Editorial Collection

There is a very intense public discourse about the Collingswood Board of Education’s All in for Collingswood plan, with much of the debate centered on the alleged impact the plan will have to diversity within the school district. 

Representatives of the board have stated multiple times to the public that this was not conceived of as a project in improved diversity or equity. We were told repeatedly that this is just a construction and real estate deal, nothing more and nothing less. Yet at public meetings, in emails and at specific events, members of the board have touted this plan as a step in addressing racial tensions that have been simmering in Collingswood for decades, which currently seem to be boiling over at the high school. 

The recent revelations of racism that have come in an ongoing stream since the student walkouts last year indicate an environment at the high school in which there is much more going on than just kids making mistakes. Many of the allegations made in the student protests and indeed nearly any time we hear from these brave young people have included accusations of inaction from school officials in response to a long-time and ongoing culture of racial hostility. To suggest that we begin fixing this problem by dispersing children away from their neighborhood schools in three years seems backwards at best.

Putting aside the fact that there is no reason to believe that simple exposure to difference is enough to create tolerance and understanding, an issue as big as the immediate material effects of racist actions, such as the harm that comes to students of color who have to share classes with students who engaged openly in white supremacy, is not dealt with by plans that will take years to enact much less have an effect. These students deserve action now, the students who will enter high school any time in the next 7 years deserve action now. The students who don’t enter the district until middle and high school deserve action NOW.

With the immediacy of the problem, I have to ask why representatives of the board plugged a plan that only has long term effects if it has effects at all as part of a solution to harm being done now. A plan that we have been assured in one breath is simply a construction deal which was never intended to be about diversity, while in the next breath is held up as a blow against structural racism. In an environment in which current students are begging for accountability from district leadership, they deserve to know whether the board is proposing simply a construction deal in place of taking real action. - Dorian Adams

There are many claims that the Board of Education’s proposed All in for Collingswood Bond Referendum which would close two schools in our district will create a more integrated and equitable educational experience for our students, and particularly our students with disabilities. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

As of right now, the plan is silent on how the proposal will impact students with disabilities. Despite many words regarding ADA accessibility of buildings for students with physical disabilities, concerns that have been raised by special education professionals about the lack of adequate support and classroom space for students with learning disabilities and neurodivergence have been dismissed as an issue that will be dealt with once the referendum passes. This is completely unacceptable. This narrative demonstrates a total lack of understanding with regards to the needs and rights of special education students, and an unsettling lack of planning that can harm those students. It also demonstrates an appalling lack of respect for the special education teams in the district, implying that they are currently not serving students equitably and dismissing their concerns as trained professionals. 

The board presented a single slide on the inclusion of students with disabilities showing the percentage of time that these students spend with their grade level classrooms with the clear implication that this situation is harmful. No other context or information was provided, and the strange spread of their data was not addressed. The years included were 1995, 2000, and 2005, with the data suddenly jumping to 2022 and no explanation for the gap. The board did not communicate that in the span between 2005 and 2022, the understanding of the needs of students with learning and cognitive disabilities has drastically changed. In the 1995 to 2005 timeframe, many more students with learning disabilities of various severity levels were placed in self-contained settings that removed them from their grade-level classrooms. Since then, students with mild to moderate learning disabilities have begun to receive support in their grade level classrooms, and now receive accommodations and subject support offered in-class with their grade level cohort. The final number presented by the board reflects a significantly smaller student population than the numbers that their slide begins with, and includes only students with IEPs and the need for an alternative curriculum. Students with less severe learning difficulties who made up the majority of the students represented in the data from the 90’s and early 00’s now spend 90-100% of their time in their grade level classroom. 

The board did not communicate that students with disabilities are required by law to be given the least restrictive environment possible based on their needs that are determined by nationally recognized tests. These tests drive either an IEP or 504 which allows them to achieve and grow academically. Self-contained rooms are the last stop within a district for a student with disabilities that is not advancing even with all previously offered supports. These supports often include, but are not limited to, co-teaching models in which a special education teacher works parallel to the grade-level teacher in the same classroom, supplemental support instructors coming into classrooms, inclusion for partial days, pull out to resource rooms with extra modifications and curriculum adjustments. Only when they are not achieving at each level of support are students then recommended for self-contained placement. Those placements are determined by the trained professionals that make up our special education departments with input from the student’s current teacher, and before a student is placed in any level of support, they are tested to ensure proper placement. Parents are also essential parts of that process, as these tests, adjustments, and placements cannot be done legally without their participation and consent. To put up that single slide with no context and paint a picture of exclusion is deeply dishonest, particularly when the plan it is being used to sell has nothing included in it that would change such a situation. If anything, there is inadequate room in the plan to provide adequate self-contained support at all. Without necessary additional supports, including the required number of classrooms of appropriate size, inclusion models can be actively detrimental for many students. 

