Thursday, May 22, 2008

NASD Expands Tax Rebate Program

The Morning Call reports that at the same time the NASD announced a 9.72% tax hike it also expanded the seniors eligible for the tax rebate program (read the article here).

Formerly, seniors with $15,000 or less in annual income and owned their home could apply for the school program by copying and submitting the state rent/rebate tax program forms to the NASD.

The NASD has added $100,000 to its budget and will now provide the rebate for those seniors earning up to $35,000.

The rebate, previously capped at $500, is now capped at $650.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is ridiculous, I moved to Nazareth because of the school system. I have a young child ready to start kindergarten in '09 and I totally and completly support full day kindergarten and I am very upset that they are now postponing the start of it. In addition, it is my understanding that, they are also cutting out the pilot program as well. Studies have shown that children who are in a full day kindergarten program have a higher success rate with their education then those without full day. Perhaps the board can "cut" something besides the proposed full day kindergarten.

RossRN said...

I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this one, because it seems to make sense, but full day K is not better and when research is done properly, it has actually been found that students have lower scores over time.

See the post I made on this last year when the NASD expanded the program and discussed it for all students (read it here).

If you want to see education improved, encourage the NASD to end block scheduling, stop teaching to the PSSA test, and re-implement a solid curriculum.

It also wouldn't hurt if they supported the gifted program as opposed to being minimally compliant.

Having said that, I agree they could have cut many other things before this, but all day K would have been on my list as well.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you regarding the spending on the gifted programs however, I disagree with you regarding the all day Kindergarten. First of all, I find it appauling that Kindergarten is not mandatory in PA, but that is not the issue. Why not spend the extra tax dollars to benefit the future of the children. I understand that it was more important that the school board invested in a pool for the middle school.
Also, with all the people moving into Nazareth are our tax dollars not being assessed properly where does the tax dollars go to. I feel that I was misled in moving to Nazareth since I moved here for the district.

since1962 said...

Stacy, look around. There is at least ONE full-day kindergarten available privately, and it's VERY good. And, yes, we've been misleading people for a long time. The school system is not really as good as some would have you believe. It's good, but it's not THAT good, nor is it the ONLY good one around. As far as tax dollars go, the cost to educate ONE student is not equal to the average tax per household. If the household has more than one child, then it's not even close. The difference is made up by industry, which does NOT approach the level that Parkland has, and the rest of the homeowners who do not have children in the school system.

Anonymous said...

You are absolutely correct there are private Kindergartens around- but why would I want to send my child to private school when I live in a good school district. Many friends of mine who live in Forks are sending their children to private because of the Easton school district. My feelings are very strong on the issue and I think to invest in the future of our children is not to much to ask of the tax payers of Nazareth. We should be trying to keep the school district as good as possible

Unknown said...

Stacy,

As a parent who has had children in the Nazareth elementary, middle and high schools, I am here to tell you that everything you heard about this district is nothing more than hype.

That is, unless you consider teaching to the PSSA, stressing the trades instead of college, and general mediocrity to be great traits in a school district.

Don't get me wrong, there are some good teachers, even administrators, but in reality, there are much better options of where to educate your children.

The administration at the top (Dr. Lesky, this means you), has run this district into the ground and has been kind enough to give us a huge tax bill to boot. I for one am going to demand a re-assessment of my house now that prices have dropped, and as his tax increase causes them to fall further, I will go back for more only to make sure I pay them as little as possible.

RossRN said...

Stacy,

If you believe all-day K is beneficial, you should really read this report by the Rand Corporation http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG558.pdf

All-day K is supported by educators because it means more teaching positions and by many parents because it means a half day less of day care.

If a child is at risk of being behind, then the extra help they can get in early childhood programs is/can be beneficial, but if you've taken the time to work with your child and they have no learning disabilities the all-day K will be of no benefit, only extra cost to taxpayers.

The study notes:

"This study uses data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K) to examine how children’s skills and knowledge at kindergarten entry predict their achievement in later grades. It extends previous research by examining longer-term achievement outcomes, namely test scores at the end of fifth grade, and gives an indication of how the other nonacademic areas of school readiness (i.e., physical and socio-emotional development)
may be related to test performance."

