December 12, 2007
DFER Guest Blogger: Siobhan Sheils on Corzine's Funding Formula
Gov. Jon Corzine was scheduled to unveil his plans to revamp New Jersey’s education funding formula today, some of the details of which can be found in this article from the Courier-Post.
Another story from the New York Times highlights Hoboken’s “rags to riches” story – a perfect of example of why New Jersey’s current legislation must change in order to meet the needs of economically-disadvantaged students.
In brief, the Hoboken of Frank Sinatra’s day no longer exists – a dangerous waterfront has been replaced with high-rise condominiums that overlook the Manhattan skyline, and the median income has skyrocketed from $41,350 in the mid-1970’s to $73,240 in 2006. And yet, despite the city’s economic boom, Hoboken’s public school construction projects are funded with state dollars, while nearby school districts with nearly as many poor students receive nothing.
The findings of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Abbot II – that the education the state was providing to urban school children was inadequate and unconstitutional led to the classification of 31 school districts as “Abbott districts.” The fact that Hoboken remains one of them is anachronistic.
But worse, it means that economically disadvantaged kids in districts that didn’t quite make the Abbott threshold have yet another obstacle to overcome on the road to academic success. Districts that can afford to foot the bill for their educational expenses should. As communities change, so should the allocation of their funds.
Forty-nine percent of the students who receive free or reduced lunch live outside of Abbott districts. Even more absurd is the fact that a district like Newark receives huge sums of Abbott money, while a charter school district in Newark receives none.
So while some politicians like Assemblyman Bill Baroni Jr., R-Mercer seem to prefer treading water as the current legislative session concludes, time is of the essence.
Student-based, weighted funding means that charter schools in districts with a high concentration of low-income families will take a step toward parity, from the meager 50% of public school dollars that they now receive to a much more equitable 90%. Corzine’s plan would allocate $11,100 per high school student, with $17,200 for low-income high school students, and $16,700 for limited-English students. Here’s how that could translate on the school level: more excellent teachers, better salaries, and better benefits. For the student, it means a more equitable opportunity to meet academic standards.
One conservative calls the formula “socialist” and suggests that states…
provide greater opportunities for children in poor performing and economically disadvantaged schools…through opportunity scholarships and/or tax based credit scholarships. The latter allows tax payers to get direct tax credits - to a certain limit - for donating to private school scholarships. The credits can be afforded to individuals and corporations, the latter to increase the pool of money to fund the scholarships. Students in underperforming and/or “poor” districts can use the scholarships at a school of their family’s choosing; a school with proven educational opportunities.But what about the vast majority of students who DON’T get private school scholarships? (This is where charter schools are key in providing innovation and choice to drive competition in public school districts). Tax credits benefit a tiny fraction of the students, and – go figure – the rich.
While NCLB was a watershed in accountability (and assuming it isn’t weakened during the reauthorization process, it will continue to reveal our systematic flaws) – it’s critical that students who face bigger roadblocks receive more help. If that means balancing state funding with districts dollars, so be it. Funding formulas should not be based on zip codes, but rather, on the individual students that they are designed to serve.
