Posted on

>BOE Meetings

>Board of Education MeetingBOE Meeting
The Ridgewood Board of Education will hold regular public meetings on Jan. 7, 2008, and Jan. 28, 2008, 7:30 p.m., the Board room, 3rd floor, Ed Center, 49 Cottage Place.

Special BOE MeetingThe Ridgewood Board of Education will hold a special public meeting on Monday, Jan. 14, 2008, 7:30 p.m., in the Board room, floor 3, Ed Center, 49 Cottage Place. The purpose of the meeting is to hold a workshop with the district’s school principals on math instruction.

Match.com

Posted on

>the fly asks why not pay the kids?

>Last week The Ridgewood News featured a ‘thank you” to the Rec Dept for use of town fields for the recently completed PONY U17 softball qualifying tournament ,a job well done ,but it seems interesting to the fly that there was time to coordinate this boondoggle but no time to pay the kids who worked long hours umping the final month of the Rec season.

Posted on

>Extramarital relationships involving BOE and VOR employees

>Since the inception of this Blog, the Fly has periodically received anonymous reports of extramarital relationships involving employees of the BOE and VOR. Since off duty conduct is a private matter, and none of the allegations have been accompanied by substantiation, our Blog’s moderator has thus far chosen not to post any comments related to “immoral activities.”

However, the Fly understands that extramarital relationships between employees (or a administrator/teacher-parent, police officer-resident relationship) can create moral issues in the minds of other employees, as well as Ridgewood’s residents.

What do you think – Do BOE and VOR leadership teams have a responsibility to address reports of extramarital relationships involving their employees? Or is what goes on in private just that, a private matter? If the Fly receives substantiated reports of affairs with obvious conflict of interest issues (e.g., a manager-subordinate relationship), should they be posted?

ORDER FINE ART/ STOCK PRINTS ON-LINE

Posted on

>U.S. math woes add up to big trouble

>Concerned parent about math finds a poignant article

SUMS IT UP… pun intended

Apr 8, 2007
There is a war raging all around us, a war the United States cannot afford to lose. No one has died in this war, and no one is likely to. But there are casualties. The injuries are mental rather than physical, but the suffering is lifelong. I’m not referring to the global war on terror or the war on drugs. I’m talking about the mathematics war.
While the United States is the world’s only superpower militarily, mathematically we are a second-rate power, and losing ground every year. In the math war, the superpowers are Singapore, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Belgium. In assessment after assessment, those countries prove that their weapons – fourth, eighth and 12th graders – are more accurate and advanced than our own. Their strategies are more focused. Their national resolve is stronger.
The debate in this country about mathematics education and curricula has been termed the math wars, but it is in reality a generally civil disagreement. There are two distinct sides in the debate, which for simplicity’s sake I’ll label “reformers” and “traditionalists.” Because I subscribe to the BLUF principle – Bottom Line Up Front – I’ll tell you now that I side with the traditionalists.
In this forum, I can’t possibly present all the relevant information necessary for you to make an informed decision on this issue. My goal is to pique your interest so that you will want to become better informed, will want to take a stand.
Why? Because the issue is critical to our nation’s ability to remain an economically advanced world power. Let’s face it: Math whizzes in Taiwan or Belgium will get good jobs in the global economy, but they are not going to grow up to become taxpaying supporters of the American baby-boomers’ social safety net. Only American math whizzes can be counted on to do that. We need to grow our own.
A bit of context is important. The reformers, representing the education establishment, believe learning “process” is more important than memorizing core knowledge. They see self-discovery as more important than getting the right answer. For them it’s the journey, not the destination.
Traditionalists, consisting mainly of parent groups and mathematicians, advocate teaching the traditional algorithms. They advocate clear, concrete standards based on actually solving math problems. The destination – getting the right answer – is important to traditionalists.
Fuzzy vs. clear
Two examples will help to make the difference clear.
One broad standard in an actual reformers’ curriculum states that students should “use computational tools and strategies fluently and estimate appropriately.” A similar statement in a traditional standards curriculum says: “The student will add and subtract with decimals through thousandths.”
Fuzzy standard on one side, clear and concise on the other.
One math project in a reformers’ program – the program used in many New Hampshire school districts – is called “My Special Number.” Sixth graders are told:
“Many people have a number they find interesting. Choose a whole number between 10 and 100 that you especially like. In your journal:
“Record your number.
“Explain why you chose that number.
“List three or four mathematical things about your number.
“List three or four connections you can make between your number and your world.
“At the end of the unit, your teacher will ask you to find an interesting way to report to the class about your special number.”
Sixth graders are given a month to complete this project.
To traditionalists, tools and context are important – in that order. Master the tools, put them in context. Reformers provide context, then attempt to guide students to discover the tools. This is cart-before-the-horse thinking.
The reformers’ approach is to have students devise their own methods for achieving a mathematical goal rather than have them learn the traditional algorithms. “By talking about problems in context, students can develop meaningful computational algorithms,” a reform standard states.
This is not true. If by “meaningful computational algorithms,” we mean simple, accurate and repeatable – things like the traditional addition algorithm, or long division, then the average student will never develop such an algorithm and should not have to try. Universal mathematical algorithms were developed ages ago by Archimedes, Euclid, Descartes and Pascal. There are not many budding Pascals in our school districts, but there are plenty of children capable of learning from the methods discovered by the great mathematicians in history.
Return to tradition
Traditional methods of teaching mathematics have proved their worth. While they could be tweaked, they should not be discarded.
Reformist curricula might make for an interesting doctoral dissertation, but they don’t hold up well when ivory tower meets bricks and mortar. In math education, America’s children once competed well with their foreign peers. But today our students’ mathematical performance earns them a place in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries. They are in the middle of the pack when less-developed nations are added.
What has changed during recent decades? The teaching philosophy. The reformers of the education establishment – Big Ed – took over. Billions of tax dollars have been spent on a social experiment in which the tried-and-true was discarded and the intellectually fashionable was foisted on schoolchildren.
This should spark outrage among both parents and taxpayers. It should trouble anyone counting on today’s students to get good jobs and pay taxes.
The best way to advance students’ conceptual thinking about mathematics is to have them learn and take advantage of the existing core of mathematical knowledge. This is the traditional approach: Students are taught, and made to master, the traditional algorithms.
With such tools, and with the guidance of good teachers, a student can, after 12 years of school, understand and apply mathematical principles that took scores of geniuses thousands of years to devise.
I urge you to learn more about the math wars, about how your school is teaching math, and to take a stand in favor of the traditional, proven methods.
(Ken Gorrell of Northfield works for a New Hampshire-based defense contractor.)
—— End of article
By KEN GORRELL

