Governor Christie rolled out a new state education funding formula this afternoon. The proposed changes to the School Funding Reform Act include:
- Moving from a”single day” count to an “average daily attendance” scheme to determine enrollment for funding purposes, the goal of which is to incentivize high attendance;
- Phasing out adjustment aid by 2017; and
- Re-weighting lower income students.
The end result?
Less aid to the state’s 31 former “Abbott” districts. Sort of. The Administration offered its rationale, as well as its plan’s practical effect, in a release posted online:
New Jersey currently ranks 3rd in the country in school expenditures per student, spending more than 60 percent above the national average. Nearly 60 percent of state aid goes to the 31 former Abbott districts, where spending has tripled since 1972. Former Abbott districts now spend $3,200 per pupil more than the state average (excluding the former Abbotts) and $3,100 per pupil more than the state’s wealthiest districts.
With a $135 million increase in K-12 formula aid, an increase of 1.8%, and the proposed modifications to the SFRA funding formula, 90% of districts will receive additional state aid on a per pupil basis this year. On average, state aid is increasing 2.1% or $121 per pupil across the state. Because these measures follow the principle that districts should be funded on the actual number of students they serve, 35 of the 97 districts that will receive less state aid will do so because of an enrollment decrease rather than a decrease in per-pupil aid.
Christie’s proposed modifications to K-12 education funding are in addition to a 6% increase in direct aid to Garden State colleges and universities contained in his FY 2013 budget.
None of this will make Senator Doherty and his fellow “fair funding” proponents very happy. Can’t say that I’m terribly thrilled either; I’m naturally distrustful of any policy that accepts the severely flawed “public education will always benefit from more funding” theory greedily advanced by teachers unions and their liberal allies. Will a few less million over here and an extra several hundred thousand over there really accomplish anything towards closing our state’s pitiful achievement gap for low income students? Doubtful.
At the same time, an “actual attendance” formula is still fairer (if only marginally so) than the present system. I also can’t question the Governor’s tireless commitment to school choice; he recently secured passage of the Urban Hope Act and, and renewed his call for passage of the Kean/Lesniak Opportunity Scholarship Act in Tuesday’s budget address.
We’ll take what we can get.
I have several comments:
(1) Abbott has been a total failure. It has not accomplished any of the purported goals of the program.
(2) If Newark can pay its city council people and their aides high salaries such as $95,000 for a council person and $85,000 for an aide (probably a family member), then we should be cutting the subsidies to that district. Why should we be subsidzing this nonsense even if such subsidies are indirect?
(3) Hoboken should not be given Abbott funding. Even if one believed in the program, Hoboken shouldn't get the money. This is a disgrace and it needs to stop.
(4) The school report card shows that in many of the Abbott districts, average absences are at 30 days per school year. This leads to the question as to whether the students are really still going to school or are they just kept on the rolls by administrators. My guess is that there is massive fraud in the current system that inflates the number of students who are really attending school because Abbott incentivizes the districts to "Enron" the numbers. If you rewards schools for inflating the numbers of students, they will certainly do so. There probably are 10% of students who never attend and who have basically dropped out but who haven't been reported as dropping out.
Not only were abbott districts inflating their numbers, but after recieving the funding scores of their students live w/ "aunts" & "uncles"and to go to better school districts. Bringing with them the burden of education, and leaving the dollars in the failing district they came from
Or maybe, just maybe, it's a result of the mvssiae cuts to state education and the horrible plan the Republicans forced through that steals money from the school system to pay off the state's deficit.And not only is it contempt for tax payers (as these levies go up for a vote) but you really need to come up with a better phrase than education cabal. It just makes you sound like a fool.