Posted on Leave a comment

>–"C’mon folks." It’s time to get serious about the size of this problem, and the impact it is having on our district’s reputation

>”Traditional math is notthe only solution. One can argue that the best solution is a blended approach so that we can get the best of both styles of learning. I’ll continue to keep an open mind on this one.”

Modern (read: updated) traditional mathematics curricula have already incorporated those aspects of the reform math programs that have merit. (All of them place such materials and interventionist techniques where they belong–at the outer periphery of the instructional agenda, and nowhere near the heart/center.)

Don’t fall for the catchwords/catchphrases like “balanced approach” or “blended approach” when evaluating a K-8 mathematics programs. Such terms are used only to discourage and tamp down the anger of parents who demand accountability in the process by which the subject of mathematics is conveyed to their children, and utility and parental accessibility in the materials and underlying educational philosophy associated with the prevailing mathematics curriculum.

Programs like TERC/Investigations and Everyday Math are not really mathematics curricula. They are merely tools used by biased administrators (such as Ms. Botsford) to perform school district “makeovers”. The goal is to achieve ideological purity in terms of implementing the constructivist academic philosophy.

A recent advance by Ms. Botsford toward her goal was the introduction of so-called “Authentic Assessment” in the high school. The current push toward constructivism in math instruction has been paired with a similar assault on academic instruction in the hard sciences.

As has been mentioned in this space in the recent past, when a K-12 district’s administrators finally train their sights on mathematics and the hard science disciplines in terms of pushing them off the the constructivist cliff, it is usually a sign that the remainder of the academic disciplines have already suffered a similar fate, or are well on their way to doing so.

If we knuckle under and allow Ms. Botsford to place the math and hard sciences “capstone” on her constructivist edifice in Ridgewood, it could take decades for this district to recover its tradition of academic excellence. As it is, and even if we stop Ms. Botsford dead in her tracks and send her packing before the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year (miracles can happen–just ask the football Giants), we’ve already bought ourselves a good eight to ten-year hangover as we withdraw from the current constructivist ‘binge’.

Our own esteemed Sarah Kate Maskin put it well–“C’mon folks.” It’s time to get serious about the size of this problem, and the impact it is having and will continue to have on our district’s reputation.

Posted on Leave a comment

>Proposed Ambulance Billing – NJ State First Aid Council Advisory

>Here are the complete remarks concerning a proposed ordinance to allow billing for Emergency Medical response and transport services made by Ms. Paula Weiler, Northern Area Executive Vice President of the NJ First Aid Council. The remarks were directed to members of the Ridgewood Village Council on Wednesday, January 16.

“Thinking of Changing Your Squad’s Volunteer Status?
THINK AGAIN

New Jersey law defines volunteer and non-volunteer first aid, rescue and ambulance squad as “a first aid, rescue and ambulance squad which provides emergency medical services without receiving payment for those services… Non-volunteer first aid, rescue and ambulance squad” means a first aid, rescue and ambulance squad that provides emergency medical services on a paid basis. The New Jersey Highway Traffic Safety Act of 1987 (“NJHTSA”).

The test for determining whether or not a squad is “volunteer” is applied at the squad level and not the member level. If a squad bills for service it is not a volunteer squad regardless of whether or not its manpower is volunteer.

Once a squad bills for its services, then legally it is considered a non-volunteer squad which automatically loses many benefits given volunteer squads by New Jersey law.

Non-volunteer squads are:

– SUBJECT to NJ Dept. of Health & Senior Services (NJDH&SS) licensure, annual inspection and considerable fees.

– SUBJECT to NJDH&SS unscheduled inspections of ambulances and crews.

– REQUIRED to respond to all calls with two EMTs. Under no circumstances may these squads respond with only 1 EMT and a driver or first responder.

– SUBJECT to federal HIPAA rules and regulations due to the practice of billing.

– SUBJECT to rules and regulations of Medicare and Medicaid billing fraud and abuse. When such fraud is alleged, the billing agent is NOT responsible, but rather a squad officer, or in the case of a municipal squad, the mayor / town administrator is subject to charges and fines. (Reference UMDNJ)

– SUBJECT to Medicare and Medicaid payment practices including holding payments for any reason, sometimes for months (as do insurance companies). Should their claims reviewers find that previous paid claims (up to 3 years prior) were paid in error, they will demand reimbursement be made within 30 days. If it’s not made, the moneys will be withheld from future payments and interest will be charged and added to the amount owed.

– REQUIRED to document additional patient information including Social Security number, diagnosis code and other insurance billing information and keep the information confidential. Squads must also document medical necessity for the use of an ambulance. It is likely that a significant number of calls done by squads will not meet this requirement and will not be eligible for insurance reimbursement.

