Interesting Discussion about Education Funding

I'm reminded of the phrase " Lies, damn lies and statistics"  .  You can break out the numbers by students served all you want but our system of funding services for the public good is not done on a per person or consumption model.  it is both misleading and shortsighted to present the statistics in that way.  It misses the important mark of looking at the underlying inequities as Mr. Bennett has so helpfully pointed out.

Rob_Sandow said:

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.

Do any regional districts in New Jersey, which apparently are granted the option to do so, use a student population based funding formula?

DaveSchmidt said:

Rob_Sandow said:

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.

Do any regional districts in New Jersey, which apparently are granted the option to do so, use a student population based funding formula?

I believe West Windsor-Plainsboro does.

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.  

@Rob_Sandow,

Oh, as information this is a service to SOMA.  It's healthy for people to know that there is a tax/student population disproportionality and conversations about the unresponsiveness of our state representatives and the fact that the vast majority of state education money goes to the Abbotts are healthy to have too.  I liked how you refer to "local fair share" as a "second income tax," which it is since Local Fair Share depends 50% on income.  

Philosophically and pragmatically, I think it is best to pursue redistribution of state aid because it would mean less state money for overaided districts such as Hoboken, Jersey City, Asbury Park, Pemberton -- all of whom morally and legally should be getting less.  A redistribution of state aid wouldn't just benefit SO either; it would benefit numerous poor and working class non-Abbotts, with Bloomfield, Clifton, and Belleville being big local gainers.  The fact that there are other beneficiaries other than SO creates the possibility of a big legislative coalition.  

I think it's wonderful that this is bringing about a real conversation about the inequity of state aid. Our property taxes are a major problem. We are a special little "bubble" here in SOMA and for my family, it's very worth it for us to live here - but the taxes are also an extreme burden that we wouldn't face if we moved west. It's a little hard to justify that, isn't it? We love living here, but the cost of living is extreme... and why? We'd have more land/house for the money elsewhere. How do we explain that in a way that makes actual sense? What ARE we getting for that money? 

Or vice versa

Roland said:

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

I think focusing on different ways to divide the pie between Maplewood and South Orange will ultimately be destructive and do more harm than good.  The greater focus should be on ways to increase the overall funding for school district on the State and Federal levels.

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?

BTW, I found more information on how much higher spending in selected districts in NYS. 

http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/NJ/

In 2012, Rockville Center spent over $26,000 per student.

Ossining spent over $24,000 per student.

New Rochelle spent over $21,000 per student.  

Rye ...$23,000...

Yonkers almost $21,000.

Poughkeepsie $20,000.

There are very few non-Abbott districts in NJ that spend as much as what these NYS districts do.  Millburn and Livingston are in the $17-18k range.  

The SOMSD is listed at just above $17k.

"Equity and Excellence" indeed.

DaveSchmidt said:

Rob_Sandow said:

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.

Do any regional districts in New Jersey, which apparently are granted the option to do so, use a student population based funding formula?

Good question.  Yes these exist.  Our presentation cited Somerset Hills as the most recently created regional district in the state, and that uses a student population formula.  Their district consists of Bernardsville, Peapack/Gladstone, and Far Hills in K-12, and Bedminster as a tuition-paying sending district for 9-12.  They apportion on student population among the 3 K-12 districts, while Bedminster pays on a per-student tuition basis for 9-12.  They also apportion their school board on a per-student basis.  Of the 10 member school board, Bernardsville has 6 members, Peapack/Gladstone has 2, and Far Hills and Bedminster each get 1.  Far Hills has a much lower student population than the others here, and they pay accordingly, with a school tax assessment about half of Bernardsville's.  

I can not imagine any new regional district being created that does not apportion on a student population formula.  There would be no financial incentive for a town with fewer students but higher property values to participate.  

Thank you for the answers, Rob_Sandow and PurpleMonkeyDshwashr.

Rob_Sandow said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Rob_Sandow said:

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.

Do any regional districts in New Jersey, which apparently are granted the option to do so, use a student population based funding formula?

