ANALIZE THIS and SHOW ME THE MONEY!

I hope you don’t mind my using Camden County figures to support the question. Please note that I have included several web sites if you care to learn more about the state of our educational financial affairs in New Jersey. Before we get started, let me share some New Jersey School funding history:

Quality Education Act of 1990 (QEA) If you were a homeowner this was a big deal for you in 1990:
Established a foundation formula system.
Special needs districts were to receive extra aid and allowed an equity spending cap.
Established aid for at-risk pupils.
Aid For At Risk Pupils

CEIFA (1996)
Established core curriculum content standards.
Directed Commissioner to calculate cost of providing standards.
Based aid on cost of providing standards, per pupil T & E amount.
Provided additional aid categories.
Provided mechanisms for reviewing and updating costs and standards.
Public School Funding PP

I would recommend reading the entire article from the Princeton Law Review, but here is a piece of the summary:

It must be noted that in the Supreme Court decisions dealing with parity in funding, the contrast has always been between the wealthiest and poorest districts.
Never has there been an effort made to ensure that the poorest districts achieve parity with middle-class, average schools, nor has there been any attempt to raise the standards for public schools falling in the middle of the spending spectrum - which constitute the majority of schools in the state.
Furthermore, no proposals were considered which would ensure that all schools in New Jersey achieve parity in spending.
True parity in spending cannot ever truly be achieved in a free society. Parents in wealthy districts should have the right to tax themselves as much as they desire in order to provide the best possible education for their children.
Even if a cap were placed on the amount of money that a school could receive, per pupil, through government channels, would the schools also be required to reject outright donations from parents as well? A strict equity-in-spending requirement would put the state in an adversarial role with parents who are looking to ensure that their children receive the best possible education.
If the state sufficiently limits the quality of education that the children of affluent parents can receive in public schools, and even those of middle-class parents who had been blatantly ignored in the Abbott decisions, these students will simply begin attending private or religious schools, where the state's funding regulations cannot intervene. Thus, a public education system meant to be available to everyone would be made desirable only to those who could not afford any other alternative.
Many people even doubt that throwing more money at the problem is the solution. In one of its decisions calling for equalized spending, the Supreme Court even noted that "New Jersey ranks high, third in the nation, in current expenditure per pupil."27 Is it possible that, despite the fact that more money is spent on the average student in N.J. than in all but two other states, this is still not a sufficient amount?
Instead of the current policy of ever-increasing transfer payments to certain districts, concentrating on a minimum spending requirement, which local school districts are free to exceed, is a constitutionally acceptable compromise that guarantees all students at least a certain core education.
As Justice Garibaldi accurately noted in her dissent, the Constitution mandates a thorough education; once this requirement is met, there is nothing in that document which prevents those districts which are capable of doing so from providing their students with an education exceeding this standard. "A thorough and efficient education does not mean that every child must receive the same education."28
Many legislators were also outraged over the decision. General Assembly Speaker Jack Collins called the decision "the most negative of any in my time here for the future of New Jersey."29
His main concern was that the decision would force taxes to rise dramatically; as spending in wealthy districts escalated,30 more state revenue would be diverted to the poor districts to maintain parity with these expenditures. This would undoubtedly be perceived as inherently unfair to the middle-income districts, which were worried by the ruling. The fear was that it could potentially raise the quality of certain districts' education by lowering the quality of the majority of districts in the state, which were ignored by the Court.
According to one article in the Home News and Tribune, "State aid has pretty much bottomed out for some of these districts, and taxpayers can't afford a heavier burden… The funding situation… likely will remain bleak if the state neglects them in favor of the special-needs districts."31
In response to the Court's ruling, Governor Whitman reallocated $250 million to urban schools, but required then to submit specific proposals as to how the money would be spent.32 This step was criticized by Assemblyman Craig Stanley as a plan "to attack the home rule of the Abbott districts."33
Implementation of the ruling, while allowing for some much-needed improvements in some school districts, was unable to affect the root of the problem with providing an equal education to everyone - the fact that poorer districts had a large number of "kids who don't speak English, young parents, drug-addicted parents," and low attendance rates.34
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1morley.html

So now we know a little bit about funding. I find it interesting that the state reports average salaries for teachers and median salaries for teachers (depending on which part of the site you visit!) Neither represents teacher salary guides, as both figures are based on the length of teacher service. For those of you who are interested, I work in Haddonfield. I have nine years of teaching experience (all in Haddonfield), and am paid on the salary guide as BA +15. I currently earn a base salary of $46, 900.

The 2004-2005 school year figures for both student performance and funding are the latest figures available. Per Pupil spending for 2004-2005 (Rankings are lowest (1) to highest):

HADDONFIELD BORO $10,440 39th out of 73 K-12 districts with 1801-3500 students (Haddonfield is a J district which means its citizens are among the wealthiest in the state. J is as high as the scale goes!)

CAMDEN CITY $15,420 27th out of 31 Abbott districts

http://www.state.nj.us/njded/guide/2006/k-12.pdf

Student achievement can be measured in a multitude of ways. I chose to report on graduation rates. I was extremely surprised and saddened by what I found:

State Average for 2004-2005 91.3%
Haddonfield: 100.0%
Camden City:38.0%

…………………..I look forward to the conversations we are sure to have! Anyone want to talk about Labor Unions?

Recently, I asked my friend’s son, a boy in 2nd grade, who had just entered a new elementary school in northern New Jersey, what he liked most and least about his school? Having earned my parent wings via a now 25 and 23 year old, I should have expected the unexpected; but, I was taken aback to learn that the best and worst part of this child’s day was recess. It was during recess he was free to play and also where another boy waited to bang his head into a fence.

Bullying is abuse. Bullying creates a hostile environment, affects everyone, and cannot be tolerated. Each of us is entitled to a safe environment to live, work, and play. The State of New Jersey enacted legislation (NJ 18A;37-13-19) in 2003 mandating all schools develop an anti-bully policy and implement anti-bully training and education. This initiative was implemented after research tied bullying in schools to bias crimes. The State invited the Guardian Angels headed by Curtis Sliwa to spearhead the program in New Jersey’s schools.

Contact information for your school district to prevent and stop bullying can be found at the New Jersey Child Assault Prevention Network. The New Jersey State Bar Foundation has also done significant work to help educate and promote safety within our schools and community and created a number of videos addressing different aspects of this problem. If you or someone you know is affected by bias related bullying, please call 1-877-NO-BULLY.

Post By Kim

Welcome to the blog. There is alot more that will be comming here soon so check back!