Review and analysis of policy studies, Newspaper Reports and Journal Articles about New Jersey Issues

Charter Schools Evaluation Report

Education Commissioner Vito Gagliardi New Jersey Department of Education

October 2001

The New Jersey Charter School Program Act, which in 1995 permitted the state Commissioner of Education to authorize the establishment of charter schools, was amended in 2000 to also require the commissioner to submit an evaluation of the program by October 1, 2001. That evaluation, along with accompanying recommendations, has been duly issued and it comes as little surprise to anyone who has followed the course of the charter school experiment in New Jersey, that Education Commissioner Vito Gagliardi has recommended that the state charter school program go forward.

More anticipated has been the nature of the recommendations for improving the charter school system Gagliardi would issue, specifically whether he would back calls for less bureaucratic red tape for charter school operators, greater autonomy, and greater state financial support, particularly funding for facilities. In fact, Gagliardi recommended all that and more, not only sanctioning the worth of the state's current crop of charter schools but effectively indicating that they need additional resources and state help so they can further expand their reach.

Charter schools, while not flawless, have certainly demonstrated their value in providing educational choice where previously there was none and in bringing to the fore the need for new thinking to find solutions to the intractable problem of improving public education. A measure of their degree of acceptance is the fact that while Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jim McGreevey rails against the education proposals of Republican candidate Bret Schundler, an ardent charter school backer, and has heavily courted the powerful New Jersey Education Association, which disdains charter schools, McGreevey is still a charter school backer himself.

Gagliardi has recommended that charter schools be given far greater resources to finance and plan their operations. They should be allowed to use public funds for facility construction and should be provided with state aid for facilities; they should be allowed to incur long-term debt and receive more stable revenue streams as a result of modifications made to the way their budgets are calculated. The commissioner also recommended that a state charter school support center should be founded to provide formal assistance to charter schools and resolve the often conflicting roles the DOE serves as regulator of and assistant to new charters.

In response to ongoing complaints from charter schools that they are still ensnared in the administrative red tape of traditional public schools, Gagliardi further recommended regulatory relief following a full review of the present regulatory scheme for charters. He also recommended eliminating obstacles that still exist to the foundation of charter schools, particularly conversion charter schools and those operated by businesses and higher education institutions.

The commissioner's report also includes an Education Department summary of three public hearings on the subject of charter schools which were conducted in March of this year and a lengthy independent evaluation of charter schools in the state performed by KPMG.

The public hearing report notes that parents of charter school students "overwhelmingly ... spoke of their satisfaction with their schools." Despite this support, the DOE concludes that it is still far too early to judge the effectiveness of charter schools in terms of student performance improvements.

In its independent evaluation, KPMG noted that there was no discernible difference in student achievement at charter and traditional public schools except in two areas: charter schools achieved a 12 percent increase in students at or above proficient level in math on the Elementary School Proficiency Assessment, and they also achieved an 8 percent increase in proficiency in language arts on the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment.

Average class size at New Jersey charter schools is smaller than their public school counterparts (19 as opposed to 21); they averaged more instruction time, longer hours and longer school years, according to KPMG. Also noted was the greater degree of parental participation in, and satisfaction with, their charter schools. Fully 93 percent of charter school parents would recommend their school to other parents and students, noted KPMG. It also noted that 71 of 73 teachers interviewed "indicated they were satisfied with their charter school experience," although most also noted they lacked adequate facilities.

The KPMG analysis also apparently counters certain fears about charter schools, mainly that they would suck crippling amounts of resources from their school districts. During the 1999-2000 school year, a sample of 16 districts had allocated just over 2 percent of their district budgets to charter schools, according to KPMG. In fact, nine of 15 districts indicated they believed the presence of charter schools had stimulated competition among schools, and two of the nine admitted making program improvements to compete with the charter schools, the report states.

Demographically, KPMG found that African-Americans made up a whopping 68 percent of charter school enrollment, compared to 50 percent for their districts of residence and 43 percent of the school-age community.

Under the state charter law, Gagliardi's recommendations must go before the legislature for approval before any can be implemented, which means running a gamut of opposition from the NJEA and other public school organizations whose members still regard charter schools as a rival and competitor.

Nonetheless, with 54 charter schools enrolling 10,000 students in the 2000-2001 school year, new schools waiting for approval, and thousands of students on waiting lists for entrance, it appears certain that charter schools are here to stay, both in New Jersey and across the nation.

