by Dave Zornow
Nyack, Sept 1 – Nyack Schools has set aside $300,000 for the current school year to end the open campus program for freshman and sophomore students. Part of those funds will be used to support a pilot program in September and October to revoke off campus lunch privileges for 9th and 10th graders. Nyack’s Board of Education will decide in November whether to make the test program permanent.
The funds will cover adding ten additional security cameras to the 24 already in place and the hiring of up to eight more security staff.
“We are trying to provide a safe educational environment for our kids,” says Nyack Schools Board of Education President Michael Lagana. “The sentiment of the board is that people are concerned about the safety issue. When kids leave leave the campus they aren’t accountable,” he said.
Parents and taxpayers say that’s too much to spend for non-academic purposes. Valley Cottage parent Rick Tannenbaum says Nyack is spending money in the wrong places, citing the new tennis courts at the high school and the $1,200 per day paid to a temporary superintendent. “If the two-month pilot program to police our high school students becomes policy, it will permanently increase our staffing expenses and budgetary needs — all done without regard for improved academics or student achievement,” he says.
Lagana says the pilot program is a work in progress and High School Principal Joe Spero will make adjustments as required. “Over time, if we are able to reevaluate and make changes, we will try to reduce the costs,” he says.
Nyack resident Roger Cohen doubts that camera are a viable solution. “Security cameras never work properly. If they are being used for real time enforcement, they require someone full time to watch those cameras.” Cohen says underclassmen should be confined to campus unless they have written permission to leave. “Freshman and sophomore students shouldn’t be allowed to leave the school grounds without a special pass. No pass, no departure.” Cohen says no additional security cameras would be required and fewer new staff would need to be hired.
“Just think for a moment, think what $300,000 could actually do positively for our school district,” says Upper Nyack parent Mark Hussey. “If the move toward a closed campus had been achieved gradually, following the recommendations that were outlined by the HS Principal at the July 6 meeting, much of this cost have been avoided.” Hussey says the board is missing an opportunity to gather meaningful statistics about the 9th grade’s experience.
The first day of school for Nyack students is September 7.
Thanks DSpi – excellent points. Rush to judgment has always been a faulty method of decision making.
I sincerely hope that this board allows for input and is open to the input that is given. While safety and education is of the utmost concern, one can make an analogy that you can build a high curb thinking that you are making your area safer (hence the high curb) only to find out that you’ve broken all sorts of local codes when someone trips on that curb and sues you for all you are worth. The lesson here – you “think” you are doing something for the right reasons, you jump in too quickly, make changes without properly investigating, and you find out later, when it’s too late, both after there is pain and financial losses. There are many good questions being presented and logical points being brought up to the process of how to carry out this new program. It is extremely important that the BOE members listen to members of the community that have keen business sense and probably good experiences to offer.
This demonstrates another reason for a more thoughtful deliberative process.
We have a $300,000 budget for a 2 month pilot program.
When will one of the proponents for the closed campus start saying they need more time to gather data; that the pilot needs to go through December? How much will that cost?
We still don’t know what the criteria is for measuring the success of the pilot nor how the information will be gathered. Is this going to add to the cost? Is it academics, cuts, safety? What are the criteria?
I hope the board has learned from this process. This decision might cost us a lot of money and divert the administration’s focus from educating our kids.
The decision to hire our next Superintendent will have a more lasting and far reaching impact.
We need to make sure that this board is more transparent about the criteria and credentials that the new Superintendent will have.
Please do follow up by attending the Board meeting at the admin building this coming Tuesday Sept 7 @7:30. Whatever your view of the campus issue, it’s important to let the Board know that their constituents want an open and honest process going forward.
What’s the penalty, if any, for 9th-10th graders caught off campus? It would be strange to suspend students when they break a rule with an objective to keep them in school.
Still seems like money better spent elsewhere…. and nyackres90 —- excellent questions. Logical.