Posted on

>Public Access Channel 77 Available for Ridgewood Events

>Included in the Village’s franchise agreement with Cablevision for Ridgewood cable service, is the use of the Public Access Channel 77. The Channel is used by the Village to broadcast Village Council meetings and advertise Ridgewood non-profit events. The Board of Education also uses the channel to broadcast their public meetings as well as several other school related events.

The Village is looking for additional apropriate quality produced video programs to air. Do you have film of Ridgewood events – artistic performance, special interview or presentation of a topic of interest to fellow Ridgewood residents? Please contact the Village Manager’s office at 201/670-5500 ext.204 to check into this opportunity and to offer any suggestions for the volunteer use of the channel.

Posted on

>Update to Municipal Five Year Financial Forecast

>

An update to the municipal Five Year Financial Forecast was presented to
Village Council members by Ms. Dorothy Stikna, the Village’s Chief Financial
Officer, on July 11, 2007. Click on the link below to view Ms. Stikna’s
complete remarks.

https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/finance/07FFUJULY06.pdf

Posted on

>Village Council Stands Fast –Church Will Pay to Demolish Structures at 54 South Monroe Street

>The vacant house and garage on Village owned property at 54 South Monroe
Street will both be demolished within the next 2-3 weeks. This will permit
the long awaited expansion of Citizens Park.

Several years ago, Village Council members approved the purchase of 54 South
Monroe from the Bozo family. A strategy was formulated to promptly demolish
both structures, and subsequently expand the adjacent park. Because rather
immediate action was envisioned, no plans were made to lease the home
(unlike what is being done at Habernickel Park).

However, West Side Presbyterian Church parishioners successfully petitioned
Council members to purchase the main structure for $1.00. Church members
had hoped to move the structure to nearby South Hillside Avenue, and use it
as a rectory. Unfortunately, the Church ran into zoning issues and was
forced to withdraw its proposal.

The Fly has learned that a contractual agreement between the Village and
West Side Presbyterian mandated that the church assume all demolition costs
if the house was not moved within an agreed upon time period. In actuality,
Council members graciously stood by as the time period lapsed significantly.

Now however, since all options for relocating both structures have failed,
Council members are left with no choice other than to ask that terms of the
agreement be honored.

Estimated costs for the demolition project will exceed $20K. It is not
known whether the Church will be paying these charges from operating funds,
or if a donor has stepped forward.