The current plan proposal includes no specific added supports for students with disabilities, no plan for adequate space, no sense of what would constitute adequate space, and most importantly no budget for these necessary supports.  The BOE offers only a vague promise that they have 3 years to figure it out. That is how you plan a vacation, not an education.  At this point, the Board has shut down any discussion on the topic, admitting at a Q&A meeting that they would not consider it until after this referendum passes. 

When it comes to achieving projects of the kind being proposed, if there is no budget for something necessary, that necessary thing is not going to happen. The idea has been floated that the sale of Garfield can provide those additional funds, but there is currently no data available to the public as to what amount Garfield might be sold for, and no plan for how those funds will be used. They have also been floated as the funds that will fix the roof at Newbie so the cubbies in the 2nd grade room stop flooding every time it rains, the funds that will help with renovations at Tatem, the funds that will somehow cover many needs at the schools that will receive an influx of students from this plan that have gone unaddressed for way too long.

Our students with disabilities deserve more than vague promises with no real actions. They have the right to equal access to education. The district has a legal obligation to provide that access. A project of this magnitude must account for this by making decisions informed by data and the expertise of the trained professionals that our students and their parents in this district trust and have been working with for years. Inclusion must be done right if it is to be truly equitable, rather than being a buzzword that encourages well-meaning citizens to vote for something that will only take resources away without any replacement or improvement. - Dorian Adams 

In many board meetings and referendum presentations, it has been stated that the elementary schools that remain open will receive upgrades if the referendum passes. 

Mark Newbie Elementary School is one of the schools that will remain open as part of the referendum plan. As a Mark Newbie Elementary School parent, I am aware of the litany of updates and improvements required at the school. For example, every time we receive heavy rain the library floods and water leaks into the cubbies of classrooms. Only one bathroom in the entire building supports a staff of over 50. For 18 months the school has used a temporary phone line because the real one has still not been fixed. Security cameras are still black and white while other schools have color monitors. The referendum plan fails to address any of these issues.

Furthermore, to support the additional classroom space needed as part of the plan, it was disclosed by Dr. McDowell during the July 23rd roundtable discussion that the existing library (the one that floods) would be converted into classrooms. The current library is utilized for Gifted and Talented classroom instruction. It is the space where students with 504 plans and tiered interventions are taught and tested. It was also disclosed that staff members teaching special subjects such as Art and Music will be relegated to a cart they would use to travel to each classroom during the day, which in addition means that classroom teachers would be unable to stay in their classrooms to prep during this time as they do today and students would be relegated to one classroom for more of their school day. 

 Adding extra classrooms also means extra students. If there is to be two classes each K-3 then that is two additional classrooms full of students. 40 to 50 more students would be added to the building  while the square footage of the building would remain the same. 

The Board is asking the community to pay 44 million dollars so they can enact this referendum plan. In return for this investment students who attend Mark Newbie will no longer have a library, classrooms will continue to flood, and teachers will lose space for instruction and prep.

We must vote NO to this downgrade and come up with a plan that better serves our students and staff.

-Melissa Hellwig

An open letter to Colls BOE, Dr. McDowell and district leadership:

You say your goal is to increase equity and diversity. To improve the quality of education and access to opportunities for all our kids. 

I AM ON BOARD WITH THESE GOALS.

What I am not on board with, is closing a thriving school in the middle of the very neighborhood you claim to be helping. The school that actually has more diversity than any other elementary school in Collingswood. I’ve heard all your reasons for closing Sharp, and I can’t help feeling like you’re choosing the financial bottom line over what is actually best for our kids. You can show me all the architectural drawings and spreadsheets you want. At the end of the day what you’re doing is closing the most diverse school in Collingswood and putting the money into the wealthiest and WHITEST part of town. How a group that claims to be led by progressive values, supposedly striving for racial equality, can claim that this is the best plan, is beyond me. 

