Residents,
Please note the Discussion Paper, entitled Inappropriate Spending, from Professor Michael Hoban. Professor Hoban sent a copy of his Paper to members of the Lakewood Board of Education. It is my hope that residents will read and evaluate the document, and that the BOE appoint a Task Force or Study Group, as Professor Hoban suggests, to look further and deeper into the issue. Bill Hobday
-----
Please find my document entitled INAPPROPRIATE SPENDING? - A DISCUSSION PAPER. As you can see, the paper is based on a recent article which presented some very interesting data regarding school districts in New Jersey. The questions raised by this data seem to be very timely - and also very critical to the proper use of our educational dollars in the future. It is my hope that the Lakewood Board of Education will consider appointing the Task Force requested in this paper.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Dr. Michael Hoban
27 Rosewood Drive
Lakewood, NJ 08701
-----
Inappropriate Spending? – A Discussion Paper
Michael Hoban, Ph.D.
(In higher education, when one wishes to focus discussion on a particular topic, one prepares a “discussion paper” that serves as the basis for the exchange of ideas. This is the intent of this paper – to serve as a basis for calm and reasonable discussion.)
It is not always easy to get information about school districts in a format that makes sense. But happily, I found an article that is very helpful in this regard because it breaks down expenditures in some different ways – although still leaving much to be desired. The article in question is Interactive Map: Per Pupil Spending by Colleen O’Dea, June 20, 2012 at njspotlight.com.
The data in the article is from the NJ School Report Card: 2010-2011. Among other things, it indicates that the average TOTAL expenditure per student for a school district in NJ was $16,600.
If we just look at three local districts, the reported TOTALS look like this:
Lakewood = $23,362
1. Howell = 16,854
2. Jackson = 14,686
3.
One could argue from this that the cost to educate each student in Lakewood is “39% greater than in Howell” and “59% greater than in Jackson.” And, in some sense of the term, this would be true. But it would also be COMPLETELY DECEPTIVE in terms of what one really wants to know.
The NJ School Boards Association points out the obvious when it states that to use these numbers would be inappropriate – since they contain such items as transportation and special education which vary widely among districts and can skew the totals. (The total per-pupil cost also contains items such as pension payments to school employees.)
So, the association has come up with a more accurate Comparative Budget Total which includes classroom instruction, support services, administration, operations and extracurricular activities (that is, the real education costs). And this is a much better estimate as to what it actually costs to “educate” the average student in a public school district.
And comparing the three districts in this way we get:
Lakewood = $12,675
1. Howell = 12,170
2. Jackson = 10,945
3.
We can now see that there is very little cost difference between Lakewood and Howell and both of these districts spend approximately 14% more per student than Jackson on “REAL SCHOOL COSTS.”
But what the article does not do and what I will do here is to raise questions about a very significant difference between these three districts.
For the three districts, compare the percentage of the “average per pupil cost” for REAL SCHOOL COSTS (RSC) versus TOTAL DISTRICT COSTS (TDC). That is, what percentage of the total district costs really go to actual school costs for the average students?
Consider the following:
Lakewood: TDC = $23,362 and RSC = $12, 675
- % of total NOT dedicated to real school costs = 46%
That is, in Lakewood, 46% of the district’s total per-pupil cost DOES NOT GO to “real school costs.” And it would appear that most of this amount goes towards transportation and special education (as mentioned above).
The obvious question is: How does this compare to other local districts? Is this “normal” or is Lakewood out of line?
Since all districts have transportation and special education costs, it would seem (at first glance) that the percentage spent by Lakewood should be somewhat similar.
Here are the percentages for some other local districts (including Neptune, an Abbott district).
