No time for cheers

The Trentonian is reporting this morning that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and his newly appointed executive director of the Schools Development Authority, Charles McKenna, have promised Assemblyman Reed Gusciora that Trenton will get a new high school.

This is just the latest in a long series of promises and hoped for starts on remedying a situation where students and staff are forced to endure conditions that in any other district would not be tolerated.

The situation with the 82 year old high school is not new. It has been punted back and forth for over a decade pitting the state against that school board against the preservationists against the state and so on.

Everyone wants to point the finger and no one wants to accept any blame. That has to stop. Now.

Let’s start at the very beginning: the Trenton school district let the building deteriorate.  Undoubtedly, defenders of our board of education will say it was a money problem, but let’s be real. It is a management problem.

Yes, it is an older building and proper repairs and upkeep cost more than temporary, slap-dash fixes. So budget and plan. Trenton’s funding for its infrastructure (like that of the county and the state) is woefully inadequate. We have no problem pumping up salaries for administrators and the like but we won’t invest in maintaining and improving what we have.

When the courts determined that New Jersey was required to allocate some $8 billion for fixing up the dilapidated schools in the state’s poorest districts, it got everybody excited.  With all of the money in play, could scandal be far behind?

After only five years in existence, the Schools Construction Corporation created to oversee the investment in school improvements was abolished in 2007 by then Governor Corzine. Audits showed that hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted in the gold rush to get new schools built. The SDA was formed to “put an end to the wasteand mismanagement of the past”, Corzine was quoted as saying in August of 2007.

The reorganization of the funding and management authority meant all projects would be reevaluated. This put the Trenton Central High School plans back into play and set the stage for more delays.

Alumni and preservationists felt, and we believe rightly so, that a properly managed restoration and updating of the existing school would actually be less expensive than totally new construction. Princeton’s high school, the same vintage and similar design as Trenton’s, had undergone just such a renovation and no one complained about their building as being inadequate.

There is an unfortunate bias that “new” is better and will solve our problems.  It is an attitude that is a holdover from the first couple of centuries of this country, when resources were seemingly unlimited and we could just expand and build a new whenever and wherever we wanted.

A new school building, made of concrete block and drywall instead of brick and plaster is not going improve test scores and raise graduation rates.

That was the popular position and one that the SDA (and its predecessor, the SCC) played to. Building new was cheaper, they said.

And so it went, back and forth; Build New! Restore and Renovate!

The ineffective, mayor appointed school boards and school administrators (with a few exceptions) collectively fell in with the community cry for all new construction. The preservationists made enough noise to give the SDA political cover for its own inadequacies, indecision and political posturing.

Nothing got done.  Conditions in the building worsened.

In the run up to last November’s gubernatorial election, a lot of attention was given to the school. It became just another pawn in the political chess game. Media tours, protests, candidate visits and the incumbent’s reported refusal to tour the building were reported and remarked upon constantly.

Now that Governor Christie is ensconced in his second and final term, and regardless of his aspirations and success in moving to the White House in 2016, he’s promising “a new school.”

We continue to hope that the plans call for mostly renovating and restoring the existing structure, but we realize that is unlikely at this point. It’s a shame.

What is a bigger shame is that it has taken this long to get something done (if, indeed, the promise comes to fruition).

There should be no self-congratulations; no high-fives; no cheers.

The powers that be (and were) created this mess. They prolonged the agony and contributed to the destruction of a once beautiful and quite serviceable school building.

Instead of demonstrating the value and worth of taking care of the things we have, the school district, the board of education, the elected leaders at all levels let us down. They morphed maintenance and management issues into political posturing. They all said “It’s for the children” and for more than a decade, an entire generation of students has gone without.

There is no cause for celebration and no reason for further blame shifting.

Just sit down and get to work.

“It’s for the children.”

More good news for Trenton?

New bill could help save Trenton High

State Senator Diane Allen (R – District 7) has introduced a bill in the legislature that would require “schools facilities projects” to maintain the historic character of the buildings.

The bill, S980, would support the efforts of those who wish to see Trenton’s current high school building preserved and upgraded rather than razed and a new one built.

Here’s hoping even the rabid partisans will swallow their spit and support this bill. And that it gets a swift passage before the SDA funds evaporate.

Circular Logic, Part two

A couple of weeks back we posted a report from a member of the Save Trenton High Coalition regarding the outcome of the Facilities Advisory Board (FAB) meeting.

In essence, those gathered were told that in order to get the School Development Authority to provide cost estimates for preserving at least part of the existing Trenton Central High School, the school board would have to vote to build a new building.

If it seemed rather bizarre and counter-intuitive to you at the time, you weren't alone. The whole event had a kind of surreal quality that only seems to occur in Trenton at public meetings.