– LOSE their volunteer LOSAP benefits. The limiting language in this benefit is close to the NJHTSA definitions.

– LOSE all free EMT certification and recertification training provided by the NJ EMT Training Fund Act.

– FORFEIT the use of warning devices, i.e., “blue lights” on their personal vehicles or ask for the right of way in responding to their squad buildings for emergency calls. Non-volunteer squad captains are not entitled to use red light/siren on their personal cars.

– LOSE the benefit of limited immunity from civil lawsuits for actions taken on calls. (“Good Samaritan Act”)

– INCUR increased liability insurance costs, perhaps as much as 2 to 3 times what the squad currently pays.

– LOSE free college education for their child or spouse if killed on duty.

– RISK loss of mutual aid. Non-volunteer squads cannot force other towns to provide mutual aid to their town without a mutual aid contract in place between the towns. Only volunteer squads have the ability to approve or disapprove mutual aid contracts between towns that affect them.

– INELIGIBLE for the special presumption that cardiovascular or cerebrovascular injury or death of their members on a call is the result of the call. Likewise, they do not automatically receive the highest benefit available under the Worker’s Compensation Act.

– EXCLUDED from use of “The Volunteer Emergency Service Organization Loan Fund” by the NJ Division of Consumer Affairs.

– EXCLUDED from NJ State Contract pricing or bidding for goods and services. Non-volunteer squads would no longer be exempt from state licensing of raffles and games of chance. Currently, volunteer squads need only a municipal license.

– LOSE the right to replace supplies from a receiving hospital amounts to increased supply costs for squads.

– RISK a substantial decrease in voluntary contributions made to the squad.

– INCUR increased costs especially if the squad is unable to maintain its volunteer member base. Added costs for paid personnel must then be paid by the town.

– LOST BENEFITS: Non-volunteer squads that are not part of a municipality cannot have the municipality provide insurance coverage for their vehicles, equipment or liability. Non-volunteer squad members are not eligible for municipality provided life insurance; accidental death and dismemberment, hospitalization, medical, surgical, health or accident insurance. They cannot have the municipality provide Workers Compensation.

This represents a listing of what volunteer benefits a squad would lose by being reclassified as non-volunteer. The final decision should be between the squad and the Village Mayor and Council. As I had stated initially, we in the New Jersey First Aid Council would much prefer not to lose our volunteer membership, but the patient’s interest and well-being is of higher concern to us in the NJSFAC. I am merely trying to ensure that all parties are aware of the multiple ramifications of this classification change. I have the feeling that you have not been informed of some of the items I mentioned.”

Posted on Leave a comment

>Questions for Mayor Pfund and co-consiprators:

>Questions for Mayor Pfund and co-consiprators:

1) The local economy is now in the toilet. As a result, parking problems have eased significantly since your 2002 survey was taken. Are you aware of this?

2) Higher fuel prices and huge toll hikes will force more residents into mass transit venues. Thus, more parking will be needed near the train station and at the Route 17 Park & Ride. Do you agree?

3) You couldn’t build Village Hall on time or on budget, so why on earth would you try your hand at building a parking garage?

4) North Walnut Street isn’t the right place for the garage. Traffic flow will be a mess if you put a garage there. Have you asked your Village Engineer for his opinion?

5) Why are you willing to condemn 120 Franklin Avenue, plus lots behind the stores on Oak Street, but you aren’t willing to tell Ken Smith that you’re taking his business?

6) How do you plan to fund this project, estimated in today’s dollars to cost at least $9 million?

7) Why are you building more retail outlets when there are plenty of vacant store fronts already in the CBD?

8) Why only 12 affordable housing units? Isn’t our current COAH obligation significantly higher?

9) No member of the public, repeat NOT ONE TAXPAYER, has stepped forward at a Village Council meeting in support of this ridiculous project. You’ve had several taxpayers speak against it, but ZERO in favor of it. With this in mind, WHY ARE YOU MOVING FORWARD??????????

and added later ….

10) What about the loss of every single parking space in the existing North Walnut Street surface lot, plus several parking spaces on North Walnut Street itself, while the garage is being constructed? Wouldn’t it make more sense to build a new surface lot, or parking deck, at a location where existing spaces would not be lost due to a prolonged building construction project?

11) Councilman Harlow has proclaimed “if we build it, they will come.” Pascack Valley Hospital made the same proclamation about their new building addition. Are you aware of what just happened to Pascack Valley Hospital Mr. Mayor?

show?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=56753

Posted on Leave a comment

>Nominating Petitions for Village Council Election Now Available

>village+hall
Nominating Petitions for the May 13, 2008 Municipal Election are available at the Village Clerk’s Office, 131 N. Maple Avenue, 5th Floor between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM Monday through Friday.

