NJ Business Matters: The Blog of the CIANJ

Maybe We Should Make More Copies of the State Audits

Yesterday, the Education Law Center and their supporters argued before the Supreme Court that New Jersey's Abbott school districts are under-funded. Then, they got in their cars and drove through a city that spends more than $16,000 per-pupil in education, with state taxpayers picking up 80% of the tab.

"At bottom, the state's proposal (would) turn its back on the severe and extreme disadvantages of Abbott school children repeatedly identified," the brief filed by the Education Law Center, lead attorneys in the Abbott case, says. "There is simply no basis ... to, once again, consign untold future generation[s] of Abbott children to pay the price so dearly exacted upon prior generations of those children."

Last year New Jersey state taxpayers distributed $7.3 billion in state aid. More than half that went to the 31 Abbott districts, leaving more than 500 non-Abbott districts to divide the rest. At some point, the legislature has to come to the conclusion that spending more money on the problem of urban education does not make the problem go away - it only makes it more expensive.

The Urban Schools Scholarship Act, which would allow corporations to fund a school choice pilot program for poor children in seven New Jersey cities, is long overdue.

1,900 Kids in D.C. Benefit from School Choice

Later this week, D.C. Mayor Adrien Fenty will go to Capitol Hill in the hopes of protecting the interests of the 1,900 children in his city's popular school choice program. A program so popular, that demand has outstripped resources. Today's Washington Post editorializes in favor of funding the program and putting student achievement above political points. Obviously, there are parallels to New Jersey's proposed tax credit scholarship program and one of the most clear is the myth used to argue against it - that public schools will be harmed.

The WaPo closes,

Of all the arguments against vouchers, the most pernicious is that they hurt public schools. Never mind that D.C. public schools benefit financially from the funding formula. Public schools failed long before vouchers were even conceived of, and no less an authority than D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee dismisses that argument out of hand. As she told the Wall Street Journal, "I would never, as long as I am in this role, do anything to limit another parent's ability to make a choice for their child. Ever." Let's hope Congress feels that same compunction.

Ditto for the New Jersey legislature.

More In Checks Than Balances

Did you hear the one about the school bus drivers that were each paid $345 per month in overtime for charging their cell phones? If not, then you missed out on the latest only-in-New Jersey punchline that brings to the forefront the issue of school district accountability.

The bus drivers were guaranteed six hours per month of overtime to charge their cell phones as part of a union contract that was negotiated and approved by school board officials in Union City. The total cost to taxpayers ranged from $39,000 to $73,000 per year.

Here's where the punchline creates more than a few hecklers: Union City is an Abbott District, which means the town cannot afford the cost of a thorough education on its own, and receives the majority of its funding from state taxpayers - not the taxpayers in Union City. Which is where accountability crashes into NJ political reality - the taxpayers who had their pockets picked are not the same taxpayers who get to vote for Union City's elected officials.

It may not be fair to punish the kids in Union City by withdrawing funds because their school 'leadership' dropped the ball, but it's not fair to the taxpayers to subsidize the aforementioned fumble either. If government did not have the monopoly it currently does over education, then parents could send their kids to a school that does not waste resources on things like paying someone overtime to charge their cell phone, and accountability and efficiency can slowly creep their way back into Jersey's school system.

Who could possibly object to that? 

Statistical Fiction

Cheers to the editorial board at The Record for criticizing the State Board of Education for failing to abandon the Special Review Assessment (SRA).

The SRA was designed as an alternative graduation test for students who were disabled or simply "froze" during the standard High School Proficiency Assessment. Long-term blog readers know that the HSPA is a test designed at an 8th grade skill level and a requirement for high school graduation.

As The Record points out, the SRA has become a crutch for poor-performing schools used to boost their graduation rates. It has more to do with politics than education.

Twelve percent of the state's high school graduates now get by via the SRA. In the Abbott districts, the state's most impoverished, about a third use the alternative route.

The numbers in some urban schools are simply astounding: Three high schools in Paterson owe the majority of their graduations to the SRA. But the problem is by no means confined to the big cities. Fourteen Bergen County high schools have given the SRA to more than 10 percent of their students. The highest proportions are at Bogota High School (26.5 percent), Englewood's Dwight Morrow High School (19.7 percent), Garfield High School (18.2 percent) and Teaneck Senior High School (15.5 percent)....