Good question.  Yes these exist.  Our presentation cited Somerset Hills as the most recently created regional district in the state, and that uses a student population formula.  Their district consists of Bernardsville, Peapack/Gladstone, and Far Hills in K-12, and Bedminster as a tuition-paying sending district for 9-12.  They apportion on student population among the 3 K-12 districts, while Bedminster pays on a per-student tuition basis for 9-12.  They also apportion their school board on a per-student basis.  Of the 10 member school board, Bernardsville has 6 members, Peapack/Gladstone has 2, and Far Hills and Bedminster each get 1.  Far Hills has a much lower student population than the others here, and they pay accordingly, with a school tax assessment about half of Bernardsville's.  

I can not imagine any new regional district being created that does not apportion on a student population formula.  There would be no financial incentive for a town with fewer students but higher property values to participate.  

Rob is right that it is allowable for a regional district to divide tax apportionment by student population, but the back history of tax apportionment is complex.

Originally, regional districts could divide taxes by student population, but in 1975 the legislature passed a law called the "Public School Education Act" that required tax apportionment to be by Equalized Valuation. This law affected regional districts already in existence and created dissatisfaction in the wealthiest component towns of regional districts, whose financial arrangements were now totally changed.

In 1993 the legislature changed the law again and said that tax apportionment could be divided any way the towns wanted, but the equalized valuation status quo was kept in all existing regional districts unless all component towns agreed to a change.  

Now it's easy to imagine that new regional districts would set up per student apportionment plans, (like Somerset Hills) but I don't think that any existing district has agreed to a change.  

The fight in Manchester Regional is very acrimonious.   North Haledon, the only middle class component of Manchester Regional, used to often voted down budgets for Manchester Regional, resulting in very low spending for the regional high school district.  North Haledon has won tax relief for itself but this has caused Prospect Park and Haledon to have the worst school taxes in NJ (by Local Fair Share.)  The situation there is untenable and will only get worse after North Haledon votes to become a sending/receiving district.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2015/12/manchester-regional-new-jerseys-most.html

A "sending/receiving" district with another where it has no power on the BOE, but pays a per student fee to the receiving district.  A lot of ultra-high resource microdistricts are sending receiving districts for their high school students, such as Deal.

I wasn't aware that SOMSD was a "regional school district" in teh sense that Maplewood does not have a separate board of ed and control over  K-8 set of schools and likewise for South Orange. In the cases where each town runs its own Board of Ed, a variety of funding formulas may be permissable as many posters have suggested. Maybe I am missing something but SOMSD is not a regional district but a unified district. Maybe I am splitting hairs here but I just don;t see any rationale for the position taken by officials in South Orange. I suppose if they want to they could break apart SOMSD and each town could take control of the schools inside its borders and create its own district. That would complicate matters like the Clinton neighborhood going to SOMS and the pairing of Marshall and Jefferson and Seth Boyden taking in students from both towns. Those problems are solvable in a sense but to what end? 

Such a proposal -- or any proposal -- that works to create a divided district, I fail to see how that proposal benefits anyone for a long time to come. Next in line are those folks who move here without kids or won't have kids or those whose kids have moved on. They will then start to clamor for the end of tax payments or very sharp reductions in tax payments since they have no skin in the game -- and this argument is raised everywhere that has significant elderly populations. That is inevitable once we start down this path where everyone screams "it's not fair." 

South Orange could very well set up its own district with SOMS, Marshall and South Mountain and the SM Annex. Maplewood could then set up its own District with Jefferson, Seth Boyden, Tuscan and Clinton, MMS. Then Columbia, technically in Maplewood, would be what -- a regional high school? Really? If it is a regional district then it has its own bureaucracy to handle its internal operations. Does each of the now three districts have a joint contract with the union or is it three sets of negotiations? 

A district requires a Superintendent (who could also be a principal), a business office, curriculum people, a special ed department (try and have a district without one), an IT department, a maintenance dept and a custodial force and security and food service and transportation. I suppose we could all pretend we are separate districts and each town contracts by some apportionment for all of this stuff with a central bureaucracy.

