Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
53 user(s) are online (32 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 53

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 7 »


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
Yesterday 11:22
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4451
Offline
Does anyone think the level of corruption and graft at the JC BOE is any lower than at any other municipal department in JC? Recreation, JCIA, the Parking Authority, the PD come to mind.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 23:05
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
You ask a question. Answers are provided and you summarily ignore them.

You should attend a BoE meeting and ask such questions publicly at the the boe meeting.

Before you do, I will respond one more time for YOUR benefit. You state incorrectly that our janitors are the highest paid in the state and country.

One can access salary data crom the school district's open doc website and see that is defintely not the case. The link you provided is for total maintenace costs, which include other expenses than salry and benefits. Your comments are ignorant and misleading.

The school district pays most of its "capital expenditures" out of its operating budget. With that, that inflates maintenance costs as reported by the state boe website. The JCPS schools are costly to maintain because of their age. That's it in a nutshell. It's really nothing scandolous. Sorry.

As for the low median household income for JC, that only reinforces the argument for Abbott district funding.


Posted on: 2018/6/5 23:02
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
8/4 21:23
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5601
Offline
Quote:

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.


Surely you must admit that the purpose of Abbott wasn't so that we could have the among the best paid janitors and the lowest funded extracurriculars in the state?

Posted on: 2018/6/5 20:42
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
8/4 1:46
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1390
Offline
Any school district, particularly one of Jersey City's size, is going to have to be different things to different people. It needs to take its most talented and accomplished and prepare them for an elite university education. It needs to take those that struggle the most and get them up to proficiency, and possibly the elite level as well! So yes you will have your gifted schools like McNair, alternative programs for those who need it, and everywhere in between.

McNair's success can be celebrated, even as we try to bring up the graduation rates at the other schools. I don't think either of those points affects the needs that were documented in Abbott.

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.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 20:34
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
Yesterday 11:22
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4451
Offline
Quote:

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)

Resized Image


Because Liberty isn't a traditional high school, but a joint venture with Hudson County Community College-with an enrollment of around 200 students. Infinity is also a magnet school with an admission exam, and also partners with HCCC.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 19:25
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
8/4 21:23
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5601
Offline
Quote:

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.


Jersey City ranked 597 of 702 incorporated areas and census-designated places in New Jersey ranked by per capita income based on the 2000 United States Census. Granted that's a little stale, but hasn't changed that much, from $27,512 to 34,887 in 2016, in 2016 dollars. So why are our janitors the best paid in the state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... ions_by_per_capita_income

Posted on: 2018/6/5 19:20
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 18:37
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
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)

Resized Image

Posted on: 2018/6/5 18:32
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
8/4 21:23
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5601
Offline
Quote:

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?


Why don't you look for yourself?

Salaries and Benefits for Operations and Maintenance of Plant
Per Pupil Amount (2016-17 budget): $1,775
Per Pupil Ranking Within Group* (2016-17 budget): 100|101
% of Budgetary Cost Per Pupil (2016-17): 9.9%

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.

http://www.nj.gov/cgi-bin/education/c ... dist_code2390&maxhits=650

Posted on: 2018/6/5 18:03
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2010/5/26 20:32
Last Login :
3/11 14:36
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 205
Offline
Quote:

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.


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.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 18:01
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
Quote:

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


Because the school district's buildings are much older than nearly all other school districts. Start counting how many of its schools are over a century in age - you may run out of fingers doing so. Also, look at the school district's capital budget - that will raise an eyebrow.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 17:54
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
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. Innumeracy personified.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 17:50
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/11/10 4:48
Last Login :
Yesterday 12:48
From Chilltop, Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 426
Offline
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?

Posted on: 2018/6/5 17:09
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
8/4 21:23
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5601
Offline
Monroe, you'd be more credible if you focused on how the money is spent rather than graduation rates. To me the fact that we spend at the top for maintenance salaries yet near the bottom on extracurriculars, the things like arts and sports that motivates kids to stay in school and see it as a positive, is far more salient. Paying staff more in an already high paying state does not obviously improve outcomes, and I doubt that's what Abbott was intended to primarily do.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 17:00
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
Yesterday 11:22
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4451
Offline
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%

JC (well, NJ taxpayers mostly) spends just shy of 20% more per student than the state average.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 16:37
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
8/4 1:46
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1390
Offline
The fallacy is that SFRA numbers somehow are the be all and end all of what districts and their students need. It's the same as saying the Supreme Court's opinion is just an "opinion."

The Supreme Court's opinion is based on documented findings of fact and conclusions of law. Similarly, SFRA is a legislative judgment. Can we question the Supreme Court's opinion? Sure, just as we can question the cluster#*@7 that is the SFRA, which tried to cram square pegs into round holes.

