135jc wrote:
Somerset has probably the lowest taxes in the state.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

greenville wrote:
If this happens, it would wreck JC. Christie needs to go back to sniff Donald Trump's rear and resign.

A lot of this is being pushed by suburban towns-many of them Democrat strongholds, like Maplewood/South Orange, the Montclairs, Dover, that are getting bled dry by funding Abbott schools and getting little state support. It's not just rich Morris and Somerset County towns that are getting squeezed and seeing Newark and JC get $1.5 billion dollar/year with abysmal graduation rates (while spending way over the state average as well per student).

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Maybe because spending more and more money hasn't been shown to result in improvements?? It's sure always easy to spend the money others have worked so hard to earn.

The best way out of poverty is proven to a) finish high school, b) don't have children out of wedlock, c) get a job, any job. If you don't do a), what do you think happens to b and c?

Since the 'war on poverty' began in the sixties more money has been spent than all the wars combined in our history, and poverty keeps winning. A, B, and C are the problems, not education funding.

So naturally the answer is "fuckem, they don't need books, heat, teachers, whatever". I'm all for cutting waste if you can find it, but from everything I've seen and heard, no one is getting a gold plated education in JC public school. I don't know where the money goes, but it sure doesn't show up in the classrooms or activities. But you're all in with "starve the beast", especially as you don't even live here and have to deal with the consequences.

I'm not saying that at all, and I agree that Christie's plan is a non-starter. But how about a plan that insists that local towns fund a minimum percentage of their own school costs? For all the talk of how JC is a melting pot, with lots of kids needing expensive ESL classes-well, it is the Latino and Asian kids that have much better graduation rates than our African American kids. And to an earlier point, JC graduation rates are only 5% higher than Newark kids-and JC is 15% lower than the state average, while spending 25% more per student than the state average.

Maybe begin with towns paying 33% of their own school costs (less than half of most suburban districts) and raise it a bit over time until it's 50%? That sounds equitable and, after all, shouldn't everyone pay their fair share?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Maybe because spending more and more money hasn't been shown to result in improvements?? It's sure always easy to spend the money others have worked so hard to earn.

The best way out of poverty is proven to a) finish high school, b) don't have children out of wedlock, c) get a job, any job. If you don't do a), what do you think happens to b and c?

Since the 'war on poverty' began in the sixties more money has been spent than all the wars combined in our history, and poverty keeps winning. A, B, and C are the problems, not education funding.

So naturally the answer is "fuckem, they don't need books, heat, teachers, whatever". I'm all for cutting waste if you can find it, but from everything I've seen and heard, no one is getting a gold plated education in JC public school. I don't know where the money goes, but it sure doesn't show up in the classrooms or activities. But you're all in with "starve the beast", especially as you don't even live here and have to deal with the consequences.

MattSchapiro wrote:
Quote:

by Monroe on 2016/6/21 20:22:31
...and seeing Newark and JC get $1.5 billion dollar/year with abysmal graduation rates (while spending way over the state average as well per student).

As a caveat, I am much more familiar with JC than Newark but it is foolish to equate the two school systems.

The Jersey City Public Schools have the benefit of an outstanding Superintendent and a flourishing population, both of which has dramatically improved student outcomes in our public schools.

Newark has a waning population and a fleet of half-empty public schools. Their trajectory is nowhere near as optimistic as ours.

Do the JC district schools still need improvement? Of course they do. But we are on the right track and don't let anybody paint all urban schools with the same broad, nasty brush.

Parents across the city of all backgrounds are seeing their children succeed here.

Monroe wrote:
Maybe because spending more and more money hasn't been shown to result in improvements?? It's sure always easy to spend the money others have worked so hard to earn.

The best way out of poverty is proven to a) finish high school, b) don't have children out of wedlock, c) get a job, any job. If you don't do a), what do you think happens to b and c?

Since the 'war on poverty' began in the sixties more money has been spent than all the wars combined in our history, and poverty keeps winning. A, B, and C are the problems, not education funding.

JPhurst wrote:
I really can't fathom what Christie is doing. Because there is a political constituency for redistributing aid. That would hurt Jersey City and some other Abbotts, but could possibly be passed on grounds of "fairness." This is so off the wall that it's hard to take seriously.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

greenville wrote:
If this happens, it would wreck JC. Christie needs to go back to sniff Donald Trump's rear and resign.

A lot of this is being pushed by suburban towns-many of them Democrat strongholds, like Maplewood/South Orange, the Montclairs, Dover, that are getting bled dry by funding Abbott schools and getting little state support. It's not just rich Morris and Somerset County towns that are getting squeezed and seeing Newark and JC get $1.5 billion dollar/year with abysmal graduation rates (while spending way over the state average as well per student).

by Monroe on 2016/6/21 20:22:31
...and seeing Newark and JC get $1.5 billion dollar/year with abysmal graduation rates (while spending way over the state average as well per student).

greenville wrote:
If this happens, it would wreck JC. Christie needs to go back to sniff Donald Trump's rear and resign.

JPhurst wrote:
I am confident that Christie's proposal is a non-starter.

First, even between Republicans and Sweeneycrats in Trenton, this will probably not have a lot of support.

Second, the New Jersey Supreme Court will not allow it.

When the Court allowed the School Funding Reform Act (Abbott XX), it was based on the finding that the legislature and executive had developed a formula that remedied the defects that led to the Abbott line of decisions. Replacing this with a formula that ignores the needs of poorer students and urban districts ignores the entire line of cases, which the Court has made clear is grounded in a Constitutional mandate.

If Christie/Sweeney were serious about reallocating aid to districts based on appropriate need, the Court might buy it. But this is just Christie being a blowhard. Being Trump's cabana boy has rubbed off on him.

stateaidguy wrote:
If NJ had a hypothetical equal tax rate, 100% state funding system there are plenty of suburbs whose taxes would be lower.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Suntime wrote:
The irony being that the only real "winners"
Are the wealthy developers that are the beneficiaries of this tax abatement welfare from the city. Children lose out, the average homeowner is then expected to pay more, and the developers line their pockets at jc's expense and retreat to their mansions in the burbs, taking all of their $$ with then. My point being that the residents of the suburbs are the ones that abuse the system to their advantage and our detriment.

I don't agree, I think the system is set up to be cage match getting us at each other's throats. Imagine the suburban hysteria if we got rid of the local schools tax and the entire local+state funding system and just had the state collect enough to distribute the funds equitably to each town according to their population, perhaps using the SFRA formula.

While we're fantasizing, lets consolidate the ridiculous number of districts. A commenter on Ciatterelli's letter posted this observant comparison:

There's nothing complex about it.

NJ 8,722.58 sq mi
FL 65,755 sq mi
NJ pop. 8,958,013
FL pop. 20,271,272
NJ has 591 school districts
FL has 57 school districts
NJ has 565 incorporated municipalities
FL has 410 incorporated municipalities
NJ has 466 local police departments
FL has less than 300 local police departments
NJ 21 counties
Fl 67 counties

We in NJ waste a STUPENDOUS amount of money on local control of all these services.

Suntime wrote:
The irony being that the only real "winners"
Are the wealthy developers that are the beneficiaries of this tax abatement welfare from the city. Children lose out, the average homeowner is then expected to pay more, and the developers line their pockets at jc's expense and retreat to their mansions in the burbs, taking all of their $$ with then. My point being that the residents of the suburbs are the ones that abuse the system to their advantage and our detriment.

brewster wrote:
So if this SFRA system is perfectly balanced to determine aid and accounts for socioeconomic differences and special needs students, why then was Abbott created?