I am a proud liberal, a progressive liberal, and being told that opposing this plan means I’m “pro-segregation” is ludicrous. Some of your supporters have actually said this online. 

The goals of this plan are great. 

The execution of this plan is utter trash. 

You have wonderful elaborate drawings of the new sports complex, but no one ever bothered to do something as simple as counting the classrooms in Newbie to see if they could accommodate your plan. Spoiler alert: they can’t. I’m still waiting to hear how we’re going to fit 8 classes into 6 classrooms. Sharp is going to be left empty until… tbd? Community center that we have no funding for? Who knows? Maybe we can sell Garfield and use a little of that money to bus kids? Who knows? There are holes in this plan big enough to drive a Mack truck through. 

Being against the plan is not the same as being against the goals. 

I demand a better plan. 

One that takes community feedback seriously. One that listens to everyone, not just those who already agree. One that puts kids and teachers over the financial bottom line. 

Your job is to convince us that this plan makes sense. This requires communication, active listening, willingness to be flexible, and above all, transparency. You have failed to do your job.  

Stop gaslighting us and telling us what we see happening in this district isn’t really happening: 

saying you want equity while closing the school with the most black and brown kids; saying you're working for equality while making those kids travel farther to get to a predominantly white school; 

saying you can’t afford to keep your schools adequately staffed while taking raises yourselves: 

saying you can’t afford to pay teachers while leasing a huge building at a cost of $71k per year - a building you’re HOPING to buy one day but in the meantime using as your offices while most of it sits unused. 

Meanwhile we’re losing essential staff, arts programs, electives, fundamental high school courses, and stretching teachers to the breaking point. Telling them to “do more with less”. 

YOU are the ones who need to be doing more with less. Stop kicking the can down the road. Cause guess where that can lands? Right on our kids. 

How can you expect people to trust you with millions more when you’ve so badly mismanaged the money you already have?

We all want the best for the kids of Collingswood. This plan is NOT the answer.

We are eager for real dialogue and improved communication. Let's work TOGETHER to come up with a plan that will achieve our goals in a sustainable way, without destroying our schools and forcing our children to bear the consequences.

-Liz Willson, 7/18/2024

On September 17th, Collingswood residents will have the opportunity to vote in a special election being held for  the “All In For Collingswood” Referendum Plan. Residents have raised a number of concerns about the proposed plan and the possible negative effects on students, staff and community at large, which begs the question; “What does it really mean to be All in for Collingswood” ?

The Collingswood Bond Referendum has been discussed in several news outlets, on social media, and information sessions. However, Collingswood residents appear to remain deeply divided regarding the “All in for Collingswood” proposal. Despite all of the chatter, there appears to be more questions than answers. 

According to the district's bond referendum presentation,  the “All in for Collingswood Plan” is a plan that our Board of Education has promoted that will cost the taxpayers an estimated  $39,794,514  over the next 30 years (Slide 34 of the BOE’s presentation).  Within this plan;

• The district will purchase and renovate Good Shepherd at the cost of $22 million. 

• Good Shepherd will become the new 4th and 5th grade building which will not include a playground for outdoor play in its current iteration

• Zane North school which resides in the same neighborhood as Good Shepherd will receive an addition to their building. 

• Newbie and Tatem schools will receive ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant playgrounds. 

• Garfield and Sharp schools will be decommissioned as school buildings. Garfield will be sold. 

• The district’s presentation also notes, “A portion of the proceeds from the sale of Garfield will be invested into converting Sharp into a community recreation center. Additional funds from the proceeds of the sale will go towards ensuring that students who have the farthest to travel as a result of the decommission of Sharp have a safe route to school. Any remaining funds will be used to address long standing maintenance needs of remaining school buildings and continue to build capital reserves”. 

Concerningly, the district has not provided an estimated sale price of Garfield or if the proceeds of that sale will cover the expenses required for the items listed above.  The plan does provide a “solution” to  “improve” our lackluster sports complex. This plan is essentially the same bond referendum plan that was voted down by the community by a large margin back in 2018. 

