Christie proposes new school funding formula
This would be fantastic, but would likely have to be accompanied by a shift to funding via income rather than property taxes. The NY model.
He proposes a massive redistribution of state aid away from poor districts, and to middle and upper income districts, announced by basically saying "urban districts are doing a poor job, so let's slash their funding".
This feels like grandstanding by a failed presidential candidate who wants his NJ reputation back. But he has proposed it as a constitutional amendment, to be decided by voters, so I'm not sure what the legal status would be if we were craven enough to pass it.
Also note that the amendment would require that 98% of the extra funding go to property tax relief, so we wouldn't have the option of using some of it to repair the sad state of our school budget.
The database in the article says that it would increase our District's state aid almost 10-fold (but at the expense of NJ's poorest children, and the cost of our immortal souls....).
I think it is also interesting that he is proposing it for the 2017 ballot, so that it would be at the same time as the next election for Governor. I guess he thinks it would drive up Republican participation more than Democratic?
Bleech...I guess the man is too lazy/busy to propose something that is thoughtful or fair?
He isn't proposing a shift in models, but more of a f---the-poor approach. Cut Camden's funding by 78% and somehow they will fix all of the ills of their system.
jimmurphy said:
This would be fantastic, but would likely have to be accompanied by a shift to funding via income rather than property taxes. The NY model.
I'm not even sure of that, since what would be left in the urban per-student budgets might not be enough to attract Charter operators...
wharfrat said:
Great way to destroy public schools and spur new charter schools.
susan1014 said:
He isn't proposing a shift in models, but more of a f---the-poor approach. Cut Camden's funding by 78% and somehow they will fix all of the ills of their system.
jimmurphy said:
This would be fantastic, but would likely have to be accompanied by a shift to funding via income rather than property taxes. The NY model.
Understood, hence my caveat. Knowing it would never happen under Christie.
We need relief, but not this way. It also gives no consideration of special Ed population.
sac said:
We need relief, but not this way. It also gives no consideration of special Ed population.
"Of course, we will make sure that we have the aid for special needs students so that they may reach their potential too. They are the exception though; the overwhelming majority of students deserve the Fairness Formula and we intend to pursue it for them."
The news article I linked to did not include his entire speech which can be found here.
http://politickernj.com/2016/06/governor-chris-christies-speech-on-the-fairness-formula-as-prepared-for-delivery/
Can he really think that this is good? Is he just dead set on ruining this state?
In 2014-2015, Camden got $279,847,597 in state aid. With 11,620 students that's $25,000 per student. SOMA got $4,216,218 for roughly 7,000 students giving a rate of $602 per student.
What happens to Camden with this plan?
11,620 students at a fixed $6,599 per student gets them $76,680,380. They have close to no local tax contribution and their state aid decreases so they do not follow the 98% rule.
What happens to SOMA?
7,000 students at the same rate is $46,193,000 so SOMA goes up in aid by a factor of ten. SOMA's state aid contribution will increase, so 98% goes to local tax relief on a current value of $120,000,000 bringing a supposed tax impact to roughly $75,000,000 and leaving $923,860 in state aid money available to the district.
Sucks for the cities and good for SOMA. But paying Camden, for example, what, another 10, 20, 30k per, is the answer? They're getting between 25 and 30k per student already and have a 63% grad rate. There comes a time when SOMETHING has to give.
Maybe the NJEA can come up with one, besides the constant refrain of fully funding SFRA. All I saw recently was their opposition to S-2372 and no alternatives, and today's predictable negative response. Oh, and no charters. That seems to be a common theme.
Christie's proposal is DOA. Sweeney took not even an hour to condemn it, Prieto was just behind him. I doubt that many Republicans will even support this. Republicans who are active on state aid, like Jack Ciattarelli, Jennifer Beck, and Declan O'Scanlon, want a flatter aid distribution, but accept progressivity.
I was extremely depressed by Christie's speech because he ignored the major unfairness of Abbott which is how it hurts poor non-Abbotts and working class districts. Since the Abbotts get so much and state finances are limited, these districts get much less than they need. Sometimes poor non-Abbotts get not even a quarter of what their Abbott peers get and usually nothing for Pre-K and next to nothing for construction. There wasn't a single reference in Christie's speech to what districts like Freehold Boro, Bound Brook, Clifton, Manville, and now Atlantic City go through.
My fears now are that Christie will veto Sweeney's state aid bill (which passed the Senate Ed committee unanimously) and that Christie's position will distract the public from the real problems in state aid and pragmatic fixes to it.
Christie has also been wildly erratic on state aid. He cut every district's aid by 4.9% of its budget in 2010, no matter how badly aided it was, but then rebuilt aid progressively. He came in condemning Abbott, but never suggested a reasonable alternative. In 2012 Christie actually proposed, and followed through on for one year, cutting Adjustment Aid. After that Christie created "Additional Adjustment Aid" which even protected Interdistrict Choice districts and pays districts for non-existent students.
Christie condemns Abbott, but he also shows up at school openings in Abbott districts where the state has paid for 100% of construction. He has been totally incoherent.