If a quarter or a half of a high school's students have not learned enough to meet graduation requirements, the first step toward solving the problem is acknowledging it. Turning instead to a statistical fiction serves no public interest, least of all the students'.

Ditto. The state's 31 so-called Abbott districts spend the same as the state's wealthiest districts on a per-pupil basis, and the majority of funding coming from state taxpayers versus local taxes. Taxpayers and students in these districts deserve much better.

For an excellent rundown of the SRA's failings, check out New Jersey Excellent Education for Everyone's testimony before the Board of Ed.

Following the testimony, the Board voted to make minor changes to the SRA, but keep the program operational. State Board of Education President Ronald Butcher, promised, "We're going to really watch this closely."

About time. 

School Funding Formula Goes For Its Day In Court

The State of New Jersey is filing papers with the Supreme Court to remove so-called "Abbott" status from the state's 31 poorest school districts. The Abbott v. Burke decision is one of the bigger drivers of our highest-in-the-nation property taxes.

in the Abbott case, the NJ Supreme Court ruled children in the 31 poorest school districts were not receiving an adequate education. Therefore, per-pupil spending in those districts must equal per-pupil spending in the state's wealthiest districts. Because you know, 1) it's the court's Constitutional duty to appropriate money and 2) spending more equals better results.

We are left with a situation such as Camden, where per-pupil spending is approaching $20,000 per student, but the real graduation rate (those graduating high school without the benefit of a special exam) stands at about 15%.

The local districts don't have enough revenue to spend $20k per child, so the state (i.e. other taxpayers) is forced to make up the difference plus fund their own schools. Remember, school funding accounts for a majority (and in many cases a super-duper majority) of your property tax bill.

"It is time to abandon this process and refocus, as the School Funding Reform Act does, on providing a thorough and efficient education for all New Jersey children through a unified funding formula," the state's legal brief says.

CIANJ has long-contended that spending in these districts should be at the state average and not at the top of the scale. It's time for the Supreme Court to abandon its bad decision, realize that more money has not produced the desired results, and give alternatives a chance.

SRA Survives Another Day

Yesterday the State Board of Education chose to reform, rather than eliminate the Special Review Assessment (SRA) for NJ's high school students.

In order to graduate from a New Jersey high school, a student is required to pass the High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA), which tests 8th-grade level skills. If a student fails to pass either section of the HSPA three times, the SRA exists as an alternate route.

The problems with the SRA are numerous. For example, it is a subjective test and the scoring is done by the student's home district - which has a vested interest in having their students graduate. Fortunately, the board decided yesterday to do away with that policy.

Last year the number of students who needed the SRA in order to graduate was about 12% of all high school seniors. Remember, the test they were unable to pass is designed at an 8th grade level. In some of the state's poorest performing districts, about half of high school graduates earned their diploma via the SRA.

Schools and educators had voiced concern, however, about eliminating the SRA, saying it would be unfair to students who had otherwise met all graduation requirements.

Which begs the question of accountability. Yes, on paper the high school senior may have met all requirements. However, how were they advanced from the 9th to the 10th to the 11th to the 12th grade without the ability to pass a test of 8th grade skills?

The SRA was designed as a sensible response to a small segment of students who may have "froze" when taking the standard test. However, it has become a crutch for poor performing districts and goes to the heart of the education question for employers.

What does a New Jersey high school diploma mean?

Today in Trenton: School Funding Formula Part Deux

The legislature is holding a rare holiday-week session today so the General Assembly can hear and debate details of the Governor's proposed $7.8 billion school funding formula. School funding consumes the largest share of the state budget and a new formula to replace the ad hoc and disjointed system currently in place offers the greatest opportunity for property tax reform.

Since the Senate hearing, formal legislation has finally been introduced. To our pleasant surprise, the property tax relief contained within the proposal is more substantial than expected. It requires towns spending more than the state definition of adequate who also receive more than the minimum 2% in state aid to return money above the 'adequacy' marker directly to the taxpayers. The baseline (before children are defined as special needs, at risk etc and before they reach high school age) in the formula is more than $9,600 per student. Under the new proposal, more than 100 towns would be required to return money to taxpayers.

