Interesting Discussion about Education Funding

I found the following two articles in The Village Green thought-provoking:

http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/south-orange-seeking-remedy-unfair-school-funding-formula/

http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/lembrich-bennett-real-school-funding-equity-issue-state-aid/

Given the high % of our tax dollars that (rightfully, in my view) go the schools, these are issues worthy of substantial community attention and discussion.  My kids, unfortunately, did not attend the SOMA schools, so I am far from an expert on local education subjects.  But I tend to agree with Bennett and Lembrich, and would like to think it is not just because I live in Maplewood.  Curious to see how others feel.

For full disclosure, another Maplewood resident here.  

I was really glad to see Lembrich and Bennetts' rebuttal to the arguments being made by the South Orange School Funding Subcomittee. When I read the first article this morning, my initial thought was that the property values are what counts, not the number of students in each town.  And I thought it was unfortunate that the subcommittee members would be making such a claim against their Maplewood neighbors.  I agree with Lembrich and Bennett that getting a good joint revaluation and additional state aid are the solutions here, not divisively pitting neighbors against one another.

Looking purely at the number of students from each town and getting upset over it would be like me getting angry at my neighbor who has 4 kids in the schools when I only have 2.  Or my neighbor with no school-aged kids getting upset with me, and on and on....

I knew when I bought both my homes in Maplewood that my taxes would be based on assessed property values, and South Orange residents know that as well.  

MDonoghue said:

For full disclosure, another Maplewood resident here.  

I was really glad to see Lembrich and Bennetts' rebuttal to the arguments being made by the South Orange trustees. When I read the first article this morning, my initial thought was that the property values are what counts, not the number of students in each town.  And I thought it was unfortunate that the trustees would be making such a claim against their Maplewood neighbors.  I agree with Lembrich and Bennett that getting a good joint revaluation and additional state aid are the solutions here, not divisively pitting neighbors against one another.

Looking purely at the number of students from each town and getting upset over it would be like me getting angry at my neighbor who has 4 kids in the schools when I only have 2.  Or my neighbor with no school-aged kids getting upset with me, and on and on....

You've done a nice job articulating my general feelings on this as well.  Good points.  

Also, I think the SO Trustees themselves have not taken a position (Sheena Collum seems to be urging restraint), but there is a vocal committee or subcommittee that made a presentation and is requesting the SO Trustees take action.  Hopefully things won't go in that direction, and the prompt rebuttal from Bennett and Lembrich may help to keep people from jumping to unhelpful conclusions.  I'd much rather see us fight Trenton together than fight each other in what would amount to a zero sum game.

As was mentioned in the Bennet/Lembrich article, assuming the equalization factor is correct, the differences between the two towns are analogous to the differences between more affluent and less affluent neighborhoods within one town.  Or, to carry it further, on an individual household level, the suggestion to 'equalize' based on student population would be like assessing individual households based on the number of children in the household.  I know there are those who advocate that, but I think most agree that is not how public schools should be funded.  

Correct, TomDevon. I did not mean to imply that all the SO Trustees held this view.  According to the articles, it's mainly Rob Sandow and Rich Vader of the School Funding Subcommittee making the claims/proposals.

Thanks for clarifying.  I have edited my posts to refer only to the subcomittee, not to the Trustees.

I'm in full agreement with Lembrich and Bennett.  While I've always greatly respected and appreciated Jeff's insights on the school funding topic, amongst only a handful of others (here's to you, Jerry), I'm glad I can now add Greg to that company.

Merge the municipalities and the issue goes away.

As a citizen of South Orange, I'm disappointed in the presenters (neither of whom are trustees) for mixing the local valuation and state policy issues issues together. At this point, I find myself less of a supporter of Mr. Sandow (for whom I have voted in the past), based on this seemingly divisive approach to local valuation.

