tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2547906701739039088.post932164082448161237..comments2024-03-28T11:59:01.317-07:00Comments on New Jersey Education Aid: Jersey City Should Not Be an Abbott StateAidGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346914457455404884noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2547906701739039088.post-75580657507339403532015-09-26T07:32:20.889-07:002015-09-26T07:32:20.889-07:00"One question - would a change in funding res..."One question - would a change in funding rest solely with a political decision? If there is a formula, what is the reason for not following it, i.e. is there no regulatory requirement, or is it just stuck in the courts? I'm honestly ignorant to some of the behind the scenes machinations around school aid hence these questions. Thank you"<br /><br /><br />This is a good question that I am not sure I can answer authoritatively. <br /><br />New Jersey has a formula for state aid called SFRA – the School Funding Reform Act of 2008. It’s an ok law in theory because it would give more money to poor districts and treat poor-non-Abbotts fairly, but it has not been followed since the Corzine administration. <br /><br />The decision to not follow SFRA is partly economic partly political. <br /><br />The economic part is that the recession, Atlantic City implosion, and loss of federal aid which have reduced the state’s revenue by many billions. Even now revenue hasn’t recovered very well and now we are drowning in the Pension Crisis.<br /><br />The political part is that Chris Christie doesn’t like SFRA in the first place because it would send so much money to poor districts (not all of whom would be Abbotts.). Christie, for blatantly political reasons, also does not want any district to lose aid, no matter how overaided it is. <br /><br />I think it is appalling how Christie treats Hoboken the same as he treats Prospect Park but the legislature ratifies Christie’s budgets and there is no one speaking up on behalf of poor, underaided districts and the need to make spending offsets so that these underaided districts can gain aid. What I am saying is that the whole Establishment is to blame, not just Christie. <br /><br />“is there no regulatory requirement, or is it just stuck in the courts?”<br /><br />Legally the state has to follow SFRA, but any budget that the legislature passes is automatically legal. The 2008 legislature that passed SFRA cannot bind the legislature of the future to any appropriations commitment. The only way the courts could/would intervene is if the residents of a district sued and said that they were not getting a “thorough and efficient” education. The claim about being denied a “thorough and efficient” education is what made the Abbott decisions possible. <br /><br />The NJ Supreme Court, in the Abbott XXI decision (2011) said that SFRA only had to apply to the Abbott districts. The state could, theoretically, cut aid to poor, underaided non-Abbotts like Prospect Park, Guttenberg, East Newark, Belleville, Woodlynne, etc all it wanted to.<br /><br />However, just because SFRA hasn’t been followed in the past doesn’t mean it won’t be followed again in the future. <br /><br />I think that the courts will intervene and affect school funding, but through pensions cases, not state aid cases. For instance, if the NJ Supreme Court decides that the suspension of COLA payments in the 2011 pension reform law was unconstitutional the state will have to pay up $1.2-$1.3 billion in missed COLA payments and then pay even more in pensions in the future. <br /><br />Having to pay up so much money to restore COLAs would force a cut in state aid and this *could* affect Jersey City.<br /><br />If state aid were cut again it is undeterminable how it would affect the Abbotts.<br /> <br />StateAidGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346914457455404884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2547906701739039088.post-45432364756375641772015-09-26T07:12:51.349-07:002015-09-26T07:12:51.349-07:00“This puts a framework around how JC intersects wi...“This puts a framework around how JC intersects with the wider state finances vis a vis school funding. “<br /><br />Thank you for reading and commenting. I hope this post drives some conversations about the need to update the Abbott list and to amend the special privileges that Abbott districts have. <br /><br />It nees to be said again and again in Jersey City that Jersey City is already overaided. Even if someone is not concerned about the rest of the state, this is something that all concerned Jersey City parents should know because it means that Jersey City will not be getting any aid increases for the foreseeable future. If the JCPS do get any aid increases they will be very modest. <br /><br />Please review the spreadsheet here under “2015-2016 Additional School Funding Scenarios (Information Only)” The spreadsheet shows how much money districts would get (hypothetically) if NJ had another $1 billion to spend on K-12 education and SFRA were followed. <br /><br />http://www.nj.gov/education/stateaid/1516/<br /><br />Notice that Jersey City is slated to lose $612,141. Jersey City is, in fact, one of thirty districts that would lose aid even if the state increased aid spending by $1,000,000,000. (There are different ways to measure overaiding. According to uncapped aid Jersey City is overaided by $111 million.)