How Many Children Are in Your Child's Classes?

The last I heard Englewood Public School District was over 70% free and reduced lunch. That is considered high poverty. That is definitely a Title I School District. A School Board nor a Superintendent has the power to change the law listed below. 

Take note and ask any Attorney, when the word "shall" appears within the wording of the law, the Board has no choice but to comply. Reports are coming in from parents who have been asked to have their children count heads in their classes that the numbers have increased to over 30 in many classes. 

This writer attributes part of that increase to the fact that teachers are resigning, retiring and being fired at an alarming rate and they are not being replaced. This would cause Class size to increase.

N.J.A.C 6A:13-3.1  - Pages 8 and 9 of 15 - Not FAKE NEWS, NJ LAW

6A:13-3.1 Class size in high poverty districts
(a) A high poverty school district as used in this chapter means a district in which 40 percent or more of the students are “at-risk” as defined in P.L. 2007, c. 260. 8

(b) Class size in school districts in which 40 percent or more of the students are “at–risk” as defined in P.L. 2007, c. 260 shall not exceed 21 students in grades kindergarten through three, 23 in grades four and five and 24 students in grades six through 12; provided that if the district chooses to maintain lower class sizes in grades kindergarten through three, class sizes in grades four and five may equal but not exceed 25.

Exceptions to these class sizes are permitted for some physical education and performing arts classes, where appropriate. 

https://www.state.nj.us/.../code/current/title6a/chap13.pdf

An Educated Public vs. a Poorly Trained School Board

UPDATE October 17, 2018 Article re: Choice - Another communication from a person concerned about the mandated Advanced Placement rule at DMHS. People are beginning to read for themselves. This is encouraging.

Good morning,

I would like to gain clarity on the policy of having freshman mandated to take AP biology. It is my understanding that students have no options in which Biology class they take. It is also my understanding that almost 35% of the students taking this class are passing , which leaves a huge percentage (65%) of students failing the class. What is being done to assist the majority of students who are failing this class to find success? I know that peer tutoring is an option. There is also an option of going for morning tutoring on Monday and Friday mornings with the classroom teacher where no instruction is being provided just students sitting with a study guide. Why are there no options in class selection such as Biology Honors? Are we systematically setting are students up for failure, or even planning their exits out of the Academies? As the only option that has been given is AP Biology or leave the Academies. Is this all or nothing policy common place in other schools? I received confirmation from the schools guidance department that this is the policy and it is really upsetting as the main goal when educating students is to help them achieve academic success. 

 The College Board( Advanced Placement Program) states: In what year of high school should students take AP Biology? Depending on the program sequence, most students enroll in AP Biology during their junior or senior year. Since a first course in biology and a first course in chemistry are often prerequisites, this allows time for completion of those courses and also gives students time to gain math and laboratory skills. However, there are some schools that teach AP Biology at the sophomore level with no introductory biology course and highly motivated students have been very successful. The most important factor in student success seems to be maturity and motivation. Juniors often outperform seniors, especially as graduation time nears and "senioritis" sets in. -- Carolyn Schofiel . This was taken directly from the College Boards website. 

As a parent and teacher I am very displeased with the current policy and have a lot of questions that I would like answered with exact data as to how and why  your policy is good for the students. 

Read for yourselves.....Don't take our word for it.......

The College Board

Policy: Appropriate Grade Levels for AP Courses

https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/apc/Appropriate-Grade-Levels-for-AP-Courses.pdf

Waiting to meet the "New Safe Schools Resource Officer" for the EPSD?

UPDATE: I ASKED THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS WHAT THE HOLD UP IS REGARDING THE HIRING OF A SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER.

HIS ANSWER WAS THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IS SPLIT.

MY QUESTION TO HIM WAS: HOW CAN THEY BE SPLIT ON FOLLOWING THE LAW?

It is becoming very tiresome standing before our Board of Education asking for things that are included in the law and getting empty promises of assurances that issues are being taken care of. The School Resource Officer is only one of these issues. We have been assured, by the Superintendent, on several occasions that the Staff is being trained to function as School Resource Officers. I see no sign that this is really being done. That answer also does not seem adequate when reading the Law. What say you?

This blog has been dubbed the "Englewood Inquirer", by some School Board Members, because folks would have you believe that I post fake news. Am I also posting fake NJ Laws? Do any among you know what happens when a school is deemed unsafe? Do you understand what parents are able to do when that unwanted designation is used by the state to describe a school? I will be clear here, this blogger does not want DMHS or any other School in the EPSD to be designated as an "Unsafe School". Read this attached article. It is guaranteed NOT FAKE NEWS https://www.state.nj.us/education/students/safety/behavior/usco/policy.pdf

The LAW - ftp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/20042005/PL05/276_.PDF

18A:17-43.1  Training course required for service as safe schools resource officer , liaison to law enforcement.    Input keywords "School Resource Officer" in the form after clicking the link.