After the bond proposal in 2018, NJ PEN published a letter to the editor written by Rob Lawrence and Rhodes Mason entitled, “To the Editor: Passing Athletic Referendum in Collingswood Means Mobilizing Seniors, Capping Costs”. This letter to the editor detailed information obtained from the Alliance for Collingswood Athletic and Play Spaces (ALLCAPS) survey. Mason & Lawrence presented four takeaways from this survey;  

1. “Budget for a tax increase of $100 per tax-paying household per year: Seventy-four percent of respondents would not support a tax burden of $219/year, the estimated average burden in the March 2018 referendum.”

2.  “Introduce real value for senior citizens: “Seniors are mobilized against tax increases, and cannot be demobilized. To pass, a new referendum needs to provide real, substantive benefit to seniors: activity and community opportunities that they value, and cannot get by other means.”

3. “Find a compromise on artificial turf: About 32% of those surveyed are opposed to artificial turf on environmental grounds. Our survey did not delve into the details of this objection. Opposition to turf could be based on anything from ideology to hearsay to sound scientific knowledge; it is simply unclear. Regardless, the next referendum should be preceded by a detailed hearing and Q&A on the topic of artificial turf, with experts presenting on the differences between various types, known risks, comparison of those to the risks of natural grass, and so on.”

4. “Clearly link referendum provisions to citizen input: Fifty-four percent of those surveyed said the March referendum did not incorporate enough community input. The Board of Education held a “World Cafe” event in September and October 2017, specifically to solicit citizen opinion. But the issues raised at the event were not systematically addressed by the referendum. Instead, many citizens felt their input was invited, but then ignored. To pass, the next referendum will need to logically and carefully address issues that citizens care about, plus “show the work” of how citizen input was translated into a plan.”

Has the school district considered the evidence gathered from the ALL CAPS survey to help guide their plan for this referendum? It doesn’t appear so. 

While the current cost of living  is a concern for many community members, I do believe that most are willing to pay more in taxes if they are able to afford it and if they feel the plan is using those funds to benefit the community at large. 

On the count of introducing benefits for senior citizens, I suppose the plan attempted to do this with the addition of pickleball courts? 

While the ALL CAPS survey did not provide a backstory for the 32% of surveyed people who did not want artificial turf, research does reveal that artificial turf carries a myriad of health and environmental risks. The Institute for Climate Change, Environmental Health, and Exposomics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai released its "Position Statement on the Use of Artificial Turf Surfaces" which asserted; "The Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center at the Institute for Climate Change, Environmental Health, and Exposomics recommends against the installation of artificial turf playing surfaces and fields due to the uncertainties surrounding the safety of these products and the potential for dangerous heat and chemical exposures. "  Their position statement highlighted that "Children are uniquely vulnerable to harmful exposures from artificial turf surfaces because of their unique physiology and behaviors, rapidly developing organ systems, and immature detoxification mechanisms.” The  Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), reported that exposure to PFAs in artificial turf has been linked with adverse health effects such as increased cholesterol levels, reduced antibody response to some vaccines, changes in liver enzymes, kidney and testicular cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia along with small decreases in birth weight.  

Risks posed by turf are not limited to humans. Newton Creek is especially at risk due to its close proximity to the proposed turf field. The Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center at the Institute for Climate Change, Environmental Health, and Exposomics position statement revealed, "Chemical hazards escape from artificial turf surfaces to the environment. A number of the chemical components of artificial turf surfaces are soluble in water.  When rain and snow fall on synthetic fields, these materials can leach from the surface to contaminate groundwater and soil. Recent studies find PFAS in wetlands adjacent to artificial turf suggesting that these chemicals may migrate from field components to contaminate the environment.  Runoff from turf fields also has the potential to release microplastics into the environment. Microplastic contamination is found in drinking water and wildlife throughout the globe and in human blood, lungs, and placenta." 

Citizen input also appears to be lacking this time around. Many residents were not aware this plan was being proposed and were not invited to assist with the formulation of referendum. If you have attended or watched any of the BOE meetings since the release of the plan, you will note the myriad of residents pleading with the BOE to listen to their needs, halt the plan to reorganize, or listen to resident suggestions. These pleas were met without regard to the citizens who will bear the financial, emotional, physical, and logistical burden of this plan. 

This plan has been hailed for its benefits for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Let’s break this down, with a lens towards the two schools slated for decommission:

According to the New Jersey Department of Education, Thomas Sharp School has the greatest percentage of minority students throughout the district (56.50%).  Within the school district, Thomas Sharp School also houses the greatest percentage of students who fall under the umbrella of economic disadvantage (38.20%), the greatest percentage of students with a disability (21.50%), the greatest percentage of students who are at risk for chronic absenteeism (21.40%), and the greatest percentage of homeless students (3.70%). Sharp also has the second highest percentage of homes where a language other than English is spoken (9.40%). 

