Where is this extra $8-9K per student going? Think about it.

No. Honestly, I don't.

It's just a tough situation. I want to say, "Well, just take the money from somewhere else - some other agency, or something," but that has implications, too, and that wouldn't be fair. People would suffer. Services would suffer. There are no easy answers, especially in this economy.

The charter schools have a right to the legislated funding. I don't believe the schools are recommending one method over another how this is to be accomplished. Just asking for the monies to which they are entitled. And no one wants to take funds away from the classroom in district schools either. But do you honestly believe that the JCBOE administrative budget is "lean and mean"?

Thank you. I was not aware until now about the percentage of underfunding compared to the original concept.

Now, not to make it into a game of 20 questions, but these additional funds would be deducted directly from the JCBOE budget, correct? I recall hearing that JCBOE allocates monies from their budget to cover the costs of funding charter schools (underfunded as they may be), but I am not 100% sure if this is correct. In other words, this is not a request by charter schools for additional funding (which could require a tax hike), it's just more of a (to keep the image simple in my mind) tug-of-war between public and charter schools over already existing funding and how it gets spent. I know this is probably remedial stuff for the people who have more knowledge about the situation.

Although maybe not the most eloquent visualization, would this be the general concept? My main concern is about where the funds would come from. I mean, it's not that I'd like another tax hike, I don't think anyone would, but at the same time, I don't feel warm and fuzzy about taking funding away from kids, either. I don't think the kids in the public schools have it too easy. I wish there was a magic pot of gold somewhere where everyone could be funded properly without anyone having to suffer, but of course, that's just never going to happen. The whole thing is so complicated. I wish we could take good care of all our kids all the time.

Yes. I think probably better said as "more equitable". While 90% is the law, I think some charter schools would be thrilled just to reach 60 or 70%. While they should be cheaper than traditional public schools, only receiving 50% is asking a bit much. Tonight is asking for the law that is written to be enforced.

OK, having just read a couple articles, is the issue on the table tonight about the original idea that charter schools would receive 90% of the funding that the traditional public schools are allocated per student? It appears that the charter schools have not ever been given that 90%.

Is the term equitable funding being used in reference to getting up to that 90% figure, or does it mean 100%?


edit to add - THank you, K-Lo for the informative reply above! I think we were typing simultaneously. That does answer my questions. Thanks!

By statute, charter schools are supposed to receive 90% of the per child funding of the district schools. The 10% is supposed to defray the district's administrative costs (and appease the NJEA). The current JC funding per child is over $17K. Therefore, the charter school funding should be over $15K per student, instead of the current $9K or 50%.
And as we all know by now, unlike district schools, charter schools have to pay from their own building facilities out of that sum (another sop to the NJEA).

Charters were set up as alternatives to the district schools -- as educational laboratories and recognition that one size does not fit all children. They were not set up to be so underfunded as to fail.

I'll admit I'm not up on the funding formulae nor what the specific issue on the table tonight might be, but on the face of it (from the title of this topic), it sounds like charter schools are asking for the same funding per student that public schools receive.

Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of having charter schools to begin with? I thought they were supposed to be so much better for so much less money. Has it just become and issue of "better" but not cost efficiency?

Since charter schools operate independent of the superintendent and the related infrastructure, if approved, where would the additional monies be directed?

Again, I admit my ignorance on this topic, and it's not meant as a bash post. It's just curiosity, and to be honest, when people are asking for more money in an economy like this, it sounds like a tax hike could be needed to fund it. The taxes are almost crippling already.

I will go try to find some additional info and enlighten myself. I'm sure it's a complicated situation that I may only see the tip of the iceberg. If anyone has any additional info to add that could help clarify the positions involved, it would be most appreciated. I'd really like to understand the situation as clearly as possible.

Thanks.

Before everyone else says it...Charter schools are public schools

Traditional public schools average in NJ is I believe somewhere around $17,000-18,000 (perhaps higher for JC - not sure)

Learning Community Charter School funding is I believe $8,000-9,000

what is the cost per pupil right now for the charter schools? I know the public schools are something the order of $20k annually.

Just received the following email from Shelley Skinner:

The City Council vote on equitable funding for Jersey City charter schools is still on for this evening. I hope to see you all there to support this important vote for the 3600 kids in Jersey City charter schools!

Where: City Hall
280 Grove Street

When: January 12th @ 6pm

Feel free to call me if you have any questions.

Shelley Skinner