WAYNE EASTMAN QUESTIONNAIRE

Name: Wayne Eastman

Town: South Orange

Years living in district: 23

Children in district: None now—Jonathan graduated from Columbia in 2009, Caroline in 2011

Occupation: I teach business ethics and business law to undergraduates and graduates in Newark and New Brunswick as a professor at Rutgers Business School, where I am also vice chair of the Supply Chain Management Department.

Why do you want to be on the school board?

First, experience: Over the years since 2006 that I’ve been on the board, I and my colleagues have fostered major progress in improving student achievement relative to our peer districts and in bringing down the rate of tax increases.  I believe that continued vigilance in these areas is important, and I believe that in combination with my running mates Madhu Pai and Peggy Freedson I am very well positioned to provide it.

Second, the future: As president of the board since January of this year, I’ve led, along with Madhu as my First Vice President, in the hiring of a new Superintendent.  I’ve also led a movement to get us past contentious debates on academic placement and levels in favor of an approach that foregrounds choice and access.  I’ve also worked to uphold a calm, positive style of leadership, one that values all my colleagues, our teachers, and our other stakeholders.  I’m excited about the prospects for working with Madhu, Peggy, Dr. Ramos, our teachers, and all of our community to make a district culture of empowerment and collaboration a reality.  With Madhu’s and my experience on the board, and Peggy’s expertise in curriculum and working with teachers as a professor at Montclair State, the three of us are the right candidates to make positive change happen.

What is your top priority for the district?

The key initial sentence in the new Access and Equity policy, which I drafted early this year shortly after becoming President of the board, states that all students and parents in the district shall have a choice of educational programs, including where applicable programs at different levels and Advanced Placement courses.   Translating that commitment in the policy into effective, empowering choices that our teachers are centrally involved in shaping and that expand opportunities for all of our students is my central priority going forward. 

With what I believe will be the unanimous passage of the policy by my board colleagues at this month’s meeting and the unifying leadership of Doctor Ramos, I am highly optimistic about our prospects for success.  But we need board members with the right skills to lead us affirmatively, while at the same time upholding accountability in spending and student achievement.  Madhu, Peggy, and I have those skills,  

How would you cut costs without cutting education?

Our role on finances as board members is to provide fiscal discipline for the system.  Other stakeholders in the budget-setting process are not directly accountable to taxpayers.  We are.  With that responsibility to taxpayers in mind, Ms. Pai and I have supported keeping the rate of operating tax increases to 2% or under, and Ms. Freedson has joined us as a candidate in taking that position. 

It is the responsibility of administration to work within the overall fiscal framework set by the board, and to make difficult decisions when necessary about cutting individual programs.  I strongly believe that it is a mistake for the board to micromanage the budget process; doing so engenders game-playing and politicized decision-making.  

As a board member, I have always voted for budgets that provide for increases in local tax contributions to the schools, not for cuts.  Much as I would like to say that local taxes will be going down in the future, I cannot.  Increasing educational needs—based on, among other things, our increasing district enrollment—will almost certainly lead to some increases in our taxes in the years to come.  With Madhu and Peggy, I will work hard to uphold fiscal responsibility by operating within the 2% cap.

Our opponents in the race are not, in my view, as strong as we are in upholding fiscal responsibility.   We do not want to go back to the era of 4-6% annual tax increases—accompanied by claims of multi-million dollar “cuts”--that prevailed before I was elected, when a manager of the campaign for two of our opponents was on the board.

What is your opinion of Dr. John Ramos and did you support his hiring?

I am very positive about Dr. Ramos, and strongly supported his hiring as President of the board.  I believe he has the right combination of calm, firmness, vision, and practicality to be an exceptional leader for us going forward. 

One key example of where I believe Dr. Ramos has made a difference already: Much as Ms. Pai and I along with Mr. Bennett campaigned on choice in 2012, and much as I had worked to advance access and choice since becoming President in policy early this year, it was Dr. Ramos’s arrival and leadership that in my judgment catalyzed the board into unanimity in favor of moving forward.  I am very appreciative of his leadership in that regard.  I look forward to working with him on that key issue, and on other issues in which his leadership will serves us well.

