Published in the Star-Ledger, Tuesday, November 25, 2008
[OpEd]
The Supreme Court's Abbott delusion
BY GORDON MacINNES
The New Jersey Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to Gov. Jon Corzine and the Legislature with its decision to re tain its own formula for funding poor school districts, at least for this year. The court's decision effectively kills the plan to improve educational opportunities for poor children who happen not to live in the 31 Abbott districts recognized by the court.
That the court invited the Abbott districts to seek more funding on top of the new school aid for mula -- despite a looming $5 billion deficit -- only accelerates New Jersey's collision with bankruptcy.
Perhaps most disturbing is the court's lack of any doubt about the so-called "remedies" that it ordered 10 years ago in an effort to close the achievement gap between poor and affluent children. It proceeds as if the 1998 court decision had finally solved a problem that has nagged the nation for four decades. The justices appear to think that if only the Abbott districts continue implementating [sic] these remedies and the administration and Legislature provide more funding, the goal of a "constitutional" education will be achieved.
One would hope that, after 35 years of litigation and the expenditure of billions of additional dollars, the court would show more curiosity about why poor kids in the Abbott districts do not perform better and why the gap persists. All branches of New Jersey's government should face some inescapable realities.
Abbott is supposed to be about inequities that constrict the educational opportunities of poor children residing in poor districts. Un happily, 50 percent of New Jersey's poor children reside outside the Abbott districts. Moreover, Abbott districts like Hoboken, Burlington City, Phillipsburg, Neptune Township, Pemberton and Garfield are much less disadvantaged than many non-Abbott districts.
The court expects New Jersey's poorest districts to accomplish something that has not been achieved anyplace, despite 40 years of programs, remedies, reforms and other panaceas. No district or state has succeeded in closing the educational gap between poor, predominantly minority students and affluent, predominantly white stu dents.
The primary reason these efforts have not succeeded is the failure of courts, advocates, bureaucrats and governors to define accurately and concretely the problem to be solved.
Children from poor families ar rive at kindergarten with too little general knowledge and vocabulary and too few ideas to start reading and writing in first grade. This is the gap that most districts never close. The court, to its credit, recognized this problem and ordered high-quality preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds in Abbott districts. "High quality" is what matters, and it takes time, focus, talent and persistence to bring it about in every preschool classroom. Despite the new formula tripling the number of districts that must provide preschool, the Corzine administration has reduced the staff that provides this crucial training.
The court-ordered remedies of 1998 reflected the latest in educational fashion. In particular, the justices ordered that every elementary school adopt a model of "whole school reform" based on the testimony and research of the designer and chief salesman of one such model. The problem was that none of the models was aligned to New Jersey's then-new curricular requirements, so that, even if those were perfectly implemented, Abbott students would continue to fail (and did).
Worse, the court cut out the district central office at just the time its leadership was essential to give coherence to the implementation of hundreds of new curricular standards. So everyone was focused on the wrong thing.
Abbott funding has helped districts like Elizabeth, Union City, Orange and Perth Amboy achieve dramatic improvements in student performance, while others have spent more money to no effect. The districts that have concentrated on early literacy and student achievement tend to spend less money than those that have faithfully implemented the court's "remedies."
Camden increased per student spending from $8,300 to $15,400 without any improvement in performance. Distinctions should be made between districts that are focused on improved achievement and those that are not. Instead, all districts have been encouraged by the court to seek more funding.
Courts can determine if funding for schools with concentrations of poor children is equitable, and they should. What courts cannot do is to require classroom instruction. The Abbott decisions overlook entirely that poor Latinos are the fastest- growing population in the Abbott and many other districts. How can jurists decide among several pedagogical approaches to educating students who speak no English and whose parents read no Spanish?
This is a pretty tough nut to crack, but the court felt no compunction about ordering solutions to all sorts of other pedagogical puzzles (to no consistently efficacious result). The court's latest decision was a chance to back out gracefully from such bravado by agreeing that, with all their shortcomings, local districts are better positioned to deal with the stu dents in their charge and should be given the responsibility to do so.
The overriding reality is that New Jersey and the nation are tapped out. No one is sure how deep or long this Great Recession will be. Other states have acted quickly to reduce spending. New Jersey's time will come, presumably. When it does, additional costs of hundreds of millions of dollars from a few school districts will not be welcome.