Please note that all petitions must be filed before 4:00 PM on Thursday, March 20th 2008.

Posted on Leave a comment

>The Fly read a resident’s letter to the editor in today’s Ridgewood News.

>Some 60 Ridgewood residents and parents attended a public meeting of the Board and district principals last Monday. As advertised by the superintendent in his letter to the parent community, a proposed “plan” was to be articulated for addressing the issues that have led to the intense concerns many parents have expressed with the district’s elementary and middle school math programs.

After listening for an hour and a half as each member of the panel expressed their education philosophy, I was appalled to learn that the highly anticipated plan was to ‘partner with a local university’ so that they could tell us what we needed to do. What disappointed me even more was that there was zero deliberation of this supposed plan from any of the Board Trustees, given the fact that the constructivist math, which is the source of great parental concern, is the very product of the education departments within these local universities.

As was expressed by several speakers at the microphone that evening, the “partner” chosen will likely determine the outcome of what math program is implemented at our six elementary schools. If, as is expected, the university supports reform math and constructivist ideology, then Ridgewood will be seduced into abandoning our foundational math programs to welcome Everyday Math or TERC into all its elementary schools. This is neither a plan nor a solution to the problems clearly articulated over these past ten months and clearly defined in the focus group results for which the Board paid roughly $9,000 dollars.

We have extremely bright and talented people within both our district faculty and our community. Offering to punt the ball away to complete strangers is an insult to those who pay the taxes and to those employed by our district to provide such administrative guidance. We are the experts of the children of Ridgewood; the parents, the teachers, and the principals. It is a misuse of time (another year and a half!) and an expensive redundancy to rely on outside resources to direct us on how to best educate our own children. We already pay more than a few administrators quite handsomely to provide this expertise.

We are almost exactly in the same place that we were a year ago. The one progression is the acknowledgement by the administration for consistency of one math program to serve all 6 elementary schools. That this took an entire year to determine is shameful enough.

A university rightly has its own agenda and subset of interests. What guarantee is there that Ridgewood’s interests will be placed ahead of any university’s education ideology? This supposed plan shows a disturbing lack of confidence in those we’ve hired to administrate our schools. Every one of the administrative participants at Monday’s math workshop spoke of the need for our children to “think outside of the box” and be competent problem solvers. So thinking outside of the box means going outside of the town? Shouldn’t our Board, administrators and principals practice what they preach?

Don’t punt. This is a home grown problem that we have the resources to solve at home and the ability to solve sooner rather than later so that by September 2008, our students will be on the road to math success across the board. That’s nine months. We can do a lot in nine months. C’mon now.

Sarah-Kate Maskin

Posted on Leave a comment

>Parking garage closer to reality

>dakota
Published on Friday, January 18, 2008
BY EVONNE COUTROS, The Record – Hackensack, NJ
RIDGEWOOD — The village is one step closer to building a multi-level parking garage on North Walnut Street that would ease parking problems in the business district and add 10,000 square feet of stores in an area devoid of retail businesses.

The Village Council gave the nod this week to the North Walnut Street redevelopment plan, which could bring the 378-space garage to town by July 2009.

“We began a project to create a redevelopment district about a year ago, which encompasses almost the whole block,” said Village Manager James Ten Hoeve.

The redevelopment zone is mostly owned by the village and is bordered by East Ridgewood Avenue, Oak Street, North Walnut Street and Franklin Avenue, Ten Hoeve said.

The plan does not include the redevelopment of properties on the East Ridgewood side of the block, he said.
A developer of the property could be hired by May with construction beginning in July, according to a timeline for the development

“The ultimate plan is a ground level plus three stories of parking with open parking at the roof level,” Ten Hoeve said. “The conceptual drawings of the retail in 2005 called for 10,000 square feet of retail on the first level. It could be more. The plan also allows housing up to 12 affordable housing units.”

The dimensions of the garage call for the acquisition of portions of property between Oak Street and North Walnut for a rear access road to the new stores.

The plan also includes the acquisition of a service garage on Franklin Avenue owned by Ridgewood 120 LLC and currently for rent.

“We have an appraisal for $1.245 million,” Ten Hoeve said of the sum McGuire Associates of Jersey City — the village’s appraiser company — has offered the owners of the service garage property.

“We meet with the property owners and their attorney next week, and we hope we can come to an agreement,” Ten Hoeve said.

