| ||||||||||||
Star Ledger - N.J. lawyers, advocates for poor students gear up for N.J. Supreme Court hearing on school funding
Njspotlight.com – 1) Christie's Tenure Reform Remains A Work in Progress, and, 2)Fine Print: Abbott Briefs With the latest filings in the Abbott v. Burke school equity case, both plaintiffs and defendants are ready for oral arguments
Courier Post - Views split on charter schools
Newsroomnewjersey.com - Poll: Black voters strong supporters of Gov. Christie's plan for charter school expansion
Star Ledger - N.J. lawyers, advocates for poor students gear up for N.J. Supreme Court hearing on school funding
Published: Thursday, April 07, 2011, 9:45 PM Updated: Friday, April 08, 2011, 6:52 AM
By Chris Megerian/Statehouse Bureau The Star-Ledger
TRENTON — State lawyers call last month’s report on school funding cuts a useless and narrow-minded assessment, but advocates for poor students say it’s an incisive condemnation of New Jersey’s failure to support its neediest kids.
The two sides made these arguments in new briefs filed today in the latest installment of the long-running Abbott vs. Burke school funding saga. Both sides are gearing up for the April 20 hearing before the state Supreme Court in a case with far-reaching consequences for the state’s schools and budget.
The Newark-based Education Law Center asks the state’s highest court to force Gov. Chris Christie and lawmakers to spend more on schools. It says the state underfunded schools by $1.6 billion last year and violated the state constitution’s mandate to "provide a thorough and efficient system" of public schools.
The state has pleaded poverty, saying its precarious fiscal situation prevents it from fully funding the formula approved by the court in 2009. It also says the formula is overly generous since it was created right before the economic crash.
The fault line in today’s briefs is the report from Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, who was asked by the Supreme Court to study the impact of Christie’s budget cuts before justices made a decision in the case. Doyne concluded they disproportionately harmed poor districts, undercutting the state’s argument that funding cuts had been spread fairly.
After the report was released, the state asked Peter Verniero, the former New Jersey attorney general and Supreme Court justice, to lead its legal team. The brief filed by the state today criticizes Doyne’s report as myopic — it did not consider education policies like teacher tenure or the state’s overall fiscal situation — and having "no basis for any real conclusions."
The state also said the review is incomplete because student performance reviews won’t be available until next January, preventing the court from determining whether students were actually hampered by lower funding.
The Education Law Center, by contrast, heaped praise on Doyne’s report, saying it accurately diagnosed spending cuts as a "grave constitutional violation ... The resulting harm to New Jersey school children ... is severe and immediate."
More than one-third of all school districts statewide, which educate nearly three-fourths of all at-risk students, are funded below the formula’s standards, the Law Center said. Schools have cut teaching positions, increased class sizes and reduced student programs.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case could have drastic consequences for the state budget, and Democrats and Republicans alike are bracing for the outcome.
If the court orders more funding, Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff said the state may need to gouge funding for things like Medicaid, property-tax relief and municipal aid.
Some Democrats are pushing for a "millionaires tax" on the state’s highest earners to provide more school funding. Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) criticized the idea, saying the tax would fail to cover all the funding the court may require. "Do the math," he said. "Where are you going to get the rest of the money?"
Even some Democrats who say Christie’s school funding cuts are unconstitutional are apprehensive about the Supreme Court’s decision.
"I hope the court interprets it fairly, and if the governor is right, then we move forward," Assembly Budget Chairman Lou Greenwald (D-Camden) said. "If he’s wrong, then we have work to do."
Jarrett Renshaw contributed to this report.
Njspotlight.com - Fine Print: Abbott Briefs
With the latest filings in the Abbott v. Burke school equity case, both plaintiffs and defendants are ready for oral arguments
By John Mooney, April 8 in Education
Summary: The Christie administration and the Education Law Center (ELC) yesterday filed to the state Supreme Court their latest legal briefs in the Abbott v. Burke school equity case, in preparation for April 20 oral arguments before the court.
Related Links
What they mean: The briefs lay out the opposing arguments in the umpteenth -- actually more than that -- round in this epic case, with the ELC in the driver’s seat and specifically calling for full funding of the state’s school finance law.
A little context: The briefs are in response to a fact-finding report from a lower court judge who found that Gov. Chris Christie’s and the legislature’s $1 billion in cuts to schools this year left them unable to provide a "through and efficient" education for all children, as the state constitution requires. The court now has that report before it as it decides what, if any, remedy to order.
Key line from the plaintiffs: "Most fundamentally, this relief is essential for the Court to fulfill its promise to remain 'committed to its role in enforcing the constitutional rights of children of this State, should the formula prove ineffective or the required funding not be forthcoming.'"
