Camden NJ schools

Parents Corner
21

<p>tom–NJ already has such a program and the highest spending districts now tend to be the worst poorest ones with lots of state aid. Money does not solve all problems of society and human behavior. Throwing money at the issue has been proven time and again not to work very well. See KC schools and some high spending districts with pockets of lower income like Evanston IL and Shaker Heights OH. Black students lag substantially.</p>

<p>[Third</a> of N.J. districts in area top state average in per-pupil spending - Philly.com](<a href=“Inquirer.com: Philadelphia local news, sports, jobs, cars, homes”>Inquirer.com: Philadelphia local news, sports, jobs, cars, homes)</p>

22

<p>I never said it does. But if you are suing the State saying the constitution requires certain things regarding education and certain urban centers need funds to meet their obligation - how does the court decide how much is needed. The court determined that these kids in the urban centers needed as much funds as kids in wealthy districts receive plus if they have a chance to meet the NJ constitutional requirements. Not an unreasonable concept that a kid in Newark might need more resources than a kid in Princeton.
I gave you my idea for funding. The rich districts would hate it and so would the poor districts.</p>

<p>A bigger issue is why is Hoboken still considered an Abbott district.</p>

23

<ol>
<li><p>The idea that the Abbott case was “an easy one” is ridiculous. There is nothing in the New Jersey state constitution that requires even equal funding–nothing.</p></li>
<li><p>Your two posts contradict each other. In one you say that that all districts should be funded equally; in the other you say that the poor districts should be funded at a higher rate. Where does it say that in the state constitution?</p></li>
<li><p>I was recently at a conference where this issue was discussed. The two white liberals on the panel continued to mouth the same nonsense about funding that we have heard for at least 40 years. On the other hand, there were also two African-Americans on the panel–both long-time veterans of the struggle. The only thing they thought would work was to set up special boarding schools for inner-city youth. I would be in favor of doing that with the extra 5k per student that the state is currently throwing down the Camden rathole (and the ratholes of other failing school districts in the state).</p></li>
</ol>

24

<p>Well, you’ve got a good point there Tom, regarding Hoboken. A few years ago there was an unintentionally hilarious opinion piece in the NJ Star Ledger about how “distressed” Hoboken was about to get a new and fairly luxurious indoor swimming pool at the high school. For gosh sakes, Hoboken!!! A NJ gold coast town that has Manhattan-style real estate values, and relatively few public school pupils, due to its very small size.</p>

25

<p>It’s true that you can’t solve the problems of Camden or similar school districts by throwing money at them. On the other hand, I have yet to see any responsible suggestion about how to start addressing any of the problems that does not involve a great deal of money. You certainly can’t solve the problems of Camden or similar school districts by cutting off their funding. And – guess what! – if you voucherized the whole school-age population of Camden, it would cost a ton, and I am pretty skeptical that it would improve outcomes.</p>

26

<p>No one is talking about cutting off Camden’s funding–what is happening in Philadelphia, for example, is a crime. The question is whether you make any progress by simply spending extravagantly on the schools. As barron pointed out, in the immortal words of Rocky the Flying Squirrel, that trick never works. Nor do I think that vouchering would work. </p>

<p>As I said earlier, the problem is the structure/condition of Camden society. You can’t fix that on a large scale through the schools.</p>

27

<p>I never said that poor districts should be funded at a higher rate I said it was not unreasonable for someone to believe that a kid from Newark needs more resources than a kid from Princeton. The court decided that.</p>

<p>I believe in equal funding per kid and allowing kids from failing districts to use those funds to attend a public school in a successful district. I do not believe in vouchers or private schools.</p>

28

<p>@sax: 23 out of the 26 neighborhood schools are failing. How would you fit all the students in the 3 remaining schools?
How do you suppose the neighborhood districts -many of which exist because the parents don’t want their kids in Camden schools and, by extension, mixed with some of the kids from Camden - will react? And where will the money come from?
When a problem is that complex, there’s no such thing as a simple fix. </p>