And if SO had its own K-8 district and Maplewood had its own then some years down the road one or the other town may opt to build its own high school, and further the insanity in NJ of small schools districts in the hundreds (over 600 I believe.) 

Pursuing a state change in education funding is the best strategy. Absent that, working to create a LARGER regional district rather than splitting up a small pie would be better. How many towns would vote to create a larger district rather than keeping all these smaller ones around? Perhaps not a lot at first but if costs could be reduced in aggregation, then that may happen down the road.

All the stuff raised by South Orange makes for rancor and not for any improvement in education by any stretch of the imagination. It will, if pursued, lead to either a break-up or a sharp cutback in education funding. South Orange says it pays too much and then shifts even more cost over to Maplewood as if Maplewood is the Upper East Side of Manhattan or Millburn. The costs are not going away so shifting more cost to Maplewood will result in a significant backlash against SO. So Maplewood then elects township officials who cap taxes and force the Board of Ed to make deeper cuts rather than raise taxes even higher. Then how does that help anyone in South Orange? Yes, a somewhat lower tax bill and then a much worse educational experience. Then people start to leave for better schools and property values stagnate as the reputation of the school system goes down. I have deep doubts that the school system(s) will improve as a result of this.

I see zero benefit for either town, and it will lead to divisiveness and cuts in education. I simply see no way that education will be improved for a single student in either town with this approach. Not one kid will benefit. Not a single, solitary one. If that is not the objective, then what?

NJ education funding is messed up in so many different ways.  Outside the Northeast region, school funding is usually done by either state or county wide basis.  Towns arent pitted against each other in unfair fights where small suburbs without commercial districts (like MSO) are incapable of raising the same funds as towns with malls (like Livingston or Millburn).

There is also the whole Title 1 issue.  My child attends a Title 1 school.  Our district routinely ranks high in rankings and test scores, well above the state average.  The elementary schools are new, so no deferred maintenance issues.  There are Chromebooks and Ipads for each child. Each classroom has a smartboard.  But, because our school has twice the FRL population as the other elementary school....5% vs 1% we get 100,000.  It seems unfair that our school which is well equipped and has virtually no low income students, gets money that could be better used in districts with more significant numbers of FRL students

Jude said:
I see zero benefit for either town, and it will lead to divisiveness and cuts in education. I simply see no way that education will be improved for a single student in either town with this approach. Not one kid will benefit. Not a single, solitary one. If that is not the objective, then what?

Money, obviously, first and foremost.

How about our State Reps get off their butts and put a little effort into this? I haven't seen Mila Jasey, John McKeon or Dick Codey do anything to push our district's interest in this matter at the state level. At least that Q Rim guy brought the subject up in the last election.....

I haven't heard anything out of Jasey, McKeon, or Codey since November.  I wonder why?  Jasey really wanted my vote but I guess it doesn't matter what we think now.

FYI, if anyone is interesting in how state aid works in NYS.

http://www.cbcny.org/sites/default/files/PRESENTATION_01112016.pdf

NYS gives poorer districts more money than wealthier ones, but NYS has no equivalent to the Abbott decision and the distribution is much flatter than in NJ.  

Districts in NYS's top fifth get an average of $3722 per student.   (the presentation above thinks that's a bad thing.)

Wealthy districts in NJ (except Hoboken and Deal) get nowhere near that amount even if you count the state responsibility for pensions.

NYS does have "hold harmless" policies where districts are allowed to receive more aid than the formula indicates the district needs.  New Jersey has this as well with Adjustment Aid.  The presentation above believes that hold harmless aid should be reduced and that money given to needier districts.  This is a contrast to the Education Law Center, which supports Adjustment Aid even though over 100 NJ districts get not even 50% of what they are supposed to get.

NYS also has a stream of aid called "High Tax Aid" for districts whose property taxes are high as a share of income.  According to the presentation, most of High Tax Aid aid goes to high-wealth districts.

There is no equivalent to this in NJ, although if SFRA were fully funded Equalization Aid would go to districts with low incomes.  