While accountability in the formula is still lacking in that there is no correlation between funding levels and results, the changes do offer much of what CIANJ has long-stood for. Our testimony before the Senate is available here. A district-by-district breakdown of who would get how much from Trenton is also available. 

The Administration seeks to have the proposal pass the legislature during the current session, which means it would need to pass by January 7th.

The Obvious Choice, The More Obvious Motivation

Cheers to Ledger columnist Tom Moran this morning, for pointing out how turf wars launched by the educational establishment threaten to thwart the amazing work being done by private pre-schools in the state's poorest districts and beyond.

In 1999 the State Supreme Court ruled that 3 & 4 year old children in the state's Abbott districts must be offered pre-schools (CIANJ concurs with studies that show the worthwhile investment early childhood education is). The public school system didn't have the space or teachers to implement a successful program and so private schools worked with the public school system to educate our youngest children.

The result has been one of the greatest success stories in NJ's school system.

However, as the Governor proposes expanding pre-schools outside of Abbott districts, the public school monopoly feels threatened and is working to ensure successful private schools do not receive any state money as part of the plan - disregarding the success of public-private partnerships in poor districts.

But the preschools in these districts are both public and private. And because parents make the final choice about where to enroll their kids, the schools must compete for business.

So here we are. We have a success story, and the question is whether we have the wisdom to repeat it.

And so we put a question to the educational establishment, who say they are protecting the existing system in the name of the best interest of the children - Why doesn't the "best interest of the child" include letting them attend the best school possible? Government-run or not.

Today in Trenton: A New School Funding Formula

Today may be the busiest day of the year in Trenton. The General Assembly is scheduled to vote on more than 100 bills, decide if it wishes to advance paid family leave, and in the remaining time abolish the death penalty. Don't people want to see the Mitchell Report press conferences?

Meanwhile the Senate will consider testimony offered on the Governor's proposed new school funding formula. A town-by-town matrix of who gets how much from the state is available here. Our testimony is available here.

In short, CIANJ measured the formula against the organization's long-held principles of a single formula for all children, dollars following the child as they move from one district to another and accountability through rewards for teachers and administrators at high-performing districts coupled with school choice in our worst performing ones.

The new formula is based on better science than the existing one and is an improvement over the status quo. We finally have something that reduces funding (eventually) for schools with declining enrollment and bolsters it for towns that are growing. For too long large cities with declining student populations continued to see funding increases because the existing model ties dollars to buildings, staffing levels and programs but not the number of children in the schoolhouse. Meanwhile, booming towns saw no increase in funding from Trenton and had to shoulder the burden through higher property taxes while subsidizing other districts. A change from that is welcome news.

However, the plan still fails to hold school districts accountable as there is no correlation between how well a school performs and how much money it receives. Without that, other improvements become less meaningful. The system is in need of fundamental reform, and without increased accountability and oversight that cannot occur.   

Fund The Child, Not the System

Last week your friendly blogger had the opportunity to observe a panel discussion geared toward the state's mayors on a proposed new school funding formula. The panel offered the opportunity to hear from groups such as the teacher's union, school administrators, and those representing both Abbott and suburban districts.

A hat tip goes to our friends at E3 and Derrell Bradford, who offered a refreshing perspective in altering the status quo to include increased accountability, open enrollment and dollars following the child (DFC).

The present system funds programs, administrations and staffs but amazingly there is little to fluctuate the amount of money arriving at a schoolhouse with how many children are in the building. As you might imagine this especially punishes rapidly growing districts who are often a population magnent because of their high-quality schools.

The E3 white paper on necessary aspects of a new school funding formula is available here in its entirety. The quality and cost of education impact everyone and the state must not use the same instruments while expecting better results. 

Budgets Aren't the Only Things Inflated

A belated hat tip to Newark Councilwoman Dana Rone this morning for her op-ed exposing the Special Review Assessment (SRA) as a device all too often used to inflate graduation statistics and putting the emphasis on diplomas rather than education.

Both you regular blog readers know this all by heart.

To graduate from a New Jersey high school a student must pass the HSPA, which tests 8th grade skills at the conclusion of a student's senior year. Originally the SRA was developed for students who froze during the HSPA and is offered to those students who failed part of the HSPA three times. Remember that the HSPA is an 8th grade test, meaning some students without 8th grade skills were promoted throughout their high school careers.