Gordon MacInnes was the assistant commissioner for Abbott districts at the state Education Department from 2002 to 2007. He is a lecturer at the Woodrow Wilson School and a fellow at the Century Foundation, which will publish his book on Abbott next month.
Online story here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Showing posts with label AbbottDistricts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AbbottDistricts. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Schools - Courier - Davy: Funding plan will fix Abbot flaws
Published in the Courier News, Monday, December 17, 2007
Corzine's education chief:
School-funding plan will fix Abbott flaws
By JARED KALTWASSER
STAFF WRITER
A week after Gov. Jon S. Corzine unveiled his long-awaited school funding formula, the push is on to win legislative and court approval, and to convince the public that the plan is the right way to secure equity in the state's education spending.
Education Commissioner Lucille Davy met with the Courier News editorial board Friday to discuss the plan. She said the new formula will replace the Abbott district system and base its funding on the current demographics of each individual district.
"There were some Band-Aid patches that we had done to address these issues, but this is the first time I think a formula looks at this (demographic changes)," she said.
The program wouldn't negatively impact any district's state aid right away. A "hold harmless" provision would ensure that no district would lose money during the first three years of the plan, and every district would see at least a 2 percent rise in state aid next year.
But over time, the plan would correct what many say is an inequity in the current funding structure. That structure was established by the state Supreme Court in its 1997 Abbott v. Burke decision.
In that case, the court ordered the state to assure that per-pupil expenditures in the state's poorest school districts were equivalent to the average per-pupil expenditures in the state's wealthiest districts.
Those poorer districts, dubbed Abbott districts, now number 31, including Plainfield in Central Jersey.
Too far in one direction
But while the ruling was designed to instill equity, Davy said it has pushed the system of state aid too far in favor of Abbott districts.
"Under the current system," Davy said. "Abbott districts come in and tell us what they want."
She said increases to the state's education budget often are absorbed mostly or solely by the Abbott districts, leaving non-Abbotts to pay higher and higher taxes.
"A lot of communities have had to bear a larger and larger share of the burden through property taxes," Davy said.
Further, Davy said, changing demographics have meant that Abbott districts aren't always the most in need anymore.
Today, Davies said, "half of the free and reduced lunch students live outside of the Abbott boundaries."
Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for free school lunches. Children from families making up to 185 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for reduced-price lunches.
The new funding formula would be calculated each year, allowing the state to account for demographic shifts. The plan is based on "adequacy budgets," a term that aims to quantify how much money it takes to educate a pupil to meet state standards. The base amount for an elementary student is $9,649. Middle-school students require about $400 more, and the base amount for a high-school student is $11,289.
Those per-pupil numbers are adjusted for each at-risk (students eligible for free and reduced lunch), special education or non-English proficient student.
The formula also includes adjustments based on income and poverty values within the district, plus incentives for districts that have full-day kindergarten and more funding for special-education students whose education costs exceed certain limits.
In addition to its "hold harmless" provision, the department also would cap the rate at which the districts that would benefit from the new formula will receive their increases. For districts currently spending below their adequacy budgets, the annual increase in state aid is 20 percent. For districts currently spending above the adequacy cap, the increase is capped at 10 percent annually.
All told, the plan would add about $530 million to the state's 2009 budget, not counting benefits payments the state pays on behalf of the districts.
Getting it passed
Corzine and Davy hope the new formula is in place by the next school year, but in order for that to happen, the Legislature must pass it quickly, and the state Supreme Court will have to agree that it complies with the goals of the Abbott v. Burke decision.
Davy said she's optimistic.
"Not only is the governor fully behind it and fully supportive, but the Legislature, a majority of the Legislature, also understands this is a good formula," she said.
Davy said the general public has been generally warm to the proposal.
"I would say it's been relatively positive," she said. "There are always going to be people who say no matter what you do it's not enough. But the state's resources aren't limited."
In recognition of that fact, Davy said, the funding formula includes an emphasis on accountability.
Davy points to the Legislature's recent strengthening of the county superintendent role, and to the Department of Education's new performance evaluation guidelines, known as the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum.
NJQSAC, as its known, grants the commissioner more authority to intervene when a district is under-performing and to set the district on a plan for improvement.
The Legislature could also play a role in deciding how districts that benefit from the new formula will deal with the excess money. Davy said that ideally, the extra cash would mean tax breaks for residents, as opposed to unnecessary excess programs. But she said that either way, the money will be back in taxpayers' hands.