In the past, the property owners have asked for $2.1 million, Ten Hoeve said.
“If we come to terms then it’s a purchase,” Ten Hoeve said. “If not, then we will undertake the process of eminent domain.”

The next step is to hire a redeveloper, Ten Hoeve said.
A 2002 study had put the cost of construction at $5.6 million. The cost in the study included all property acquisition and 340 garage parking spaces, almost 40 spaces shy of what is called for in the current plan.

“Construction costs are up since 2002,” Ten Hoeve said. “The cost of steel has quadrupled probably. It will be a more expensive job, but we will see what we can do with the redeveloper.”

The intent by the council was to keep the structure from looking like a garage, Ten Hoeve said.
“Their goal was to have people drive down the street and never see a garage,” Ten Hoeve said. “The facade will be a little more expensive than most garages, and we hope it looks like brownstones.”

Posted on Leave a comment

>Reader Takes a Look at "Saxon Math "

>12:52, I found an informative presentation on Saxon math via a web search using keywords “Saxon math” and “mastery”.

https://www.pattan.k12.pa.us/files/AYP/Saxon.pdf

Saxon appears to make full use of manipulatives and other similar techniques to enhance understanding. This has traditionally been a hallmark of reform math. So the question would be, shall Saxon be considered a “reform math” program.

I looked a little deeper, and found that in the Saxon program, these activities don’t appear to be at the center of the instructional process (at least not for long, and certainly never exclusively). Rather, these activities are only one among many means to an end. And this is where Saxon appears to distinguish itself from TERC/Investigations and Everyday Math.

Saxon appears to push hard toward the goal of subject matter mastery, and automaticity with respect to the recall of basic math facts, and the performance of efficient mathematical algorithms. It also has a heavy emphasis on regular and meaningful assessment. Finally, Saxon is definitely being sold as a “building block” or foundation-building program that prepares students for future achievement in higher level math subjects, a concept that has particular relevance with parents whose educational backgrounds and current jobs were/are very demanding from a mathematics perspective.

I can’t stress enough my dissatisfaction with any program that deliberately stops short of subject matter mastery or math facts automaticity. For example, both TERC/Investigations and Everyday Math are openly and unapologetically based on the assumption that it is a waste of time for teachers to push students towards the goal of achieving subject matter mastery, or demonstrating fluency and automaticity with respect to basic math facts, since most students either are incapable of doing so, or will be unwilling to do necessary work. This is one big reason why such programs are completely unacceptable to Ridgewood parents.

So the question becomes, why have such programs have survived as long as they have in Ridgewood?

After many months of mulling this question over, and carefully observing all the activities of the BOE and the district’s administrators, I have to conclude the following: Regina Botsford has a vested interest in keeping these programs in Ridgewood. Having had plenty of time to take the temperature of local taxpayers and parents, she knows that if she has any hope of cementing an ideologically pure version of reform math in place in Ridgewood, it is now or never. So she’s using every last bit of her power and bureaucratic force as the assistant superintendent of math instruction to bring about the result she favors. It is literally a one-man (woman) wrecking crew doing its work in real time, right in front of our eyes.
1-800-FLOWERS.COMshow?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=100462

Posted on Leave a comment

>Heights Residents Object Loudly to Water Tank Replacement Project

>Valley+View+Water+Tank

Residents living on and near Valley View Avenue came out in force to last night’s Village Council meeting, objecting loudly to Ridgewood Water’s plans for removing several mature trees and other foliage to facilitate construction of a 100 foot wide water tank near their homes. The proposed new tank would replace two smaller tanks which, according to Ridgewood Water representatives, are in danger of collapsing due to their age.

Mayor David T. Pfund advised gathered residents that neither he nor his fellow Council members had been provided with any details on the proposed project by Ridgewood Water Director Frank Moritz. It was agreed that such a project review would be scheduled for Wednesday evening, January 23. Further dialog between Council members and the public will take place following the scheduled executive briefing by Moritz.

Posted on Leave a comment

>Volunteer Ambulance Personnel Object to Proposed “Fee for Service” Proposal

>cash register ~ nif 006

During Wednesday’s Village Council Public Meeting Mary Green and John Papietro, both members of local volunteer ambulance corps, objected passionately to the introduction of Ordinance #3098, which, if approved, will establish fees for Emergency Medical Service third party billing.

Under the proposed plan, patients’ insurance carriers would be billed $550 plus $0.10 per mile for transport services, and $125 for Emergency Medical response without transport.

Green and Papietro both cautioned Council members that implementing such a plan could make it even harder to recruit willing volunteer workers, and also create difficulty establishing mutual aid agreements with adjacent volunteer ambulance corps.

