By Rachel Botnick
“College is not high school. So when we say we want to prepare students for college, it doesn’t mean that we make them college students now.”
Those words from Board President Dr. Marianne Tanious captured an important theme of the August 20 East Brunswick Board of Education meeting.
Of course, we must prepare our children for what comes next, whether that is college, trade school, the military, or the workforce. But that does not mean forgetting who they are developmentally right now.
Throughout the meeting, I saw a Board of Education and administrative team willing to question familiar systems, consider new information, and remain focused on what is best for East Brunswick’s students. That shift in mindset deserves to be recognized. In the world of education and Social Emotional Learning (SEL) we call this a growth mindset.
Removing Midterms and Finals Does Not Eliminate Testing
East Brunswick High School Principal Dr. Bucior gave a thorough presentation explaining the decision to eliminate traditional midterms and finals.
When the district’s original email was released, many families understandably had questions. Without the full explanation, “eliminating midterms and finals” could easily have sounded like “eliminating testing” or “eliminating cumulative assessment.”
That is not what is happening.
Students will continue to be assessed through unit tests, common assessments, cumulative assessments, quizzes, writing, projects, labs, presentations, discussions, and performance tasks. They will still develop study habits, time-management skills, test-taking strategies, and the ability to perform under pressure.
Cumulative assessment is already taking place throughout the school year. Students learn a concept, receive feedback, and encounter that material again alongside newer learning. In almost any textbook unit, you will find review questions that revisit previously taught skills, along with opportunities for students to apply those skills in new and more complex ways. This is already happening, and those opportunities are not going away. In my professional opinion, they will not only increase but also become more meaningful and student-centered.
Board Vice President Dr. Wilbur Pan raised an important question about whether teachers would still be able to use their professional judgment when a particular class could handle, or needed, more rigor and challenge.
This is exactly what the change allows. Teachers will have the flexibility to respond to the students sitting in front of them, while the district establishes clearer guidelines for the number and variety of assessments students must receive.
This is not permission to assess less. It is an opportunity to assess more purposefully.
The district summarized the goal well:
“We’re not asking less of our students. We’re just asking our assessments to tell us more.”
One statistic deserves particular attention. Approximately 73 percent of seniors were already exempt from taking all their final exams.
Many students whose families are now concerned about losing the experience of high-stakes testing were often no longer taking these exams by the end of high school. Keeping traditional finals did not guarantee that every student received that experience.
Higher-performing students were often exempt, while Tier 2 and Tier 3 students, those already needing more academic support, were more likely to take every exam.
The district also reported that approximately 27 percent of students failed at least one final, while the overall high school course failure rate was approximately 4 percent. For some students, one heavily weighted exam could affect a course average, future placement in academic and or extracurricular activities, and inherently affect their confidence in their ability to succeed.
That raises an important question. If finals are necessary preparation for future high-stakes testing, why were so many of our highest-performing students excused from taking them? Why was exemption viewed as a reward, while replacing finals with cumulative assessments is now being described as reducing rigor?
The old system did not provide students with equitable opportunities to experience and prepare for high-stakes testing. Instead, it distributed the burden unevenly, often placing the greatest pressure on students who were already struggling.
This speaks directly to a larger priority identified by the Board. Children’s mental health and well-being must remain at the forefront of decision-making. It is refreshing to see a Board of Education authentically identifying its “why” through action, not just words.
Research, Growth, and Communication
Dr. Tanious deserves credit for looking beyond East Brunswick while researching this change. She contacted school districts in Massachusetts, a state often compared with New Jersey educationally, and examined the history of the high school assessment model.
High schools largely inherited midterms and finals from universities. That does not automatically make them ineffective. It does make it reasonable to consider whether two heavily weighted exams remain the best approach for today’s students.
Dr. Pan also raised legitimate questions about preparing students for consequential exams in college, the trades, the military, and licensed professions. He listened to the responses and acknowledged that this change could recover eight to sixteen instructional days, potentially providing 5 to 10 percent more learning time.