"But if the taxpayers are willing to pay for all the extras, then that's a different issue," she said.
Jared Kaltwasser can be reached at (908) 707-3137 or jkaltwasse@gannett.com.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Corzine's education chief:
School-funding plan will fix Abbott flaws
By JARED KALTWASSER
STAFF WRITER
A week after Gov. Jon S. Corzine unveiled his long-awaited school funding formula, the push is on to win legislative and court approval, and to convince the public that the plan is the right way to secure equity in the state's education spending.
Education Commissioner Lucille Davy met with the Courier News editorial board Friday to discuss the plan. She said the new formula will replace the Abbott district system and base its funding on the current demographics of each individual district.
"There were some Band-Aid patches that we had done to address these issues, but this is the first time I think a formula looks at this (demographic changes)," she said.
The program wouldn't negatively impact any district's state aid right away. A "hold harmless" provision would ensure that no district would lose money during the first three years of the plan, and every district would see at least a 2 percent rise in state aid next year.
But over time, the plan would correct what many say is an inequity in the current funding structure. That structure was established by the state Supreme Court in its 1997 Abbott v. Burke decision.
In that case, the court ordered the state to assure that per-pupil expenditures in the state's poorest school districts were equivalent to the average per-pupil expenditures in the state's wealthiest districts.
Those poorer districts, dubbed Abbott districts, now number 31, including Plainfield in Central Jersey.
Too far in one direction
But while the ruling was designed to instill equity, Davy said it has pushed the system of state aid too far in favor of Abbott districts.
"Under the current system," Davy said. "Abbott districts come in and tell us what they want."
She said increases to the state's education budget often are absorbed mostly or solely by the Abbott districts, leaving non-Abbotts to pay higher and higher taxes.
"A lot of communities have had to bear a larger and larger share of the burden through property taxes," Davy said.
Further, Davy said, changing demographics have meant that Abbott districts aren't always the most in need anymore.
Today, Davies said, "half of the free and reduced lunch students live outside of the Abbott boundaries."
Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for free school lunches. Children from families making up to 185 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for reduced-price lunches.
The new funding formula would be calculated each year, allowing the state to account for demographic shifts. The plan is based on "adequacy budgets," a term that aims to quantify how much money it takes to educate a pupil to meet state standards. The base amount for an elementary student is $9,649. Middle-school students require about $400 more, and the base amount for a high-school student is $11,289.
Those per-pupil numbers are adjusted for each at-risk (students eligible for free and reduced lunch), special education or non-English proficient student.
The formula also includes adjustments based on income and poverty values within the district, plus incentives for districts that have full-day kindergarten and more funding for special-education students whose education costs exceed certain limits.
In addition to its "hold harmless" provision, the department also would cap the rate at which the districts that would benefit from the new formula will receive their increases. For districts currently spending below their adequacy budgets, the annual increase in state aid is 20 percent. For districts currently spending above the adequacy cap, the increase is capped at 10 percent annually.
All told, the plan would add about $530 million to the state's 2009 budget, not counting benefits payments the state pays on behalf of the districts.
Getting it passed
Corzine and Davy hope the new formula is in place by the next school year, but in order for that to happen, the Legislature must pass it quickly, and the state Supreme Court will have to agree that it complies with the goals of the Abbott v. Burke decision.
Davy said she's optimistic.
"Not only is the governor fully behind it and fully supportive, but the Legislature, a majority of the Legislature, also understands this is a good formula," she said.
Davy said the general public has been generally warm to the proposal.
"I would say it's been relatively positive," she said. "There are always going to be people who say no matter what you do it's not enough. But the state's resources aren't limited."
In recognition of that fact, Davy said, the funding formula includes an emphasis on accountability.
Davy points to the Legislature's recent strengthening of the county superintendent role, and to the Department of Education's new performance evaluation guidelines, known as the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum.
NJQSAC, as its known, grants the commissioner more authority to intervene when a district is under-performing and to set the district on a plan for improvement.
The Legislature could also play a role in deciding how districts that benefit from the new formula will deal with the excess money. Davy said that ideally, the extra cash would mean tax breaks for residents, as opposed to unnecessary excess programs. But she said that either way, the money will be back in taxpayers' hands.