We have a consolidated district (treating our community as if we were one town) in which the amount paid correlates to the value of property owned.  South Orange, on the average, has higher property values than Maplewood (although obviously this varies by neighborhood), and so has higher average taxes, but taxes that are "fair" based on relative property valuations.  How many students come out of those homes is not relevant to the discussion if we consider ourselves one community.  

I do not think that the public good would be served by trying to uncouple our two-towns-one-community approach in order to lower South Orange taxes at the expense of Maplewood, leaving them with a substantially higher tax pain index relative to home value if we were to succeed. 

I feel tax pain, but I don't think that trying to push my pain to Maplewood is a fair or viable solution.
I would not recommend pushing this point unless we want to consider dividing into two school districts, with all of the pain and building construction that would be required.

I think that starting a fight between the two communities based on these numbers is an incredible waste of time, and a distraction from the far more important issue of state level educational funding reform.

Steve said:

Merge the municipalities and the issue goes away.

Well, yes.  Sort of.   

susan1014 said:

As a citizen of South Orange, I'm disappointed in the presenters (neither of whom are trustees) for mixing the local valuation and state policy issues issues together. At this point, I find myself less of a supporter of Mr. Sandow (for whom I have voted in the past), based on this seemingly divisive approach to local valuation.

We have a consolidated district (treating our community as if we were one town) in which the amount paid correlates to the value of property owned.  South Orange, on the average, has higher property values than Maplewood (although obviously this varies by neighborhood), and so has higher average taxes, but taxes that are "fair" based on relative property valuations.  How many students come out of those homes is not relevant to the discussion if we consider ourselves one community.  

I do not think that the public good would be served by trying to uncouple our two-towns-one-community approach in order to lower South Orange taxes at the expense of Maplewood, leaving them with a substantially higher tax pain index relative to home value if we were to succeed. 

I feel tax pain, but I don't think that trying to push my pain to Maplewood is a fair or viable solution.
I would not recommend pushing this point unless we want to consider dividing into two school districts, with all of the pain and building construction that would be required.

I think that starting a fight between the two communities based on these numbers is an incredible waste of time, and a distraction from the far more important issue of state level educational funding reform.

Agreed.  The approach as presented is incredibly myopic and short-sighted, if not overtly flawed, and ignores (save for some lip service) the true underlying issue of NJ's funding requirements at the state level and the path to effective relief.

Steve said:

Merge the municipalities and the issue goes away.

As far as school funding is concerned, it IS merged and the school taxes per household are exactly the same as they would be if it was one town rather than two.  That is as it should be and I resent those in South Orange who would try to stick it to Maplewood taxpayers to change that.  I'm quite sure that if the district were split between the two towns, EVERYONE in BOTH towns would pay more school taxes.

but if the municipalities were to merge, then it truly would be just different neighborhoods  

It's mathematically impossible for everyone in both towns to pay more if Maplewood were to absorb SO, given the size of the pie isn't increasing outside of the normal (smaller) annual jump.  You'd equalize the two different rates, and some would benefit from a drop and some would jump.  

To stay separate and allocate several million to Maplewood based on students alone would be silly on a whole host of levels not really worth discussing, for one since most Maplewood taxpayers couldn't support the hike and school funding would likely need to be slashed to oblivion (nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face).  Though it does raise an interesting issue if SO would thus have to lose some representation on the BOE as a result of counting heads... interesting question, that.

Steve said:

but if the municipalities were to merge, then it truly would be just different neighborhoods  

Given the steep voting slants on the last referendum on Shared Services, which (wrongly) became a de facto referendum on merging, I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

ctrzaska said:

Though it does raise an interesting issue if SO would thus have to lose some representation on the BOE as a result of counting heads... interesting question, that.

Heh heh... I guess you don't know how many worms are in the can until you open it.

ctrzaska said:

...Though it does raise an interesting issue if SO would thus have to lose some representation on the BOE as a result of counting heads... interesting question, that.

You mean the BOSE (Board of School Estimate), right? Or are BOE members tied to each town?

