Local Elected Officials Applaud Charter Rejection
Jasey, McKeon and Codey urge continued pressure on legislators to pass charter reform.
Photos
Videos
In the aftermath of Acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf's decision on Friday not to approve the applicaton of the Hua Mei Charter School, some of the charter's most vocal opponents in elected office voiced their approval of the decision.
Senator Richard J. Codey, Assemblywoman Mila M. Jasey and Assemblyman John F. McKeon, who represent Maplewood, South Orange and West Orange — the school districts from which the charter would have drawn its base of students — applauded Friday's decision in a release on Saturday.
"This is a victory for the people of our district who fought hard to oppose a charter school in one of our state's highest performing school districts," Codey said. "We were glad to be able to lead the fight to stop and prevent funds from being diverted from our already cash-strapped public schools."
Codey, Jasey and McKeon rallied with local area residents on January 6 at the Maplewood Community Center at DeHart Park for the rejection of the proposed Hua Mei charter school and called for the decision to be made by voter approval.
"I had spoken with Acting Commissioner Cerf and briefed him on the negative impact of Hua Mei and shared with him the sentiments of area residents who were strongly opposed to the proposal," Jasey said, who emphasized at the rally that she is not an opponent of charter schools per se.
McKeon expressed similar feelings. While he felt charters could sometimes play an important role, he said, "Charter schools are meant for failing districts and should not divert resources from traditional public schools which have already felt the impact of the budget and depleted state funding."
Codey, Jasey and McKeon are sponsors of a measure (S-2243\ A-3852), that would give local voters control of proposed charters.
Patch has reached out to some of the founders of Hua Mei for comments and will post them when they are received.
Adam Kraemer
4:30 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
In deference to our elected officials it is a victory for a government monopoly in education. It is a defeat for parents who who want choice and options.
SusieQ
4:59 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
Parents who want choice and options are free to seek same at the numerous private schools in the area. The taxpayers do not have to shoulder the financial burden of such options.
Gary Englert
6:23 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
@ Adam Kraemer: Quite the contrary, it is a victory for fiscal responsibility and a reaffirmation of a fundamental principle of our democracy: majority rule.
wohopeful
7:25 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
Codey, McKeon and Jasey have it dead wrong on this one. It is a loss for the children of our towns and a travesty that these politicians are against opportunities that will allow our children to prepare for the futre and escape the failing schools of our township.
Gary Englert
12:05 pm on Sunday, January 22, 2012
@ wohopeful: Clearly, yours is a minority opinion whereas even the Christie Administration sided with the Legislators of the 27th District, in denying Hua Mei's application.
That said, your ongoing, cowardly, anonymous nonsense of repreatedly labeling our schools as "failing" will not make it so.
wohopeful
7:26 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
Hopefully Codey, McKeon and Jasey will support the educational reform that Governor Christie will be pushing in 2012 and the voucher programs that will trully allow for educational opportunites for our families and children.
Cynthia Cumming
8:47 am on Sunday, January 22, 2012
Yes, that will be the next battle to address.
Elie Sullivan
11:29 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
I have two children in the SOMA school system who are both doing wonderfully. They are engaged in academics, the arts and sports at their schools. I don't believe our schools are "failing". They are, however, struggling financially. It is completely ludicrous to ask taxpayers to take away from the majority of chidren's education for a select few. My son is a talented baseball player so my husband and I provide for private coaching lessons. I don't expect my fellow taxpayers to foot the bill for something we want our child to learn. Charters are meant to help those children whose schools are not providing an education not to fund the special interests of a few parents. I commend Commissioner Cerf for his decision.
Adam Kraemer
8:26 am on Saturday, February 4, 2012
@ Elie Sullivan - When you get a tax bill in about five years that goes way up due to school construction and you realize Charters could have taken students out of the crowded public school building and saved money, I will be reminding you and the other charter school oponents of the view point they had in 2011 and 2012.
Gary Englert
8:54 am on Saturday, February 4, 2012
@ Adam Kraemer: You continue to sput the same unbridled nonsense on this subject, without presenting any math or logic to back it up.
Hua Mei would have done nothing of substance to alleviate overcrowding (now or in the future) and would have essentialy become another unfunded mandate for sending districts, diverting funds already being expended in the classroom and sadling them with new tranportation costs.
Slated to draw 18 students in year one (K-2) and 78 students at maturity (K-5), they would have been spread over six grades in seven grade schools...an average of less than two students per grade/per school.
Tjose numbers simply do not lend themselves to providing a penny's worth of savings as no fixed costs can be reduced.
If 90% of the average cost of tuition in West Orange is pegged at $15,000 per, that would have divertted $1,170,000 (78 x $15,000) plus the per child transportation cost.
Dispute this argument with something approaching logic and common sense or give it a rest.