I'm actually convinced this is a bargaining baseline. I hope I'm right.
royg said:
In 2014-2015, Camden got $279,847,597 in state aid. With 11,620 students that's $25,000 per student. SOMA got $4,216,218 for roughly 7,000 students giving a rate of $602 per student.
What happens to Camden with this plan?
11,620 students at a fixed $6,599 per student gets them $76,680,380. They have close to no local tax contribution and their state aid decreases so they do not follow the 98% rule.
What happens to SOMA?
7,000 students at the same rate is $46,193,000 so SOMA goes up in aid by a factor of ten. SOMA's state aid contribution will increase, so 98% goes to local tax relief on a current value of $120,000,000 bringing a supposed tax impact to roughly $75,000,000 and leaving $923,860 in state aid money available to the district.
Help me understand this.
Is the 98% rule the inverse of the 2% tax levy rule? Such that if funding relief is provided, 98% of the relief must offset the previous years tax levy and only 2% can be applied as an increase to the previous year's School Board budget?
alias said:
royg said:
In 2014-2015, Camden got $279,847,597 in state aid. With 11,620 students that's $25,000 per student. SOMA got $4,216,218 for roughly 7,000 students giving a rate of $602 per student.
What happens to Camden with this plan?
11,620 students at a fixed $6,599 per student gets them $76,680,380. They have close to no local tax contribution and their state aid decreases so they do not follow the 98% rule.
What happens to SOMA?
7,000 students at the same rate is $46,193,000 so SOMA goes up in aid by a factor of ten. SOMA's state aid contribution will increase, so 98% goes to local tax relief on a current value of $120,000,000 bringing a supposed tax impact to roughly $75,000,000 and leaving $923,860 in state aid money available to the district.
Help me understand this.
Is the 98% rule the inverse of the 2% tax levy rule? Such that if funding relief is provided, 98% of the relief must offset the previous years tax levy and only 2% can be applied as an increase to the previous year's School Board budget?
In this scenario there's two different 2% rules at play: the 2% tax cap means a school district cannot levy more tan 2% increase on local taxes. The 2% from this formula is different - it's used to find the amount in aid actually awarded to the district.
I don't suppose I've got the details 100% correct in the first go, but I would be naive to think this plan would flatly change the aid from $4.2 million to $46 million. Christie said at this point, 98% of that aid goes to property tax relief and 2% goes to the district.
Before: $4 million from state, $116 local taxes
After: $900,000 from the state, $45.1 million property tax relief, $74 million local taxes
How does the tax levy rule factor in? Now you've got $74 million in local taxes that you can apply a 2% increase on, instead of $116.
So state aid for SOMA would actually go down, and the ability to increase local taxes will be stunted.
royg said:
alias said:
royg said:
In 2014-2015, Camden got $279,847,597 in state aid. With 11,620 students that's $25,000 per student. SOMA got $4,216,218 for roughly 7,000 students giving a rate of $602 per student.
What happens to Camden with this plan?
11,620 students at a fixed $6,599 per student gets them $76,680,380. They have close to no local tax contribution and their state aid decreases so they do not follow the 98% rule.
What happens to SOMA?
7,000 students at the same rate is $46,193,000 so SOMA goes up in aid by a factor of ten. SOMA's state aid contribution will increase, so 98% goes to local tax relief on a current value of $120,000,000 bringing a supposed tax impact to roughly $75,000,000 and leaving $923,860 in state aid money available to the district.
Help me understand this.
Is the 98% rule the inverse of the 2% tax levy rule? Such that if funding relief is provided, 98% of the relief must offset the previous years tax levy and only 2% can be applied as an increase to the previous year's School Board budget?
In this scenario there's two different 2% rules at play: the 2% tax cap means a school district cannot levy more tan 2% increase on local taxes. The 2% from this formula is different - it's used to find the amount in aid actually awarded to the district.
I don't suppose I've got the details 100% correct in the first go, but I would be naive to think this plan would flatly change the aid from $4.2 million to $46 million. Christie said at this point, 98% of that aid goes to property tax relief and 2% goes to the district.
Before: $4 million from state, $116 local taxes
After: $900,000 from the state, $45.1 million property tax relief, $74 million local taxes
How does the tax levy rule factor in? Now you've got $74 million in local taxes that you can apply a 2% increase on, instead of $116.
So state aid for SOMA would actually go down, and the ability to increase local taxes will be stunted.
I'm missing something pretty obvious I think (besides the 98% reference), and hopefully just because it's late... aren't we using the full unaided $116m as the basis for the 2% increase? For example: we strike a BOE budget and a muni budget each with 1.9% increases (pretend for the sake of argument we're one municipality) within the 2% cap (let's also say with no allowable overages), factor in state aid on both sides, set a rate, and raise the remaining difference. We're waiting on the aid numbers to both set a rate AND adjust spending?
I think it's really lousy that he tied real estate tax "relief" in with this plan to destroy urban schools. Promising you a benefit when he's really doing something terrible - that's a con man move.
My guess is that CC will spend the rest of his time in office trying to stick it to the people who hate him in our state. And if Trump loses, he will become as vicious as cornered rat.