GigaGolf Special Couponsshow?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=14707

Posted on

>Blog Readers Continue to question Ridgewood News Objectivity

>andrew+and+sue

Dear Keith,

You recently wrote an article entitled, “Local blogs: Free speech forums or battle fields?” In that article, “Sue” (moderator of the “Ridgewood Views” blog) was extensively quoted without The Ridgewood News divulging her or her partner’s (“Andrew”) identity or giving any of their background information. This contrasted sharply with your reporting of James Foytlin and his “The Ridgewood Blog.” Why is that? Hasn’t it always been the policy of The Ridgewood News not to print anonymous statements?

When you compare the following statements made by “Sue” in your article with the comments “Sue” and “Andrew” are allowing to be posted on their blog, you will see that there is plenty of name-calling, nasty names and bashing … hardly a civil debate.

“…So we finally decided we can make our own blog and be fair to everybody. And we don’t have the name-calling because that just got ridiculous.”

“It can be said it was a response to the TERC stuff but I think the TERC stuff really just drove home the fact that this name-calling needed to stop…”

While she admits there are “three sides to every story,” Sue said she and Andrew would like to host an environment where people throw around ideas and not nasty names.

“We’re not trying to bash PJ [Foytlin],” she said. “He may have had the best intentions when he started but it seems to have gone awry. It seems with that blog that there is a lot of whining. Everyone’s got a complaint, but no one has an answer.”

The following mission statement is posted on their “Ridgewood Views” blog:

“In reading the postings on The Ridgewood Blog we came to the conclusion that there needed to be a more civil forum which could provide some balance. Unlike the Ridgewood Blog you will find no advertising here. We are not looking to make money from your participation. Here we encourage a free and open exchange of ideas, questions and opinions based on intelligent discussion and debate. The moderators of this blog will NOT post any comments that, in their opinion, contain personal attacks.”

Under the following heading excerpted from their blog there are eight postings.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
No Clear Answers To The Ridgewood Math Debate
Anonymous said…
Have you seen our friends latest post….he is really insane.
July 22, 2007 1:07 PM
Anonymous said…
it’s obvious he is consumed with the math issue, which is a clear sign of someone who is a fanatic.
July 22, 2007 1:36 PM
Anonymous said…
Why is this guy spending so much time on this issue? does he have a child in one of these programs?
July 22, 2007 4:20 PM
Anonymous said…
Because it gets him and his blog attention and he makes money…its that simple.

The fly Swatter
July 22, 2007 4:50 PM
Anonymous said…
If he is such a good Investment Advisor why is he wasting his time running a blog? I would think he would have better ways to spend his time.
July 22, 2007 5:31 PM
watching the lunatic fringe said…
The Math Moms mean well and have legitimate issues with respect to TERC. They were represented well in the Ridgewood News article by Keith Hamas.

Unfortunately, their side has been hijacked by the Lunatic Fringe, i.e. a small group of people in the village who have starred in such episodes as:
— suing the BOE over a high school survey, claiming that their privacy had been violated,
— getting forcefully removed from Orchard School grounds because they were upset about the school’s building expansion,
— threatening to sue Ridgewood Basketball Association to let a girl play in the boys league
— constantly writing letters to the editor of the Ridgewood News about some perceived outrage or injustice.

There are rational adults on both sides of the math debate in the village…and there are irrational cranks with problems that go way, way beyond mathematics.
July 22, 2007 8:00 PM
Anonymous said…
To watching the lunatic fring

Some people have a problem with everything and everyone in their lives. They go out of their way to make trouble for everyone around them. These people usually are very unhappy and angry at the world.
July 22, 2007 9:27 PM
watching the lunatic fringe said…
9:27 — Agreed. Unfortunately, even though they’re a small part of the population (5%? 2%? 1%?), their actions can cause problems for the rest of us, such as
— wasting taxpayer money & civil servant time by launching frivolous lawsuits
— causing a highly-qualified school leader to change his mind and not become superintendent of our schools
— polluting the public debate about what’s best for our children when it comes to math education

As the old saying goes: just a few rotten apples can spoil a whole barrel.
July 22, 2007 9:48 PM

Keith, would it be possible for you to write a follow-up article on “The Ridgewood Views” blog divulging the names of the moderators and giving their background information? I don’t understand why The Ridgewood News allows “Sue” and “Andrew” to remain anonymous while being extensively quoted in your article. Do you allow them to remain anonymous because they have chosen to remain anonymous? Over the years, there were many times while being interviewed by reporters for The Ridgewood News that I would have preferred to remain anonymous but was not afforded that opportunity. Does The Ridgewood News have a double standard?

