting" staff appointments and positions being filled without ever being advertised, so when I read the testimony by a Newark schools' employee and saw her claims of violations to her district's labor relations and to the EEOA (Equal Employment Opportunity Act) I thought of our district's grievances by staff and wondered if the illustrated violations below are one reason for some of the many grievances filed within the Plainfield school system.

Reasons behind grievances is something that will never be discussed in public by the district but we, as stakeholders, must be aware of what the working conditions and environment within the school district are, after all, our vote contributes, or not, to the working conditions the school district offers to the Plainfield school district employees.

Anyway. The above excerpt, from another district's employee, just brings another angle from where to view our own district and the decisions that are made by the district's administration and our elected school board.

The entire testimony can be found HERE.

August Legal Bills from Plainfield School District Raise Questions on the Cost of Grievances by Staff

On trying to sort out the massive last response to my OPRA request of the Plainfield school district legal bills I could not help but take a second (and a third) look at the many grievances staff file with the school board and that the school board lawyers have to deal with. Dealing with grievances can also be quite expensive as the bill for the month of August 2011 tells us that the school lawyers billed the district, if I am right, $25,935.00 just for the month of August 2011. The bill is not just for grievances but grievances do seem to make a good part of the August 2011 legal bill for the Plainfield school district.

Perhaps one of the first things of whoever gets hired as the next Plainfield schools superintendent could be to take a hard look at why there are so many grievances filed by staff and administrators. If you are interested on finding out who filed grievances, who goes out to lunch on taxpayers' money and on how the concerns of a school board president get billed, go ahead and take a look at the August legal bill.

For the August 2011 Bill go to page 124 HERE.

Cook School Construction Halted, Why?

Doing a search for all construction documents that I have at my Scribd.com page (link contains a collection of documents on this topic) I found the following letter, from the Gallon administration, that parents and Cook school stakeholders might want to have for their own records if they want to advocate for their school building' repairs and needs. The letter raises the question about the real need of school buildings, in this case, Cook School's v. Woodland's. The letter clearly states that Cook school has a more urgent need for upgrades than Woodland.

How things have changed, or improved, for Cook school from the date this letter was sent to the State, March 4, 2009 to today is something Cook parents and community stakeholders might want to ask to the school board and the current administration. You might also want to call the state directly to get more information and/or express your concerns, start at the Office of Fiscal Policy and Planning at 609 292-7131 and ask to speak with Ms. Patricia Scott, if her office is not the one in charge of this matter then ask to be transferred to the right office. If you don't advocate for your own neighborhood school, then who will?

Gallon's Letter to SDA Re Cook

Still delayed and rushing, but here is something for those interested on school reconfiguration:

How other communities reconfigure their schools?

Here is one: http://www.zandri.net/PDF/Reconfiguration%20Plan.pdf

And here is another: http://www.candgnews.com/Homepage-Articles/2009/2-18-09/MCCS-reconfiguration.asp

As Rumored, NJ Gets New Attorney General

What will this mean for Union County, for Plainfield? One has to wonder.

Does anyone remember what the 2010 grade configuration plans were?

As usual, looking for something else I stumbled upon the following information on the January, 2009 agenda:

Mr. Ottmann gave an overview of the proposed school allocation plan for FY’10.
[ ]
VI. REMARKS FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT
[ ]
Dr. Gallon shared new district grade configurations planned for
FY’10."

What were those plans back then for 2010? Does anyone remember? Were those the plans that translated into all elementary schools housing 6th graders? Any information will be appreciated. Thanks.

Cont...Part IV: Unrecognized Plainfield School District Titles

At the last post on this topic of recognized v. non-recognized titles I promised that this next post would deal with non-recognized job titles and here I am. Here is my humble attempt to go over of what the Plainfield school district has the most: non-recognized titles.

A state non-recognized job title is basically a job title that the school district has created by claiming it needs it and that no other title can do. Non-recognized titles have also been utilized by districts to employ people who lack the required certifications for this or that job, unfortunately non-recognized job titles can lend themselves to political favoritism if there are no checks and balances in place that keep political favors from happening.