In certain Abbott districts, between 64% and 93% of students cannot pass the HSPA. Proponents of the SRA alternative test claim that elimination of it would cause dismay among those students and force more to drop out.

Rone notes that her city accounts for one-fourth of "dropout factories" named by Johns Hopkins University,

Consider these statistics from the New Jersey Education Department's 2005-06 School Report Cards: Weequahic High School had 258 students enter high school in 2002. Four years later, 80 students had left, leaving 178 students in the senior class. Of those 178, 82 percent, or 145 students, graduated. Of those 145, 100 (or 69 percent) either failed the HSPA three times or were given an exemption from the HSPA.

Ultimately, through SRA testing or special permissions, these students were passed and given the same high school diploma as those who passed the HSPA. If not for the SRA or some other HSPA exemption, only 45 students would have graduated from Weequahic High School in the class of 2006. (emphasis ours)

This is the scenario at just one of New Jersey's "dropout factories." Imagine if you had more than 70 percent of senior classes getting left back year after year.

Only when the SRA test is no longer inflating graduation statis tics will we really be able to expose failing schools and become truly proud of our education performance in New Jersey.

Once again we ask defenders of the status quo whether handing someone a diploma is more important than educating them and preparing our high school students for the modern workforce.

A Failure of Our System

13 of New Jersey's high schools were named to Johns Hopkins University's "Dropout Factories" list, meaning fewer than 60% of the total numbers who entered a high school for their freshman year were present for graduation day.

Today's Star-Ledger makes the obvious point that a high school dropout factory is unacceptable and needs to be corrected, but then the editorial board introduces us to a favorite subject of Special Review Assessment defenders,

New Jersey, with 13 of its 348 high schools on the dropout factory list, would seem to be doing better than many other states. New Jersey, however, is a state where students who stay in school can get diplomas even if they cannot pass the official state graduation test. An alternative exam provides a back door to graduation, a door that the state plans to close by eliminating the alternative test.

Is that alternative keeping more New Jersey high schoolers in class compared with other states? If so, will closing off that op tion have unintended consequences for the dropout rate? Is New Jersey doing a better job of providing high school choices that keep more kids in school?

To graduate from a New Jersey high school a student must pass the HSPA, which tests 8th grade skills at the conclusion of a student's senior year. Originally the SRA was developed for students who froze during the HSPA and is offered to those students who failed part of the HSPA three times. Remember that the HSPA is an 8th grade test, meaning some students without 8th grade skills were promoted throughout their high school careers.

In certain Abbott districts, between 64% and 93% cannot pass the HSPA. Proponents of the SRA alternative test claim that elimination of it would cause dismay among those students and force more to drop out.

The question for those defenders is simple: isn't actually gaining knowledge and an education (upon which a high school senior is tested at an 8th grade level) more important than being handed a diploma?

More Talk Of New School Funding - New Target: 2008

Today's Star-Ledger follows up on news reported yesterday on potential changes to the state's school funding formula. The disjointed system is a primary reason for New Jersey's status as having the nation's highest property taxes. In short, the 31 so-called Abbott districts, which are the state's poorest, must be funded at the same level as the state's wealthiest according to the state supreme court's Abbott v. Burke decision. Local property taxes in those districts cannot sustain that type of spending, so the state (i.e. the rest of NJ's taxpayers) are forced to pay for their own public schools and a large share of Abbott schools. In fact, of the more than $7.5 billion NJ spends on state aid to schools, half that goes to the 31 Abbott districts while the other half goes to the other 585 districts.

CIANJ has maintained that Abbott districts should be funded at the statewide average, not the same per-pupil rates as the wealthiest districts. Regular blog readers already know that NJ spends an average of more than $20,000 per student in Camden, despite a real graduation rate of only 15%. We also believe in accountability, especially as it relates to students being able to leave failing districts for other public or non-public schools. If a school is not meeting standards, it should not be rewarded with even more spending and students should not be forced to attend a failing school simply because of their zip code.

The Ledger article details the concerns of suburban school parents and urban superintendents. The suburban folks want a cap on state spending of 85% of a district's needs (presently, the state picks up the tab for more than 95% of the spending in certain districts). For our part, CIANJ favors a system in which dollars follow a child. We presently fund staffing levels, demographics and programs but there is no one-to-one correlation which asserts that each child in NJ receives $x in state funding with exceptions for special needs children etc. Until we reach that point, taxpayer dollars will still be aimed at a top-heavy administration.