James Garfield School is home to the highest percentage of homes that speak a language other than English (11.90%) as well the second highest percentage of minority students in the district (38.90%).  

Data collected from the state of New Jersey reveals students at Sharp and Garfield schools have a set of unique needs which require resources to optimize their education. The data provided from the NJ School Performance Report (2022-2023) revealed Sharp students’ absenteeism far supasses the rest of the district. While we do not know the cause of the increased absences within Sharp, one can hypothesize that increasing distance to school will inflate rates of absenteeism for that population. Sharp also exhibits the highest rate of homelessness and students with economic disadvantage. Students who fall into these categories may have several factors that make attending school regularly a challenge, increasing the distance to school for these students holds the potential to exacerbate the challenges that these students already face from an academic and social perspective. There is no mention of how the district plans to make education more accessible for students who face adversity or how integrated students will be welcomed into those schools.

When proposing plans that affect a community, the members of the community who bear the brunt of a change should be considered.  Listening and giving credence to the lived experiences of marginalized communities should be a core tenet of social justice work.  

Another concern that has been posed are the reading levels for students of color in the district. We should always be working on improving our proficiency across subjects especially for our students who are struggling. Academic proficiency is achieved by targeted intervention for struggling students by trained educators. As community members, the academic success of every child in our district should be our goal. However, this plan does not address improving the ELA scores of students of color. In order to improve academic skills for struggling students, the district should be implementing strategic intervention through Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), including the RTI (Response to Intervention) program. Within this model, students receive targeted approaches to help build skills they may not have acquired or skills which may be lacking. This program allows students to “catch up” with their peers. However, the district has grossly cut our Response to Intervention program due to budget constraints. The district’s resources should be allocated more justly to adequately fund MTSS services if ELA scores for students of color are a concern.

Over nearly two years, the district has been under the microscope regarding racial disparities in our high school. My question is what has the district done to improve this? Has the district implemented a district-wide student program curriculum to create a more accepting and equitable environment for our students? Has the district conducted research to determine the cause of  the higher percentage of suspensions for students of color? Has the district performed regular DEI training and “Trauma Informed Teaching” training for all teachers and administrators? Has the district redesigned catchment areas to create a more integrated population in our schools? Have they worked on pen pal programs or quarterly activities between the schools to integrate students at an earlier age? These solutions are not expensive, but are certainly worthwhile and meaningful and bring our students together at an earlier age to encourage unity throughout Collingswood. 

On the front of Special Education and Inclusion,  in April, Dr. McDowell reported at an “All in for Collingswood”  referendum information session that the goal for inclusion is “100% Inclusion”. The NJ Dept of Education defines inclusion for Special Education as a student with a disability spending 80% or more of their day in the general education setting.

 Students who are eligible for Special Education have an  IEP, which is an acronym for “Individualized Education Plan.” This is an educational plan that is tailored to their Special Education students’ individual needs to support their success within school. For those of us who work in Special Education, we know that special education students are a diverse population with a variety of  abilities, needs, and learning styles. Therefore, these students require a variety of resources and placements. In certain situations, those needs can not be met within the concept of a general education classroom despite support from highly trained general education teachers, special education teachers, and aides. The concept of 100% inclusion denotes a “one size fits all” approach to special education which contradicts the principle of an Individualized Education Plan. 

Inclusion, when appropriate, is the best option for special education and general education students alike. Benefits of inclusion include exposure to the general education curriculum, improved learning outcomes, and improved socialization for children with disabilities and their general education peers. Inclusion is absolutely best practice. However, the inclusion model on paper and successfully implementing the inclusion model in the real world are two very different things. Functional and successful inclusion for special education will require district-wide training, increasing the number of special education teachers, aides, and possibly Child Study Team members. Special Education teachers and Child Study Team members including School Psychologists, Social Workers, Speech-Language Pathologists, Occupational Therapists, and Physical Therapists often possess at least a master’s degree in order to be licensed in their field. This means that the district will have to increase their budget and their creativity in order to implement this goal successfully.  