Anyway. The non-recognized title must be approved by the county executive superintendent and such was the case on May of 2008 when the district adopted a long list of non-recognized titles with the job title of Coordinator as one of the main titles. Back on May of 2008 Union County executive superintendent, Dr. Centuolo, gave her blessing to the Plainfield's school district to utilize non-recognized titles. This was done under the administration of yet another former interim superintendent, Dr. Bailey. The official adoption of the new titles happened on the eve of May 5, 2008. but things are changing from those days under the administration of Governor Christie and his appointees for the position of Commissioner of Education.

According to information obtained at the NJ DOE this past week all non-recognized titles, not just Plainfield's, are being reviewed as there seems to be a new direction set at the state when it comes to non-recognized titles. What will this new direction be is yet to be known to those I spoke with but there is a feeling that the NJDOE is getting away from non-recognized titles.

The Plainfield school district and school board are yet to publicize whether they have started revising job descriptions in order to align personnel to recognized titles and what plans are there for those employees who lack the required certification to hold a recognized title. I pretty much doubt the discussion will be made public, but what will be public, once they get this done, will be the job descriptions as well as who gets the position or the new title. At this moment positions such as "Coordinator", "Vice Principal" and even the "Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services" titles must likely will have to go under review if the district and the school board want job titles to be aligned to the state's recognized job titles, which ultimately this seems to be what the state expects school districts to do with all of their non-recognized titles.

Also worth noting is the fact that the 2010 state review of the Plainfield school district found that there were employees who were performing duties that didn't fall within their job descriptions/titles, because of this the Plainfield school district has now a [QSAC] Corrective Action Plan that calls for revision of job descriptions and more, you can read it HERE, go to the personnel files, pages 28-29.

To check a current Plainfield school district's employee directory that shows which positions are still under non-recognized titles, Coordinator, Vice Principal and Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services click HERE. To check what the requirements are for recognized titles check HERe.

Next post will deal with all three available certifications: Certificate of Eligibility (CE), Provisional and Standard. Also will post the cost to the district when a person holding a CE gets hired. As always, corrections and clarifications are always welcome.

Booker v. Plainfield: A major decider on school reconfiguration, do you know of this case?

CHARLES B. BOOKER, ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF PLAINFIELD, UNION COUNTY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT

For reversal and remandment -- Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor and Schettino. For remandment -- Justices Hall and Haneman. The opinion of the court was delivered by Jacobs, J. Hall, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Haneman joins in this opinion.

After receiving protests against the racial imbalance in the Plainfield public school system, the local Board of Education appointed a lay advisory committee to review the matter and submit its report."

The above case prompted the very first school reconfiguration of the Plainfield Public Schools, the case is still quoted whenever you see documents on Equality and Equity in Education. To read more about this case click HERE.

School Reconfiguration Announced

Last night I learned, through Twitter, that Plainfield schools are being reconfigured. Apparently an announcement was made Friday morning, as per this Twitter user, though no announcements can be found at the school district's website you can find an announcement at the school board president's own personal blog where you can read that a parent forum has been called for to inform/discuss (?) school configuration; the date for the parent forum has been set for Friday December 16th, the time is from 9:30 to 11:30 AM at the high school.

A community forum for the same purpose then will take place the following Monday, December 19th, at 6:30 PM at Hubbard Middle School (have you seen the school's nice pole flags?).

The school board and the district seem to be hearing, and reading, that we need timely notification and this is much appreciated. Hopefully parents and community will make the time to attend these important meetings.

School Construction, Barlow and Woodland: We'll Snap Our Fingers and Get It Done?

By now it is obvious that our current school board and school district top administration are set on their own ways and pretty much don't care about communicating with the public until: a)the very last minute; b) because it is mandated by law; c)because it makes them feel good to downplay the bad with their notion of what is good, d)because we bloggers force any given topic.

This past Tuesday's proposed school construction presentation is one good example of the above. The proposed construction was perceived by yours truly as an item that the school board feels is a done deal. But will the state be so quick to approve the proposal? I don't know about you but I am curious to find out what the state's response will be, after all, even if the money is already at the district, the money is public money and there seems to be a new need to have a good reason to spend it nowadays.