<br /><br />Of course the state is not going to have another $1 billion to spend due to the pension crisis. That means that aid cuts are more likely than aid increases.<br /><br />Right now Jersey City only pays for 19% of its schools. In the future that percentage is going to have to increase. This means that non-PILOTed Jersey City property owners are going to have to pay for an increasing share of the JCPS. Since a third of Jersey City is PILOTed, this will eventually become a large disproportionate burden on non-PILOTed property owners.<br /><br />It would be nice if the JC City Council would consider what Jersey City’s aid future looks like. <br />StateAidGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346914457455404884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2547906701739039088.post-60078819279033077072015-09-25T14:05:06.669-07:002015-09-25T14:05:06.669-07:00Josephine,
Thank you for commenting and reading....Josephine, <br /><br />Thank you for commenting and reading. <br /><br />Yes, I am very familiar with the Education Law Center. I don't agree with the ELC on everything, but I certainly find their data to be useful. <br /><br />The numbers for FRL-eligible percentages came from the ELC itself. <br />http://www.edlawcenter.org/research/data-research.html<br /><br />There are also 31 (former) Abbott districts. Where have you read that there are 32?<br /><br />True, there are only 22 bolded Abbott districts in this post's list of the fifty highest FRL-eligible districts. The other nine Abbott districts do not appear because they have lower FRL-eligible percentages and are not among New Jersey's fifty highest FRL-eligible districts. <br /><br />Also, if you do not believe me that Jersey City is overaided, please review this other document from the Education Law Center that shows how much money in per pupil terms above or below uncapped aid a district gets. <br /><br />http://www.edlawcenter.org/assets/files/pdfs/Newsblasts/FY16%20SFRA%20Funding%20Gaps.pdf<br /><br />You will clearly see that the Jersey City public schools get $3,551 more per pupil from the state per pupil than it is supposed to. <br /><br />The JCPS also get $6462 _less_ from Jersey City than they are supposed to. This is consistent with what I said about Jersey City taxing itself wayyyy below its Local Fair Share.StateAidGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346914457455404884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2547906701739039088.post-66582832350787799462015-09-25T14:03:08.811-07:002015-09-25T14:03:08.811-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.StateAidGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346914457455404884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2547906701739039088.post-50122463474019825892015-09-25T12:20:45.612-07:002015-09-25T12:20:45.612-07:00I think the author could access the Education Law ...I think the author could access the Education Law Center link re Abbott districts as much of your information is erroneous. Once you have had a chance to review the information provided both historically and current I think you will have a better picture of the current situation and the future of these districts. FYI currently there are 32 formerly Abbott districts. Your bolded districts came to twenty-two. www.edlawcenter.org . This site is a wealth of information regarding the status of education in NJ both former Abbott and non-Abbott. They are the real experts on the subject. Also it would work to quote your sources of data i.e. free lunch information and other data used. It is impossible to verify without knowing the source. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03418298963770226283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2547906701739039088.post-28868001051247680232015-09-25T06:45:28.864-07:002015-09-25T06:45:28.864-07:00TY for this post. Very important topic. I think Je...TY for this post. Very important topic. I think Jersey City with its heavy use of abatements must get ahead of this fiscal issue. This puts a framework around how JC intersects with the wider state finances vis a vis school funding. <br /><br />One question - would a change in funding rest solely with a political decision? If there is a formula, what is the reason for not following it, i.e. is there no regulatory requirement, or is it just stuck in the courts? I'm honestly ignorant to some of the behind the scenes machinations around school aid hence these questions. Thank youBrigid D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10498278963712893660noreply@blogger.com