Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so if the constitution requires it...then how do you reverse it without changing the constitution? the NJSC has spoken. isn't it then up to the lawmakers to change the laws? NJSC enforces the laws. if something gets to the SC and is decided, then the ball is back in the court of the lawmakers.
The SC hasn't spoken yet, well, at least not this time. Now it will go to the NJSC.
What I predict is going to happen is it will be ruled Constitutional, and then they will have to raise the income tax rates to fund it. Christie will come out against it, but then the Democrats in the Legislature will raise the taxes and then Christie comes out looking like the hero because he at least fought it.
If the Abbott decicion was to award the median amount spent to the Abbott districts there would not be as much of a problem & would be much closer to fair to the blue collar districts.
Awarding the maximum to those districts is not fair & eqitable & could probably be argued successfully in court.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,688,469 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann77
Yes, exactly!
See? I know where the real problem is. The rest is smoke & mirrors that the politicians have been using. They are afaid of disturbing the Abbott decicision for fear of being labeled racist. The reality is, Abbott is unfair to most peoplein the state. It has been totally unsucessful. Plus, it is responsible for the spiralling property taxes, not the teachers, police, or firemen, etc.
See? I know where the real problem is. The rest is smoke & mirrors that the politicians have been using. They are afaid of disturbing the Abbott decicision for fear of being labeled racist. The reality is, Abbott is unfair to most peoplein the state. It has been totally unsucessful. Plus, it is responsible for the spiralling property taxes, not the teachers, police, or firemen, etc.
Well, Abbott was imposed by the courts unfortunately. And it looks like it is going to be reinforced again.
I do think we need reasonable pension and benefits reforms though, also.
See? I know where the real problem is. The rest is smoke & mirrors that the politicians have been using. They are afaid of disturbing the Abbott decicision for fear of being labeled racist. The reality is, Abbott is unfair to most peoplein the state. It has been totally unsucessful. Plus, it is responsible for the spiralling property taxes, not the teachers, police, or firemen, etc.
so the constitution requires that education spending from the state be fair and equitable. it's been interpreted that that means that one district shouldn't get more funding than another. so, if millburn decides it wants to spend $20,000 per student, and the millburn taxpayers are OK with that, it now means every district needs to get $20,000 right? so the state has to chip in whatever the town currently doesn't provide, based on something to do with local incomes right (so a city can't just decide they want to pay no school taxes, and get all their money from the state right?)?
so if the constitution requires it...then how do you reverse it without changing the constitution? the NJSC has spoken. isn't it then up to the lawmakers to change the laws? NJSC enforces the laws. if something gets to the SC and is decided, then the ball is back in the court of the lawmakers.
The basis for the rulings is Article VIII Section 4 Paragraph 1 of the state constitution that was enacted in 1875:
Quote:
The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.
Here is the complete history of the Abbott rulings from 1970-2008. The 2008 rulings culminated in the current SFRA funding formulas. At last count we are now at Abbott XIX and are closing in on Abbott XX.
History of Abbott (http://www.edlawcenter.org/ELCPublic/AbbottvBurke/AbbottHistory.htm - broken link)
The basis of the ruling is that since property taxes in the state are the primary means through which schools are funded, this creates an inequity in poor and urban districts leaving them unable to provide a thorough and efficient education. Since the constitution requires that the state provide a thorough and efficient education, the state is responsible to fund these districts to a level that allows them to attain a thorough and efficient education.
If you read through the history (which is from the Education Law Center, the ones who brought the Abbott case and continue to fight it), it is very clearly a case of bench rule. The Supreme Court went far beyond just requiring similar funding levels and basically declared that schools are also responsible to "wipe out disadvantages as much as a school district can." What this means is that schools are now responsible to do all they can to eliminate inequities that are societal based.
Further you could argue that the judges horribly mauled the consitution to serve their ends. "Thorough" is defined as "complete regard to every detail, performed with or showing great care and completeness. "Efficient" is defined as "acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, exhibiting a high ratio of output to input". Further, they completely ignored that theonstitution specifically stated "between the ages of 5-18 years" when they decided the Abbott districts needed pre-school programs for 3 and 4 year olds.