With this said, it is not that Barlow and Woodland couldn't use a new kitchen and a new gym. And sure Barlow and Woodland proposed construction, dating from a 2005 plan, was valid back then and it is still valid today, but...can we say building a kitchen and a new gym is the most pressing need of the school district today on 2011?

District-wide enrollment numbers obtained through OPRA (will post link later) show that even if rearranging, again, the district's elementary schools was to happen, the overcrowding that some schools have wouldn't be solved, for example:

Washington school, a brand new school, has already surpassed its capacity of 548 students (p.240)by its current enrollment of 602 students. Cedarbrook, who is housing Cook's 8th graders this year, is also experiencing overcrowding and while Cedarbrook has trailers on its property and the overcrowding is hardly felt, how long can students be housed at trailers? Evergreen is also way over crowded with 582 students and counting.

But just what would solve this overcrowding? Yes, while returning all 6th graders to Maxson and Hubbard, which currently have 301 and 325 students, could help alleviate some of the overcrowding, the real issue, or so it seems, is with younger children. Kindergartners to be exact. Enrollment figures tell that there are currently 713 kindergartners v. 578 students on 6th, 7th and 8th grade. At some schools some K classrooms house as many as 29 students or more.

So, my question is this:

Will new kitchens and gym help solve the classroom space need Plainfield public schools have? If not, then what is the district and school board planning to do to address overcrowding at schools, and what are the plans to address the need for additional classroom space for incoming younger children?

If anyone has to snap out of lethargy here is the community. Speak up, get informed, and ask questions. Schools can not be ignored any longer. More on this subject later next week.

What do comfort food, Montecarlo and my ex have to do with me no posting....

Macaroni and cheese and chicken nuggets are not exactly the healthiest food on earth, but.... they are comfort food and just what you want to feed a small "troop" of children who happen to be my ex's children, nephews and niece. Gotta love mixed families! Sorry for not posting today, I'll see you tomorrow. Oh! And Monte Carlo? That is what is playing right now on TV! Watch it with your kids, or those lent to you!

The Other Side of Latino Opinion on School Vouchers

If you have not read councilwoman Rebecca Williams' latest post based on a press release from Christian Estevez, Plainfielder and former BOE member, I hope you do for it is important to point out, especially in Plainfield where Latinos are often misunderstood, that there are more Latino opinions than those from who we often hear about at the local level.

Latinos in NJ have many voices and the subject of school vouchers has opponents (Christian Estevez, Latino Action Network)) and supporters (Martin Perez, Latino Leadership Alliance of NJ). Plainfield blog readers perhaps are not aware of what opposing views these two NJ's Latino organizations have on this matter, so I thought I could help a little bit here by bringing the "other view".

The Opportunity Scholarship Act (OSA) bill is being debated right now at NJ's legislation "lame duck session". Just as it is important to hear what the opponents to this bill say, I believe it is important to hear those who support the passage of OSA. Here I am posting Martin Perez's Opinion, published by the Times of Trenton 2 days ago. Hearing from opposite views can only allow for a more informed debate.

Opinion: N.J. Opportunity Scholarships offer students a way out of
failing schools
By Martin Perez

In this post-election period, the Legislature has a chance to make a real difference in the lives of thousands of students shackled to low-performing schools. It’s a chance that leaders genuinely concerned about the future cannot afford to let slip by. The Opportunity Scholarship Act (OSA) is ready for the final few steps of the
legislative process and could be on Gov. Chris Christie’s desk by the end of the
month if lawmakers do what they know is right for their constituents.

Taxpayers have generously funded chronically failing public schools for decades, and the public has every right to be outraged at the high cost of continued poor performance in so many urban schools. For the children consigned by their ZIP Code to such schools, the price is measured in lifetime outcomes. Their sub-par educational opportunities virtually ensure that they remain in society’s underclass, which in turn ensures that they indefinitely remain an economic burden to taxpayers.

Under OSA, corporations receive a tax credit for every dollar they donate, and kids consigned to chronically failing schools get scholarships. Corporations get a tax write-off that will be capped at an amount necessary to finance the program. Parents get to choose a school –
private, parochial or public – for their children that provides high-quality educational opportunity.

Some have expressed concerns about OSA’s constitutionality, wondering whether it will pierce the Kevlar curtain that separates church and state. I don’t see that as an issue; courts around the country have found no problem because the public funds go to parents, not to the schools.