Decommissioning the Sharp building as a school building is more than just a loss from an educational perspective. This plan reinforces the sense that many residents on the West Side feel they are not included in the Collingswood community. From posts on “In the Wood” from community members talking about the “dump” of West Collingswood or the fact that Collingswood residents who have an 08107 zip code do not receive copies of “08108 Magazine,” this referendum is another sign that the community at large does not consider the West Side of town to be part of the community.  The district’s lack of planning regarding the proposed community center and safe routes to school further reinforces that the West Side is an afterthought. If equity is a tenet of this plan, why does this plan appear to be so inequitable to the West Side of Collingswood? 

Take a ride into 08107.  Take note of the amount of “Vote No” signs around Sharp School and the extended area which demonstrate that so many members of that community are against this plan. When you speak with someone in person or in an online forum and that person confides that this plan places an undue financial, emotional, or logistical burden on their family, try to listen and seek to understand their experience. Diminishing their valid concerns is not just unhelpful, it is harmful to that person and relationships between community members. A just and effective plan can not be formed without considering the needs of our community members who hold the greatest stakes and bear the greatest impact.

Just like there is no “one size fits all” IEP, there is no “one size fits all” referendum plan. This referendum is an ineffective panacea for the myriad of struggles our school and our borough is facing at this time. There should be no shame in returning to the drawing board or making changes based on community suggestions and needs. Unfortunately, despite the pleas of many people in our town to consider alterations to this plan, the BOE has refused to do so. Therefore I  do not have confidence the BOE will incorporate the community members’ input when it comes to using our tax dollars in a manner that benefits the community at large. 

I think there is a common goal within the community to have a more equitable and inclusive school district with modern athletic fields and thriving students, however, this plan fails to fully address these goals. In a town that prides itself on our esteemed Odyssey of the Mind program, whose motto is  “Creativity Solves All Problems,” surely our community members can come together to use those problem-solving skills to create a plan that makes good on its promise of improved educational outcomes in the spirit of diversity, equity, and inclusion. As someone who loves to say “yes” to all things, it pains me to say I have no choice, but to “Vote No” on this referendum.  Why? Because I know we can do better. Because I know that being “All in for Collingswood”  can not be accomplished without investing in all of Collingswood. 

-Emily Green-Hamilton

To the Editor: 

After four years on the board of the Sharp PTA, most recently completing my second term as president, I have gained considerable knowledge about our community and ways to support it.  Since learning about the “All in For Collingswood” proposed bond referendum several months ago, I have had conversations with our superintendent, Board of Education members, Collingswood community members, Collingswood DEI committee members, Sharp teachers, staff, PTA members, and other Sharp and West Collingswood community members.  I still cannot wrap my head around the proposal to close Sharp Elementary School as a part of this bond referendum that will be presented as a Public Question in the special election on September 17th.

The original reason presented for why Sharp was chosen to close is that it is the oldest school building in Collingswood at 119 years old; the age of which doesn’t even crack the top 100 oldest operating public schools in America.  Since then, misleading information has been spread around that Sharp is falling apart and in disrepair.  It has been reiterated by the BOE and current superintendent and backed up by the custodians and buildings and grounds supervisors that there is NOTHING wrong with Sharp as a building.  There are no capital improvements needed, and while waivers are used in order to operate under the current NJ DOE school codes, this is nothing new nor is it limited to Sharp or even Collingswood as a district.

Over the past several years, Sharp has had buildings and grounds beautifications such as: the All-Purpose Room mural, designed and painted by Sharp parents; the mosaic mural, designed by a former Sharp parent & grandparent and created with the help of Sharp community members; and the blacktop greenspace revitalization, currently in progress, which will add a significant number of trees, outdoor classrooms, and rain gardens to the blacktop and surrounding curb strips.  This project is funded by a $71K grant from Sustainable New Jersey – Trees for Schools.

Sharp Elementary is an incredible, safe, and welcoming school and school community that serves 140 K-5 students and families, majority of whom live in West Collingswood, and 72 Preschool students and families from all over the Collingswood district.  The teachers and staff are amazing and are all dedicated to our school with minimal turnover year over year.  Students are treated with respect and learn to grow up alongside their peers of different races, religions, ethnic backgrounds, and diverse family structures.