<p>There is a need for money, even a lot of money in underprivileged schools… but it needs to be spent efficiently. How large are the classes? How many teaching aides are there in each classroom (yes, for classes that troubled, you need one per class). How many special ed-, remedial, LD-, and behavioral specialists are there per school and how often do they see the kids who need this the most? How can the corridors and bathrooms be made safe (have the problems and dangers been identified)?
Right now, Camden suffers from such problems that the schools can’t solve them on their own. But identifying the problems (here: safety seems a huge concern) are a first.
I would say that before you can think of college, you have to be able to go to school without fear. It’s a basic first step that should be ensured consistently and permanently before anything else is attempted.
Also, I hpe Questbridge got its hands on those three sole “college ready” seniors…</p>

<p>

[quote:]
There is a solution NJ should fund all schools equally on a per student basis through the income tax.[/unquote]
Well, there could be dual system:
1° all districts are funded equally on a per student basis through the income tax. It seems obvious. This rises on par with inflation (no blocking like what happened in CA, which made one of the top systems in the countries one of the worst).
2° poor districts receive a compensation of sorts to offset the fact the parents aren’t likely to be able to contribute anything and because they face many more problems than wealthy districts. Simply because those who have less need more in order to even come close to a level playing field, and even then it’s not. Not to mention safety issues. All other districts could be free to add extra money in any way they wish.
There would still be a difference, but it wouldn’t be so big.
Right now though the problem isn’t money.
(and we all know money makes a difference to teaching quality, learning environment, opportunities, etc. Otherwise, all upper class parents would enroll their kids in the low performing school nearby to get points for college admissions.)</p>

<p>I feel kind of offended that the constitution could be used to deny the place equality has in the fabric of our identity and our nation. I get that New Jersey isn’t the US, but it’s part of the US, and it just… feels wrong… to say (paraphrasing) “nothing in the constitution requires equality, so equality means nothing”. It just seems so strange to my ears, letter rather than spirit… it really contradicts something fundamental to my sense of what America is and is meant to be, its place in the world, etc. I may misunderstand the point.</p>

<p>However, Camden schools are decently funded. The problems are elsewhere, as Emm said.
Schools can help alleviate the problems and can try to help the students, but schools can’t fix the larger problems of society.</p>

29

<p>[The</a> History of Abbott v. Burke | NJ.com](<a href=“http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2011/05/the_history_of_abbott_v_burke.html]The”>http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2011/05/the_history_of_abbott_v_burke.html)</p>

<p>The NJ constitution says that NJ must provide a thorough and efficient system of education. The court ruled that the wealthy districts provide just that. I have always wondered why middle class districts do not sue for additional funds. I think they can make a good case.</p>

30

<p>I’m not going to enter into a long discussion about this, but all that is says is that the “system” provided by the state should be “thorough and efficient”–not that any particular school should be effective not that any level of funding (except perhaps the most minimal) is required and certainly not that any sort of “equality” is required. Such provisions are common in state constitutions and were never designed to create an excuse for judicial intervention in the process. Indeed, prior to the late 1960s, no one would have dreamed that they could be used in the way that the New Jersey Supreme Court first used it in the 1977 decision in Robinson v. Cahill. Abbott is Cahill cubed.</p>

<p>Bottom line is that anyone who claims that Abbott was an “easy” case for the court–that is, that the result was obvious–knows nothing about law in general and state constitutional law in particular.</p>

31

<p>BTW, Public boarding schools exist in other countries. I don’t see why NJ couldn’t try that. It’s tried many other things, why not public boarding schools? Starting small, perhaps, then expanding? This would be an exciting new development in public education, it sure sounds cost-efficient if it manages to produce college or apprenticeship-ready citizens rather than young adults whose only/main options are live off public assistance or off illegal trades, and to make sure it’s affordable, kids educated at the public boarding school could sign a pledge to live/work out of NJ once they graduate college, or attend grad school at Rutgers then work in NJ.</p>

