The project order by question is misaligned, but all projects have importance.
-Written by an Educator in the District
Below is my reasoning for voting “yes” on both questions on the Berkeley Heights Public Schools (BHPS) referendum on Tuesday, March 10th.
First, without looking at the jargon on the ballot, here is a summary of the projects in both questions (source):
Bond Proposal – Question #1 Capital Projects
- Site Parking and Drainage Upgrades (All Schools)
- Partial Roofing System Replacement (Woodruff)
- Security and Technology Upgrades
- Security Camera System Upgrades (All Schools)
- Clock & PA System Upgrades (GLHS, CMS, Hughes)
Bond Proposal – Question #1 Educational Projects
- Media Center Renovations & Upgrades (All Schools)
- TV Studio Renovations (GLHS)
Bond Proposal – Question #2 Capital Projects
- Roofing System Replacement (GLHS, CMS, Mountain Park)
- Electrical System Upgrades (GLHS)
- Mechanical System and Piping Upgrades (CMS, Mountain Park, Woodruff, Mary Kay McMillin)
Bond Proposal – Question #2 Educational Projects
- Science Labs (GLHS, CMS)
- Technology, Robotics, STEM (GLHS, CMS)
I agree that it is inaccurate to place Media Center and T.V. studio renovations in Question #1, and list them as “essential,” “urgent,” or that “all the work needs to be done” before the roofing, electrical, and mechanical upgrades in Question #2. There should have been three questions: The first question should have featured only essential projects (roofing, electrical, mechanical, paving, draining, security, etc.) – whichever combination you can fit with “continued tax impact” from the 2006 referendum. Question 2 could have been more of the Question 1 essentials but with increased tax impact. Question 3 could have been the Media Center, T.V. studio, science, and STEM room renovations. Ultimately, the cost would have been approximately the same whether you had the two questions currently proposed or the three-question format suggested here.
From an educator’s perspective, when just one classroom in an entire school has an issue (such as HVAC), relocating that teacher and their classes (which has at times occurred in the middle of instruction) can have a negative impact on the educational experience of the students (and not to mention the other teacher who has a class in their classroom no longer has that classroom to themselves during that preparation period). This occurred on a much larger scale at Governor Livingston High School in January 2025. The result of electrical and mechanical upgrades as proposed in Tuesday’s referendum can decrease the likelihood of similar occurrences in the future at GLHS.
These neighboring districts’ referendums have been a godsend for Media Center renovation (and in some cases, expansion), as well as science and STEM wing upgrades. The nearby schools’ Media Center renovations and expansion have been especially crucial for meetings, classes, and extracurricular space. Bundling the T.V. studio renovations with the GLHS Media Center is smart planning since one is right next to the other. In fact, prior referendum planning (2019) that never made it to a referendum vote, the T.V. Studio storage space and other storage space was condensed to make room for a renovated and expanded Media Center (without expanding the building). However, this does not go without saying that this Tuesday’s BHPS order of projects by referendum questions is still misaligned.
The Berkeley Heights Education Association (BHEA), which is the local education association for BHPS teachers, is publicly in support of this referendum and has encouraged voters to vote “Yes” to Questions 1 and 2, citing “our students and educators deserve safe, modern learning environments, strengthen our public schools, and community’s future.”
Please join me in voting “Yes” to both questions on Tuesday, March 10th.
Submitted directly by the author; content reflects their own views
NJ21st allows for confidentially sourced articles from employees of local government agencies or volunteers of non-profits whose organizations would take retaliatory action against their employees and , in the case of volunteer organizations, officers for exercising their right to express an opinion about local government. We have verified the confidential source for this article and have met with him/her face to face. For more information see our Policies Page.
Our goal in covering the Berkeley Heights Public School referendum, as with any major local government decision, is to provide a platform for residents to make informed decisions, share their perspective, and be armed with the right questions to ask.
We hope residents avoid either cheerleading or trashing the referendum — the best approach is to ask hard questions and encourage the BOE and Administration to make changes that better serve the needs of our students while also respecting the economic realities families face in our community.
Our Referendum Hub provides a thorough fact-based analysis of what works and what needs to change.
|
Related Articles
The 2009-2010 Reality Check for the Current Referendum Debate
Beyond the Cameras: AI, Police Access, and the BHPSNJ Referendum