Quoting, with permission, Dr. Scott Oswald, Collingswood’s previous superintendent who retired in 2021, “While the referendum may make sense financially and will enhance some educational opportunities…presenting it under the banner of equity is misleading, at best. Closing Sharp School should be a non-starter. Period. It is never okay to further marginalize underserved neighborhoods to benefit majority white neighborhoods, such as those where most of the new construction will occur.”

I am against closing Sharp Elementary School, which is the only school on the West side of Collingswood as well as the most integrated in the district.  I am against any claim that closing Sharp is equitable and the only way to desegregate the rest of the elementary schools in town.  Sharp, as a school, already embodies the values that many pro-referendum supporters seek to gain from the “All in For Collingswood” proposal.

It was stated at the beginning of the April 9th Referendum Info Session that “DEI did not drive this referendum.  No one got up and said, let’s rearrange the schools for diversity, equity, and inclusion.”  However, as a major piece of their rhetoric, the pro-referendum supporters are claiming that closing Sharp and moving those students to the remaining schools, Zane North, Tatem, and Newbie, is both equitable and necessary in order to “desegregate” these schools, which are currently 80%, 70%, and 65% white respectively.

For years and years, more white families have chosen to move to the East side of Collingswood rather than the West side, which is mostly situated on “the other side” of the White Horse Pike.  Whether their choice was based upon better (as far as test score statistics) schools for their children, larger houses, more affluent neighborhoods, walkability to Haddon Ave, walkability to PATCO, or whatever other reasons, the East side schools stayed majority white, while Sharp remained diverse.

While the number of Preschool classrooms at Sharp has increased steadily since 2019, so, too, has our footprint in Collingswood.  According to the New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C) 6A:27, districts are only required to provide busing to Pre-K through 5th grade students who live more than 2 miles from their assigned school.  Therefore, many Preschool students who live in close proximity to Sharp (and are later placed there for K-5) are sent to Oaklyn Public School, where the Collingswood Preschool Program leases additional classroom space, while Preschool students more than 2 miles from Oaklyn are sent to Sharp.  Every year, Sharp warmly greets new Preschool families with open arms, and, year after year, we get feedback that these families wish they could opt to keep their children at Sharp for K-5.  This is in direct response to the welcoming community and phenomenal administration and educators in our building.

Through ongoing community engagement, the Sharp PTA holds free and low-cost events throughout the school year where everyone is welcomed, as well as offering free dinner and babysitting at our monthly meetings to allow for everyone to attend and participate without any additional burden on their families.  Our Giving Tree program facilitates over 200 gift donations each year from community members to Sharp families who are unable to afford holiday gifts for their children.

With a large Spanish-speaking population at Sharp, our PTA has been stepping up its use of Spanish language in communication to Sharp families.  In the 2023-2024 school year, we delivered almost every flyer and email from the PTA in English and Spanish to ensure that all Sharp families were included.  We also took it upon ourselves to share information about the Referendum and Info Sessions in both English and Spanish that were otherwise not communicated with Sharp families until June 11th, and, even then, only in English.

Every year, the Sharp staff and PTA collaborate on multicultural education, which has gotten so extensive that we’ve moved from a single day to a full “Multicultural Week” so that we could fit everything in!  This week does not consist of the students learning about specific cultures for the sake of learning.  The week consists of the students learning from other students, parents, and high school students about the cultures, backgrounds, and traditions of their peers.  It is full of music, dancing, art, food tastings, and a sense of togetherness that you don’t get without true diversity and acceptance among peers.

To build upon this effort, the Sharp PTA, principal, teachers, and student council have worked together over the past two years to make Sharp Elementary No Place for Hate.  The Anti-Defamation League’s No Place for Hate program is a holistic, school-wide approach to improving school climate.  As a completely free and customizable program, it helps to engage students and staff in active learning on the topics of bias, bullying, inclusion and allyship that matter most within that community.

Instead of tearing apart the Sharp community in order to purchase yet another school building on the East side of Collingswood, let’s come together as a district and find another way!

To be very clear, I am in support of most of the proposed bond referendum.  I am not against buying and renovating the former Good Shepherd building.  I am not against the development of a 4/5 grade level school.  I am not against the concept of consolidating elementary schools in order to allow for more collaboration between teachers and for students to get to know their peers throughout the district earlier in their lives.  I’m not even against rebuilding the high school football stadium seating and improving upon those recreational facilities.  I would love to vote “yes” in support of all of those things.