NYS has a stream of aid for districts with a lot of tax exempt property and this mostly goes to high-wealth districts.  Again, there is no equivalent to this in NJ.

As I mentioned before, the aid effort in NYS is much higher than in NJ (or anywhere else in the Western world).  NYS is an outlier in how much it spends on education.

ckrecke said:

How about our State Reps get off their butts and put a little effort into this? I haven't seen Mila Jasey, John McKeon or Dick Codey do anything to push our district's interest in this matter at the state level. 

Where as Nia Gill, a state senator, has brought $1 mil "achievement gap aid" to her Montclair School District in 6 of last 7 years. Gill goes all out every year in drafting the statutory language so that only Montclair would qualify (and not a demographically similar district like SOM). I wish Jasey and Codey had such daring appropriation mindset.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2015/07/montclair-tries-to-cut-in-line.html

I dunno...there's a part of me that relishes the fact that they (and we as a district) operate under a much higher ethical standard.  At least thanks to Christie (!) this garbage was finally put out to pasture.  Maybe Montclair can take a breather from their utterly hilarious backroom antics, and from their PARCC crusade, and focus on writing a more inclusive grant next time.

ctrzaska said:

I dunno...there's a part of me that relishes the fact that they (and we as a district) operate under a much higher ethical standard.  At least thanks to Christie (!) this garbage was finally put out to pasture.  Maybe Montclair can take a breather from their utterly hilarious backroom antics, and from their PARCC crusade, and focus on writing a more inclusive grant next time.

Pork barrel helps to run the whole political machinery. And I see nothing wrong with a district like Montclair with its unique demo (much like SOM) to seek state aid to help deal with its unique challenges. Instead of letting Gill walk away with $1 mil solely for Montclair for 6 years, our own state senator Codey should have worked with her to draft a language that would have covered SOM in a joint effort to also get us similar funding.  

I would rather see legislation that is better for ALL of New Jersey, rather than specialized to a particular town, but it seems that what we currently have is generally not good for the state as a whole and particularly not for our particular situation.

xavier67 said:

ctrzaska said:

I dunno...there's a part of me that relishes the fact that they (and we as a district) operate under a much higher ethical standard.  At least thanks to Christie (!) this garbage was finally put out to pasture.  Maybe Montclair can take a breather from their utterly hilarious backroom antics, and from their PARCC crusade, and focus on writing a more inclusive grant next time.

Pork barrel helps to run the whole political machinery. And I see nothing wrong with a district like Montclair with its unique demo (much like SOM) to seek state aid to help deal with its unique challenges. Instead of letting Gill walk away with $1 mil solely for Montclair for 6 years, our own state senator Codey should have worked with her to draft a language that would have covered SOM in a joint effort to also get us similar funding.  

Oh. I know.  Doesn't mean I can't bask in a minor bit of moral superiority, however, given recent statements on the proper approach to appropriate state funding by Bennett and Lembrich.  The cynic (and, somewhat paradoxically, realist) in me believes that had Gill any intention whatsoever of being more inclusive she would have reached out.  I doubt Jasey had any specific idea of her intentions until well into the process, if that, though I suppose she could have taken an independent approach on her own whether aware or not.  Maybe Gill's self-serving effort was its own undoing.

What's maddening about Dick Codey is that in the 1990s and early 2000s when he represented Montclair he went to bat for Montclair to wring extra dollars out of the state.   Dick Codey just doesn't give a ____ about South Orange-Maplewood.  (see below)

However, I'm with ctrzaska and sac, I'd rather see legislation that is good for the whole state (or the neediest districts) rather than just the SOMSD.  

The districts are the head of the line for more aid are Manchester Regional, Freehold Boro, Bound Brook, East Newark, with districts like Belleville, Clifton, Bayonne, and Bloomfield behind them.  

Some of these districts are getting killed with taxes.  Manchester Regional's taxes are 177% of Local Fair Share (most of which falls on Prospect Park and Haledon.)  Other districts have appallingly inadequate facilities.  Freehold Boro's schools have 1700 kids when they were only built for 1100. Belleville and East Newark spend about $10,000 per student.