Key line from the defendants: Written by former Justice Peter Verniero, brought in by the Christie administration to argue this round, the state’s response continues to argue that New Jersey's budget crunch necessitates revisiting how schools are funded. He also argues it is for the executive and legislative branches to decide, not the judiciary. "The State urges the court to consider the full weight of the State’s fiscal crisis. In so doing, the court should defer to the elected branches and their careful balancing of multiple constitutional mandates."
What this all means in dollars: The ELC doesn’t put a dollar figure on its proposed remedy, but it specifically asks for the state to provide the money going forward, not for the current school year. And it lays out a three-year timeframe. The gap between current state aid and what is required under the funding act is about $1.6 billion, so by one measure, it could roughly be another $500 million each year.
The governor’s version: Christie spoke in New York City yesterday about his reform agenda and chided the court’s history of ordering more funding for what he has called "failing" schools, with few results to show for it. "If $25 billion a year hasn’t fixed the problem, what’s another $1.6 billion going to do," he said.
Hold onto your hats: The court clearly wants to rule sooner than later, and speak to the fiscal 2012 state budget now under debate in the legislature. It has twice moved up the schedule for the case to be heard, with oral arguments now scheduled for April 20. That doesn’t guarantee a decision in time for the next budget, but it sure makes it likely.
Njspotlight.com - Christie's Tenure Reform Remains A Work in Progress
The governor's speech fills in a few details, but here are three unanswered questions
Gov. Chris Christie yesterday added some details -- and nuance -- to his proposal for revamping teacher tenure and evaluation. He also added a few more questions about exactly what his plan will look like when it is finally written into legislation and regulation.
Related Links
In a much-touted speech in New York City, hosted by the Brookings Institute, Christie was at his most conciliatory, praising teachers and inviting them to be part of the process for developing better systems for judging their peers.
He even hinted that teachers themselves might be on the evaluation teams in each district, the first time he has shown any support for peer review.
Christie's office couldn't offer much more information on that point afterward, which makes it one of a number of unanswered questions about a bill that has yet to be presented, months after the governor first proposed many of these reforms.
Here are three of the biggest questions:
Where exactly is the bill?
Christie’s office said a bill is "to follow," but largely stuck to yesterday's press release, which rehashed many of the tenets that Christie and his education commissioner, Chris Cerf, have presented before.
Senator Teresa Ruiz (D-Essex) is said to be taking the lead in the legislature as chair of the Senate education committee. But she has said her bill would not include all of Christie’s proposals. Ruiz was not talking yesterday, but a spokeswoman for the Senate Majority Office said Ruiz planned to have a bill ready for vote in June.
This may seem more shimmer than substance, but the legislature is going to be central to Christie’s plans, especially those involving any change to the state’s tenure protections. Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan Jr. (D-Middlesex), chairman of the Assembly’s education committee, said last week at a conference of New Jersey school principals that he would not support Christie’s tenure proposal as it now stood, a big obstacle given that he controls the committee’s agenda.
Will the state be mandating precisely how teachers are evaluated?
Christie spoke a little more to this yesterday, saying that local districts should be given the authority to devise their own evaluation systems, as long as they meet certain state standards.
His proposed requirements remain unchanged: half of the evaluation would be based on student performance, and half based on teacher practice as observed in the classroom. How that is defined is still to be worked out, but Christie did say yesterday that he recognized the limits of standardized tests as the sole measure of student achievement. That has been the most contentious part of his plan, and he clearly seemed intent yesterday on softening the hardest edges. He pointed out that some subjects may not be easily measured by these tests, such as music and art. He also noted that special education teachers also pose unique challenges.
How do you measure the intangibles?
This may be one of those questions that is never adequately answered, but it remains at the core of whether any of Christie's systems will succeed.
In his speeches the governor has often mentioned the hard-to-measure qualities of teaching, how parents know who the good teachers are in a school and who the mediocre ones are -- without benefit of test scores. He has also praised his own teachers, growing up, again for their intangible qualities.
Yesterday, the governor said some of this is based on how much students learn during the course of the year. He also said much of his hope for his evaluation system includes subjective measures taken through classroom observation and other tools for evaluating the teaching "craft."
Several options were included in a task force report completed last month, which Christie has said he would use in developing his own plan. Again, the answers will be in the details, but the governor's statements thus far have not articulated how any of this will be mandated.
Courier Post - Views split on charter schools
8:03 AM, Apr. 8, 2011 |
BOB JORDAN
New Jersey Press Media
New Jersey residents are split on the continuing growth of charter schools, with a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released Thursday showing 44 percent of registered voters support the increase while 42 percent oppose adding more charters.