By the way, Keith, I have corresponded with both “Andrew” and “Sue” using “Sue’s” e-mail address, roxdjs@hotmail.com. In response to my questions to them, “Sue” e-mailed the following background information:
How old are you? Andrew is 53 and I am 31
Are you married? Both Andrew and I are Married (but not to each
other)Do you have children in the system? Andrew had two
children who graduated
from Ridgewood High School. My son is not old enough to attend
school yet.
Did you go through the school system? Andrew and I both
Graduated from
Ridgewood High School.
> > > > Susan
As you can see from the following heading from an e-mail I received from “Andrew” (for some reason he e-mails me through “Sue’s” e-mail address) he openly cc’d “vbombace.”
—– Original Message —–From Susan Roxbury Date Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:24:57 +0000 To caroleanunn@optonline.net Cc vbombace@hotmail.com Subject Ridgewood Views
When I questioned Andrew as to who “vombace” was he responded that she is a relative of Mark and Maria Bombace. I think Andrew meant to bcc V. Bombace but mistakenly cc’d her. It turns out that V. Bombace is Vicki Bombace who resides on Midwood Road with James Bombace (husband and wife?). Isn’t James Bombace our chief of the fire department? There is a Vicki Bombace, age 31 (same age as Susan) who graduated from RHS in 1994 and resides on Midwood Road. Mother/Daughter?
Why create an anonymous platform? James Foytlin takes ownership of his blog and is very open to the public with who he is, what he does for a living, and even provides a picture of himself. Are “Andrew” and “Sue” hiding behind a group of people in this town (some who hold exalted titles such as fire chief and president of the boe)?
Keith, I think it would be revealing to your readers if you did a follow-up article addressing “Andrew” and “Sue’s” forced anonymity and their relationship with leaders in our town (who already have a public platform for their views) versus the openness of James Foytlin’s Ridgewood Blog.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Carole Nunn

Posted on

>TERC 2 for Travell and Orchard

>The fly wonders why the BOE went ahead with the purchase of TERC 2 for both Travell and Orchard based on teacher work from this summer and the Travell parent survey results which are on the school web site under ‘math info for parents’ at the bottom of the list. Seems like a waste of $9000 for Beth Fisher-Yoshida, her work isn’t even completed, and yet they purchased the ‘new and improved’ math?

show?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=120349&subid=&type=4&gridnum=1

Posted on

>Readers ask ; Does this seem like a lot of money for Electric and Fire Alarm Upgrades?

>From the Board of Ed Agenda for Monday, July 23.

Approval: Proposal from LAN Associates to Provide Architectural and Engineering Services
Mrs. Botsford

Approval for LAN Associates to provide architectural and engineering services for electrical and fire alarm upgrades at Ridgewood High School. The estimated cost is $610,000 and estimated architectural and engineering fees are $61,000 (10% of total estimated cost).

The Board has received background information.

ORDER FINE ART/ STOCK PRINTS ON-LINE

Posted on

>lets clear the air a bit….

>byclcye

First, things get published on this blog because I decide to publish them.

This blog carries local news content and 80-90% of the articles are sent in by contributors. Contrary to the critics claims there are a lot of well connected people in town that want to make a statement and remain anonymous. I try keep it an open forum and often publish things I do not agree with but find it to be a valuable or some would say controversial issue.

If you want to criticize this blog please have the courtesy of reading it first, then send me an email or make a comment. If its funny, clever, interesting or just plain stupid I will publish it if it also meets the below criteria (that means its not Bush’s or the “neo-cons” fault you got a speeding ticket in front of GW, I get way to many of these kind of childish comments).

What does not get published are off topic comments, or comments that have nothing to do with Ridgewood (this blog is about Ridgewood hence the name “the Ridgewood Blog”), advertisements for other website with out my permission, cheap skate ambulance chasing lawyers looking to pick up suckers I mean clients, police business for fear of inadvertently interfering, personal indiscretions (these I save in case someone gets some ideas) , comments from stalkers, and comments from people with there own agenda that have nothing to do with Ridgewood ,however secret agendas and conspiracies that do have to do with Ridgewood are encouraged.

Please be advised if you’re a lawyer and get business from a contact made on this blog there is a 50% finder’s fee, and yes I will aggressively enforce it. You have been warned!

Yes from time to time I do publish really stupid comments, just not always.

If you can’t handle disagreement or have no sense of humor, I am sorry for you, and this blog is not for you.

It is not hate speech or harassment when someone exercises their constitutional rights and voices an opinion or concern nor is someone a closed minded, racist, bigot, homophobe simply because they don’t agree with you. You should instead celebrate the vitality that produces all these opinions. For those self appointed people who want to silence others, I have some news for you, sorry not a chance.

I would love to link with your website if you agree to link back otherwise forget it .If your website is lame or spends all its time attacking me and or this blog you need a life not a link.

PJ Blogger