Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-28-2010, 01:28 PM
 
16,825 posts, read 17,759,388 times
Reputation: 20853

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GS37 View Post
I disagree on both of these accounts. No other state in the union has school funding measures that give nearly ALL of the state's revenue to a few poor school districts. Not one. And all of these other states manage to get along just fine. Yes, the inner city schools are bad. Dropout rates are high, college attendance rates are low, drugs are everywhere the the school environments are chaos. But guess what - it's the same here! And we are driving middle class families out of every suburban town to pay for it while developers get rich off bogus school construction projects and political hacks are paid six-figure salaries for no-show jobs.

The "consequences" of changing the school funding formula to better equalize school aid would mean that middle class families could afford to live in this state again, suburban school districts wouldn't have to deal with ridiculous budget cuts and property taxes would be instantly slashed by 50 percent.

Sometimes you have to look at the situation and ask if propping up 31 failing school districts that WILL fail whether they get billions in state aid or not are worth denying thousands of middle class families a shot at the American dream in New Jersey. Is it worth driving out employers and all of the young people who have to move because they can't afford to live here? I say it isn't.
You seem to not be clear on how much the Abbott districts actually get and what percentage of the education budget that actually is let alone the entire state's revenue.

Abbot districts get $546 million while the education budget was a little over 1 billion (for 2009 both are less for 2010). Its a large portion but its barely a majority portion of the education budget let alone the entire states revenue which is over 48 billion. That means the Abbott districts funding are 1.13% of the entire state revenue not even close to ALL dont you think?

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Publications

I know that we are in a fiscal crisis but a little bit of rationality might be a good idea here.

Also this idea that people are flocking out of NJ in droves is an exaggeration played out in the media.

"Findings from the Boston College report show that about 302,780 households left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008, only slightly lower than the 323,350 households that moved into the state."

So more people are moving to NJ than out of it.

The findings of that study also showed that most of the people moving out were wealthier than those moving here. Showing your idea that its the average person leaving is erroneous. The average income of those leaving was $618330. Do you think that is the average young person?

N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart | - NJ.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-28-2010, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
2,771 posts, read 6,281,963 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
The findings of that study also showed that most of the people moving out were wealthier than those moving here. Showing your idea that its the average person leaving is erroneous. The average income of those leaving was $618330. Do you think that is the average young person?

N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart | - NJ.com
That's not what the article says. 618K is average net worth, not income. Income of families leaving is moderately above average -- my rec

Arithmetic mean is not a very representative number (outliers tend to skew it) -- median is probably lower than this.

The incomes (both of those going in and coming out) are closer to lower 70s, and the head of the out-migrant household is 42 years old, two years older than the 40 year old head of the typical in-migrant household, see table 4 on P23 of the report

http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/pdf/njreport.pdf (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 02:07 PM
 
153 posts, read 489,147 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
You seem to not be clear on how much the Abbott districts actually get and what percentage of the education budget that actually is let alone the entire state's revenue.

Abbot districts get $546 million while the education budget was a little over 1 billion (for 2009 both are less for 2010). Its a large portion but its barely a majority portion of the education budget let alone the entire states revenue which is over 48 billion. That means the Abbott districts funding are 1.13% of the entire state revenue not even close to ALL dont you think?
Whoa. Sorry, but your numbers are way off. For example, Newark alone will get $796 million this year. Jersey City alone will get $448 million. I could go on, but you get the point...

DOE Site: 2009-10 State Aid Summaries Cash Basis

Star-Ledger Chart: N.J. school district officials say Gov. Chris Christie budget cuts will force program, staff cuts | - NJ.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 02:48 PM
 
1,931 posts, read 3,417,915 times
Reputation: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS37 View Post
I disagree on both of these accounts. No other state in the union has school funding measures that give nearly ALL of the state's revenue to a few poor school districts. Not one. And all of these other states manage to get along just fine. Yes, the inner city schools are bad. Dropout rates are high, college attendance rates are low, drugs are everywhere the the school environments are chaos. But guess what - it's the same here! And we are driving middle class families out of every suburban town to pay for it while developers get rich off bogus school construction projects and political hacks are paid six-figure salaries for no-show jobs.

The "consequences" of changing the school funding formula to better equalize school aid would mean that middle class families could afford to live in this state again, suburban school districts wouldn't have to deal with ridiculous budget cuts and property taxes would be instantly slashed by 50 percent.

Sometimes you have to look at the situation and ask if propping up 31 failing school districts that WILL fail whether they get billions in state aid or not are worth denying thousands of middle class families a shot at the American dream in New Jersey. Is it worth driving out employers and all of the young people who have to move because they can't afford to live here? I say it isn't.

OK then we will have to agree to disagree. I am "middle class" and I believe its our duty to help everyone and not just ourselves. I cant see any way possible that cutting funding to the inner cities would help me in any way other then saving me a few bucks. Save a few dollars and watch criminal activity rise and possibly effect me? No thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 03:31 PM
 
153 posts, read 489,147 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by bababua View Post
OK then we will have to agree to disagree. I am "middle class" and I believe its our duty to help everyone and not just ourselves. I cant see any way possible that cutting funding to the inner cities would help me in any way other then saving me a few bucks. Save a few dollars and watch criminal activity rise and possibly effect me? No thank you.
Well, it's more than a "few dollars." It's enough that it makes this state the most high-taxed in the nation and causes tons of needless suffering for low and middle income families who are struggling to be able to afford to live here.