How will you improve district communications with residents and parents?

I believe we have taken the key step by hiring a new Superintendent who has made communication a central priority.  We on the board need to hold Dr. Ramos accountable on the outcome of the “Let’s Talk” pilot and other initiatives—but based on what I’ve seen and heard so far I am highly positive about the change he has brought to the district.  When a constituent tells me that a “Let’s Talk” message about a bus driver wearing headphones resulted not only in a quick email response, but in the driver taking off the headphones within a few days, I’m impressed.  When we have a leader who has set a clear expectation for administrators to respond to inquiries within two days, I’m likewise impressed.

I also believe we as a board need to continue to work on ways for us to hear from residents and parents outside the highly formal setting of board meetings.  This is not an easy thing to do, because boards with the best intentions can misuse their power to engage in politicized behavior on personnel issues and other matters that disempowers rather than empowers administrators, teachers, and others in the system.  The office hours pioneered by Ms. Pai as the board’s previous Community Engagement and Outreach chair and the community forums pioneered by Ms. Wright as the current committee chair both strike me as highly positive efforts in regard to our listening more and better.  In my answer to the next question, I suggest an additional approach to communications that I believe has merit.

Should the board increase to two meetings per month to avoid late actions?

I well remember an era of two board meetings a month that ran as late or later than our meetings now.  I think a better approach would be to create more opportunities for focused input from the community to board members through revising the way our committees work.  We on the Board and Dr. Ramos as our Superintendent could collaborate with key stakeholders, such as our negotiating partner SOMEA, to have stakeholders come to committee meetings and engage in focused but informal discussion on topics such as the curriculum, evaluation processes, and special education.   I believe that having a significant number of such informal meetings—possibly more than one per month—would do more to help the board foster more and better listening, and a more collaborative culture in the district, than having a second formal meeting each month.

What would you do to reduce the number of standardized tests for our students such as NJ ASK and PARCC?

I supported an opt-policy for PARCC testing earlier this year.  Much as I believe that standardized testing has value, it can be overdone.  I believe that a choice-oriented district culture should include an option for parents to refuse standardized testing.   I believe that this is a subject on which we need as a district to engage in further reflection and action, mindful as we do so of both the value and the drawbacks of testing.  With that in mind, I strongly support the proposed provision in District Goal for a review of district testing policies and procedures.  

Much as there are state mandates that constrain us, we have a significant degree of choice as a district in the degree to which we emphasize tests and test preparation.  Going forward, we need to figure out ways to give more choices both to parents and students who want test-oriented approaches in AP classes and elsewhere, and also to parents and students who want to follow another path.

How would you change math placement in the upper grades?

A major merit of the Access and Equity policy is that it moves us away from a divisive, micromanaging debate on the specifics of levels, and toward an affirmation of the value of levels with access.   A deleveled program with no options (such as the option the demonstration school provides for elementary school students outside of the Seth Boyden neighborhood) is deficient in an access and choice framework, just as a rigidly leveled system is.   Upper grade math needs administrative attention under the new policy, which I am confident it will receive—but so equally, and perhaps more, do programs such as middle school social studies and science, which on the face of it now lack choices for parents and students. 

There have been many complaints about team coaches being dismissed, how would you make sure fairness is exercised in such hirings and firings?

With Dr. Ramos’s firm and fair leadership, I am optimistic that we will be moving away in the coming year from a period in which advocates and opponents of coaches have seen board meetings as central forums to express their opinions.  The board picks a Superintendent.  We do not pick, nor should we pick, coaches.   Instead, we should embrace our policy-making rule.  We are currently engaged in a review of policy related to coaching, and I stand ready to work with all my colleagues to advance any changes suggested by that review. 

Anything else you want to say?

I’m excited by the opportunity to build on Madhu Pai’s and my experience on the board to uphold accountability on finances and achievement.  I’m even more excited by the opportunity to work with Madhu, Peggy Freedson, Dr. Ramos, and the rest of my colleagues to advance a new culture of access and choice that I’ve advocated for years. It’s a great moment of opportunity for our community.  I’m deeply grateful to have had the chance to make the moment happen, and I strongly hope that you will support Madhu, Peggy, and me on November 3.