The complete article is available here. 

Hope On The Way?

Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts is promising action on the largest share of our property tax bills – a school funding formula that targets demographics and not students. The Speaker told the Associated Press that he expects to see movement on a new funding formula either during the upcoming Lame Duck session or during the opening months of the next legislature.

Whether it's done in the lame-duck session or whether it's done at the very early part of the year remains to be seen, but rest assured it's something we're going to be talking about and working on through November and December," said Roberts, D-Camden.

If you are a suburban property taxpayer, most of your property tax bill goes to fund public schools with the remainder paying for services such as police, fire and municipal government. A portion of suburban property taxes are also sent to Trenton to be redistributed to 31 urban school districts (the so-called Abbott districts) including Newark, Camden and Hoboken.

NJ is under a state supreme court mandate to spend as much per pupil in the 31 poorest districts as are spent in the wealthiest. As we have seen, increased dollars has not produced the best possible results, but it has produced America's highest property taxes. To fix the formula, funding levels for all children, especially special needs children, must be targeted to individual students regardless of their zip code. Without that control, towns have mandatory spending costs that have become unsustainable.

While CIANJ pushed for a new funding formula to be introduced before this year's budget, election season lessened political will to take what may be a controversial step.

Update at 10:05 a.m. - The Garden State Coalition of Schools is holding a press conference later this morning on the need for an updated formula.

What NJ High School Diplomas Should Mean

Derrell Bradford, Deputy Director for our friends at Excellent Education for Everyone, penned a column which ran in Tuesday's Record and cut to the heart of the failures associated with the Special Review Assessment (SRA).

For those unfamiliar, in order to receive a diploma from a New Jersey high school, a student is expected to pass the High School Proficiency Exam (HSPA) - which tests to ensure 8th grade skills have been acquired before a student can graduate high school. After the HSPA's implementation, the SRA was introduced as a way to test students who 'froze' during the exam and therefore had failed to pass the HSPA three times.

Now, more than 13,000 students annually - who have failed to pass a test of 8th grade skills - are granted their diploma through the SRA.

This raises a host of questions which Bradford poses - such as how does a student without 8th grade skills get promoted through high school and how does this happen in urban districts which spend upwards of $20,000 per pupil on education. He closes,

Reauthorization or extension of the SRA should not be supported. Its abuse is symptomatic of a critical failure in New Jersey's schools that overwhelmingly affects communities of color, and stymies the transparency necessary to identify deficiencies and make genuine school change.

As former Education Commissioner William Librera said in 2005: "It's time to get rid of [the SRA] and refocus our efforts on helping our kids pass [the HSPA]."

Regular blog readers already know that CIANJ is proud to work with E3 in support of the Urban Schools Scholarship Act. This legislation would allow companies to make tax deductible contributions to scholarship funds so that up to 4,000 children in our poorest school districts can use the money to attend other public or non-public schools. Mayor Booker, a cofounder of E3, also supports the program as a way to improve education "by any means possible". Let's hope legislative leaders in Trenton are willing to take the same approach when they reconvene in November, even if it means taking a stand against the powerful education lobby.

More Proof That More Money Does Not Equal Better Results

You don't have to be a policy wonk or legal scholar in New Jersey to have heard of the Abbott v. Burke case - a state Supreme Court decision which set the stage for mandating that New Jersey's poorest school districts spend the same amount per student as the state's wealthiest. The decision flows from the misconception that more money equals better education and has led to situations such as in Camden, where the real graduation rate is only 15% despite spending more than $20,000 per student.

This week's NJBiz ($ubscription required) breaks down the state's 25 largest school districts, by enrollment, and lists state funding for those districts during 2006-'07.

To exemplify how skewed the state funding formula has become, consider the cases of Clifton (a non-Abbott District) and East Orange.

The Clifton School District has 10,388 students and received $20,508,273 in state funding.

The East Orange School District has 10,239 students and received $169,691,706 in state funding.

Because property taxes in East Orange would not support current per-pupil funding levels, the overwhelming majority of the East Orange School District (and the other Abbott Districts) is funded by the rest of the state's taxpayers.

Given that, isn't it finally time for increased accountability within these districts, an altering of the school funding formula and some form of school choice in our poorest districts?

