Jobs and Taxes #2: Christie vetoes suburban school aid, then complains about it

by: the_promised_land

Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 09:20:00 AM EST

For those of us who live in working-class and middle-class suburbs, why are our property taxes going up?

Well, a lot of it is because Chris Christie decided it was more important to cut taxes for millionaires than to fund aid to suburban school districts. He cut $492 million in aid to suburban school districts that had been included in the Democrats' budget.

New School Funding Formula upheld

by: Hopeful

Thu May 28, 2009 at 11:49:37 AM EDT

It would be an understatement that this formula has been controversial. If nothing else, you can imagine that the people in, say, the 32nd poorest district are frustrated that the 31 Abbott Districts get so much more aid. Needless to say, the whole issue ties into long running urban-suburban battles and deep racial resentments.  

So, Department of Education worked on a new School Funding Formula for many years, and in January 2008 Corzine's new plan passed the legislature over urban opposition.  Corzine needed a decisive vote from a retiring Republican in a lame duck session.  In the new plan, the formula potentially gives aids to all public schools based on need.  As the DEP site documents explain, there are now two types of aid from the state: Wealth-Equalized is "is allocated according to each district's ability to raise enough local revenue to support their adequacy budget." Additional "Categorical aid is allocated regardless of a district's ability to raise local revenue" -- that is, based on the the number of special education students, security costs, transportation, etc. You can see the 2009-2010 aid for your school district here.

But is it constitutional? That's the key question that was answered today, and the answer is yes (for now.) From the decision (my emphasis):

The legislative and executive branches of government have enacted a funding formula designed to achieve a thorough and efficient system of public education for every child, regardless of where he or she lives. The political branches are entitled to take reasoned steps to address the pressing social, economic, and educational challenges confronting the state, without being locked in a constitutional straightjacket. A costing-out study such as that engaged in by the State is rife with policy choices that are legitimately in the legislature's domain. In the record below, each value judgment attacked was demonstrated to have been made in good faith, and on the basis of available factual data informed by advice from experts whose testimony revealed that they had the interests of the pupils in mind. The Court sees no reason or basis for it to second-guess the extraordinarily complex education funding determinations that went into the formulation of the many moving parts to this funding formula. The Court recognizes, however, that it does not have the ability to see ahead and to know with certainty that SFRA will work as well as it is designed to work. Although there is no absolute guarantee that SFRA will achieve the intended results of its design, the Court concludes that SFRA deserves the chance to demonstrate in practice that, as designed, it satisfies the requirements of the State Constitution.

As the Star-Ledger emphasizes, the formula will be reviewed after three years for "fairness."

To me, this is seems entirely appropriate.  School funding should be in the hands of legislature (and local school districts) when possible and I hope this formula helps public school students thoughout the state get a good education.  What do you think?

Time to move on from Abbott

by: Hank Kalet

Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM EDT

A state judge has ruled that Gov. Jon Corzine's school funding reforms, which tie aid to students and not districts, are constitutional -- a move that experts say could spell the end of special status for many of the state's urban school districts.

2009 and the Politics of Supreme Court Appointments

by: vincent solomeno

Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:20:00 PM EST

Top row, L to R: Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto; Justice Barry T. Albin; Justice John E. Wallace, Jr.; Justice Helen E. Hoens; Front row, L to R: Justice Virginia Long; Chief Justice Stuart Rabner; Justice Jaynee LaVecchia.

More than any previous gubernatorial contest in recent memory, the outcome of this November's election will have a lasting impact on the composition and ideology of the New Jersey Supreme Court.  

The brief campaign has already included Republican criticism of several of the Court's high profile decisions.  However, little attention has been paid to the fact that the terms of four out of seven justices will expire on the watch of the next Governor.  Justices Virginia Long and John E. Wallace, Jr. will reach the age of mandatory retirement in 2012.  Additionally, the non-tenured terms of Justices Roberto A. Rivera-Soto and Helen E. Hoens will expire, allowing whoever is Governor the option of reappointment or selecting a new jurist to join the bench.

These days it's popular to beat up on the Supreme Court in conservative circles.  As such, the potential to reshape the Court's majority is significant when one considers that that criticism has been a centerpiece of the Republican primary campaign.  

Former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan has pledged to overturn judicial decisions mandating affordable housing and funding for the state's poorest school districts.  While he has proposed taking the matter to voters in the form of referenda to amend the state constitution, the unlikely passage of such measures no doubt guarantees that a Governor Lonegan will work to achieve his agenda through the judicial selection process.

Assemblyman Rick Merkt (R-Morris), a longshot candidate for his party's nomination, labeled the coming Supreme Court appointments "a critical issue for New Jersey's future."  If elected, he wants to "drive a stake into COAH's [affordable housing] heart, bury it, and make sure it never rises again."