Toms River: TDC = $13,426 and RSC = $10,697 - 20%
Pt. Pleasant: TDC = $13,191 and RSC = $10,345 - 22%
Jackson: TDC = $14,686 and RSC = $10,945 - 25%
Wall: TDC = $16,484 and RSC = $12,409 - 25%
Berkeley: TDC = $16,548 and RSC = $12,160 - 27%
Howell: TDC = $16,854 and RSC = $12,170 - 28%
Neptune: TDC = $20,773 and RSC = $14,497 - 30%
As you can see, these percentages at all of these districts (except Lakewood) are somewhat similar - there is a range of 20% to 30% of these districts’ total funds being spent primarily on transportation and special education (and pension benefits). So, we could reasonably expect Lakewood’s expenditure to be similar to these districts. After all, Lakewood’s RSC ($12,675) is in the “same ballpark” as these districts.
But, as we can plainly see, Lakewood’s 46% is clearly way out of line compared to these districts.
Lakewood’s 46% of budget being spent on “non-school costs” is a full 16% above that of the next most expensive district (Neptune, an Abbott district).
If we assume a public school population in Lakewood in 2010-2011 of 5200 pupils, this 16% represents almost 20 million dollars:
$23,362 x 5200 = $121,482,400 x 16% = $19,437,184.
So, the question becomes: Is it possible that the Lakewood school district OVERSPENT 20 million dollars in 2010-2011 primarily on transportation and special education costs – compared to the reasonable costs for such services of other local school districts?
Certainly, on the surface, it does appear that the answer to this question is YES. In looking at this data, a reasonable person could conclude that at least $20 million was spent inappropriately. This comparative data establishes this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
But, be careful here. This $20 million (16%) DOES NOT REPRESENT the total amount spent by Lakewood on transportation and special education. It represents the possible EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE of funds in this area
The total amount spent on these two items would seem to be closer to $40 million or even more. (Perhaps the Lakewood BOE could give us these exact figures.)
Given this apparent excessive expenditure on these two items, the important question becomes: How does the present BOE intend to correct this situation in the most efficient and least painful way for those involved?
The question is not WHETHER this can be fixed – because it MUST be fixed. The question is HOW QUICKLY will the Board do this?
(As an example, it has been pointed out by several sources that a HUGE REDUCTION could be made in the cost of busing the same number of students in Lakewood – IF a more efficient use of the buses took place. So, why is this not being done?)
Now we all know that Lakewood has some “special circumstances” regarding its school-age population – particularly in the ratio of public to private school children.
Given this fact, would it be reasonable to suggest that there do exist JUSTIFIABLE special circumstances that would explain this HUGE DISCREPANCY in the reasonable allocation of funds?
It would NOT appear to be so – unless one is prepared to argue that religious practices are justifiable special circumstances for the wasteful expenditure of public funds. Is that being suggested?
Or is it more reasonable to suggest (as some have) that former Boards have DELIBERATELY OVERSPENT these funds in response to pressure from persons having undue influence over Board decisions? That certain rules and regulations have been INAPPROPRIATELY MANIPULATED to benefit some children over others?
Clearly, if this is true, then it is incumbent on the present Board to correct this past practice as soon as possible.
Let us treat ALL Lakewood children in a fair and even-handed manner.
Conclusion
This data (presented in this new manner) seems to demonstrate quite clearly that many millions of dollars are being spent inappropriately by the Lakewood BOE in the two areas of
Transportation and
1. Special education.
2.
Given the obvious concern of the community at large expressed at BOE meetings that Lakewood public school children lack even the basic textbooks to do their assignments, it is obvious that the Board must act quickly in this matter.
Accepting the concept of continued wasteful spending cannot be an option for the present Board. Let us not use our time and energy “blaming” whoever was responsible for this waste – but do let us correct this situation NOW.
The Lakewood BOE should appoint a special TASK FORCE now – to examine these questions and to make recommendations to the Board regarding appropriate solutions.
There really is no time to waste where the education of our children is at stake.
Dr. Michael Hoban spent 48 years as a teacher and administrator at all levels of education – from elementary school to university. He earned his Ph.D. from Columbia University in mathematics and education. He is a Professor Emeritus at the City U of NY and is also retired from Monmouth University. He is a resident of Lakewood and is a senior educational consultant to Lakewood U.N.I.T.E.