And the summary of findings notes:

"We found that both academic and nonacademic school readiness skills at entry to kindergarten were significantly related to eventual reading and mathematics achievement in fifth grade. Controlling for nonacademic readiness skills at kindergarten entry eliminated the blackwhite achievement gap in reading at the fifth grade, while attending a full-day kindergarten
was unrelated to reading performance. Attendance in a full-day kindergarten program was
not related to achievement in mathematics in fifth grade except when nonacademic school readiness factors were included in the model. When those factors were considered, full-day attendance was negatively related to math achievement. In other words, after controlling for
nonacademic readiness at kindergarten, children who had attended a full-day program at kindergarten showed poorer mathematics performance in fifth grade than did children who had
attended a part-day kindergarten program. This finding raises the possibility that earlier studies
may have failed to find relationships between full-day kindergarten and outcomes because
they omitted important information relating to nonacademic dimensions of readiness. Future studies should explore whether the inclusion of such variables changes interpretations about the effectiveness of full-day programs."

Finally, and this shouldn't come as a surprise the study notes:

"Attendance in a full-day kindergarten program was negatively associated with attitudes toward
learning, self-control, and interpersonal skills, and was positively related toward internalizing (measured by a scale indicating presence of anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem, and sadness) and externalizing behaviors. With the exception of class size (the effect of which was counterintuitive), few kindergarten program features were related to nonacademic readiness skills.
Instead, positive home background factors, such as higher income and higher parental involvement with the school, were associated with all five dimensions of nonacademic school readiness skills; higher income and more parental involvement were positively related to a child’s attitudes toward learning, self-control, and interpersonal skills and negatively predictive of internalizing and externalizing actions."

We don't need full-day K, we need engaged parents and the kids will do well providing the school has a good curriculum. Given the emphasis on test teaching, I'm more than a bit concerned about that right now.

Anonymous said...

moving back to Jersey is starting to sound like an amazing option.

Unknown said...

Stacy,

You wouldn't be the first to explore that option, and as our taxes continue to increase, certainly not the last.

As programs, as opposed to the administrative lard at the top, get cut further and further, and reputation NASD has will surely get blown out of the water.

I have come to the conclusion that this administration has no problems spending like there is no end to the money, and when the community complains, they cut only the things that hurt the students. Basically, they are only looking out for themselves.

If they weren't, they would learn the term fiscal responsibility and exercise it.

since1962 said...

I attended the public schools and while I know they are good, I still maintain that they are no more outstanding than other surrounding schools. FAMILY makes the difference, not the schools, teachers, administrators or the board. We had, in this local district, many working-class or farming families who lived most of their lives right here in this county. We used to be able to field a pretty good football team with those farm boys. Those dairy and crop farms are gone now, replaced with the NJ House Farms. The people of this community are what gave the district such a good reputation and those people are going to be forced to leave because they can no longer afford to live in this affluent suburb of NYC. No one is looking to make the district any worse. Of course we want to keep the district as good as possible. We just don’t need all the bells and whistles or the monuments to the present officials. ‘Plain and simple’ always used to work and it’s how we built our good reputation. What’s wrong with that now?

As for teaching to the test, whether it is the PSSA or any other test, this is my feeling: If the test is supposed to assess whether students have the knowledge generally accepted to be necessary, then the skills taught should also be generally accepted as necessary. In that case, what is taught and what is tested SHOULD be the same. It makes no sense to test what is NOT taught. If you teach what you need to know and you test what you teach, how are you NOT teaching to the test? Why is that a bad thing? The only assumption made here is that the PSSA is actually testing what students need to know at the designated grade levels.

Unknown said...

Since1962,

Let me first say I grew up in this area, moved away then came back.

I am sick and tired of hearing the same narrow minded accusations that all of our problems in the area are due to the influx of new residents from NY and NJ.

Let's have a little recap here. The people running the district (form the most part), are from here, grew up here, and were completely oblivious to the growth that was sprouting up around them.

The people running all of our local governments, again for the most part, are from here and grew up here. Yet, are driving our taxes higher while giving us little in return.

THESE people, not the new residents are who are responsible for the rising tax rates, and to suggest otherwise is completely wrong.