"But if the taxpayers are willing to pay for all the extras, then that's a different issue," she said.
Jared Kaltwasser can be reached at (908) 707-3137 or jkaltwasse@gannett.com.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Schools - APP - Funding plan puts aid cuts off 3 years
Published in the Asbury Park Press, Monday, December 17, 2007
School aid cuts put off 3 years
Formula caps extra aid, too
By JONATHAN TAMARI
GANNETT STATE BUREAU
If Gov. Corzine's new funding formula were applied today, Jersey City schools would be out $111 million in state aid.
Under the new criteria, other big cuts would be in store for city schools in places such as Newark ($88 million), Camden ($48 million) and Vineland ($42 million).
These districts are among the 31 historically poor, urban Abbott districts that in recent years have received more than half of state education aid, helping them keep their own property taxes down.
The new formula, if strictly applied, would take some of that money away as it requires all communities to pay their local "fair share."
But a "hold harmless" provision in Corzine's plan says no schools will lose money for at least the first three years of the new program, even if the formula says they are already spending more than necessary. In fact, every district will get at least a 2 percent increase this year, regardless of what the formula says.
The hold-harmless provision would cost $860 million next year and help roughly 40 percent of the state's school districts. That's more than the $532 million in aid increases being touted as help for the largely middle-class schools that have received limited increases in state support over the past six years.
And, among the districts now due for massive aid hikes, increases will be capped at 20 percent. For many of those communities, that means a continued reliance on local property taxes to pay for most school costs.
While Corzine hopes his plan will move beyond the two-tier system that has dominated education funding for a decade, the caps and hold-harmless provision represent nods to political, financial and legal realities. They also limit the help and harm the formula could bring in its first year.
If Corzine imposed large aid cuts, the new formula could force urban schools to slash spending and put more pressure on property taxpayers in those communities. A plan with such cuts also would have almost no chance of winning legislative approval and might face a tougher challenge in court, because many of the potential losers are among the districts covered by the Abbott v. Burke state Supreme Court rulings, which mandated enhanced aid for needy schools.
"We are in no way backing away from our commitment to adequacy funding for all of our children, including those in the Abbott districts," Corzine said. "We are trying to draw a different approach to that, and we understand there's going to have to be a transition period."
Administration officials say the aid caps will prevent runaway spending that might result from floods of money heading to some districts. The caps also help control the price tag on the new formula, cutting its immediate cost by $1 billion. Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said the approach ensures an orderly transition into a new, more fair system.
"We didn't get here in one year," Davy said. "I don't think it's really practical to expect us to change the entire thing overnight."
Overall, many districts would do well under the new formula. Roughly half of the state's 616 school district would see aid increases of 10 percent or larger, far more than they have received in recent years.
But Sen. Robert Martin, R-Morris, said that doesn't make up for years of stagnant aid.
"Twenty percent after almost six years of flat funding doesn't begin, at least for some of us, to provide the kind of relief a middle-class community like Washington Township would deserve," Martin said.
Edison is one of the middle-class districts that would receive the maximum 20 percent boost, but the Central Jersey suburb would still have to rely on property taxes to pay at least 80 percent of its school costs. With the added aid, property taxes won't rise as much as in the past, but the township might have actually cut taxes if it received the full complement of aid from the new formula, Mayor Jun Choi said. With limits on annual increases, Edison will have to depend on the state continuing to ramp up funding.
"We're expecting a few years of gains, assuming the state has the money for it," Choi said.
Corzine said he hoped all schools could receive the amounts they are entitled to within four to five years.
Despite the limits, Choi said the caps are generally a good idea.
"You don't want to expand programs too quickly without quality controls on it," Choi said.
With the hold-harmless provision in place, Abbott districts will still receive 56 percent of all state support.
But David Sciarra, an attorney for the Education Law Center, said the hold-harmless funding conceals the impact of a formula that could hurt schools in poor areas. He said that aid was "larded on top" to win lawmaker support and hide what would otherwise be an overall cut in state education support.
Davy said districts would only lose money after the first three years if they have decreasing enrollment or large demographic changes — fewer special-needs students, for example. They also may be required to chip in more money from local property taxes if they have significant wealth gains. The formula generally calls on more affluent communities to pay more of their own costs and sends more state support to poorer ones.
"There's an expectation that communities provide their local fair share, and that's going to be applied to the state as a whole," Davy said.