I have not seen this cost detailed as to how much for each component of this plan? Some questions that come to mind are:
1. Why do we need 8 more security guards? Aren’t we only trying to keep 400 kids in school during 5 periods of the day?
2. Most people at the meeting last week said the kids cut class but stayed on campus. Is the Principal using this as a way to beef up his security force and get the kids to class inside the building?
3. Are the kids running wild during the school day inside the building?
4. Did kids fail their classes after lunch or their first class of the day? Maybe starting at 7:30 is too tough on some kids?
The “pilot program” that is being deployed is not the program to detain some students on campus. The “pilot program” is one of enforcement.
If the policy is that freshmen and sophomores must stay on school grounds during the day, while juniors and seniors may leave, it is easier and more effective to monitor permission for those who leave. “Everyone stays, unless you have a pass to leave.”
As to the video cameras: Yes, they never work properly. It’s a waste of money. In order for a network of cameras to function, one needs a constant camera network maintenance person.
In order to monitor the images on a camera network, one needs a rotating full-time staff. A monitor is able to watch a camera for 20 minutes maximum, and then needs 10 or 20 minutes off. “20 minutes on/10 or 20 minutes off” is a good general rule for all good monitoring activities — pool lifeguards, currency inspectors, safety inspectors. That’s why industry tries to automate monitoring activities. A video network does not automate anything. It creates the need for more inspectors — whether human or machine.
In this case, we are talking about a pilot program to field more human inspectors.
Human inspectors need professional training in how to monitor video feeds, and what to do with the information they observe. It’s not as simple as “sit here and watch.” Video feeds from most of these networks are not the quality seen on the “CSI” shows. Real feeds from video security networks are hard to watch, and provide herky-jerky images that are very blurry, and are not fully streaming.
Then there would be the need to supervise the monitors, and their schedules. That would create a need to monitor and supervise the supervisors. This is the nature of administrations. Administrations grow new layers to increase and protect themselves.
A monitor who is staring into a video feed for more than 20 minutes stops watching. And even if the monitor does observe an unauthorized pupil leaving the school grounds, how will they enforce the rule to stay on campus? Will they issue commands over a radio network — “We have a runner!”?
The entire “pilot program” is implausible and unenforceable. Permitting pupils to leave the school grounds should have been the “pilot program,” with the default position being “stay in school.”
First of all, the tennis courts were condemned. No other school wanted to play here and we had what was referred to as “Nyack Rules” because the courts were so bad. We allowed the girls to play at Rockland Lake and they were getting harrassed by people at the park. IT WAS AN UNSAFE situation for the kids. It also allows people of the community to use the courts.
The cameras are not only going to be focused on 9th & 10th graders, they will be focused on the complete school. When you break down the costs it is approx $300 per student. I believe that is a pretty good investment to keeep the kids safe.
Would Rick T rather that we have no superintendent for the year? Who would be watching the others? Hopefully Mr. Friedman will shake things up and be worth every dollar he is getting paid for this year.
Why throw the tennis courts into this? I don’t play, my neigbors kids do though, and Nyack’s court need to be repaired.
Tennis would appear to be a great student activity.
Buildings and playing fields do require upgrades. Look up some of the Journal News articles on the condition of Clarkstown North High School.
For a security system to work efficiently with a camera system, I agree that they need to be monitored, as Roger suggests. It seems that a better approach would be to have staff monitor the entrances and exits and the grounds, which would also be for the security of the school, which is what security staff should be doing. I don’t think spending funds on random cameras, that are not monitored continously (and really, what purposes does that have in a school in our wonderful village?) – is a prudent, fiscally sound decision.
I am terribly disappointed in the Nyack School Board regarding the issue of open campus.
‘The way’ in which the rules were changed was secretive and did nothing to demonstrate to students that democracy works!
Plus, how is a society going to advance if “your” watched all the time and responsibility is narrowed? What messages are we sending our young people?
Gini Stolldorf