OhHenry said:
I think it's really lousy that he tied real estate tax "relief" in with this plan to destroy urban schools. Promising you a benefit when he's really doing something terrible - that's a con man move.
even worse than that, he's trying to bribe suburban voters to feel even more resentment toward the urban poor. he's working to drive an even bigger wedge among the residents of the suburbs and the residents of the cities.
A lot of urban schools in this State are already destroyed. Continually throwing money at the problem without trying to get to the root cause of the high percentage of failing students and poor graduation rate simply isn't working. Any reduction in funding for these districts needs to be coupled with identifying and treating the real reason why these schools are failing. This will likely require taking a look at out-side-of-the school factors that children bring into the schools with them. Redirecting some of the education funding to nutrition, health, housing, social services, safer neighborhoods, building self esteem, etc. would produce more benefits. We also have to take a look at instruction methods used in failing schools and consider if modifications/changes are needed to give these children the most effective education possible.
joan_crystal said:
A lot of urban schools in this State are already destroyed. Continually throwing money at the problem without trying to get to the root cause of the high percentage of failing students and poor graduation rate simply isn't working. Any reduction in funding for these districts needs to be coupled with identifying and treating the real reason why these schools are failing. This will likely require taking a look at out-side-of-the school factors that children bring into the schools with them. Redirecting some of the education funding to nutrition, health, housing, social services, safer neighborhoods, building self esteem, etc. would produce more benefits. We also have to take a look at instruction methods used in failing schools and consider if modifications/changes are needed to give these children the most effective education possible.
You know the reasons. You've outlined them. The schools are not capable of doing all the things you mentioned and were never meant to.
The question now is, who will pick up the ball and run with it?
Christie's proposal is awful on so many different levels.
Even if you don't think Abbott is fair, Christie didn't say anything about the most unfair aspects of it, such as that the state is required to pay for 100% of construction costs in the Abbotts, without a cent of local copay. Since the state funds school renovation, there is an emphasis on building new schools and not refurbishing. Since the state pays for 100% of everything anyway, there have been numerous instances of exorbitant features in Abbott schools, like an aquatic center in Neptune Township, a state of the art megakitchen in New Brunswick, and a theatre in Union City that's nicer than NJPAC. Since the state's funds are limited, the huge expense of Abbott construction deprives many other needy districts of any serious construction aid even for basics like new classrooms to accommodate growing student populations.
Christie also didn't say anything about Pre-K, which is an Abbott monopoly. Since the state is forced to provide two years of "free" Pre-K in the Abbotts, it has nothing left over for poor kids in poor non-Abbotts. There are about 80 districts in NJ that don't even have full day kindergarten and many of them are working class and underaided, so how is it fair that the Abbotts get two years of state-funded Pre-K?
Christie also didn't say anything about the baby booms on the Abbott Gold Coast and how state Pre-K expenses there are forecast to increase by tens of millions of dollars in the next few years.
(it's not literally a monopoly, but non-Abbotts only get 10% of the Pre-K total.)
FYI, Abbott construction is really where there have been a lot of waste and unfairness.
http://www.nj.gov/p_channels/pdf/oig_scc_report/oig_scc_report.pdf
jimmurphy said:
This would be fantastic, but would likely have to be accompanied by a shift to funding via income rather than property taxes. The NY model.
I live in NYC. Is there something I should know about? I know NJ's schools are funded by property taxes more than any other state, but I don't think NY is far behind. Perhaps you're speaking of the PA model: a 1% income tax across the board.
Tom_Reingold said:
jimmurphy said:
This would be fantastic, but would likely have to be accompanied by a shift to funding via income rather than property taxes. The NY model.
I live in NYC. Is there something I should know about? I know NJ's schools are funded by property taxes more than any other state, but I don't think NY is far behind. Perhaps you're speaking of the PA model: a 1% income tax across the board.
The reputation here in NJ is that NY uses a much lower proportion of property tax vs other taxes to fund education.
sac said:
The reputation here in NJ is that NY uses a much lower proportion of property tax vs other taxes to fund education.
I think it must vary by locality. People on Long Island and Westchester are dying from high property taxes, rising rapidly, in the same way people are in northern NJ.
A former cow-orker living in PA said he liked the system. When he was employed, he paid the tax happily, and he has no kids. When he was unemployed, he didn't have to pay it. Makes sense to me. I don't hear Pennsylvanians complaining.
Real Estate Listings
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Today the Governor proposed a new school funding formula for the distribution of state educational aid. It would allocate the same amount of money per student regardless of the municipality in which they reside.
http://www.nj.com/education/2016/06/christie_nj_school_funding_announcement.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
Three questions:
1. On face value this would seem to benefit our distict. However I know this is an incredibly complex subject and would appreciate the perspectives of people who are well versed in our district's funding difficulties.
2. Does anyone think Christie has the political capital to pull this off? This proposal will negatively affect almost all of this state's largest cities which are historically not aligned politically with this Govenor.
3. If passed, would this proposal be struck down by the NJ Supreme Court?