Finally someone who lays it on the line for what has been an accepted practice of the wasteful spending habits of past BOE ,I have often expounded my own oppinion on how way to much money spent for non educational items at the expense of the public school children. Lets see if the new BOE has the guts to do the right thing and make some positive changes that will save the sinking ship of lakewood public schools and prove that there is hope that politics will not be the influence on the decission making process of this BOE
Or is it more reasonable to suggest (as some have) that former Boards have DELIBERATELY OVERSPENT these funds in response to pressure from persons having undue influence over Board decisions? That certain rules and regulations have been INAPPROPRIATELY MANIPULATED to benefit some children over others?
details please.
149K for new lawyer in ONE MONTH?
I have such respect for Bill Hobday. Look at his article. Look at the details. But what the hell's up with that little statue? Bill, are you a freemason???
I am not sure I understood everything here, but it seems they took the total budget of the BOE and divided it amongst the pupils in the school system and came up with that number. Seeing as there are many teens not in the school system that may be eligible for only certain services, that discrepancy was found. That does not mean the money is being wasted. It means that the state-mandated funding for non-public school students is skewing the results. This does not look like a problem to me.
The per student number is severly biased as Private students are not included. Pay attention to detail. If he doesn't like that Private students receive bussing and Special Ed, we can enroll them in public school full time which will normalize the biased ratio but drive the budget skyward. Choose.
Bill you are a great guy and you follow the BOE very closely. If you agree with Hoban you are just as ignorant this article is an absolute misrepresentaion of the truth! You know about the private schools in the district that get ONLY what they are entitled to and you know the break down.
If you have 5k children in the public school and another district has 25k whose per pupil cost do you think is less..... In NJ we are setup as districts and the superintendent gets paid a salary based on experience not amount of children (Gov Christie did just chage this) I will make this very simple for all the people to understand the truth not this low life act of anti-semitism that was written by the BIG RESPECTED PHD! If you have 50 children in a class with one teacher or 20 kids in a class with one teacher which per child ratio is going to be cheaper....... Don't forget we have 24,000 NPS who have certain needs that get paid through the BOE but that is there entitlment, not there crime!! All the garbage that they write in the paper and blogs can't be believed without the fulll picture this is yellow journalism! Remeber with blogs and freedom of the press people abuse that as much as possible everyone seems to know ammendment 1 and 5 what about the rest? Oh its your agenda again exactly my point! Have a good weekend and happy July 4 America is a great place smile!
lakewood has alot more private school students than the other towns
What he's saying boils down to saying that money spent on private school students is "wasteful spending" and that defenders of this practice are trying to justify this "wasteful spending" by saying that religious practices justifies "wasteful spending". I'm uncertain if a guy with a PhD could actually believe this was an honest evaluation, or if he just think he can pull it past the public.
In general, all discussions of BOE spending in Lakewood which use the $20K+ per pupil figures are misleading and dishonest, because they are simply dividing all expenses in the district - which is 75% non-public - by the number of public school kids only. This professor actually goes a step further by calling all non-public school spending "wasteful spending", but it's the same fundamental issue.
As a Scientologist, I instantly see thy Bill Hobday is a cleared being and a growing one at that. I wish more Lakewood activists would embrace their new reality.
I find it amusing that here the facts are laid out plain and simple yet there are some commenting that its anti semitism REALLY? I guess when you cannot dispute facts However saying that only dimishes what anti seatism really is .
Let me say again that Professor Hoban described his work as a "Discussion Paper".
Arthur Lang, a teacher, attorney, and advocate has also prepared two papers for discussion, as has an unnamed member of the BOE. All of these papers are valid and needed, in order to separate fact from fiction, so that a document based solely on fact can be submitted to the BOE and the public to be reviewed at a public forum.
This is GOOD! The Lakewood School District has been in deep trouble for a long time, and it is time for a real discussion of the issues.
