JPhurst wrote:
Finally, throughout the various Abbott opinions it has been acknowledged that funding alone will not solve the problem. In the most recent decision Christie tried to reopen the entire line of cases and claim that funding doesn't solve the problem. The court's response is that funding alone wont do it, but funding is a necessary part of it.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

Kids that attend McNair probably have opportunities to go to private schools outside of the district, and McNair's prestige keeps them in the public school system.

Sure "probably", ehemm - no fallacy there - of course not.

How about kids at Liberty or Infinity High Schools in Jersey City? Why weren't they listed? (hint: they perform pretty well for an urban high school)

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
[quote]
That "100|101" means we spend more than 99 of 101 large NJ districts on operations salaries, which of course means we spend more than almost anyone in the country.

Ok, and... you do realize that NJ has the 2nd highest or so median household income in the country, too, with Northern NJ towing the South in that statistic.

brewster wrote:
[quote]
That "100|101" means we spend more than 99 of 101 large NJ districts on operations salaries, which of course means we spend more than almost anyone in the country.

Kids that attend McNair probably have opportunities to go to private schools outside of the district, and McNair's prestige keeps them in the public school system.

Bike_Lane wrote:
How much of this "more than average" spending is just the cost of providing two free meals a day to __% of the students in the system, versus the cost of actually providing the education?

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because it's a magnet school. Its graduation rate is 100%, and that 100% rate is what keeps the overall JC graduation rate at 75%, almost 20% under the state average.
Individually
Dickinson 78%
Ferris 75%
Lincoln 69%
Snyder 51%

It's a magnet school for students that reside in Jersey City, only. If the student is not attending McNair, then they are attending one of the other high schools you listed.

brewster wrote:
To me the fact that we spend at the top for maintenance salaries...

Monroe wrote:
Because it's a magnet school. Its graduation rate is 100%, and that 100% rate is what keeps the overall JC graduation rate at 75%, almost 20% under the state average.
Individually
Dickinson 78%
Ferris 75%
Lincoln 69%
Snyder 51%

Monroe wrote:
[quote]
I'll research it later, but between when I was in high school and my kids were in high school I'd say there was 2-3X the number of non-teaching admin staff (in the same HS). This weighs much more financially than the salary of, say, a superintendent.

JPhurst wrote:
State Aid Guy, who replaces facts with insults and snarkiness when exposed, doesn't understand what "Appeal To Authority" means. It is a logical fallacy that cites someone else's support for a proposition, with no other evidence, for the truth of the proposition.

It is not an "Appeal to Authority" (in the fallacious sense) to cite a tribunal that has made findings of fact and conclusions of law that create a claim of right.. In this case, the "authority" is being cited because it is a Constitutionally binding NJ Supreme Court decision that made findings of fact and implemented specific mandates (that were never met). It is no different than State Aid Guy pulling numbers out of his tuckus from SFRA and calling them dispositive.

Abbott was not "decided by lawyers." It was decided by Justices. Because, you know, those are the people who are authorized to make such decisions.

And do you think the outlandishly corrupt Steve Sweeney is an "education expert"?

Brown vs. Board of Education was decided in 1964. It is no less relevant today, and there are plenty of schools that are under such decades old decrees.

In any event, the reason it has been so long since Abbott (and it's 1990, not 1985, because Abbott II is the key decision here) is because prior to ordering these mandates, the Courts gave the state legislature every opportunity to develop remedies on their own. It was only in the absence of that that the Court decided to order its own remedies, which the other branches of government followed kicking and screaming, and which they never fully implemented anyway. As Justice LaVecchia explained in 2011.

"It begins with the 1990 decision in Abbott II, and shows the forbearance with which this Court awaited, for years, the State s development of a constitutionally sound method of funding for disadvantaged pupils before specific remedial orders had to be imposed:"

SFRA did not eliminate the obligations in prior Abbott decisions, and was found Constitutional on the basis that it did not prejudice the Abbotts.

And when the state legislature failed to properly fund the school formula, the Supreme Court took it up again in 2011. The Court ruled that a) the legislature was obliged to fully fund the SFRA BUT b) the case that brought the issue to them only gave them jurisdiction over the districts that were covered under Abbott v. Burke. That is, in part, one reason the disparity exists. Personally, I would have preferred that the Court order funding of the whole formula, as did Justice Albin. But then again, it was Jersey City and the other Abbotts that actually did the work to demonstrate the deficiencies in education, proved that the NJ Constitution was violated, and led to the increase in state aid. 205 other school districts now running from behind clamoring "Hey that looks good, I want some too!" is all fine and well, until it interferes with the obligations to those parties that were originally covered under Abbott.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
I nominate myself to buy a round of drinks for Stateaidguy and Monroe, for bringing facts and rationality to the discussion.

I second that nomination, for stateaidguy anyway.

HeightsNative wrote:
I nominate myself to buy a round of drinks for Stateaidguy and Monroe, for bringing facts and rationality to the discussion.

JPhurst wrote:
From the NJ Supreme Court's decision in Abbott v. Burke II.

These are documented findings, not games with spreadsheets. When the legislature passed SFRA, the court subsequently held it permissible, but that did not abolish the obligations to the Abbott districts.. SFRA was designed to help other districts, but not at the expense of those districts that had proven the deficiencies at issue.

Interesting comparison between South Orange/Maplewood and East Orange. Interesting how the former district saw the benefits of consolidation, but not when it came to actually taking on poorer and minority students.

Create the Unified Oranges School District first, then we can figure out how much aid it needs.

I have no problem with other poorer districts making the case that they are, in fact, deprived of the state's constitutional obligation. I also am more inclined to support districts that have been designed to end segregation, like Morris School District, then those who remain segregated. I absolutely oppose SFRA being used to eliminate pre-existing obligations to the districts that proved their case, demonstrated need, and ultimately led to other districts that didn't do that clamoring for "me too."

-------

heights wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Easy peasy. Let JC tax its residents to support such computer literacy programs as Princeton and Millburn do. Not only do Princeton and Millburn pay almost 90% of their own school costs, they do so at a far cheaper cost per student than JC, Asbury Park, East Orange/Orange, Camden, and similar schools. Just having JC taxpayers paying their fair share would free up a couple HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS a year to pay for such programs. Why do JC taxpayers refuse to support their own children, that's the question you should answer.

Most of the tax payers do not have children in the schools it is the residents paying rent that do.

Monroe wrote:
Easy peasy. Let JC tax its residents to support such computer literacy programs as Princeton and Millburn do. Not only do Princeton and Millburn pay almost 90% of their own school costs, they do so at a far cheaper cost per student than JC, Asbury Park, East Orange/Orange, Camden, and similar schools. Just having JC taxpayers paying their fair share would free up a couple HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS a year to pay for such programs. Why do JC taxpayers refuse to support their own children, that's the question you should answer.