The budget proposed by the school board in Paterson, the third-largest city in New Jersey, offered a staggering package of cuts. Officials said they have no choice but to make the cuts that stand to undo years of gains by the school district.
“The upsetting thing about it is the district was in a rebound,'’ said Rosie Grant, the executive director of the Paterson Education Fund, a nonprofit group. “They have put in early reading programs, math programs, different interventions, and we were seeing some results from that.
“All that will be erased.”
Paterson is one of four poor-performing districts that were taken over by the state starting in 1989, after officials determined that the school systems had fallen into educational bankruptcy with dismally low test scores and poor high school graduation rates. Newark and Jersey City have since regained control of their schools, but Camden and Paterson are still under state oversight.
Despite the worry that has gripped Paterson, some officials questioned whether the district’s threatened cuts were meant to try to force the state to provide more financing. Two years ago, the school board said it would lay off about 96 teachers, according to reports, but ultimately 25 teachers ended up losing jobs.
Last year, Paterson and the state entered into a two-year agreement that would return the schools to local control provided it met specific bench marks, such as improved scores on standardized state tests and higher graduation rates.
By some measures, Paterson has succeeded: Almost 85 percent of students graduate from high school, up from a 46 percent graduation rate 10 years ago. The positive trajectory comes despite the high number of children from families that are below the poverty level; 97 percent of Paterson’s students qualify for free or subsidized school lunches.
But over the past decade, Paterson officials said, the city’s 54 public schools have accrued a $280 million shortfall in state aid, forcing the district to cut more than 500 education positions between 2010 and 2017.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.