In addition to hearing comments on the issue from Green and Papietro, Council members were also chastised by a local officer of the New Jersey First Aid Council, who read off a list of approximately 25 reasons “not to transition from volunteer to paid” emergency medical service.

A public hearing on Ordinance #3098 will be held on Wednesday, February 13 during the Village Council’s regularly scheduled Public Meeting.

Posted on Leave a comment

An Invitation from Tim Brennan

>This email from our superintendent was sent to subscribers of Travell enews but should be available to everyone in the community.

Toward the end, Dr. Brennan makes it clear he intends for the whole district to move toward the horrid Everyday Math curriculum.January 10, 2008

What are we going to do about math?

You are cordially invited to sit in on a discussion of this topic, to be held this coming Monday, January 14, at 7:30 p.m in the third-floor Board Room of the Ed Center. We will be televising on Cablevision Channel 77. The program will then be video cast and podcast from our website, so you can download and play at your convenience. We will be following up with visits to each faculty and Home and School Association meeting in either January or February as their schedules allow. We will then report the information from the faculties and school HSA’s back to the Board to help them form a decision on our proposed action plan.

At the meeting this Monday, the Board, central office administrators and all of the district principals will discuss moving Ridgewood forward in k-5 math curriculum, instruction and assessment, as a part of a coordinated k-12 program. Right now we are in good shape, but, as one of my colleagues likes to say, “Ridgewood did not get to be Ridgewood by standing pat.”

Our SAT scores have improved almost every year for the past five years and are now higher than the average of New Jersey private school college-bound seniors. The SAT math scores at RHS are actually higher than the verbal, which are also high. State testing also shows good results. Aggregated performance remains at 90-95% passing in all areas. Elementary schools meet or exceed comparable school districts in 12 of 12 math tests administered since 2002. Our middle schools did the same for 7 of the 10 tests, while the high school met or exceeded the top districts on 5 out of 6 math tests administered at grade 11 since 2002.

Noting an opportunity for improvement at the middle school, last year we introduced Connected Mathematics II at Grade six. This year the second level of CMPII was introduced at Grade seven. Next year, for the first time in the history of the school district, Algebra will be offered to all eighth grade students. The American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences has ranked Connected Mathematics (1998) number one in a study of middle school math textbooks
(https://www.project2061.org/publications/textbook/mgmth/report/).

Here’s a preview of what the elementary principals will be advancing for the Board’s consideration. Using the Ridgewood model that has been so successful in our literacy programs, we offer the idea of teaming with a university to share expertise and information. For the remainder of the current school year, that would mean appointing a group to evaluate local research and instruction faculties, including both mathematicians and math educators. Over the course of the 2008-2009 school year we would work with that university, using sophisticated assessment to help answer key questions relative to the needs of our students. By September of 2009, Ridgewood students would be using new curriculum, procedures and materials, to the extent that they are needed.

Our proposed timetable coincides with a good deal of information that should be coming our way. The President’s Panel, a group of math experts called together in Washington, should be presenting their report this April. The Department of Education has awarded a fifty million dollar grant to do a national study of different math programs. Across the nation, other federal dollars will be propelling four regional laboratories, one at Rutgers, to evaluate current math programs for effectiveness. This should stimulate the publishing companies to get busy preparing materials to match the national findings.

Here’s what we won’t be recommending to the Board. The states who knee- jerked against reform math, California in particular, have once again endured the empty experience of running headlong toward the mirage called “back to basics.” Last month, Education Week reported that the California Department of Education admitted its legislatively mandated traditional math programs have not generated the results they wanted. They are switching statewide to Everyday Math, a reform program currently used in Somerville and Ridge Schools here in Ridgewood.

In Pittsburgh, where some schools use traditional texts and some use Everyday Math, a study commissioned by the Board of Education with Mathematica Inc. concluded that the results achieved by students in the two programs are indistinguishable. Cost of the study: $60,000. One conclusion noted in the study: It’s actually the teachers, not the materials, that make the difference. We could have told them that.

I hope that you find a way to be a part of our discussion over the next several months. Please give me a call (201)270-2700, or drop me an email, [email protected], if you have questions or ideas.

Tim

Posted on Leave a comment

>you cant get the same work done with half the crew

>As i stated in another section of this blog years ago the street dept had just north of 20 employees now their are half that amount. you cant get the same work done with half the crew.also the leaves came down very late this year.maybe its time to look at managment to see whats wrong the street dept. is so short handed they borrow workers from other depts.to get it done. if things are this bad money wise in the village someone on top should be held accountable.
Hotwire

Posted on Leave a comment

>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