Calling a Charade a Charade

Kudos to the Star-Ledger this morning for calling the Special Review Assessment what it is - a charade that allows students in failing districts to earn a diploma that is nearly meaningless.

The SRA is given when students cannot pass the standard High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) in order to graduate. While the HSPA is given in English, the SRA is offered in multiple languages, not timed and is administered and scored within the same districts students attend. As you might imagine, there is some opportunity for manipulation.

Statewide about 12% of high school seniors rely on the SRA to graduate, but in our poorest districts that number rises to nearly one-third. Therefore, in Camden the "real" graduation rate is only about 15%. And both you regular blog readers know that because we fund Abbott districts at the same rate as our wealthiest districts, NJ spends close to $20,000 per student in those districts for such a low graduation rate.

Meanwhile, languishing on desks in Trenton is a bill that would help 4,000 students. The Urban Schools Scholarship Act would allow corporations to make tax-deductible contributions which students in these districts could use to attend other public or non-public schools. Per student caps would mean that not only would these children get a better education, but it would happen at roughly one-third of the present cost. It would also hold failing districts accountable, as they saw children leave because of the unacceptable status quo.

The problem, the Ledger aptly notes, is not in the test but in the schools,

Ending the SRA outright would have dire consequences. Dropout rates would likely increase, but continuing the charade of awarding diplomas that are hardly worth the paper they are printed on is just as bad.

The use of the SRA is a manifestation of a bigger problem: failing school districts.

Has the need for change ever been so apparent?

More Protectionism

The case against protectionism made on this piece of cyber real estate often relates to those trying to protect their jobs or products from competition. Without that competition for prices, talent and resources, the consumer suffers.

Protectionism does not only apply to international trade. Government bureaucracies can also insulate themselves from competition and we the consumer are worse for it. Today, Newt Gingrich addresses the Detroit school system's bureaucracy and the way it has failed consumers: students, taxpayers and businesses. The Motor City graduates only 25% of its entering freshmen on time and has seen that accelerate increased unemployment, crime and sagging population.

The bureaucracy is responding as though their primary concern is self-preservation, even rejecting a $200 million offer of support from the private sector.

There is ample evidence of what works in education, but the bureaucracy has systematically ignored all of it. The innovations include merit-based pay; increasing teacher-to-student ratios; revamping union rules to reward the best teachers; bonuses and incentives for new teachers; charter schools; and offering parents a coupon that allows them to send their children to the school that works best for their children and not the bureaucracies.

I've even suggested rewarding students in the poorest neighborhoods by paying them if they get a "B" or better in math and science.

Ultimately, Detroiters must decide what is in the best interests of their children and the future of their city. They can decide to accept business as usual, or they can demand real change.

But real change requires real change, not new rhetoric while doing more of the same old thing. Propping up the failed past at the expense of future generations leads to prison and poverty vouchers for too many of our children.

Here in New Jersey, we face the same challenges in our inner-cities. The mantra from the NJEA and their allies in government is that an investment in education is an investment in our future. We agree on that point, but then why disallow tax deductible corporate investments through the Urban Schools Scholarship Act? If we are seeking the best interest of the child, does that not mean allowing them to attend the best possible school? Surely that benefits the child more directly than non-merit based pay and free health insurance for retired teachers.

Meanwhile, the children of Newark prepare for another school year, and if the pattern of previous years remains steady, then 38% of seniors will hold a regular high school diploma at the end of the term. Just doesn't seem right.

Tale of Two Cities

Despite the benefit of an Abbott designation, a $15,000 per pupil investment and state control, the Paterson school district is still failing the majority of its children and will not be granted local control. The New York Times reports,

The 28,000-student Paterson district, which has been under state control since 1991 because of fiscal mismanagement and poor academics, failed to show satisfactory progress over the last year in any of the five main areas being evaluated: instruction and programs, school board operations, personnel, building maintenance and school safety, and budgetary issues.

State education officials said they would work with Paterson’s state-appointed superintendent and nine-member elected school board, which serves in an advisory capacity, to come up with a plan for improving the district’s performance.

Investing more money in education does not necessarily yield better results, while competition is proven to bolster achievement. On the same day the New York Times reported on the situation in Paterson, the Times Picayune was reporting that in New Orleans,

In a ranking of the city's schools by percentage of students scoring at basic or above in English and math, the state's barometer for acceptable performance, 17 of the top 20 New Orleans schools are charters.