And of course, you question the SFRA too. Because Adjustment Aid was made part of the SFRA, so it cannot be counter to its purpose. But you seem to eliminate the parts of it you don't like while proclaiming the sanctity of the rest.

But the mask is slipping off. This is no longer about treating others fairly. It is an attempt to overrule Abbott entirely.
Abbott, along with Mr. Laurel, were the two major civil rights cases in modern New Jersey history. Implement them, completely. And if the state wants to bring others up to par as well, that's fine and good. Not one at the expense of the other.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 16:29
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
"Jersey City high schools are among the worst in the state..." and then you cherry-pick using Ferris High School. How convenient. Why not include McNair?

Posted on: 2018/6/5 16:20
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
Yesterday 11:22
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4451
Offline
I think what we all should agree on is that the basic theme of Abbott, to throw more money and resources to these school districts, has been an almost complete and utter failure.

Jersey City high schools are among the worst in the state, despite much higher than state average spending. Same with virtually every other Abbott district.

This resource (I'm using Ferris HS) gives you all the information you need to confirm that. Despite spending $4,000 more per student than the state average, and having a student teacher ratio of 10/1 vs the state average of 12/1, Ferris graduates less than 60% of its students-far below the state average of 94%.

https://www.publicschoolreview.com/jam ... erris-high-school-profile

Posted on: 2018/6/5 16:10
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
Quote:

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.


That's not necessary. However, understanding what was originally written is.

The point is, a higher superintendent's salary favors higher salaries for those "non-teaching admin staff" within the same school district. Capiche?

Posted on: 2018/6/5 16:03
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
Correct all around, except, Brown vs. Board of Education was decided in 1954. (Sorry. That date was drilled into on me for the high school state regent's exam).

Posted on: 2018/6/5 15:58
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/10/21 0:40
Last Login :
2019/5/15 18:48
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 135
Offline
JPHurst,

An "Appeal to Authority" is a fallacy when someone uses the opinion of an authority figure or institution in place of an actual argument. Since you don't talk about Jersey City's tax base and demographic needs, and you don't present a plan by which NJ could fully fund SFRA without redistributing Adjustment Aid, your argument fits the definition of "Appeal to Authority" perfectly.

In JPHurst's logic, if an argument is correct if the NJ Supreme Court makes it, then, by the same token, whatever conservative holdings the US Supreme Court comes down are automatically correct too. Thus, Citizens United was correctly decided, Epic Systems was correctly decided, and if Mark Janus wins his case over mandatory agency fees, that is correctly decided as well. On the NJ level, in Hurstian logic, Berg v Christie and Burgos v New Jersey are correct as well.

Yes, legally, a Supreme Court has the authority to make decisions, but its decisions are subject to the same scrutiny and criticism as anyone else's, especially when those decisions are 28 years old and the conditions they were written under have changed. A Supreme Court's decision has to be obeyed, but it is completely legitimate to challenge it and try to change it by legally-established means, of which legislation is the most valid.

Indeed you are historically correct, in 1990 the NJ Supreme Court said that Jersey City and the other Abbotts had to have a certain amount of state aid, but that doesn't mean that the Supreme Court was correct even then, and it certainly doesn't mean that that "remedy" is correct now.

"It is no different than State Aid Guy pulling numbers out of his tuckus from SFRA and calling them dispositive."

Were you bad at math in school or something that mathematical evidence has no weight for you?

I don't make up any numbers. I get the data on state aid disparities from the Department of Education, which bases its calculations on economic figures from the Department of the Treasury (Equalized Valuation & Aggregate Income) and the districts' self-reporting on their demographics.

The only things I do are calculate what a district's deficit is per student and what percentage of a district's recommended state aid it gets. That's just subtraction and division, ie arithmetic.

The problem with Adjustment Aid is that it overrides whatever amount of money the core formulas of SFRA say a district should get, and replaces a calculation based on current conditions with whatever arbitrary amount of state aid a district got in 2008-09.

Sweeney doesn't purport to be an education expert, but he understands SFRA and he knows that Adjustment Aid contradicts the intention of SFRA. He is a duly elected official, acting without any conflict of interest, and has every right to try to change state aid.




Quote:

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.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 15:58
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
8/4 1:46
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1390
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 15:13
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
Yesterday 11:22
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4451
Offline
JPHurst choosing Maplewood/South Orange as an example is pretty interesting. He must not know that the combined HS (grammar and middle aren't combined) was created in 1894, which was before Maplewood and South Orange ever became separate towns! And oh, btw, the percentage of minority students at Columbia High School is actually 55%, which is above the state average for high schools. Not exactly a segregated high school. And they've suffered from spending cuts-with a flat school population they've had to shed 5% of teachers in the last 5 years, and because of that the student/teacher ratio has risen to 13/1, above the state average of 12/1. They spend about $17,800 per student vs the state average of $20,570-with a graduation rate that has risen from 87 to 90% over the last five years, despite funding issues and less teachers.

