School funding woes in New Jersey
(nytimes.com) With an average class size of nine, the tiny Sea Isle City school district on the Jersey Shore is spending $33,805 for each of its 90 students this school year, or nearly three times the statewide average of $12,098 a student, according to figures released this morning by the New Jersey Department of Education.
By contrast, some 140 miles up the coast, the Guttenberg school district in Hudson County is spending an average of $7,426 for each of its 900-plus students, having eliminated most extra-curricular activities because of budget problems.
[...]
At the upper end of the spending range are small, affluent school districts, like Sea Isle or Avalon, a neighboring shore town in Cape May County that spends $29,982 for each student, or the Alpine school district in Bergen County, which spends $21,534.
Many of the state’s Abbott districts also spend far more than the state average. Asbury Park schools, for instance, are spending $19,102 for each student this year, according to the survey, and the Newark schools $17,974 per student.
The bottom end of the range includes the Woodlynne schools in Camden, which will spend $7,660 for each student.
In many school districts, administrators said, the rising cost of teacher salaries and benefits pushed up operating costs even as they sought to reduce spending on other budget items. (more…)
Some may ask “Why do you spend so much time highlighting funding problems in the public school system?” The answer to that is quite simple. The promise of better education is probably one of the greatest hooks that the Democratic party has with the Black community. You will rarely (if at all) hear of anyone in that party talk about fiscal responsibly when it comes to public schools. Why? Because the Democratic party is joined at the hip with powerful teacher lobby groups like the NEA. While they preach to the nation that education is a civil right (which it isn’t), they have proven to be spineless when it comes to confronting the bureaucracy that is sucking the life out of these institutions while many of them send their own kids to private school. Watch the next time when one of these politicians will stand in front of a Black audience declaring how our schools need more money how the crowd goes completely wild with “Amens”. Notice how they will completely avoid mentioning issues such as this article—issues that mainly take place in Democratic-controlled districts.
This is just one issue where either party needs to earn our vote.
AMEN. As long as school funding is tied to property taxes. Poor children will continue to get the short end of the stick.
Comment by Saudia | March 23, 2007
Well… there’s a serious difference between fiscal discipline and austerity — the latter of which is closer to conservatives’ notion of responsibility. But I agree that most school systems have become unwieldy political bureaucracies loaded with middle managers whom are accountable to no one. There are no doubt countless dollars wasted on eggheaded theories, administrative and social experiments, coming from both the left and right, that have the best of intentions behind them but aren’t practical as policies.
I’d be careful if I were you to avoid minimizing a perceived ‘right’ to education or scapegoating teachers’ unions. Both positions are inherently anti-(small ‘d’
democratic and contrary to American real politik.
Politicians, Democrat and Republican, mostly use education today as a wedge issue. The issue is rarely discussed in terms of a social investment necessary to a highly commercialized economy. So I think it’s a mistake to analyze the conditions in terms of absolute $$$ spent in a given system, especially when the objectives set forth are so ill-defined. There’s also a disagreement in our society over what constitutes ‘education’ (in the abstract) and what level of achievement represents basic competency. That’s why ’school system X spent $Y/student’ doesn’t have much value in a debate on improving education.
Comment by MIB | March 23, 2007
I’d be careful if I were you to avoid minimizing a perceived ‘right’ to education or scapegoating teachers’ unions.
What is there to be careful of? None of the foundational documents of this nation mention education as a right. Education is a privilege. What folks want to “perceive” is on them. As far as teachers unions go, while they are not the sole culprit behind poor school systems, these unions have consistently shown that the financial comfort of their members comes before the quality of education they are supposed to give–especially in lower-income areas. Also I think that it is also fair to mention here that these selfish demands originate more from the union system itself than the teachers (in most school districts, teachers are not given the option to opt out of membership or paying dues).
Politicians, Democrat and Republican, mostly use education today as a wedge issue.
I can agree with this to a measure. While I do have some issues with NCLB, the one thing that I do like about it is that it forces schools to meet certain objectives or lose funding. No need to continue to fund a school if the average GPA is below college entry requirements. Democrats have fought against ANY notion of real accountability on public schools and school choice for parents who are locked in a underperforming school district.
One of the unfortunate things that has happened as a result of NCLB is that in many instances, schools have either lowered standards in order to give the appearance that students are “excelling” in certain subjects. Only when these kids apply for college do they realize the extent of the damage. I would not be surprised that in the next 20 years of so that college will be blended in with primary education in order to cover this growing problem.
Comment by Duane | March 23, 2007
I agree with many of your points here. It’s seldom I find someone who agrees with me.
Unfortunately, while I agree that NCLB could be heralded for its accountability, the reality is that it has been so watered down that accountability does not exist. I have yet to see an administrator replaced.
Which gets us to the ultimate issue: the federal government has no role whatsoever in education. If it would step aside as it should, states might find the flexibility they need to enact change.
Comment by Bob | March 23, 2007
There was a chart I found not too long ago that listed the steps it would take to actually fire a teacher in NY. From what I could remember, one would have to almost be found guilty of the assassination of a head of state before drastic steps were taken. I’ll locate it and post it under the Research tab.
Comment by Duane | March 24, 2007
The ‘foundational documents’ (?) of which you speak define the Federal gov’t; enumerating the authority and limits of its three branches. The People, OTOH, not only retain all other rights — expressed and implied — that power can be exercised to affect political mandates in law. The nation’s will on education was manifest in Congress’ establishment of the Dept. of HEW over 50 years ago, thereby confirming a ‘right’ to education and a Federal role in its accommodation.
I concur with the general consensus that reforms to our school systems are urgently needed, if for no other reason than to equip as many people as possible with the tools to participate in tomorrow’s economy. However, while reforms without comparative measures of performance (or, ‘accountability’
are meaningless, so are reforms that function as ultimatums and/or presume their standards to be sound and just. This explains in part why NCLB is bad law, including its conspicuous lack of uniform and realistic achievement metrics.
Comment by MIB | March 27, 2007