Though it’s a program new to New Jersey, there are now students in 18 states who benefit from some version of OSA. A recent report by The Foundation for Educational Choice revealed that 18 of 19 studies found OSA-like programs had resulted in improvement to the public schools; and in 10 studies that looked at the program’s effect on students, six found that all students benefited, three found that some did, and one found no impact. Not one study found a negative effect.

The pending New Jersey legislation is proposed as a pilot program, with criteria and limitations. Only low-income students can benefit, only a few districts will be permitted to participate, both donations and scholarships will be capped, and over the five years of the pilot program, availability will be incremental. Elementary school students would receive up to $8,000, while those in high school would get $11,000. Participating schools that receive students would be required to meet state Department of Education standards and accept the scholarship as payment in full.

It is expected that demand for the scholarships will outpace availability, which unfortunately means some children will have to win a lottery to escape a failing school and gain access to a good one. I don’t agree with the rationing of educational
opportunity this way, but the current system does not provide a means of escape for those who cannot afford to move.

It is doubtful that President Barack Obama would be president today had he not been the beneficiary of a scholarship to the prestigious private Punahou school as a child and adolescent in Hawaii. OSA will help ensure that New Jersey educates its Barack Obamas of the future.

In the weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas, there should be no partisan posturing, nor shortage of courage in the New Jersey legislature on OSA. The children have no time to waste, and neither should any member of the Legislature.

Martin Perez, Esq., is president of the
Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey.

The 2005 Long Range Facilities Plan Comes Out of Its Hiding Corner

Dan Damon did an excellent post on last night's presentation of the proposed new work for Woodland and Barlow. If you have not read it, you can find it HERE. My post is just to share the location of the long forgotten 2005 Long Range Facilities Plan, which, alas, is posted at the NJDOE's own website.

Here is how you can obtain your own copy of the approved 2005 Long Range Facilities Plan:

Go to the NJDOE website, click the Overview of DOE Sites box,

Go to School Facilities
Click on the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) Information

Once there you can see the School District Final Determination Reports (which is the report that lists what construction was approved and for what site)

You can also scroll down and find at the Supporting Documentation Templates what Goals and Objectives are expected to be in place for construction at Abbott districts, we are still considered, and funded, as an Abbott district.

Hope this helps those following school construction here in Plainfield. And keep on mind that the Plainfield school district is applying for permission to go ahead with its construction plans, the state can approve or not the application. Let's see what happens.

Overall, investment at school facilities is a good thing but it is how this major investment is communicated and carried on what makes or breaks community involvement.

School District Annual Audit Passes with Flying Colors

One of the highlights of the school district's end of the calendar year for the last 2-3 years has been the public discussion on the annual audit. Prior to Gary Ottman, Plainfield's School (certified) Business Administrator/BOE Secretary, the district's financial department was found back on 2007-08 to be lacking many controls as per documented on this July 15, 2008 Corrective Action Plan. This year's audit, which audited the 2010-11 school year, came back with, I believe, 3 findings, and had no recommendations from the auditors.

Gary Ottman and his team deserve a much heartfelt thanks from the community as it has been under his leadership that the fiscal affairs of the district seem to be coming around in a rather speedy way.

Felicidades to Gary and his team!

Part IV: Recognized Titles vs. Unrecognized Titles and the Need to Understand the Needed Process for Each One

Picking up the "story on Plainfield's certification saga" I think it is important that knowledge, or at least familiarity, on what the difference and the process are for both recognized and non-recognized school job titles gets spread out to those who follow school matters and more, specially because the Plainfield's school district has gotten in trouble with the state more than once in the past 6 years. And, because the school board, and taxpayers, are still paying for all that confusion that took place between the 2006 and the 2010 school years when apparently lack of certifications prompted the district to fire many teachers (2006) just to repeat, sort of, the same mistake a few years later when more than 40 job titles were abolished (2008), some certificated people were let go (just to come back and sue) and new job titles were created for non-certificated staff (2009).

