Beyond the Talking Points: What Berkeley Heights BOE Candidates Reveal About Spending, Strategy, and Oversight

The following article is a recap of candidate statements but will also serve as part op-ed since I have very strong opinions on what these candidates have shared.

Week three questions from TapInto for the Berkeley Heights BOE candidates focuses on the District’s strategic plan and the upcoming referendum.  Candidates are asked about their vision for the plan and which priorities should be emphasized, and are asked whether they agree with the referendum and how they would ensure residents understand what it covers and why it is necessary.  As with a couple of the other questions asked so far, the way the referendum question is set up – asking candidates if they agree with it – sets up the idea that any differing thoughts are negative.

Arik Samson, in response to the strategic plan, says his vision is clear and in line with the community: a “clear and evidence-based plan to improve student aptitude.” He expresses the same concerns we’ve seen in the community about the shift away from direct teaching methods. Samson says he agrees with the referendum but is concerned with soft costs and says the District should provide “plain-language breakdowns.”

Javier Morales focuses on the referendum and he is in support of it. He says creating “safe, healthy learning environments” for aging infrastructure is essential. He outlines transparency and communication as key elements in making sure residents understand what the referendum covers.

Debbie Terrero gives us a statement that her vision sees every student receiving a “challenging, future-ready education.” She says she is interested in community feedback about the District’s strategic plan. She outlines the issues that she sees as priorities: academic challenge, robust support systems, and technology and infrastructure. On the subject of the referendum, she highlights the need to repair infrastructure. She notes that an architectural firm is guiding the District through the process and that there is a webpage for the public to see progress.

Gale Bradford shares information about public meetings for residents to give input on the strategic plan. (Two have since passed; the final meeting will be on November 24.) Her personal vision for the process of the plan includes identifying strengths and weaknesses, addressing critical issues, setting goals, defining roles, and monitoring progress. Her priorities for the District mention “sustaining academic excellence” and upgrading school buildings and technology, along with tracking the budget. Bradford says the strategic plan will serve as the “overarching vision” for the District and align with the referendum.

David Moore tells us the BOE’s job is to hire the Superintendent then support their efforts. He says the strategic plan is guided by the Superintendent and their staff and that the BOE should not “impose their own views.” His priorities are to bring classrooms, libraries, and lab spaces up to date, to broaden college and career advising, and to integrate AI into the curriculum. Moore says the first part of the referendum is to roll over maturing bonds, then to issue additional bonds, leading to a “modest increase” in taxes.

Initially, I had intended to wrap up questions from weeks three through five, but these responses are deserving of their own focus, as they have a major impact on where the District is headed.

Samson reiterates what he has said previously, that our focus needs to be on academic achievement. This is somewhat a no-brainer, yet not every candidate seems to keep their focus on the students. His responses are in tune with concerns expressed by residents about academics and teaching. The “soft costs” he references are mentioned by Terrero when she tells us an architect is guiding the District through the referendum. These are exactly the kinds of costs that need to be followed closely. While they may be of help to the District, the BOE should ensure that we aren’t spending on predetermined outcomes based on outside contractors who may benefit from that “guidance.” Voters are being asked to support spending an additional $29 million. (We have a $50.3 million pre-referendum budget.) Soft costs are not defined well and in some cases are above industry averages.

All candidates appear mostly in agreement about the need for the referendum to address critical issues with the infrastructure in our schools. David Moore, based on his statements here, takes this to the extreme. With bonds maturing, rolling them over preserves debt. While this doesn’t increase taxes, it also doesn’t eliminate debt or reduce taxes either, making his statement of “no tax impact” slightly misleading. Moore mentions library upgrades. NJ21st noted that instructional upgrades were high priorities but that media centers and athletics got a mixed response. In addition, his deference to the Superintendent is of some concern. What administrator wouldn’t love to have state-of-the-art facilities and an unlimited budget? Please note that I am not saying our Superintendent is not to be trusted to act with restraint, but this idea that the BOE is merely there to reinforce her recommendations is just not right.

Bradford’s outline of goals for the referendum process is vague, with no real explanation, and her desire to sustain academic excellence doesn’t address the need for improvement in student proficiency. We need to focus on ensuring academic progress, not rest on the idea that a better-than-average education is good enough. Her lack of concern for, or unwillingness to challenge, ineffective teaching methods like Building Thinking Classroom should give residents pause when considering their vote.

At the risk of sounding like those hyper-dramatic commercials and flyers we’ve all been inundated with lately, Berkeley Heights is poised to make decisions that will have serious ramifications as we face this referendum. Vote carefully, not popularly.

Also Read:

Beyond the Talking Points: Analyzing BOE Candidate Responses on Shared Services and Governance

Beyond the Talking Points: Oversight Questions Remain In Berkeley Heights Town Council Responses