The real problem is the history of backroom politics and deals has come to an end, and thanks to blogs like this one and Bernie O'hare's, the spotlight is now on these inept individuals and building their little fiefdoms is not longer as easy as it used to be.

Get off your high horse about the influx of new residents. They add to the community, and yes, have brought new ideas and taxes that would not have been here otherwise.

I look at surrounding communities that have embraced the influx, and have grown smartly in the sense that they added both citizens and BUSINESSES (which we haven't), and have provided great new services to their residents. We on the other hand, thanks to our great local leaders, have only seen larger tax bill.

If you want to continue to live in 1962, that is your choice, but the rest of us want to live in the 21st century.

RossRN said...

I've written many times that you can't blame a person for wanting to live here any more than I can blame a landowner for selling property that they know will get developed.

Doesn't mean I like seeing a new warehouse put in where a field once was, but really, if you had the chance to sell a few acres for the money being offered, it would be hard to turn down.

Managing growth and development, or a failure to do so, has been the primary problem. The response to growth is what has put us in our current situation with the schools.

"New residents" didn't propose a new MS in order to have a "campus feel" it was our administration's recommendation that the Board approved despite knowing we couldn't meet budget in ensuing years even without a building project.

I don't have hard figures, but I did see Southern Lehigh's intermediate school is $40M compared to our $60M MS. An elementary would have been even more cost effective.

We went with the highest cost project we could get approved (a HS was out of the question because we'd have gone over our debt limit).

With the buildings and facilities, not to mention the associated debt, we will have more fixed costs than ever before. We can't reduce these much (yes some refinancing is sometimes available) so what can get cut? Activities, programs, teachers, staff.

This has nothing to do with people moving here, it has to do with recommendations of the administration and decisions made by our school board.

I'm sure they smile and enjoy the cover each time they see one half the residents blaming the other half.

RossRN said...

I've written many times that you can't blame a person for wanting to live here any more than I can blame a landowner for selling property that they know will get developed.

Doesn't mean I like seeing a new warehouse put in where a field once was, but really, if you had the chance to sell a few acres for the money being offered, it would be hard to turn down.

Managing growth and development, or a failure to do so, has been the primary problem. The response to growth is what has put us in our current situation with the schools.

"New residents" didn't propose a new MS in order to have a "campus feel" it was our administration's recommendation that the Board approved despite knowing we couldn't meet budget in ensuing years even without a building project.

I don't have hard figures, but I did see Southern Lehigh's intermediate school is $40M compared to our $60M MS. An elementary would have been even more cost effective.

We went with the highest cost project we could get approved (a HS was out of the question because we'd have gone over our debt limit).

With the buildings and facilities, not to mention the associated debt, we will have more fixed costs than ever before. We can't reduce these much (yes some refinancing is sometimes available) so what can get cut? Activities, programs, teachers, staff.

This has nothing to do with people moving here, it has to do with recommendations of the administration and decisions made by our school board.

I'm sure they smile and enjoy the cover each time they see one half the residents blaming the other half.

since1962 said...

news & anonymous,

It's simple math. I don't "blame" individuals for moving anywhere. The growth needed to be controlled somehow and I don't have an answer for that, other than possibly larger lot sizes and bigger impact fees to developers. What I do know is this: If it costs, for sake of argument, $6000 to educate a child in the school system, then the average taxpayer with one child is ALMOST covering that cost with their taxes. Any more than one child and it's a deficit situation, made up by people without children in the school system and business & industry. Part of our problem is the influx of people, wherever they've come from or, if you’d rather, the uncontrolled growth. You are correct that we need to attract more business, too.

I think you’re missing my point that ‘plain and simple’ used to be good enough. Maybe I was too long-winded, but I did say: We just don’t need all the bells and whistles or the monuments to the present officials. ‘Plain and simple’ always used to work and it’s how we built our good reputation. What’s wrong with that now?

I don’t think the community leaders are raising taxes just for fun. It costs more to serve more people. I do agree that the choices they are making do not necessarily reflect the desires of most of the people I talk to. Again I say that we do not need all the bells and whistles. The biggest and the best aren’t necessary. Maybe they haven’t noticed, but we don’t have the industry that Parkland does.

And, just so you know, Dr. Lesky did NOT grow up here. I am not sure about the others on the school board.