So, first, the RECOGNIZED TITLES
This one is the easy one (now we know, right?). The Commissioner of Education releases every year a list of recognized titles by the NJ DOE. The list is intended for special education private schools but the list is based on state-recognized job titles. It is pretty much a black and white document and there is no room for personal interpretations. To qualify for any of the job titles on the Commissioner's list a person must have the appropriate educational certifications required for the position in question. (See a sample of the annual letter that goes out with the list HERE).
So, what are these requirements?

They all start with a CE. Don't get confused with the CE (Certificate of Eligibility), which is what got many of us confused back on 2007-10. Had someone bothered to point out the difference back then, well, maybe I would not be writing about it today, right?

But let's start with the Certificate of Eligibility (CE) for a recognized administrative title. A person gets a Certificate of Eligibility (CE) only when he/she has fulfilled the educational background required by the state for school administrators. There are different ways to go about obtaining a CE and you can visit the NJDOE certification page HERE for more specific information. A Certificate of Eligibility is given to those wanting to work as School Administrator, School Business Administrator or Principals (or on any of the recognized administrative titles that require these certifications). A CE is also valid for life, you can get one today and don't look for an administrative position until 2015, your CE will still be valid then. But the CE is just the key to get hired for a recognized title. You don't have the educational background, you can not get a CE. It is that simple.

Once the person that is holding a CE gets hired by any given district, the district MUST register the CE holder to the state-mandated mentoring program, why? Because a CE holder is someone who is new to the job title and the state mandates that all new appointed (whatever the recognized title might be) gets two years of mentoring by a mentor approved by the state. One year mentoring for certain certificates if you have the work experience.

Supervisors don't get a CE, they either have the education to be Supervisors or they don't. Supervisors get a Standard certificate once they qualify for it. Supervisors don't require mentoring.

Check HERE if you want to check all administrative certification requirements.

To finish this post on Recognized Titles and Certifications let me post here how I understand the whole process between getting a Certificate of Eligibility and getting an Standard Certification.

I'll use Pancho, an imaginary name, and have him go through the process to see if I got this thing of certifications for recognized titles right, if I didn't then please correct me as you will be helping many of us who are trying to understand the school hiring process.

So, here is Pancho who has been a math teacher for 10 years and wants more out of his professional life, so Pancho goes back to school to get the needed credits to become an administrator. He gets his needed credits. He is ambitious. He is also young and handsome.

Certificate of Eligibility (CE)
Pancho, with his new credits on hand, applies to the NJ Department of Education for a Principal's CE. Once Pancho gets his CE from the state then he can apply for a vacant principal position at the district of his fancy, and with Pancho feeling good he does just that. Pancho gets hired for the position of Principal.

Provisional Certificate
Pancho knows that for the next two years, or more in some cases, he will have to have a mentor as once hired he must be registered for the state's recognized mentoring program by his hiring district. Pancho now moves up to what is known as the "Provisional Certificate". According to the Department of Education a person holding a CE can't, or shouldn't, start working at their new position until they get accepted into the mentoring program.

Standard Certificate
After two years of our Pancho meeting with his mentor on regular basis, which by the way is paid by the district, Pancho will receive his "Standard" certification. Pancho has worked hard to be a good principal and now he is set for life. Or so he thinks.

If I am right, then this seems like a pretty straight forward process with no room for personal interpretations. If I am wrong, please correct me.

For the next post I will go over the process for non-recognized titles. This process is far more interesting. And again, corrections, additions and suggestions are always welcome.

New School Construction Specifications Up for Adoption Tonight, Tuesday: Where is the money coming from?

Where is the money coming from for the proposed new construction is one of the questions that needs to be asked at the Work and Study meeting happening tonight Tuesday, at 8 PM, at the high school's conference room. (Agenda is HERE)

Is this new construction proposed for Barlow and Woodland a project from the School Development Authority (SDA)?

Or is this a project being paid by Plainfield, and state, taxpayers?

When was either project publicly discussed? Minutes and agendas would need to show specifics of a public conversation on these two projects as the expenditure of public monies need to be discussed and adopted in public.

What are the specifics of both proposed projects? This information, thankfully, can be obtained through an OPRA. Hopefully an OPRA will not be needed.

What was the criteria used when picking Barlow and Woodland?