(The Commissioner's report and recommendations can be accessed on the DOE charter school web site at http://www.state.nj.us/njded/chartsch/evaluation/. Also, see NJR's February/March 2000 cover story on Charter Schools on the web at www.njreporter.org)

Improving Substance Abuse Treatment in New Jersey:

A Report of the New Jersey Substance Abuse Prevention & Treatment Advisory Task Force, New Jersey Department of Health & Senior Services

August 2001

Fifteen months after former DHSS Commissioner Christine Grant formed a task force to research the subject of substance abuse prevention and treatment resources in New Jersey, that task force has reported its findings. The report, released in the middle of August perhaps so its unfortunate findings might make less of a splash at the height of vacation season, makes for sobering reading.

In short, the task force found that services fall drastically short of demand for those seeking treatment for substance abuse in New Jersey, with roadblocks thrown up at every turn for those who need treatment, even those with private health insurance. The task force's findings were so bleak that, upon public release of the report, Acting Governor Donald DiFrancesco felt compelled to immediately direct $5.3 million in federal money and $1 million in state funds from a fund containing criminal fines collected from drug users to expand drug treatment services and improve treatment quality in the state.

The shortfall of treatment services detailed in the report was also cited as part of the reason that DiFrancesco delayed signing legislation expanding the state's drug court program (DiFrancesco did eventually sign the bill in early September).

The 39-member task force -- made up of representatives of government, private and non-profit service providers, and academic representatives with an expertise in drug addiction and treatment -- found that despite more than $280 million in annual state expenditures, over half of the more than 150,000 individuals seeking treatment for substance abuse could not get it due to limited capacity. Over 71,000 adults and 9,400 adolescents are turned away annually for treatment.

"New Jersey can do better," the report states flatly. "The existing services are fully utilized and yet citizens are unable to access treatment that can lead to recovery from substance abuse and dependence."

While the task force called the quality of substance abuse treatment in New Jersey "not severely deficient," it did note that the field is constantly evolving, such as with recent determinations of the frequently close relationship between mental health problems and substance abuse, and increased resources should be devoted to grappling with the complexities of treatment.

The worst demand shortfalls occurred with partial care facilities, including halfway houses and extended residential care programs, which served only 20 percent of statewide demand, according to the report.

Sub-acute detoxification, mostly consisting of short-term methadone detox services, served the highest percentage of demand, just over 65 percent. Outpatient treatment and residential treatment capacity met little more than 50 percent of demand at best.

New Jersey was far below New York State and Connecticut, and lower than most other similarly situated states, in state per capita drug treatment and other related expenditures, the task force found. Excluding federal funds, in fiscal year 1997, New York State spent $38.27 and Connecticut $32.60 in per capita substance abuse treatment and other outlays. New Jersey spent only $6.08 per capita, behind Delaware ($11.89), Maryland ($9.83), Pennsylvania ($7.56), and Massachusetts ($7.13), but ahead of Rhode Island ($4.00).

Unfortunately, the task force found that the trend to providing services for those with substance abuse problems was moving in the wrong direction. Drug and alcohol-related admissions to New Jersey treatment facilities declined throughout the 1990s, due to the closure of hospital-based detox units and roadblocks erected even for those with private insurance due to the rise of managed care during the decade.

While Medicaid is one of the state's largest payers for substance abuse treatment, the report says that Medicaid rates for outpatient substance treatment have not been revised since 1984, and because treatment providers lose money on these clients they regularly limit the number of Medicaid and NJ FamilyCare beneficiaries they treat.

The task force noted that even when managed care plans didn't deny coverage outright, they often do not approve substance abuse treatment of sufficient duration to ensure recovery, and force even privately insured individuals to seek out public treatment options. Only 16 percent of clients receiving substance abuse treatment in non-hospital facilities in 1998 had private insurance benefits, the report noted.

The task force laid out a long list of recommendations, among them increasing spending to expand the number of detoxification and residential treatment beds, as well as forums for exchange between managed care organizations and other stake holders to seek ways to ease the difficulties encountered by the privately insured when seeking substance abuse treatment.

This sobering report details a huge need in the state, a need even more pronounced with the expansion of the drug court initiative and increased public support for treatment rather than punishment of non-violent drug abusers. Policy makers in Trenton clearly will have to increase funding to tackle this burgeoning need and curtail what is now a state-wide public policy embarrassment.