I, too, want improvements to be made within our district and agree that investments are necessary, but not at the expense of the Sharp students, teachers, and community.  As long as “decommissioning” Sharp Elementary School is part of this proposal, my vote will always be “no.”

- Lindsay Oster 

In the fervor surrounding the All in for Collingswood bond referendum, there have been many misconceptions about Sharp that need to be addressed. There have been aspersions cast on the condition and age of the building and about whether resources are adequate at the school. With the stakes being as high as they are, it is critical that the facts about this school and community be honestly accounted for.

Many claims and implications are swirling around the state of the building, whether it is safe and healthy to be there and whether things like the wifi work; there is even a claim from some private citizens that there is an alleged risk of asbestos exposure. Let me put nearly all of these concerns to rest. Dr. McDowell has stated multiple times in multiple public meetings, both large and small, that there is nothing currently wrong with the Sharp building. Since our board members have proudly stated in news articles as far back as 2019 that our buildings were excellently maintained, we can safely assume that Sharp was included in those statements.

The suggestion that simply because a building is old means it must be bad is equally inaccurate. How many homes in town are just as old as Sharp? If not older? What is the age of the homes in which the people selling this plan live? We live across the river from Philadelphia, a place with some of the oldest buildings in our country’s history. We are surrounded by examples of old, which does not mean harmful or dangerous. If anything, a structure that has lasted over a century with proper maintenance, which Sharp has had, is the definition of built-to-last. There has always been good and bad construction; over time, the bad construction comes down, but the good construction frequently lasts as long as it is maintained. Maintaining old buildings can also be sustainable and more cost-effective, particularly when no significant issues exist. If we take Dr. McDowell at his word, Sharp fits that bill.

A shocking recent allegation was the supposed risk of asbestos exposure. As someone who has been at Sharp daily for many years and sent their child to Sharp for six years, I find this allegation deeply shocking. Not once have I witnessed any evidence of friable unremediated asbestos. If there had been a risk of exposure, why would it take until the board decided to close the school before it was mentioned? Would the board have allowed 40 years of students to spend five days a week in a deeply unsafe building? Supporters of the referendum keep claiming that the board members in support only have the best interest of everyone at heart; if they are correct, it seems deeply unlikely that a situation of that kind would have continued for this long with no notice or attempt at remediation. Of all available buildings, including Good Shepherd, Sharp as the oldest building is likely the least at risk of asbestos. Unless the board can substantiate this claim, it is an irresponsible fear mongering tactic with no place in a civil discussion about such an important issue.

Many claims have been made about available resources at Sharp, claiming that the children Sharp serves have been denied resources that other schools have access to. Despite many claims to the contrary, Collingswood is not anywhere close to a textbook example of discriminatory effects of lack of educational equity. Those examples are from poor DISTRICTS in which the district receives less funding from their states because of its local tax base. Our schools appear to be funded differently here; it seems the board, in its budget process, prioritizes the distribution of funds and resources. If Sharp has fewer resources, what exactly are the resources they need, and who decided not to distribute them equitably in the first place? There doesn’t seem to be any mechanism that could have stopped the board from investing in Sharp except for a question of priorities. And now they say it’s not good enough to keep, and Sharp families must bear the brunt of their choice to give us less than we need. Collingswood is an affluent district and it is extremely unlikely to be constrained by discriminatory funding models. Any imbalance in resources is not a question of inevitability. Someone, in some cases, many someones, would have had to make a purposeful choice to disadvantage Sharp relative to other schools in the district. Board member Roger Chu recently stated that Sharp students receive more funding than other students. So the question remains: what resources do the other schools have that Sharp does not?

These assumptions and misconceptions are deeply concerning. Many come from people who openly refuse to cross the Pike for a good meal, let alone visit the school. These mischaracterizations  betray an unconscious bias that sees a school that serves marginalized populations such as children of color and children living in poverty as inherently a “bad school.” The fact that the children most likely to attend school in older buildings are black, Hispanic, and impoverished does not mean that a school that serves those populations MUST be in terrible condition. As a member of the Sharp community, it would be nice if someone talked with us and learned about our direct experience with this school before talking over and about us. If someone wants to know about our neighborhood and community, I suggest they walk over to speak to us. After all, as many people have argued, it’s less than 2 miles so only a few more blocks.

-Dorian Adams