Hopefully OPRA is not the only way we have to obtain information on this matter. If you are concerned about this project and where money to pay for it is coming from then you need to attend the school board meeting this Tuesday at 8 PM at the high school's conference room. If you can't attend, you can still raise your concerns to the school board via e-mail, make sure you copy the county superintendent at joseph.passiment@doe.state.nj.us.

Plainfield Schools, Contamination and the 2012 Site Remediation Reform Act

Several weeks ago while reading Minutes of the school board I noticed that the board adopted a resolution (p.5) allowing environmental testing at Jefferson and PAAAS, both schools located at the former National Starch Building on W. Front Street. I wondered what was that about.

Reading the recently obtained legal bills (See August Bills), obtained via an OPRA, I found out that the school board met with the party responsible for the environmental testing. Apparently on that meeting the NJ DEP (NJ Department of Environmental Protection) was also present, along with an environmental lawyer from Wolff and Samson. Apparently this meeting was on August 16 and it was to answer concerns the school board had on some results.

Wondering about what was this about I went to the NJDEP website, found out the files and this morning I contacted NJDEP. As it is, the problem is not with the school site but with a neighboring site and by law any property within 100 feet needs to be tested. The test results, for Jefferson and PAAAS, came back to the school board and showed no evidence for concern, no reason to be alarmed. A copy of the ongoing activity can be accessed at the NJDEP Dataminer page (don't ask me how right now since I forgot to take notes and will have to sit again to retrace my steps on how I got to the files on this case). Also available, but via an OPRA, are the reports and the letters sent to the BOE on this matter. Response to my OPRA should come next week, but wouldn't it be nice if the school board could give an update on any environmental activities at any of the city's schools?

Anyway. Information on this matter opened up a "whole wide world" into Site Remediation as the 2009 adopted Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) has changed how site remediation gets done and by whom. Full implementation of SRRA is scheduled to take place on May 2012 and as I was clicking different pages at the NJDEP website I came across a list of sites in Plainfield that are known to contain contaminants, which some of them, if not most, are related to underground storage tanks, gas stations and dry cleaners, but what called my attention is that among the old pending cases for investigation that are still open are Maxson and Cook.

Isn't it time to request that the school board gives the community a full report on the state of the school buildings? Especially now that there are plans for new school construction.

$11,600,000 for New School Construction, Barlow and Woodland: How did the school district arrive to their choices?

And will the state approve their plans while 2 major buildings sit half occupied and at least 4 elementary schools are bursting at their seams? What if construction estimates are wrong and we get stuck with a huge bill? I am interested to learn all I can on this "new construction" proposal, aren't you?

BOE Agenda Is Posted: Settlements, Literacy Supervisors, New Construction, 22 Million Adoption (finally!) and...a HIB Case?

Break time from "the story" and time to look at the school board next Tuesday's agenda. A lot of what looks like good changes, some questionable items (like when did the board approve Literacy Supervisors? I missed this one). New construction seems to be happening for a couple of schools and one item that has me intrigued: an HIB Case Disposition, what is that? Guess I'll have to be there to find out.

The agenda also brings some expected items: Legal and worker compensation settlements are going to start making their appearance, expect more. That is the most obvious expected item but there are more. I guess someone is listening. Thanks! Who says you need to be an elected official to push for change? Maybe all they need is some one to ask the questions? If so, why don't you join me and ask questions to ALL elected officials in Plainfield.

To end, how about a little victory dance?

Have a nice Sunday! See you Monday.

Part III: BOE, Files, Positions and Certifications

--Mrs. Campbell wanted an update on the applications for the Human Resources Director.--

The above phrase, that was obtained via THESE Executive Session Minutes through a lawsuit, is one of a small number of phrases that started to unravel what I used to see as a mess. Today, a year later (from the time I read it), the phrase makes perfect sense as we now know that the district was facing what look like a storm on May 2007 when the above phrase was recorded. What looked like a storm back then eventually did become a storm less than two years later.

On December 2006 the state did send the district notice that a full review of the district was going to take place. The state started its review of the district, QSAC, on January 2007. Four months later Mrs. Campbell, along with more members of the board, were recorded at Executive Session questioning qualifications of key positions hired personnel. One can only imagine that by May 2007 the school board was fully aware that there were certification/job title issues found with several employees. State findings were released on August of the same year, by then the superintendent of the time, Ms. Howard, had already resigned and we were under Mr. Carter's administration.