Asked if some districts will be spared the full ramifications of that requirement by having their state funding sustained at old levels, Davy responded, "I think you could say that."
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
School aid cuts put off 3 years
Formula caps extra aid, too
By JONATHAN TAMARI
GANNETT STATE BUREAU
If Gov. Corzine's new funding formula were applied today, Jersey City schools would be out $111 million in state aid.
Under the new criteria, other big cuts would be in store for city schools in places such as Newark ($88 million), Camden ($48 million) and Vineland ($42 million).
These districts are among the 31 historically poor, urban Abbott districts that in recent years have received more than half of state education aid, helping them keep their own property taxes down.
The new formula, if strictly applied, would take some of that money away as it requires all communities to pay their local "fair share."
But a "hold harmless" provision in Corzine's plan says no schools will lose money for at least the first three years of the new program, even if the formula says they are already spending more than necessary. In fact, every district will get at least a 2 percent increase this year, regardless of what the formula says.
The hold-harmless provision would cost $860 million next year and help roughly 40 percent of the state's school districts. That's more than the $532 million in aid increases being touted as help for the largely middle-class schools that have received limited increases in state support over the past six years.
And, among the districts now due for massive aid hikes, increases will be capped at 20 percent. For many of those communities, that means a continued reliance on local property taxes to pay for most school costs.
While Corzine hopes his plan will move beyond the two-tier system that has dominated education funding for a decade, the caps and hold-harmless provision represent nods to political, financial and legal realities. They also limit the help and harm the formula could bring in its first year.
If Corzine imposed large aid cuts, the new formula could force urban schools to slash spending and put more pressure on property taxpayers in those communities. A plan with such cuts also would have almost no chance of winning legislative approval and might face a tougher challenge in court, because many of the potential losers are among the districts covered by the Abbott v. Burke state Supreme Court rulings, which mandated enhanced aid for needy schools.
"We are in no way backing away from our commitment to adequacy funding for all of our children, including those in the Abbott districts," Corzine said. "We are trying to draw a different approach to that, and we understand there's going to have to be a transition period."
Administration officials say the aid caps will prevent runaway spending that might result from floods of money heading to some districts. The caps also help control the price tag on the new formula, cutting its immediate cost by $1 billion. Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said the approach ensures an orderly transition into a new, more fair system.
"We didn't get here in one year," Davy said. "I don't think it's really practical to expect us to change the entire thing overnight."
Overall, many districts would do well under the new formula. Roughly half of the state's 616 school district would see aid increases of 10 percent or larger, far more than they have received in recent years.
But Sen. Robert Martin, R-Morris, said that doesn't make up for years of stagnant aid.
"Twenty percent after almost six years of flat funding doesn't begin, at least for some of us, to provide the kind of relief a middle-class community like Washington Township would deserve," Martin said.
Edison is one of the middle-class districts that would receive the maximum 20 percent boost, but the Central Jersey suburb would still have to rely on property taxes to pay at least 80 percent of its school costs. With the added aid, property taxes won't rise as much as in the past, but the township might have actually cut taxes if it received the full complement of aid from the new formula, Mayor Jun Choi said. With limits on annual increases, Edison will have to depend on the state continuing to ramp up funding.
"We're expecting a few years of gains, assuming the state has the money for it," Choi said.
Corzine said he hoped all schools could receive the amounts they are entitled to within four to five years.
Despite the limits, Choi said the caps are generally a good idea.
"You don't want to expand programs too quickly without quality controls on it," Choi said.
With the hold-harmless provision in place, Abbott districts will still receive 56 percent of all state support.
But David Sciarra, an attorney for the Education Law Center, said the hold-harmless funding conceals the impact of a formula that could hurt schools in poor areas. He said that aid was "larded on top" to win lawmaker support and hide what would otherwise be an overall cut in state education support.
Davy said districts would only lose money after the first three years if they have decreasing enrollment or large demographic changes — fewer special-needs students, for example. They also may be required to chip in more money from local property taxes if they have significant wealth gains. The formula generally calls on more affluent communities to pay more of their own costs and sends more state support to poorer ones.
"There's an expectation that communities provide their local fair share, and that's going to be applied to the state as a whole," Davy said.
Asked if some districts will be spared the full ramifications of that requirement by having their state funding sustained at old levels, Davy responded, "I think you could say that."
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)