32

<p>So the majority of NJ Supreme Court justices know nothing about the law in general or constitutional law in particular?</p>

<p>Okay</p>

33

<p>No, they are simply lawless and arrogant.</p>

34

<p>There have been many different judges hearing these cases over the years. The majority have come to the same conclusion poor urban schools need more funding for a thorough and efficient system of public education. I believe they base their argument on the fact that wealthy districts spend a certain amount to provide their children such a system and therefore the State needs to do the same plus for urban students.</p>

<p>Clearly you disagree and in fact so do I but I understand where they are coming from. I posted earlier how I would combat the problem. One statewide system of funding based on a decision by the legislature and governor on how much is needed for a thorough and efficient system of public education. What will happen is the rich towns will cry that they are not satisfied that the money provided by the State is not enough for them to have the thorough and efficient system they want for their children. They will claim the funding is inadequate.</p>

35

<p>It occurs to me that my last comment was a little bit unfair (but only a little bit). Basically there are two groups of people in the legal world. One group honestly believes that by applying nonpolitical legal principle, you just by accident come to the conclusion that the state and federal constitutions embody their own political perspective. This view used to be associated with progressives, but a lot of conservatives now take that view as well. Some of these people are indeed very smart and sophisticated in their understanding of the law (think John Roberts and Elena Kagan). But there are also those of us who a) think that words were chosen for particular reasons and should be taken to embody those reasons and b) that in cases of doubt, constitutions should be interpreted in a way that allow those who have general responsibility to govern the flexibility necessary to govern effectively. I am in the latter group.</p>

<p>For the last several decades, the New Jersey Supreme Court has been dominated by justices who take the former position. But they go beyond constitutional law; they have a consistent record of changing the private law to embody current trendy and cool positions as well.</p>

<p>I am now done. Believe what you want.</p>

36

<p>You blame judges I blame legislatures/governors. They can clearly craft a funding method that deals with the issue but do not have the will to do so.</p>

37

<p>As an NJ resident I am already paying through the nose in property taxes, the largest chunk of which go to the local school district. I will not vote for any politician who wants to raise my income taxes as well in order to fund schools elsewhere. Somehow I don’t think my town is going to lower my property taxes in order to offset any rise in state income tax. NJ already has one of the highest tax burdens in the country and I don’t see how raising income taxes to fund education funding disparities is going to fly politically. The problem with Camden schools isn’t money and we all know it.</p>

38

<p>The State could pass an income tax with a provision that local property taxes can not be used to fund public schools. In effect they cut the local property tax burden by 50-60%. In our current funding formula over 80% of the income tax goes to 31 districts.</p>

39

<p>Here is an article on NJ’s property tax problem.</p>

<p>[Why</a> Christie Won’t Cut Property Taxes - NJ Spotlight](<a href=“http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/11/0227/1507/]Why”>Why Christie Won't Cut Property Taxes | NJ Spotlight News)</p>

40

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly. Camden spends just over 22k per student and has three college ready students to show for it. Neighboring towns spend about 12k per student with many many more college ready. It is very easy to say they need more money, but there are problems going on for the kids in Camden that just can’t be fixed by the schools as they are now or by throwing more money at the schools. I don’t think displacing the kids into other schools will solve their problems either. Until we figure out the real problem and how to address it, we don’t know where to throw our money to fix it.</p>

<p>Most people here on CC are are very focused on education and what we consider “proper behavior” (see the thread on law temps crashing the holiday party). The kids in Camden do not live in that world and we can’t look their situation through our own eyes. That type of environment doesn’t exist for most of them and that is a big part of the problem. </p>

<p>We can argue over who should pay, what the legal responsibility to pay is till we are blue in the face. Until we figure out what the problem is the money is being wasted and more money will just be more waste.</p>

<p>I have no idea how to fix it either, but I do know that moving a problem somewhere else doesn’t eliminate the problem, it just eliminates the need to deal with the problem in the place it use to sit.</p>