One other education bill looks likely to pass through the NJ State Legislature at its last session on Monday: the Urban Hope Act. It’s undergone considerable changes just since yesterday (see post here). John Mooney at NJ Spotlight has a great write-up, and points out that the bill is now more about allowing private firms to construct school buildings and less about expanding school choice.

The biggest change in the bill since yesterday is the elimination of Jersey City as one of the three sites for construction. Trenton will jump into the slot and the other two sites will remain as Newark and Camden. (Trenton already has some lovely new school buildings – in fairness, built by SDA — although Trenton Central High is an eyesore.)

Two items here. First, as originally conceived, the Urban Hope Act was more than legislative approval for non-profits in three cities to contract with for-profit entities to construct school buildings. In NJ’s waiver application to the Feds for a loosening of the punitive measures of ESEA/NCLB, there’s specific reference to the Urban Hope Act as one of the “additional legislative strategies” that will “lead to substantial improvements in our Priority and Focus Schools.” Under this section of the waiver application the NJ DOE lists “comprehensive educator effectiveness legislation,” changes to charter school laws, and passage of the Opportunity Scholarship Act. The section concludes,

And the Urban Hope Act would encourage the development of new, high-performing schools in the State’s five lowest performing school districts. In combination, these bills would do a great deal to provide disadvantaged families with an immediate exit strategy while the State and districts work to improve performance in Priority Schools.

Of the bills cited only one has passed: the one that allows private or parochial schools to convert to charters. OSA and teacher effectiveness bills are delayed at least until the next legislative session. It’s great that Trenton, Camden, and Newark may actually see some progress in school construction (particularly Camden), but a new building doesn’t have a lot to do with “high performing schools.”

The second item that’s emerged through the politics of the Urban Hope Act is the first wedge issue in some time between NJEA (NJ’s teacher union) and the Education Law Center, which historically are in lockstep. (It doesn’t hurt that Vince Giordano serves as both NJEA’s Executive Director and ELC’s trustee.) After changes in the bill reassured NJEA’s leadership of member job security, it voiced full-throated support for the bill. ELC, however, remains irate and, according, to the Star-Ledger, is threatening court action. David Sciarra, Executive Director of ELC, warned, “Such transfers of these taxpayer-funded assets could very well run afoul of state and federal law.”

NJEA’s leaders have wised up: they’re not going to the mat on every issue and declining to die on hill after hill. As they choose their battles more carefully they gain credibility. ELC’s management might want to study up on NJEA’s new political strategy. Does ELC really want to be in the position of obstructing new school buildings for Camden’s kids?