The BOE needs to form a task force of stakeholders to conduct the research, gather the facts, and come to correct conclusions as to a rational plan for the future. The plan must be fair and efficient, taking into account all of the issues, resulting in a final document to the BOE and the Public. This is where the process will be debated and approved or denied.
Dr Hoben, Your article while seemingly to be "all about the numbers, in reality seeks to hide behind the numbers. The ONLY two things the private school kids get funds for are: Transportation and Special Education. This things are mandated in existing law. As a professor of education I am sure you are familiar with IDEA!
"Let us treat ALL Lakewood children in a fair and even-handed manner", you say in your article.
What you have done is averaged the cost of the entire school district on the existing PUBLIC school enrolled students. You've managed to virtually wipe out the existence of 25,000 private school students, some feat!
We JEWS save the district, perhaps over a hundred million dollars a by only costing the district transportation and special education.
Like us or hate us, we save you money!
did u hear how much the new lawyer charged the first month??? if you thought numbers were going to go down u were WRONG
To Jewy Jewison
some of what you say is 100% correct but not all ,the state does mandate transportation for ALL school children private & public it doesnot however mandate Courtesy busing for either private or public schools . It does not mandate busing be segregated .So to keep the record truthful you cannot just make a blanket statement without giving ALL the facts not half truths
As far as and I quote"We JEWS save the district, perhaps over a hundred million dollars a by only costing the district transportation and special education. "
this is baseless assumption on your part ,there are no figures to back that up .So if you are going to use that logic you could also say the same for retirement villages who pay taxes yet have no children in the school system also .that just does not fly . I sugest if this town truely want to fix a broken system that has failed the public school children for years (the record speaks for itself) lets leave all the rhtoric at the door and deal with factual information and make changes based on the facts and not personal emotional unfounded statements .
Dear Jewy Jewison –
Your comments are not based in fact. If instead of the extreme isolationism that is practiced in Lakewood an inclusion approach was taken the school system for both non-public would have flourished. There are few if any school districts in the country that have the schism between non-public and public schools that we have here in Lakewood and that includes upstate NY, Baltimore, & Brooklyn.
I’ve heard over and over that “if we entered the system it would cost you millions”. There are 2 basic issues with that thinking. First there is no “we and you”, we are all residents of Lakewood. Second and please read this slowly to comprehend what I am telling you; if the inclusion approach was taken back in the early 70’s the school system would have naturally expanded to include all the students at a measured pace and cost. Additionally the divide has cost the district hundreds of millions of dollars in State and or Federal aid over the past 40 years because funds, grants, etc. are largely based on Public enrollment.
The mess the school board is in today took roughly 10years to create, and the current school board members are working diligently to undo the egregiously bad business processes to get the district moving in the right direction. The cancer may be deep but I have faith that this school board will not let the patient die.
Everyone has a right to their beliefs and if education isolation is your belief so be it. In part you are correct, ‘you’ do not cost the district money but neither have you, nor will you, ever save the district money with the isolation approach.
If there were a Supreme Court in Lakewood, the Honorable William Hobday would be the Chief Justice.
Isn't it great you can check IP address and see who's writing how good they are about themselfs!!
To the two comments on my post:
Isolation vs inclusion. Perhaps this is an important discussion worth having. Perhaps the good Dr Hober would have been better off keeping the discussion about this directly. Instead he managed to write an entire article without articulating his real point, which has SOMETHING to do with wanting the religious community to face cuts on their end so the district can share the cuts "across the board", so to speak.
For its part the religious community is similar to the senior community in that they have less benefit from the public school system then does the rest of the community. They both tend to be very focused on property tax reduction and out of control school spending. No surprise there.
Comparing Lakewood to almost any other town or city is perhaps being disingenuous. The facts of Lakewood are astoundingly different. A large MAJORITY of the district children do not go to public school! Their only cost to the district is: Transportation, and special education.
Perhaps Dr Hober should start his calculations here. What is the average expenditure of the district on the Private school children vs the public school children. A worthy question indeed.
But you sound silly when you compare us to howell and say "how come we spend more on transportation then Howell".?