PEELING BACK DR. vARLEY’S POLICY RUSH

Given the number of policy updates in recent months during BOE meetings, and with a questionable decision about the League of Women Voters ability to host a candidate debate at Governor Livingston, Berkeley Heights parents expressed concern over the number of policy updates and their content. In response, during the September 22, 2022 Board of Education meeting, Dr. Varley had this to say:

“The past ten years, pre me, the board and the superintendent did not update policies so we’re very far behind. We’re also going through New Jersey QSAC, which is our monitoring system. They’re coming in in January and the board will fail the QSAC monitoring if they do not have these policies up to date. So that is the reasoning behind having a ton of policies. We’ve been… we’ve had to revamp every single policy, so that is the reasoning behind that.”

Let’s break this statement down into two parts, looking at the second part of that statement first. Dr. Varley provided parents with information as to how the district receives policy advise from an outside service, Strauss Esmay, which is used by many districts throughout New Jersey. In that information, we see that Strauss Esmay provides past policy wording, and updates policies according to changes in state regulation or case law. Those policies changes can be mandatory or suggested. To state that we need to “revamp every single policy” could, perhaps, be true if indeed we have not updated in ten years. Without looking at every policy change for the last decade, it is difficult to analyze the veracity of this statement. Granted, it seems prudent to update all policies, rather than spend time pouring over every one.

However, let’s take a look at the first part of Dr. Varley’s statement. In researching NJQSAC here is what was found. The acronym stands for New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum. Every three years, our district conducts a self-assessment which is reviewed by NJQSAC. Research did not indicate the nature of self-assessment nor how NJQSAC determines whether our self-assessment is accurate. The goal for school districts is to achieve “high performing” status. That goal is attained by scoring 80% or higher in each of five different categories. Those categories are Instruction and Program, Fiscal Indicators, Governance Indicators, Operations Indicators and Personnel Indicators. In each category there are several separate sections which are given points. (Instruction and Program has sections scored differently, but not important for this particular article.) For our district, which is K-12, there are 100 points in each category except Personnel, which has 91 possible points. Policies fall into the Governance category.

For Governance Indicators, there are 14 different sections, with point scores ranging from three to eight points. The first section is on policies, and is worth eight points. For arguments’ sake, let’s say we do not update all of our policies. We lose a maximum of eight points out of 100, giving us a Governance score of 92 – well above the 80% needed for that category. We could lose points in several other sections and still meet the standards set by NJQSAC. For Dr. Varley to state that “the board will fail the QSAC monitoring” is a deliberate scare tactic to try and evade parent concerns. To state that every policy needs immediate updating is not a falsehood, but the threat of failing QSAC as a result is. We can continue to update at a more reasonable pace and still maintain our high-performing status. Unless, of course, we are out of compliance with several other sections. Are we?

Section two of Governance deals with the evaluation of the CSA (Chief School Administrator). Board members have expressed concern over the ability to measure school performance – one of the key ways they are to evaluate the Superintendent. Section five states that if there are Corrective Action Plans submitted – as our district did when they were found to have violated bidding regulations – there must be no evidence that the district is not implementing that plan. Do we have evidence that we are? Section six declares that budgeting and allocation of resources must be aligned with instructional priorities and student need. Does our top-heavy administration meet that requirement?

As with many issues in our district, lack of clarity, transparency and honesty about this matter is further eroding parent trust. There are several other matters that deserve discussion, based on what this research revealed, all of which relate to matters currently being discussed at BOE meetings and online. Stay tuned.

Shauna Williams