I would not be comfortable with us cutting ahead of these needier and often more overtaxed districts. 

Montclair schools put aid for busing at top of wish list

Star-Ledger, The (Newark, NJ) - Sunday, March 25, 2001
Author: PAULA SAHA, STAR-LEDGER STAFF

Every morning, a bus stops near Robin Schlager's home in the Edgemont section of Montclair to take her first-grade daughter Hanna to school. The Schlager home is only two blocks from another elementary school that would be convenient for her kids. But the bus takes Hanna almost two miles across town to the Nishuane School, a school Schlager chose because of its emphasis on music and the arts. That is the idea behind Montclair 's "magnet school" system. Students don't necessarily go to the school in their neighborhood. Rather, parents rank the schools - which each have different themes - according to the curriculum they believe best fits their child. Then, the board of education assigns students to a school based on those rankings, while ensuring that the school maintains a gender, race and socioeconomic balance. The system has been a model of a successfully integrated school district for the last 25 years. But a national model, it seems, comes with a price tag - so Montclair is asking thestate for some help. "Of particular concern to us have been decreases in aid for transportation over the years as we continue to provide an adequate network of buses to maintain our innovative magnet school system," Mayor Bob Russo told the Senate and Assembly budget committee at a recent hearing on the state 's 2002 fiscal budget. Russo, schools Superintendent Michael Osnato and NAACP branch President James Harris urged lawmakers to pass a bill that would assist Montclair . The measure, sponsored by Assemblywoman Nia Gill (D-Essex) and Sen. Richard Codey (D-Essex), would provide the district with an additional $950,000 in transportation aid . "The transportation aid is the linchpin to the successful magnet school system and to the successful desegregation plan," Gill said recently. Last year, Montclair schools spent more than $2.4 million in transportation costs alone. As fewer and fewer state dollars have come in, school officials said, taxpayers have picked up the brunt of the cost. And because desegregation is something that the state Department of Education has repeatedly deemed important, Montclair officials believe it should foot more of the bill. "It shouldn't be entirely up to the local community to have to pay for that out of property taxes," Osnato said. The bill would help Montclair bus students who live more than one mile from the school they attend. While the district buses all students who live more than a mile from school, currently they get aid only for those students who live more than two miles from the school they attend, said Business Administrator Dana Sullivan. "In order to entice people (to schools ) that are not near their home, you have to transport them," Sullivan said. Montclair started the magnet school program in the 1970s after a group of African-American parents and students petitioned the state commissioner of education, alleging they were being denied a right to equal educational opportunity. While the town had a significant African-American population, it was concentrated on the south end of town. Neighborhood schools , therefore, were either almost all white or all black. After trying some other plans - including forced busing and redistricting - then-Superintendent Walter L. Marks proposed magnet schools . "They were like a groundbreaker in the late '70s when they established the magnet school program," said Frank Belluscio, spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association. "The idea was to have students almost naturally go through desegregation by selecting certain curriculum areas. It was very innovative, very successful." And while the New Jersey School Boards Association doesn't have a formal position on the transportation aid bill, Belluscio said the challenges Montclair faces are very real. Old school aid formulas included special desegregation aid for districts like Montclair , he said, but the new formula, established in 1997, no longer provides that aid . The bill is written specifically for Montclair , school officials and lawmakers admitted. "It's written for Montclair because we're the only one," Gill said. "If other towns used busing in conjunction with magnet schools for the purpose of desegregation, they would also qualify." As recently as 1998, the Department of Education informed Montclair that it was still under a mandate to have a desegregation plan. While housing patterns in Montclair have changed somewhat over the years, the 2000 census data shows the town's African-American population still is concentrated primarily in the south end. "If it wasn't for that busing system, we would not co-exist, we would not co-mingle. You wouldn't see the mix at birthday parties or on the soccer field," Schlager said. "Everybody gets basically kind of thrown together at school. It's the real world. It would be an unreal world if it wasn't for our busing."