I'm not saying we should abandon these cities, but right now they're propped up to such an extreme that the entire state is suffering. The bottom line is that essentially ever other state has this figured out. There's no reason why we have to be subsidizing these people to the extreme we are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 04:07 PM
 
16,825 posts, read 17,759,388 times
Reputation: 20853
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS37 View Post
Whoa. Sorry, but your numbers are way off. For example, Newark alone will get $796 million this year. Jersey City alone will get $448 million. I could go on, but you get the point...

DOE Site: 2009-10 State Aid Summaries Cash Basis

Star-Ledger Chart: N.J. school district officials say Gov. Chris Christie budget cuts will force program, staff cuts | - NJ.com
Thanks for the DOE site. I was using the numbers from the pdf put out by the state treasury department. I am not sure why those numbers are so vastly different than the ones from the DOE. Do you have any info on the summary of the total aid to Abbott districts?

Also do you think that almost all state revenue is spent on them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 04:10 PM
 
16,825 posts, read 17,759,388 times
Reputation: 20853
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973 View Post
That's not what the article says. 618K is average net worth, not income. Income of families leaving is moderately above average -- my rec

Arithmetic mean is not a very representative number (outliers tend to skew it) -- median is probably lower than this.

The incomes (both of those going in and coming out) are closer to lower 70s, and the head of the out-migrant household is 42 years old, two years older than the 40 year old head of the typical in-migrant household, see table 4 on P23 of the report

http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/pdf/njreport.pdf (broken link)
I am in the process of reading the report, thanks for the link. It is a very different piece of primary research than I am used to and will likely take me a little while to read.

Based just on the summation of their findings they seemed to be saying that people who were leaving were much older. On page 6 they classify the wealthy who are leaving as retired, widowed, etc. They also mention that over the course of the study the inflow was equal to the outflow for the measure of wealth (which they defined in an astounding number of ways). If the idea is that its older more retired people leaving and being replaced (or nearly so) by younger working people of a similar wealth, why is that a bad thing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 04:59 PM
 
153 posts, read 489,147 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Thanks for the DOE site. I was using the numbers from the pdf put out by the state treasury department. I am not sure why those numbers are so vastly different than the ones from the DOE. Do you have any info on the summary of the total aid to Abbott districts?

Also do you think that almost all state revenue is spent on them?
Well, I guess you could just look up the 31 districts and add it together. But that doesn't count school construction bonding which goes back to the Whitman administration (which made a messy situation much, much messier). As far as a percentage of the overall state budget that goes to Abbott districts, I'm not sure. But it's the vast majority of the education budget. And the scraps are to be shared amongst some 600 other towns. Scary stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 07:44 PM
 
1,915 posts, read 3,489,595 times
Reputation: 1090
Quote:
Originally Posted by bababua View Post
OK then we will have to agree to disagree. I am "middle class" and I believe its our duty to help everyone and not just ourselves. I cant see any way possible that cutting funding to the inner cities would help me in any way other then saving me a few bucks. Save a few dollars and watch criminal activity rise and possibly effect me? No thank you.
How would cutting funding to inner-city school districts cause criminal activity to rise and possibly affect you?

You can send the "potential criminals" to a broke-down school/non aesthetically pleasing school or a $180 million dollar brand new school: all it does it put lipstick on that proverbial pig. It doesn't guarantee a change in mindsets, living conditions, parental attitudes, what happens at home, in the neighborhood, etc.

First day at the $180M brand new New Brunswick High School (which was built so far out of NB the cost to bus students increased as well) there were approx. 5+ fights on all the different floors of the school - first week, about a total of 25. State of the art Abbot district/tax-payer owned school and so what? Nothing changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 09:46 PM
 
3,026 posts, read 9,066,290 times
Reputation: 3245
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS37 View Post
Well, I guess you could just look up the 31 districts and add it together. But that doesn't count school construction bonding which goes back to the Whitman administration (which made a messy situation much, much messier). As far as a percentage of the overall state budget that goes to Abbott districts, I'm not sure. But it's the vast majority of the education budget. And the scraps are to be shared amongst some 600 other towns. Scary stuff.
Very true. Look at Millburn, NJ Monthly #1 rated school district (2008) spends $14,695/per student. Camden #316 (NJ Monthly '08) spends $16,131 per pupil (2009).
Trenton - $16,532
Newark- $19,305
Asbury- $24,428
Hoboken- $24,808
Comparative Spending Guide 2009

This article says there are 264,070 students in the 31 Abbott districts.
A Study of Supplemental Programs and Recommendations for the Abbott Districts

Asbury is a good example, ranked 281 out of 316 (NJ Monthly '08) spends $9733.00 more per pupil than #1 ranked Millburn.

The Abbott Decision is clearly not justifiable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top