Meanwhile, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, the presumed front runner, echoed his opponents and pledged, "If I am governor, I will gut COAH and I will put an end to it."

These ambitious goals can only be accomplished by overturning previous Supreme Court decisions.  By tradition, Governors maintain a partisan balance on the Court.  However, is it difficult to imagine a Republican Governor appointing justices - even those who are registered Democrats - sympathetic to conservative views?  Such a reversal would signal not only an end to COAH and Abbott funding, but a reorientation of the ideology of the Court, a shift with implications beyond these two issues.

Take the ongoing campaign for marriage equality in New Jersey.  In October 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals.  This decision led the Legislature to pass the landmark civil union law.  The ruling also set the stage for marriage equality by leaving the decision to lawmakers.  Will a refashioned and more conservative Supreme Court find same sex marriage unconstitutional?  Will it reverse the previous decision on civil unions?  Considering conservative views on the subject, it is hard to conclude otherwise.

New Jersey is a socially liberal, environmentally conscious state.  That said, Democrats need to make it clear that while we oppose legislating from the bench there is a compelling case for complying with affordable housing, education, and equality mandates.  We should raise the appointments issue.  A right turn by the Supreme Court should alarm not only progressives, but the moderate Democrats and Independents critical to victory in November.  New Jerseyans should know that changes to the Court's ideological composition will result in conservative decisions that impact life in our state for a long time to come.

Someone dropped the ball

by: Jason Springer

Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM EST

A paperwork snafu proves costly for the Camden school district.

It means the district must return nearly $400,000 in unspent federal aid that it wanted to roll over from the 2004-2005 school year to the following year.

School board President Sara Davis said she feels state officials "share some of the blame" for the district losing the money. She said it would have been used to fund certain math and reading programs that state officials wanted to discontinue.

And on that sharing of blame for the state, as Camden is an Abbott district shouldn't they actually be paying attention to what is going on. Why did it take the state so long to do an audit and figure out the money was missing? It's amazing how many people are watching the store but no one is paying attention. Say it with me, we screwed up.  Now that wasn't hard, was it?  

NJ Supreme Court wants more info before scrapping Abbott

by: Jason Springer

Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST

Stating for need for more information, the New Jersey Supreme Court today ordered fact-finding hearings on the state's new education funding formula before it can rule on whether it should replace the old system that favored certain largely poor, urban school districts.

The court also held, in a decision released this morning, that it will be up to the state to prove the new funding it enacted earlier this year is constitutional and will sufficiently provide for those urban districts. The 31 Abbotts districts, which got a larger share of funding under the old system, will also be able to present their side in the process. The Education Law Center, representing the Abbotts districts, is challenging the state's attempt to do away with decades of prior court mandates.

"Until the State demonstrates to our satisfaction that a constitutionally adequate education can be provided to Abbott district students through the funding that will be provided via SFRA (the school funding formula), the State is bound to comply with the prior remedial orders and decisions respecting the plaintiffs in Abbott districts," the court said in its 5-0 opinion.

Braun, Booker and bruins

by: thecontrarian

Thu May 11, 2006 at 10:26:11 AM EDT

Jack McKay, the All-American boy played by Robert Redford, is declared the winner on E-Day.  As he prepares to address his supporters, he utters the classic line, "What do we do now?"

So begins Wednesday morning for Mayor-elect Cory Booker.  May 10 looks little different than May 9 and the days of the Newark we all know: violence, joblessness, and atmosphere of hopelessness that drives people do so some terrible things to each other.

Star-Ledger columnist Bob Braun, perhaps the only columnist in New Jersey who does more than pay lip service to the cliche "the plight of the cities," scores big today by putting it bluntly:

Newark is the bad section. The bad section of the state.

The place to be avoided -- along with Camden and Paterson and Trenton and Elizabeth and the parts of Jersey City that don't face the river.

New Jersey hates its cities. Too strong?

No, I don't think so.

$12.8 Billion to Finish Abbott School Projects

by: Media In Trouble

Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 01:40:52 PM EST

However, before Repugnicans can go off and rant away at how this sounds impossible to reconcile, consider the NJ State factsheet from the 2006 Bush Budget:

2006 Budget Good News for New Jersey's Children

The U.S. Department of Education’s FY 2006 budget provides $56 billion in Federal education funding - an increase of 33 percent since the President took office.
...
Title I Program funding increases to $13.3 billion for students in high-poverty schools. This is a 52 percent increase over 2001 levels.

So long as Bushie boy and the Repugnicans come through with the money, we don't have anything to worry about!

Calling all Repugnicans in the Statehouse and Congress. Now is your time to shine!