Anyway. The job descriptions that were questioned by the NJDOE back on 2007 were (all documented by the QSAC personnel files):

Chief of Staff
Chief Financial Officer/Board Secretary
Chief of Academic Services
Director of Human Resources
Director of Special Projects
Facilities Operations Supervisor
Plainfield High School Content Supervisor
Supervising Coordinator of Special Education
Supervisor of Financial Management
Supervisor of Staff Development
Supervisor of teacher Growth and Development
Speech Therapist
Teacher/Elementary/Secondary

These titles, and more, were abolished a year later, on May 8th, 2008, this time the district was under Dr. Bailey. More than one blogger raised questions, but... there were no definite answers. Going back to the list, let me give you HERE the link to the state recognized titles list for that 2006-07 school year (can't find the 2007-08 years, maybe later). QSAC reviewers were right, all titles above, except for one, were non-recognized by the state. The title that can be found is that one of Director of Special Projects, you may want to remember this one for a later post.

To add to the worries of back then the district had one other problem. A good number of employees were given titles to which they didn't posses the state-mandated certifications. Two easy examples were the two positions brought to the Office of Administrative Law by their holders for legal resolution as both employees were under the impression that they had what was needed. The Office of Administrative Law ruled against these employees because they were found lacking the state mandated certifications. Both cases can be read HERE and HERE.

So, for the 2006-07 school year, challenges were many. Between the 2007-10 Comprehensive Equity Plan mandating the district to make its Affirmative Action Officer a certificated one; the state QSAC reviewers finding the district had a number of job titles and descriptions that raised concerns and the misplaced understanding of the district on what the state required when it came to certifications and titles, you can bet that things were not looking too peachy for those who were aware of these conditions. As for us, plain residents of the city? We were blessed by ignorance back then. Many still are.

Still more to come. Tomorrow.

*This is a gramatically revised post. Additional links were also added for those who like to see the longer version of data sources used for this post.

The story goes on, part II: Human Resources Director

We left off where the district, back on 2006-07, needed to correct their lack of having a certificated person holding the title of Affirmative Action Officer. How, or why, it was decided that this void was going to be filled with a new position is something I do not know, I was not even here when that happened. This position, back on March of 2007, was said would be that one of:

--Human Resources Director.

Click the link for the job description if you want to check out the details of it. The position of Human Resources Director seems to have been from the Larry Leverett days since it was adopted on 1995 and it was revised on 2002. Larry Leverett left, I believe, early 2003. Why a new job title was created, that one of Chief of Staff, is not known to me at this moment.

Important to note are two facts on this HR Director position:

One: The position was created and amended before the December 2003 adoption of new standards for educators here in the state.

Two: When the state came on January 2007 to do their QSAC review of the district they noted that there were questions on several titles, Human Resources Director was one of them. (Click HERE for the QSAC link, then go to the zip file for personnel files)

So, here you have two contradicting things going on:

The Plainfield district schools' Comprehensive Equity Plan corrective action plan fixed the void of a certificated person by appointing a yet to be hired Human Resources Director, and, QSAC's findings say there is a problem with the HR Director title. This contradiction went on around the same time, the CEP corrective plan was due to the state on March 30, 2007, but the QSAC's review was still going on as it was on March 23, 2007 (p.2) that the state held a QSAC public forum for the Plainfield community. What to do then? Panic?

Well, the then superintendent, Ms. Howard, resigned (p.1&2)on June 2007. Mr. Peter Carter came in and it was under his short tenure that the position of Human Resources Director was filled (p.13) by now a former administrator that is suing the district. These are just pure facts, you can click all the links to verify this information.

But before we move on to later dates and start looking more on depth on this story it is worth to note that Minutes from a May 15, 2007 Executive Session shed some light into the search for this position. A current member is recorded asking for an update on the applications for HR Director. The district was moving along to comply with the Comprehensive Equity Plan.

QSAC was being ignored? No one at the time gave, or knew, the importance QSAC has.

More on this story later. The stove is calling. I'll continue with more later tonight. But the Minutes are HERE, last ones on the file.