Not currently...I believe ctrzaska must be imagining what could happen if the whole relationship was renegotiated.  BOE elections do not have districts.

jimmurphy said:

ctrzaska said:

...Though it does raise an interesting issue if SO would thus have to lose some representation on the BOE as a result of counting heads... interesting question, that.

You mean the BOSE (Board of School Estimate), right? Or are BOE members tied to each town?

As in:  If we are to change the rules and be taxed based on the number of students, then we should be represented on the BOE based on the number of students.  Taxation without representation and all that... What a wonderful world it would be with board members arguing about the rights of South Orange students vs. Maplewood students, pitting the towns against each other in board elections and setting individual building capital budgets based on where the most taxes are being paid...

In reality, this whole conversation is pretty silly... I don't envision many thoughtful, responsible people taking the subcommittee's proposals very seriously.

susan1014 said:

Not currently...I believe ctrzaska must be imagining what could happen if the whole relationship was renegotiated.  BOE elections do not have districts.

jimmurphy said:

ctrzaska said:

...Though it does raise an interesting issue if SO would thus have to lose some representation on the BOE as a result of counting heads... interesting question, that.

You mean the BOSE (Board of School Estimate), right? Or are BOE members tied to each town?

Correct.  It's not illogical to seek to reconfigure the BOE to reflect a Maplewood majority in line with the same way students would be counted, and thus the schools funded, since we're out there asking Trenton to reconfigure all this anyway.  Then, since the BOE prepares the budget, not the BOSE, you can impact the budget to a potentially large extent in addition to controlling policy.  Granted the BOSE still has to approve, but IIRC the BOSE has the mayor and VP, two from each of the TC and BOT, the BOE head and two BOE members, and not sure why they couldn't/shouldn't also be reconfigured on the heels of the BOE.  Even if the BOSE weren't reconfigured, they're free to not approve the budget and let the cycle rinse and repeat ad infinitum until someone gives.  And good luck with that.

MDonoghue said:

ctrzaska said:

Though it does raise an interesting issue if SO would thus have to lose some representation on the BOE as a result of counting heads... interesting question, that.

Heh heh... I guess you don't know how many worms are in the can until you open it.

MDonoghue said:

In reality, this whole conversation is pretty silly... I don't envision many thoughtful, responsible people taking the subcommittee's proposals very seriously.

It is, though somewhat interesting on a theoretical sense and worth at least some idle debate.  What is most silly is the idiotic proposal.

I think most here would favor a switch from a local property-tax based system to a state income-tax and distribute-based one. 

It would be interesting to know the relative income taxes paid to the state for each town based on such a system and the money coming back based on the number of students in each town.

Which would be the donor town and which the donee town? Kinda like the red state/blue state thing.

Did that make any sense?   

jimmurphy said:

I think most here would favor a switch from a local property-tax based system to a state income-tax and distribute-based one. 

It would be interesting to know the relative income taxes paid to the state for each town based on such a system and the money coming back based on the number of students in each town.

Which would be the donor town and which the donee town? Kinda like the red state/blue state thing.

Did that make any sense?  "> 

Having education fully funded by a statewide income tax or statewide property tax is an interesting idea but even as this solves the problem of where money comes from and would make taxes fairer, it creates new problems with how the money is distributed.

New Jersey's aid formula has extremely high "Adequacy Budgets" for poor districts.  For instance, based on its Adequacy Budget, Newark should be spending over $21,000 per student (not counting pensions, FICA, construction etc) and other high-FRL towns would be spending just as much.  

If NJ had full state funding of education and the Abbott-ish principles of SFRA were embedded into full state funding, suburban districts would get comparatively little (often less than they get now) If no local contribution were allowed, many affluent districts would be making cuts from where they are now.  

The bigger problem is that the Adequacy Budgets for high-poverty districts are excessive IMO.  Money counts, but there is a point above $16,000 per student where it really doesn't do much additional good (in terms of test scores, although there are always extras you can add with that money).  Asbury Park, Hoboken, Pemberton etc are way above their Adequacy Budgets and yet their school systems don't outperform demographic peer districts whose spending is significantly inferior. Hoboken's schools are actually inferior to Belleville's in multiple ways, which has more poor kids and spend not even half as much per student.