Among schools controlled by the School Board or the state-run Recovery District, charters posted the highest scores in every grade level. On both the fourth- and eighth-grade LEAP tests, eight of the top-10 schools in both grades are charters, a mix of schools overseen by the Orleans Parish School Board, the Recovery District, the Algiers Charter School Association and the state board of education.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans became the first American city to offer school choice on such a large scale. Unfettered competition is working while unfettered spending is offering more of the same. Go figure.

Court Orders and Education Costs

The Tax Foundation has compiled an excellent report on the cost of education mandates passed down by the judiciary to taxpayers across America. Courts rarely mandate specific spending plans, leaving legislative reactions to the rulings to determine the final price tax for taxpayers.

Twenty-seven states must account for judicial mandates when spending on education, and New Jersey spends more than anyone else with per-pupil expenditures topping $6,600. Again, that's just to comply with court decisions. The total nearly doubles second-place New York ($3,633 per pupil) and far exceeds the $974 weighted average.

The study explains annomolies in New Jersey versus the national average and the relative (in)effectiveness of attempting to secure funding through litigation. Click here for the full report.

Camden School District Ranks Last While Urban Schools Scholarship Act Awaits A Hearing

Camden's school district was the worst performing among those monitored by New Jersey's Department of Education. Today's Courier-Post details some of the findings,

Camden fared the worst in all five categories among the seven districts reviewed, meeting only 6 percent of the benchmarks in instruction, 5 percent in personnel, 39 percent in operations management, 11 percent in governance and 31 percent in finance.

The report said the district does not disqualify individuals with criminal backgrounds or revoked licenses from being hired. It lacks policies for supervising and evaluating teachers and meeting their professional-development needs. The school board hasn't even evaluated the superintendent in recent years.

The district does not provide mandated programs for gifted and talented students, lacks an approved plan for improving special-education activities and relies on a high-school geometry and calculus curriculum that is 17 years old, the report found.

In addition, the report said, the district does not spend federal or state grant funds as required and has no rules for addressing the deliberate falsification of annual reports on violence or vandalism.

The district did satisfy all of the performance indicators in early-childhood education and operates "exemplary" health and nursing programs, the report said.

A separate audit of curriculum and professional-development in the district found that the instruction program for some subjects pre-dated the state's creation of content standards. The audit, also released on Tuesday, cited "fragmented and partial documentation" to explain the expenditure of $256,000 for teacher training. (emphasis ours)

In case you have forgotten, the Urban Schools Scholarship Act (USSA) was introduced in January and has still not been officially heard in either of the education committees. The USSA would give up to 4,000 children in Camden, Newark, Orange and Trenton the opportunity to utilize scholarships (funded through tax-deductible corporate contributions) to attend other public or non-public schools. Furthermore, the children taking advantage of this opportunity would be educated at about half the cost of what the Camden school district currently spends. A hat tip to Asw. Nilsa Cruz-Perez (D-Camden) for being a primary sponsor of the bill and putting the interests of her constituents first.

Pennsylvania has already instituted a similar program, benefiting more than 20,000 students. How much longer will reaching six percent of instruction benchmarks continue before NJ is willing to do the same?

Regionalization and Monetization

Dr. David Rebovich has a very thoughtful piece on the daunting task of creating a new school aid formula posted to PoliticsNJ.com. Asset monetization may be all the rage in political circles these days, but the single biggest opportunity for property tax relief within the state's current range of capabilities remains altering our disjointed school funding formula.

What the legislature and the governor did do in the new budget was increase state aid to non-Abbott school districts by three percent. This is the first time in five years that those districts have received more state aid.  The new budget also includes a hike in direct aid for increases in enrollments and targeted assistance for at risk students, both of which have created financial pressures on many non-Abbott districts. In addition, the state is providing more funds for full-day kindergarten and for pre-school programs. 

According to the Joint Legislative Committee on Public School Funding Reform, a new school funding formula should address these issues and more. The committee's final report recommended that a new formula be based on the characteristics of the student population of a district as well as the district's ability to pay. This would mean that state aid would "follow the children" and not be based on geography alone. In addition, the committee wants public-funded pre-school programs for all children who qualify, whether they live in Abbott districts or not, and all-day kindergarten in all districts.