   3. a. Following the development of the training course pursuant to subsection a. of section 2 of P.L.2005, c.276 (C.52:17B-71.8) or 180 days following the effective date of this act, whichever occurs first, a board of education shall not assign a safe schools resource officer to a public school unless that individual first completes the safe schools resource officer training course.

   b.   Following the development of the training course pursuant to subsection a. of section 2 of P.L.2005, c.276 (C.52:17B-71.8) or 180 days following the effective date of this act, whichever occurs first, a board of education shall not assign an employee to serve as a school liaison to law enforcement unless that individual first completes the safe schools resource officer training course.

   c.   A person who is assigned to a public school as a safe schools resource officer prior to the effective date of P.L.2005, c.276 (C.52:17B-71.8 et al.) or assigned to serve as a school liaison to law enforcement prior to that date shall not be required to complete the safe schools resource officer training course developed by the Police Training Commission pursuant to subsection a. of section 2 of P.L.2005, c.276 (C.52:17B-71.8), but may in accordance with that section. 

   L.2005,c.276,s.3.

NJ Regulations governing Safe Schools Resource Officers -

52:17B-71.8  Training course for safe schools resource officers, liaisons to law enforcement. Input keywords "School Resource Officer Training" after clicking the link.

   2. a. The Police Training Commission in the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law and Public Safety, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall develop a training course for safe schools resource officers and public school employees assigned by a board of education to serve as a schoolliaison to law enforcement.  The Attorney General, in conjunction with the Police Training Commission, shall ensure that the training course is developed within 180 days of the effective date of this act. The course shall at a minimum provide comprehensive and consistent training in current school resource officer practices and concepts.  The course shall include training in the protection of students from harassment, intimidation, and bullying, including incidents which occur through electronic communication.  The course shall be made available to:

   (1)   any law enforcement officer or public school employee referred by the board of education of the public school to which assignment as a safe schools resource officer or school liaison to law enforcement is sought; and

   (2)   any safe schools resource officer or school liaison to law enforcement assigned to a public school prior to the effective date of P.L.2005, c.276 (C.52:17B-71.8 et al.).

   b.   The training course developed by the commission pursuant to subsection a. of this section shall be offered at each school approved by the commission to provide police training courses pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1961, c.56 (C.52:17B-66 et seq.).  The commission shall ensure that an individual assigned to instruct the course is proficient and experienced in current school resource officer practices and concepts.

   c.   The commission shall award a certificate to each individual who successfully completes the course.

   d.   The Police Training Commission, in consultation with the Commissioner of Education, shall adopt rules and regulations pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to implement the provisions of this section.

L.2005, c.276, s.2; amended 2010, c.122, s.15.

Back To The Future!!!

Here we go again.......Flashback

School  Board Meeting
Thursday
November 15, 2018

Do your children's teachers have a
contract?

#1, #2 and William Feinstein

William Feinstein 

(Write in Candidate) for Englewood Board of Education

To my Englewood Friends & Family

Re: Englewood Board of Education Election 

November 6th –
William Feinstein – Write in Candidate!

After attending the candidate’s night for the Englewood Board of Education, I was disappointed but sadly not surprised by what I heard from most of the candidates. There are five candidates running for three positions, two are incumbents running for re-election, Molly Craig-Berry and George Garrison. They have served on the Board of Education for 6 & 9 years respectively. During the evening, they attempted to spin their so-called successes and advocacy for better Englewood Schools during their tenure. In fact, they are running under the slogan, B.E.S.T “Better Englewood Schools Today”. I find this ironic since most of their votes have done anything BUT create better schools.

Actions speak louder than words! So lets take a look as some of their actions.

This year they voted to eliminate the Zone Program at the Middle School, Eliminate Dual Language and Language immersion in the lower grades, eliminate the position of Vice Principal & Assistant Principal positions and eliminated over 30 staff members for “so called” economic reasons. Those same economic reasons did not prevent them from approving and voting to reward the superintendent with a bonus payment of $30,000 for achieving goals that, quite frankly, are part his regular responsibilities as Superintendent. In addition, they voted to approve and have already spent over 3 million dollars…and counting, in legal fees for tenure charges that have twice been rejected by the state. This money could and should be used for resources to provide our children with the education they deserve, not lawsuits. How do you square their campaign rhetoric of “better schools” with the actual votes they have cast? You cannot!

Ms. Craig-Berry and Mr. Garrison have had the opportunity to do the right thing and have failed our district and our Children. They do not deserve to be re-elected.

Mr. Donovan Rodriques is running with Ms. Craig-Berry and Mr. Garrison. He has put great effort in promoting his campaign rhetoric on social media, but when put to the test last night, he failed. He clearly demonstrated he is ill prepared and lacks the knowledge of the challenges this district faces. It was clear that he has no idea what the responsibility and role of a school board member is. In fact, he stated in his closing remarks that he is qualified because he reads a lot and as an entertainment lawyer, he reads a lot of screenplays. What??? The last thing we need is more characters acting as School Board Members.

Mr. Rodriques, Ms. Craig-Berry and Mr. Garrison are also being supported by some individuals who have floated the idea of privatizing the Englewood Public School District. This is unacceptable! I cannot in good conscience support/vote for any of the above candidates. I know many of you feel the same.

The final two candidates, Juan Berrios and Howard Haughton, demonstrated their integrity and independence. They strongly believe in doing what’s right, following the law and ensuring that ALL children are afforded the best education possible. We cannot continue with the status quo, it is not right and frankly is unfair to our children and our community.

With all that being said, I have decided to announce my candidacy as a write in candidate for the Englewood Board of Education. I would ask that you type my name as a “personal choice” as your third candidate for the Englewood Board of Education.

I ask all my family and friends to vote November 6th. Spread the word... We can and must do better!

VOTE!

#1 Juan Berrios
#2 Howard Haughton

Personal Choice
William Feinstein (Write in Candidate)