To sum up, trying to make M/SO schools as being exclusionary and segregated vis a vis the nearby Orange HS is kinda silly-besides, Irvington HS is actually closer to Columbia than Orange.

And a few quick points on Orange HS.

Its student/teacher ratio is much better than Columbia, at 10/1.
It spends a ton more money per student, at $24,350!
The graduation rate is an abysmal 74%, 20% below the state average.
Unlike Columbia HS losing teachers over the last five years, Orange has gained 8% more-both schools student population have remained flat.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 14:48
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2017/9/21 1:56
Last Login :
7/20 23:12
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 184
Offline
Quote:

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.


Ahhhhh come on. Reach across the aisle! Be a uniter!

Posted on: 2018/6/5 14:46
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 22:42
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 956
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 14:44
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2017/9/21 1:56
Last Login :
7/20 23:12
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 184
Offline
I nominate myself to buy a round of drinks for Stateaidguy and Monroe, for bringing facts and rationality to the discussion.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 14:22
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/10/21 0:40
Last Login :
2019/5/15 18:48
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 135
Offline
Quote:

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."

-------


Poor JPHurst, when all his statements turn out to be erroneous, all his has left is the Appeal to Authority.

1. Abbott II was in 1990. It has always been controversial, even among Democrats, hence, in 2008, the Democrats altered and ended the school funding regime Abbott II established in SFRA.

There are ten other state constitutions that say "thorough and efficient" in reference to education. That not one of the other states that has the same constitutional language has an equivalent to Abbott should tell you that Abbott derives more from the mind of Robert Wilentz than it does from NJ's Constitution itself.

1a. The people who decided Abbott are lawyers, not education experts, anyway.

2. One basis of the Abbott decisions were that the Abbotts had "municipal overburden," ie, they did not have the capacity to raise taxes more to support their schools. The lack of municipal overburden was actually what excluded Atlantic City from the Abbott list, even though Atlantic City met the two criteria that were used for Abbottization.

It turns out that the Abbotts didn't have NJ's worst municipal overburden anyway even in 1990, but that description would not remotely apply to Jersey City today, since Jersey City's school tax rate is about 0.45, which is barely a third of NJ's average, and Jersey City's all-in tax rate of 1.6 is significantly below NJ's 2.4 average.

3. Abbott was Superseded by SFRA in 2008

As mentioned above, SFRA changed the allocation of K-12 aid. SFRA creates very high Adequacy Budgets for all high-FRL districts, but it disestablished the Parity Plus doctrine.

Against the demands of the Education Law Center, the Supreme Court approved SFRA unanimously in 2009 in Abbott XX.

In approving SFRA, the Supreme Court only required that SFRA be fully funded for three years. (which wasn't met for non-Abbotts)

Three years have now passed. SFRA is now ten years old.

4. The Exclusion of Small High-FRL districts was Central Flaw of Abbott

The Abbott list was created by taking districts who were in DFG A or B AND categorized as "urban municipalities" by the Department of Community Affairs.

The DOCA's definition of "urban" was imperfect because it is impossible to rigidly demarcate urban from suburban. One major flaw of the DOCA's definition of "urban" was a population minimum.

Weirdly, several districts the average person would consider rural, like Pemberton, Millville, and Phillipsburg, were considered "urban" in the DOCA's eyes and were thus Abbottized.

Hence, the majority of NJ's poorest districts were excluded from Abbott, including some of the densest poor districts, like the non-Abbotts of Hudson County. You could not tell the difference between Guttenberg and West New York by walking through them, but if you looked at the schools the difference would be very stark.

Also, the state's listing of DFGs was out-of-date, since it was based on the 1980 Census. Had the Abbott II decision came out in 1991, North Bergen, Guttenberg, Kearny, Bayonne, Wallington, Carteret, Fairview, Dover, and Lakewood would have become Abbotts.


In conclusion, the Abbott list was created by non-experts, expressing an opinion, and has been legally superseded by subsequent statute and litigation. The Abbott list was always arbitrary, hence the passage of SFRA.

It's time to adjust NJ's state aid to the reality of 2018, not 1990.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 14:04
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2017/9/21 1:56
Last Login :
7/20 23:12
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 184
Offline
LOL, what year was Abbott vs Burke? Oh yeah, 1985. Time to update that.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 2:25
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3793
Offline
Quote:

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.


This is a TOTAL BS assertion. I challenge you to even try and find a source that can back up your claim.

And, by the way, the idea that renters do not pay taxes is simply a false claim: renters pay taxes through their monthly rent payments. How do you think landlords (small, and large) pay their tax bills? Get a clue.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 2:21
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/7/13 15:03
Last Login :
8/6 16:03
From Western Slope
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4422
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2018/6/5 1:39
Get on your bikes and ride !
Top




« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 7 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017