What also needs to be resolved is the cost of a thorough and efficient system of education. The committee suggests relying on "professional judgment panels," a standard practice nationally, to determine the resources needed to achieve educational standards. Any such calculation, however, should also take into account the added costs of educating students deemed at risk, with special needs, and with limited proficiency in English.

What taxpayers will want to know, of course, is who will foot the bill for a new school funding formula..  Well, the joint committee recommended that school districts look seriously at sharing and regionalizing services, adopt best practices in administration and program delivery, find ways to reduce school transportation costs, and cut unnecessary state mandates. Yes,  616 school districts are too many for state the size of New Jersey, but the committee did not decide how many school districts the state should have.  However, it did state that the Abbott districts should be reviewed and consideration given to making residents in those districts pay more toward their schools.

Along with stricter caps on local property tax increases, some of these recommendations are already being considered by school officials. But without requiring districts - Abbott, suburban or rural - to pursue savings measures, education costs will continue to rise. And, if the state plans to help districts implement the goals and programs above, the cost will likely be a billion dollars or more a year.  From where will that kind of money come?

There is now consensus that a new, more equitable school funding formula must be in place. Consolidation of services, accountability and the Urban Schools Scholarship Act should be part of that matrix. As noted in the CIANJ 2007 Legislative Agenda,

Where appropriate, the private sector routinely streamlines operations to make itself more efficient and reduce costs to the consumer. CIANJ favors mandatory consolidation of government services, especially administrative functions. A base-closing style commission could issue recommendations that would be voted on in their entirety by the legislature, without the possibility of amendments. This would remove the political impediments that have frustrated past efforts to consolidate. The majority of property tax dollars are used to fund public schools.

Creation of countywide oversight with the power to line-item veto budgets; funding Abbott districts at the statewide average and not at the level of the wealthiest counties; and reduction in the number of school districts would all make significant improvements to New Jersey's property tax situation.

Remember that businesses in New Jersey often pay our nation's highest property taxes twice: Once by virtue of the nearly one-third of taxes collected being generated by commercial property and then again through the higher wages necessary to support a quality of life in NJ that attracts and retains a talented workforce. Each budget passed without a new formula costs the state's taxpayers. New Jersey's special session on property tax reform produced a litany of suggestions. Before the legislature begins to move on ideas such as universal healthcare and paid family leave, turning the biggest of those suggestions into an action should be atop the agenda. 

Mayor Booker and the Urban Schools Scholarship Act

In his column which appears in today's Washington Post, George Will addresses Newark's past, and future while aluding to Mayor Booker's position on the Urban Schools Scholarship Act.

Regular blog readers know all about the USSA. The bill would allow companies to make tax deductible contributions to scholarship funds. These funds could be used to pay for children in failing school districts in Camden, Newark, Orange and Trenton to attend other public or non-public schools.

You read that correctly. The bill would set up a pilot program to use corporate money to help up to 4,000 children in failing school districts. Not only would the program not use state money to fund these scholarships, it would actually save money. Currently, per-pupil spending in these districts is nearly $20,000 per child. Scholarship recipients would be educated for a maximum of $9,000.

Saving money while helping children in failing school districts. To most, it seems like a good idea, but the state's education lobby still opposes it.

Will's piece closes with the following remarks.

Today, per-pupil spending tops $17,000, which is 75 percent above the national average and a (redundant) refutation of the public education lobby's not disinterested judgment that in primary and secondary education, cognitive outputs correlate with financial inputs. Seventy percent of Newark's 11th-graders flunk the state's math test. Booker says that under the previous mayor's administration, every elected official sent his or her children to private schools.

"I'm the Malcolm X of education -- 'By any means necessary,' " Booker promises. He says Newark should reverse the assumption that in education "time will be a constant, achievement will vary." If children are not succeeding, extend their school day, bring them in on Saturdays, extend the school year.

He also favors school choice, although he tiptoes around the word "vouchers," which inflames the more than 190,000 members of the state's teachers union. He advocates giving tax credits to companies for money contributed for scholarships to private as well as public schools. "Who," he has asked, "can object to a pool of money that will give poor children the same opportunities as middle-class kids?"

Who? Start with those 190,000, yet another mob afflicting Newark.