Likewise, plenty of middle-class and affluent districts with spending way above their Adequacy Budgets don't outperform their demographic peers either.  

By the same token, there are districts like Dover, which is more than $5000 per student below Adequacy and way above the state's average for poverty and ELL-status, are actually significantly above average in performance.  

My fear is that state funding would embed glib Abbott-era assumptions about money=academic success and that money would end up being spent wastefully.

There is also the problem that the state's aid formula is terribly off formula and the amount of money districts get doesn't correspond to what they should get.  If we had full state funding I fear that the state funding distribution would get just as messed up as the state aid distribution is now.  

Which would be the donor town and which the donee town? Kinda like the red state/blue state thing.

I don't think this would mirror the Red State donee/Blue State donor pattern at all.  The big recipients of state money would be urban areas which are overwhelmingly Democratic.

Not to mention that the majority of the schools are located in Maplewood including the high school.  Would S.O. fund new construction?

sac said:
  I'm quite sure that if the district were split between the two towns, EVERYONE in BOTH towns would pay more school taxes.

JBennett said:

jimmurphy said:

I think most here would favor a switch from a local property-tax based system to a state income-tax and distribute-based one. 

It would be interesting to know the relative income taxes paid to the state for each town based on such a system and the money coming back based on the number of students in each town.

Which would be the donor town and which the donee town? Kinda like the red state/blue state thing.

Did that make any sense?  "> 

Having education fully funded by a statewide income tax or statewide property tax is an interesting idea but even as this solves the problem of where money comes from and would make taxes fairer, it creates new problems with how the money is distributed.

New Jersey's aid formula has extremely high "Adequacy Budgets" for poor districts.  For instance, based on its Adequacy Budget, Newark should be spending over $21,000 per student (not counting pensions, FICA, construction etc) and other high-FRL towns would be spending just as much.  


If NJ had full state funding of education and the Abbott-ish principles of SFRA were 
I don't think this would mirror the Red State donee/Blue State donor pattern at all.  The big recipients of state money would be urban areas which are overwhelmingly Democratic.

 

Thank for chiming in - you are always the most competent and informed voice in these discussions.

I was making the assumption that the distribution of aid would also be fixed to an equal per student basis. Isn't that how NY does it?

And I didn't mean to draw a complete parallel to politics by referencing red/blue. More just Donor/Donee. Sorry to mislead.

jimmurphy said:

JBennett said:

jimmurphy said:

I think most here would favor a switch from a local property-tax based system to a state income-tax and distribute-based one. 

It would be interesting to know the relative income taxes paid to the state for each town based on such a system and the money coming back based on the number of students in each town.

Which would be the donor town and which the donee town? Kinda like the red state/blue state thing.

Did that make any sense?  "> 

Having education fully funded by a statewide income tax or statewide property tax is an interesting idea but even as this solves the problem of where money comes from and would make taxes fairer, it creates new problems with how the money is distributed.

New Jersey's aid formula has extremely high "Adequacy Budgets" for poor districts.  For instance, based on its Adequacy Budget, Newark should be spending over $21,000 per student (not counting pensions, FICA, construction etc) and other high-FRL towns would be spending just as much.  


If NJ had full state funding of education and the Abbott-ish principles of SFRA were 
I don't think this would mirror the Red State donee/Blue State donor pattern at all.  The big recipients of state money would be urban areas which are overwhelmingly Democratic.

 

Thank for chiming in - you are always the most competent and informed voice in these discussions.

I was making the assumption that the distribution of aid would also be fixed to an equal per student basis. Isn't that how NY does it?

I'm getting out of my depth when I talk about state aid in NYS, but I know that state aid in NYS is flatter than in NJ and affluent districts there get a lot more than peer affluent districts in NJ would get.  However, it's not an equal per student distribution and poor districts are supposed to get more.