In order to eliminate the rulings it would require amending the constitution to eliminate the states responsibility to provide a thorough and efficient education system. It would need a simple majority vote in two concurrent legislative sessions or a single 60% super majority to have the item placed on the ballott. It would then require a majority vote in a general ballott.
I think the problem wouldn't be people who want to overturn Abbott, but the fact that the state would have to consitutionally provide no aid to school districts or a very specific distribution formula based on the state providing equal funding on a per pupil basis. Neither of those alternatives are likely to garner the needed support.
What needs to happen is for the composition of the court to be changed to a body that will begin to side with the state and reverse the Abbott rulings.
So why not just make these towns raise their property taxes to a level that the education is "thorough and sufficient"?
The court determined in Abbott II in 1990 that those districts couldn't do it on their own and defined the original Abbott districts based on the following criteria:
Quote:
-are classified by the NJ Department of Education as urban
-are in the lowest socio-economic status on the NJDOE District Factor Group (DFG) scale
-have "evidence of substantive failure of thorough and efficient education"
-including "failure to achieve what the DOE considers passing levels of performance on the High School Proficiency Test (HSPT);"
-have a large percentage of poor students who need "an education beyond the norm;"
-are in communities with an "excessive tax [for] municipal services;"
-have a large percentage of students of color.
It's the next to the last point that they stuck on. Basically the cities spent so much of their money on municipal services that they felt it would be too burdensome to force them (and their population) to pay to provide a thorough and efficient education. If the cities were forced to pay themselves, it would be the absolute final nail in their coffins.
Gloucester City in South Jersey is an Abbott district. Average property taxes there are around $2,500. It was estimated that if they were not an Abbott district and had to fund the schools to their current levels, taxes would increase on average to over $8,500 and simply crush the town.
IMO, the fix is for the state to eliminate the "thorough and efficient" clause, hence invalidating Abbott and switch to a formula wherein money is distributed equally to all districts on a per pupil basis, leaving it up to the state how much money they will give each year.[/SIZE]
The court determined in Abbott II in 1990 that those districts couldn't do it on their own and defined the original Abbott districts based on the following criteria:
It's the next to the last point that they stuck on. Basically the cities spent so much of their money on municipal services that they felt it would be too burdensome to force them (and their population) to pay to provide a thorough and efficient education. If the cities were forced to pay themselves, it would be the absolute final nail in their coffins.
Gloucester City in South Jersey is an Abbott district. Average property taxes there are around $2,500. It was estimated that if they were not an Abbott district and had to fund the schools to their current levels, taxes would increase on average to over $8,500 and simply crush the town.
IMO, the fix is for the state to eliminate the "thorough and efficient" clause, hence invalidating Abbott and switch to a formula wherein money is distributed equally to all districts on a per pupil basis, leaving it up to the state how much money they will give each year.[/SIZE]
Oh, ok. So you have to be the bottom DFG. Looking at the financial data for a few of the Abbott districts, they are basically paying nothing towards the school system, maybe 5-8% of the total cost.
I was just wondering because one time I asked the school business admin. what happens if the school budget ifails. The answer was that it goes to the Town Council, who can pass it as is, or amend it and pass it OR refuse to pass it and send it to the NJ Department of Education.
There, the Dept of Ed can pass the budget as they choose, and the property tax increases along with it.
So really, the state of NJ has power to levy local property taxes in the end. It's not in local control.
I guess the question is how much property taxes can the other 560 districts take before they are crushed too
It's pretty sad really. The state admits that after years of tinkering and tax hikes, and making sure everybody and their illegitimate child has enough social services to go around, the cities they identify can't possibly fend for themselves. The people can't pay enough in property taxes to fund the education systems, so spread the burden around. It's akin to making these areas permanent bottom feeders, complete with permanent dependence on the state and others.
It's not much different than the four plus decades of the Welfare Society, except now the courts can control what comes out of your wallet. In effect, they have civilized the process of penalizing everybody that's not in their target group. One thing that really should be looked at by government, is why, after 40 plus years of tinkering and playing Robin Hood, are the same old areas still not producing a positive result? It can't be money, because the results simply don't show it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