CODEY, MONTCLAIR MAYOR PLAN EFFORTS TO RECOUP SCHOOL AID

Star-Ledger, The (Newark, NJ) - Wednesday, March 23, 1994
Readability: >12 grade level (Lexile: 1410L)Author: TOWANDA UNDERDUE

Sen. Richard Codey (D-Essex) and Montclair Mayor James Bishop said yesterday they will lobby the Legislature and the Governor for more funds to prevent a "drastic" reduction of school services and a large tax increase in Montclair . The elected officials said they will request the $709,918 in state desegregation aid and $200,000 in state transition aid to ease the tax burden that Montclair residents will face in 1994-95. The loss in state aid could lead to a substantial school tax increase, said Bishop, who also serves on the Montclair Board of School Estimate. He added that taxpayers would have to raise 79.9 percent of the proposed $52.6 million budget, an 8.2 percent increase over 1993-94. " Montclair residents are paying 80 percent of the school budget," said Bishop. "This is a well-off district, but it is not a wealthy district." School Superintendent William Librera said at the Monday night board of education meeting that the district probably will not receive the anticipated state aid . The board is preparing for a $903,918 state aid reduction because Gov. Christie Whitman has proposed eliminating all desegregation aid to local school districts at a savings of 4 million, and reducing the transition aid that 265 school districts are receiving by 33 percent. Whitman made the proposals in an effort to control state spending during fiscal year 1995, which begins July 1, said Bob McHugh, a spokesman for the Governor. He added that desegregation aid has historically been used for computers and other improvements that do not relate to desegregation. "The complete elimination of desegregation aid represents less than one- third of 1 percent of the overall state aid package for education," McHugh said. " Montclair gets a relatively large amount, so it may be more greatly affected than other school districts, but the Governor is suggesting that school districts look at other ways to balance their budgets." But Codey said the state budget cuts will lead to dire consequences for Montclair residents. The Montclair school district is among the few districts that will lose both its desegregation and transition aid . He added that Montclair school officials have "correctly" spent past desegregation grants to racially balance schools . "This is one town that may say that the state tax cut has resulted in a shell game," said Codey, who believes that Montclair and other local school districts are suffering financially because of cuts at the state level. "Many people move to Montclair based on the fact that Montclair has an excellent school system," said Codey. "I invite the Governor to sit with parents and teachers and to learn about the programs here. Hopefully, this money will be restored." The anticipated loss in state aid has prompted Librera to call for the elimination of two assistant principals, a central office administrator, three guidance counselors, one nurse, three secretaries and 14 maintenance and custodial staff. Librera also has proposed reducing the workday for non-special education aides from six to 3.5 hours to prevent the district from paying benefits, and contracting privately for some child study services, maintenance functions and transportation aides. The school budget also includes a $5,000 reduction in high school co- curricular activities, a 0,000 reduction in high school athletics and a 0,000 reduction in clerical overtime.

The busing situation in Montclair is somewhat similar to that for Seth Boyden (and possibly also the Marshall-Jeff pairing, although I'm less familiar with that.)  I totally agree that transportation is key to supporting those kinds of programs and voluntary programs are the best when it comes to desegregation. But it does cost more money and transportation costs have definitely increased a lot over the years.

JBennett said:

What's maddening about Dick Codey is that in the 1990s and early 2000s when he represented Montclair he went to bat for Montclair to wring extra dollars out of the state.   Dick Codey just doesn't give a ____ about South Orange-Maplewood.  (see below)

However, I'm with ctrzaska and sac, I'd rather see legislation that is good for the whole state (or the neediest districts) rather than just the SOMSD.  

I agree that a state-wide reform would be much more preferable.  But there is virtually zero chance of that happening in the near future. Meanwhile, given SOMSD is being penalized by the current funding arrangement, it would not be out of line for us (or any other underfunded districts) to work through other avenues to get the funding we deserve.

ctrzaska said:

I dunno...there's a part of me that relishes the fact that they (and we as a district) operate under a much higher ethical standard.  At least thanks to Christie (!) this garbage was finally put out to pasture.  Maybe Montclair can take a breather from their utterly hilarious backroom antics, and from their PARCC crusade, and focus on writing a more inclusive grant next time.

+10