Pending Lawsuits Lead Me to 2007-10 Affirmative Action Report

Part I of who knows how many

With the district facing more than one lawsuit with claims of hostile work environment, harassment, discrimination and retaliation (one of these lawsuits is from a PPSD student) I started wondering awhile ago if there was a plan, or something, that could help shed some light into the district's working practices. There was. The 2007-10 Affirmative Action Report is a comprehensive report of equal opportunity and which was required by the state back then. The district has filed an annual assurance statement on the past couple of years since no one knows when, and if, a new plan will be required by the state. I obtained my own copy through the district, via an OPRA a few months ago, its link is at the bottom of this post.

Two weeks ago I finally sat to read the whole document and was surprised to read names of people who no longer are here, like Ms. Chiaravalloti who was signed on the Team Membership Form as the Affirmative Action Officer. Ms. Chiaravalloti resigned from her position of Chief of Staff on July 31, 2007. The position of Chief of Staff was one of the positions the Department of Education questioned when they performed their 2007 QSAC review of the district. Ms. Chiaravalloti was with the Plainfield school district 3 1/2 years according to THIS 2007 BOE agenda, p.33.

But the obsolete names and titles are just one small part of the entire document. My search started, should I forget it, looking for working practices of the school district. The Comprehensive Equity Plan (CEP), part of 2007-10 plan, contains a Summary Statement - CEP Achievements and Barriers from 2004-2007. An OPRA is in order for this old document, if for anything, for historical background. But the 2007-10 CEP says the following on compliance with equity regulations:

--The Affirmative Action Officer (AAO) needs to be a certified staff member. (The current AAO, Mrs. Dawn Ciccone, is certified as far as I know).

--There needs to be yearly training on equity training.

--There needs to be a district wide Affirmative Action team.

One of the items that grabbed my attention was that for the 2007-10 plan the district acknowledged that they were not in compliance with one of the AAO regulations, the one that called for the Affirmative Action Officer (of back then) to be a "certified" employee. This was the same person who held the position of Chief of Staff, which ultimately ended being questioned by the state at their 2007 QSAC personnel review, the same year this person resigned.

What looks like a corrective action plan for the report stated that the district would correct the above by "defining the responsibilities of the AAO, [would] require that the AAO be a certificated person and train the AAO to handle the district/charter school's equity' responsibility." The district would also "develop a job description with responsibilities listed."

And who was responsible to implement all the above?

Sorry, you will get the answer at the next post as this is already getting too long. But I think many of you already know the answer.

To get your own copy of the 2007-10 Plainfield School District Comprehensive Equity Plan, click HERE.

And to get a clear explanation of what the plan is supposed to be, from the NJDOE, click HERE for a powerpoint, and for the long form HERE.

"Borrowed" from Laura Waters, NJLeft Behind: BOE Elections

I normally don't repost entire posts from other blogs but I found this one to be too important not to repeat Ms. Laura Waters' message on its entirety. Ms. Waters is a school board member in NJ and keeps a blog, NJ Left Behind.

Ray Pinney over at New Jersey School Boards Association alerts us to a new bill posted earlier this week by Assemblyman Lou Greenwald. The bill, A 4360, proposes a procedure that would allow local school districts to move their annual school elections to the day of the general election in November.

In order to move the election, the School Board has to adopt a resolution backed by a majority of the Board or at least 15% of voters in the district have to sign a petition. And here’s the kicker: a district that moves its election to November could bypass the school budget vote as long as it stays within the 2% cap. School board members elected in November would take office at the beginning of January.

Once a board has moved its election to November, it has to leave it there for at least 4 years. (The 4-year commitment, which may deter many boards from taking the risk of a November vote, is necessary in order to avoid a situation where one year new members are sworn in in April and the next year in January. )

Interesting bill. The State Legislature has pondered for years whether to move school board elections to November when people actually vote. NJEA and NJSBA have generally opposed such a move, arguing that a November election absorbs far more partisan rancor than a mild April poll. Assemblyman Greenwald’s bill gives everyone a choice, with a powerful incentive to avoid the enormously time-consuming marketing of school budgets that occurs every year.

This lame duck session is getting more and more interesting.

Laura Waters, NJ Left Behind