Holmdel BOE Must Refocus on Students, Fiscal Responsibility and Professionalism

At the August 19 Holmdel Board of Education meeting, several important issues were discussed. My principal takeaway, however, was that the Board spent too little time on the challenge that could affect nearly every student, teacher and taxpayer: the district's continuing structural deficit.

Earlier this year, Holmdel approved a 2026–27 budget that included an approximately 7% school-tax increase, staff reductions and the elimination of courtesy busing. The district has also acknowledged that significant financial challenges remain and that future budget cycles will require difficult decisions.

Subscribe

That reality should have been a central focus of the meeting. Although no Board can predict every future expense, it can publicly track the assumptions, risks, savings initiatives and decision points that will shape the next budget. Taxpayers deserve regular progress reports on what is being done now to prevent another crisis. Strong schools and affordable taxes can coexist, but only when leaders plan beyond the next meeting or budget vote.

Voting records also matter. Alison LoPresti and Anthony Libecci were the only Board members to vote against⁠ the final budget containing the tax increase. Joanne Lam, Brittany Manning and Greg Fernandez—who ran together in 2025 as "Education Not Politics"⁠—voted with the majority. Our opponents—Jayme Lowenstein, Jennifer Ashkar and Deborah Wilson—initially filed under that same slogan⁠ before changing it to "Advocates For Education."⁠ In my analysis, unless they reject that record and offer a credible alternative, residents should expect the same fiscal direction—and prepare for another school-tax increase.

The discussion about returning tests and assessments also missed the central question: What educational outcome are we trying to achieve?

Students need meaningful feedback. They should understand what they got wrong, why they got it wrong and how to improve. Teachers and parents need enough information to identify learning gaps, provide additional resources and help students improve. But permanently distributing reusable assessments can turn a learning tool into a future answer key.

During the discussion, Board member Surekha Collur pointed to higher school taxes and the elimination of courtesy busing while supporting parents receiving physical copies of tests. I understand the frustration behind that position. Taxpayers are being asked to pay more while the district has reduced a visible service. Nevertheless, those budget facts do not logically determine sound assessment policy.

A tax increase does not make a reusable exam less secure, and eliminating courtesy busing does not prove that distributing test questions improves learning. The argument begins with real facts—higher taxes and reduced services—but reaches a conclusion those facts do not establish. A position may be popular with some parents without being educationally sound.

A better policy would establish a consistent review process. Students could receive their scores, standards-based feedback, teacher-led review, opportunities to correct mistakes and targeted instructional resources. Parents should be able to review results, understand areas of concern and discuss them with teachers. When an assessment may be reused, however, copies should remain secure. Parent access and permanent possession are not the same thing.

That is not withholding information or avoiding accountability. It protects fairness and academic integrity. No student should gain an advantage because an older sibling, friend or tutor retained a copy of a test. College admissions and academic recognition should reflect genuine effort and achievement—not privileged access to recycled questions. Assessment policies should help students improve while preserving a level playing field.

Finally, I was disappointed by the tone and conduct displayed during portions of the meeting, particularly in exchanges involving Board members Joanne Lam & Brittany Manning to Superintendent Cascone, Peter Reddy & Kimberly Tuccillo . In my view, thoughtful disagreement too often gave way to personal grievances, "gotcha" exchanges, emotionally charged accusations, speculation about motives and sweeping claims about transparency without clearly presented evidence.

Transparency is essential, and Board members must ask difficult questions. Serious oversight, however, requires facts, logical arguments, professionalism and mutual respect. Repeating accusations is not a substitute for evidence. Raising one's voice does not strengthen an argument. Personal conflict should never overshadow the institution the Board was elected to serve.

The Board's primary responsibility is not to individual personalities, factions, personal agendas, or winning the next exchange. It is to Holmdel's students, teachers, schools and taxpayers. Every discussion should be measured against that responsibility.

Holmdel can preserve its excellence, but doing so will require strong leadership, fiscal responsibility and professionalism. The standard should be straightforward: Does this decision benefit students, support teachers, strengthen the district and respect taxpayers?

Our community deserves a Board that puts students first, facts first and the institution first.

Peter Hayden is a candidate for the Holmdel Board of Education.