There is no version of the Abbott lawsuit in NYS, but the Education Law Center is waging a lawsuit to create an Abbott regime for NY as well.  

State aid and overall school spending are much higher in NY than in NJ.  So, it isn't just a matter of state money being distributed differently there, but the overall aid contribution is greater as well. 

The spending gap between NYS and NJ is going to widen in the next few years. Andrew Coumo just proposed increasing state aid there by $2.1 billion and people in the legislature are saying that's not enough.  

I would like to clarify a few items that have been brought up here.

First and foremost, Mr. Vader and I did not develop this in a vacuum.  This presentation was the result of a subcommittee of the South Orange Finance Committee, organized by Trustee Rosner, and sponsored by Trustees Rosner and DuBowy, who were both involved in the development of the presentation.  It was agreed that Mr. Vader and I would be the presenters, but this was an effort that had the backing of the Finance Committee, in conjunction with the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee, of which I am the co-chair.

Second, the vast majority of municipalities in NJ have a "home rule" ability to determine the best way to provide education for the students who live there.  Most have their own K-8 districts, and many have regional high schools, which are funded by agreement among the participating municipalities.  We don't have that option, and are one of a very few municipalities that don't have that option by statute.  We have simply raised the issue, with the backing of the South Orange Finance Committee, that we should be treated the same, by statute, as almost every other municipality in NJ.  What we choose to do with that, if granted, is up to us.

I knew that when I made this presentation, it would be divisive, and because of that I went out of my way to keep it about the facts, the numbers, and the statutory funding formula, and not about South Orange vs Maplewood.  I made it clear at the beginning of the presentation that it was not about that. 

Honestly I expected I might be the subject of some political backlash for presenting this case, but there is no real democracy unless all opinions and facts are able to be presented in a thoughtful and respectful way.  I believe I did that, and we'll let the chips fall where they may.  

If Maplewoodians stop complaining about the Pilots in SO , SOrangians will stop complaining about the tax disparity.

Rob_Sandow said:

I would like to clarify a few items that have been brought up here.

First and foremost, Mr. Vader and I did not develop this in a vacuum.  This presentation was the result of a subcommittee of the South Orange Finance Committee, organized by Trustee Rosner, and sponsored by Trustees Rosner and DuBowy, who were both involved in the development of the presentation.  It was agreed that Mr. Vader and I would be the presenters, but this was an effort that had the backing of the Finance Committee, in conjunction with the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee, of which I am the co-chair.


Second, the vast majority of municipalities in NJ have a "home rule" ability to determine the best way to provide education for the students who live there.  Most have their own K-8 districts, and many have regional high schools, which are funded by agreement among the participating municipalities.  We don't have that option, and are one of a very few municipalities that don't have that option by statute.  We have simply raised the issue, with the backing of the South Orange Finance Committee, that we should be treated the same, by statute, as almost every other municipality in NJ.  What we choose to do with that, if granted, is up to us.

I knew that when I made this presentation, it would be divisive, and because of that I went out of my way to keep it about the facts, the numbers, and the statutory funding formula, and not about South Orange vs Maplewood.  I made it clear at the beginning of the presentation that it was not about that. 

Honestly I expected I might be the subject of some political backlash for presenting this case, but there is no real democracy unless all opinions and facts are able to be presented in a thoughtful and respectful way.  I believe I did that, and we'll let the chips fall where they may.  

I was at the presentation and found it informative and felt it was clear that you were not looking forward to the debate that would follow in our communities. As we all work with our personal financial problems, none of us blame our neighbors for the current inequity, but in all fairness, who can blame us for looking into the problem. I'm one of the residents who had heard about this, having a real estate license for over 20 years. During the discussion, I was sitting with a dear friend from Maplewood, so I hope we can all look at this and not make it so personal. As was mentioned in your presentation, we are only one of eight communities that are in this situation. Not to sound like Donald Trump, but we just want to be treated fairly. (Hopefully that provokes a grin.)