Someone has managed to post a video of the proceedings of that FAB meeting on You Tube. Here, for you viewing displeasure and intellectual discomfort are the links to the meeting:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAOk6WJNDD4

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1hIt0xDUS8

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcmO3G_l-vw

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A54ZuE3HVm0

The videos were apparently posted by "Son of a Trenton Man."

Just more evidence of the poor leadership qualities of individuals "selected" by the Palmer administration to serve on public bodies.

Circular Logic

The Facility Advisory Board (FAB) of the Trenton Board of Education (BOE) met Wednesday night to discuss and clarify the recent round of funding promised from the School Development Authority (SDA).

The Save Trenton High Coalition posted an update on the meeting that addressed the status of the Early Childhood Center, MLK/Jefferson, Roebling and Trenton Central High School:

Mr. Dwayne Mosley of the FAB gave the presentation and Mr. Alexander Brown of the Board of Education (BOE) facilitated the meeting. Representatives from the School Development Authority’s (SDA) and the State Department of Education (DOE) were not present. Approximately 15 members of the public and two BOE members were in attendance.

A significant amount of time was devoted to discussing and deciphering the SDA’s decision-making “process” as presented by the FAB and BOE, specifically as it relates to Trenton High and Roebling. Apparently, it borrows heavily from the chicken and the egg theory. It goes something like this:

1. The SDA has told the BOE they must make a decision soon on either renovating or replacing Trenton High and Roebling.
2. The SDA has refused to provide the BOE with a cost analysis or feasibility study on renovation and replacement in order to make an informed decision.
3. The only way to get the SDA to provide any information to the BOE in order to determine the best alternative for the students (and this is where we were told to suspend our disbelief) is for the BOE to vote on a resolution to “abandon” Trenton High and Roebling and build brand new schools.

That is precisely what the BOE is going to do. On Monday, July 28 the BOE is going to vote on a yet to be written resolution to “abandon” the landmark Trenton High and build a new school that serves only 1300-1500 students, all in the name of studying its renovation.
The FAB and the BOE attempted to pacify the public by explaining that this is how the SDA’s “process” works. Possibly by September the SDA will complete its analysis, and another FAB meeting will presumably be held to the present to the public the results of renovation versus new construction.

Extremely confusing, yes. But if this is truly the “process,” it is apparent that the SDA is still incapable of managing school construction projects. By forcing the BOE to scrap the existing renovation plans and start from scratch there is a very real risk that the limited amount of funding will disappear.

The meeting reportedly concluded when Mr. Brown abruptly adjourned it while one member of the public tried to ask a question.

So, if we understand this as presented, only if the Trenton Board of Education votes to abandon the idea of renovating the existing Trenton High School and build a new facility that serves fewer students will the School Development Authority provide cost estimates for new construction versus renovation.

One could conclude that the SDA would take their cue and make the financial case for not renovating the existing Trenton Central High School because the Board has to vote that way in order to get a cost estimate.

This is not just wrong, it is absurd.

If the money is designated for the city of Trenton, shouldn’t the responsible body be able to determine how it is to be spent? And shouldn’t the funding agency be mandated to provide the information needed to determine how it should be spent…

…prior to the Board of Ed making that determination?!?!?!

Not one to give our BOE a pass, but should the state really hold us hostage because it failed to rein in the waste and corruption of the SDA’s predecessor, the School Construction Corporation?

The BOE will vote on this new resolution on Monday, July 28.

Let’s hope the powers that be shake some sense into the SDA before then. Let’s get realistic and comprehensive cost comparisons for renovation vs. new construction and give the Trenton BOE the opportunity to make an informed decision.

It’s the very least that should be done for the citizens of New Jersey who are footing the bill for whatever is done here.

Meanwhile, over in the schools administration building

"Dumber than a bunch of rocks."

The Trenton School District has had another glorious week.

First, there was the story of conflicting understandings of what actually occurred at a meeting between District Officials and representatives of the Schools Development Authority (SDA). In an article by reporter Lisa Rich in the Times, (Mix-up swirls around TCHS), readers were "entertained" to learn that the fate of the city's 75 year old high school was still up in the air because the participants in the private meeting walked away with completely opposite understandings of what was said.

That's right. Trenton School Officials and State Representatives couldn't even agree on what their stated positions were with regard to the ongoing drama of trying to save Trenton's iconic central high school building.

This morning we were treated to another telling article by Ms. Rich wherein the school officials claim that the district's failing grades on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) test are misleading. (Trenton district says AYP data misleading)

Mandated by the Federal No Child Left Behind rules, the AYP doesn't account for fact that many of Trenton's schools house elementary and middle school students. The elementary students are improving, but the middle schools are not and that is dragging down the systems scores.

But if the elementary school kids are showing Adequate Yearly Progress, why isn't that translating into the middle schools as those students are promoted through the system?