Our children need to see adults asking difficult questions, listening to new information, and being willing to reconsider their assumptions. That is part of thoughtful leadership.
The district could have done a better job with its initial communication. Dr. Buscior’s presentation was detailed and informative, but families should have received that explanation before being asked to accept a major instructional change. Earlier communication may have prevented some of the confusion and concern.
The Future of East Brunswick High School
The other major issue discussed was the future of East Brunswick High School.
No one wants a referendum or a higher tax bill. However, avoiding a referendum is not necessarily the same as avoiding the expense altogether. Unfortunately, the expense itself is unavoidable.
The architects discussed maintaining the existing school, relocating the temporary classrooms, constructing a separate academy for ninth grade or another grade level, and building a new four-grade high school.
The preliminary estimates were:
- Up to approximately $300 million to maintain the existing high school.
- Approximately $323 million to maintain it while relocating the temporary classrooms.
- Approximately $386 million to maintain it while constructing a ninth-grade academy.
- Approximately $385 million to $425 million for a new four-grade high school.
These are preliminary figures, not final bids or tax calculations. Further planning, state approvals, possible debt-service aid, financing, and environmental reviews are still needed.
Still, maintaining the current school while adding a ninth-grade academy could cost about the same as the lower estimate for a new school. It would not reset the life cycle of the existing building or resolve all of its shared-space problems.
Board members asked the architects about capacity, traffic, asbestos, underground infrastructure, construction disruption, and future enrollment. Because the original plans showing what lies beneath the 1958 building are no longer available, renovation could uncover unexpected problems. A full renovation could also take six to eight years, affecting an entire generation of students.
The Board has not formally selected a plan, and the community must receive complete information before voting on any referendum. However, the discussion made it clear that maintaining the existing school is not a simple or inexpensive alternative.
One brief exchange also deserves attention. After seeing the new housing along Route 18, an architect from PSA, the firm presenting the plans, assumed that the development would expand the tax base and help offset school construction costs. He was quickly reminded, “No, no. PILOTs.”
Before any referendum vote, the community deserves a clear explanation of how development, enrollment growth, PILOT agreements, and school infrastructure costs connect.
Other Community Updates
Several other updates were shared toward the end of the meeting:
- ESL program: ESL Supervisor Mrs. DiBenedetti discussed East Brunswick’s multilingual learners, including areas of progress and areas where the district needs greater consistency. The presentation was informative and explanatory and received praise from the Board as a whole.
- Graduation location: East Brunswick High School’s graduation will move from the Cure Insurance Arena in Trenton to Jersey Mike’s Arena in Piscataway. Graduation is expected to move from June 18 to June 17, pending a calendar revision.
- Dual enrollment: Students can currently take a three-credit Middlesex College course for $150. Some pathways may allow students to earn transferable college credits or work toward an associate degree.
- Earlier information: The district is working to introduce dual-enrollment opportunities before students enter ninth grade, giving families more time to plan.
These updates reinforce the fact that our students will follow different paths and that our schools must prepare them for more than one definition of success.
The August 20 meeting showed a Board and administration willing to research, question, listen, and grow. They may not agree on every detail or every proposed solution, but that kind of thoughtful discussion is important.
Student-centered decision-making requires a Board of Education to look beyond any single outcome, tradition, or perspective and understand the educational ecosystem as it exists today. Our schools, our students, and the world they are preparing to enter are constantly changing. Effective leadership means recognizing that bigger picture and being progressive enough to navigate the path forward through that lens.
As the upcoming Board of Education election approaches, we should expect anyone seeking a place in this space to continue on that trajectory. Candidates should be prepared to ask difficult questions, listen to new information, and make decisions with the entire educational ecosystem in mind. Our district’s experiences over the past decade have shown us how important it is to have leadership that remains focused on the bigger picture and responsive to the changing needs of our students.
Whether we are discussing assessments, programs, communication, or a multimillion-dollar investment, the question guiding every decision should always be:
Does this serve all our children?