Gov. Chris Christie's proposed annual budget includes increased aid to charter schools, which are tuition-free independent public schools. He is also pushing for a streamlined approval process to get more charter schools started.
"As education issues continue to make headlines here, voters are mixed on their reactions," said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University.
A New Jersey Education Association spokesman said the poll shows "there is a hardly a mandate for runaway expansion of charter schools."
The spokesman, Steve Baker, said the NJEA "supports high-quality charter schools," but noted the state has received applications for unproved online "virtual" schools and from groups with sketchy administrative credentials.
"I think in the poll you can see some caution being expressed by people," Baker said.
Redlawsk said the poll shows some differences from the traditional party line.
"What really stands out is the difference between black and white voters," he said. "African-Americans, while not otherwise supportive of Gov. Christie, are generally behind his plans for charter schools and vouchers."
African-Americans registered 52 percent in favor of more charter schools. Overall, 14 percent say they don't know if they support or oppose an increase in charters.
Newsroomnewjersey.com - Poll: Black voters strong supporters of Gov. Christie's plan for charter school expansion
Thursday, 07 April 2011 15:18
Also favor governor's school choice voucher proposal
New Jersey voters are split on the continuing growth of charter schools in the state, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll made public Thursday.
Forty-four percent of all voters polled support increasing the number of charter schools, while 42 percent oppose adding more. Fourteen percent say they don’t know if they support or oppose an increase. Fifty-two percent of black voters favor more charter schools.
A majority of white voters would prefer to send a child to a public school, but black voters prefer charter schools by a narrow margin. While only 31 percent of whites choose charters, 48 percent of blacks feel the same. Public schools are favored by whites, 51 percent to 43 percent.
Black voters are also more likely than whites to support school choice vouchers which would allow children to attend private schools using taxpayer funding, 54 percent to 36 percent.
“As education issues continue to make headlines here, voters are mixed on their reactions,” Prof. David Redlawsk, the poll director, said. “While there are traditional party-line differences, what really stands out is the difference between black and white voters. African-Americans, while not otherwise supportive of Gov. Christie, are generally behind his plans for charter schools and vouchers.”
Among all voters, supporters of charter schools edge opponents, 44 percent to 42 percent. The numbers are essentially the same for those with at least one child under 18 at home: 41 percent in favor and 44 percent against. Black voters are more positive, however, 52 percent supporting the growth of charter schools and 39 percent opposing.
Those with a favorable impression of Christie also are stronger supporters, 57 percent to 29 percent. Voters unfavorable toward the governor strongly oppose more charter schools, 57 percent to 30 percent. Not surprisingly, only a minority of voters in public employee union households support increasing the number of charter schools, 30 percent to 58 percent who oppose. Support for charters is greater among those in non-union households, 46 percent in favor and 39 percent opposed.
“These data show an interesting split in traditional Democratic constituencies on this issue,” Redlawsk said. “As Governor Christie pushes for more charter schools as a lynchpin in his education plan, public employee union members resist, but African-Americans appear to be on his side.”
Almost 4-in-10 respondents (38 percent) say charter schools do a better job educating children than traditional public schools, while 30 percent say both types are equally good and 9 percent say charters do worse. Twenty-three percent are not sure.
Among those with a child under 18, the results are similar: 36 percent say charter schools do better, 34 percent say both types do about the same, 7 percent say charter schools do worse than traditional public schools and 23 percent are unsure. Though supporting charters, blacks are no more likely than whites to say charter schools do a better job than public schools.
By better than 2 to 1 (54 percent to 24 percent), Christie’s supporters are more likely to say charters do a better job than traditional schools at educating students. Twenty-two percent of Christie supporters say the two types of schools are equally good, while 42 percent of Christie detractors believe they are equal. While 14 percent of those unfavorable toward Christie say charter schools do a worse job, only 4 percent of Christie supporters agree. Similarly, among public employee union households, 22 percent prefer charters; 41 percent of non-union households agree.
Seventy-eight percent who say charter schools do a better job, want more in New Jersey. Among those who say both types perform about the same, only 29 percent support more charter schools, while 62 percent are opposed. Most voters do not think the growth in charters has weakened traditional public schools; only 24 percent do so and 45 percent say it has made no difference
Though a majority of voters says charter schools are as least as good as public schools, most white respondents would prefer to send a child to a traditional public school, 51 percent to 15 percent; 15 percent are not sure. Black voters have a starkly different view, with 48 percent preferring a charter school and 43 percent preferring a traditional public school, with only 7 percent unsure.
Christie supporters are half as likely as detractors to say they would send a child to public school; 36 percent would send a child to a public school, while 45 percent prefer a charter. However, 64 percent of those not favorable toward Christie prefer a traditional public school, and only 21 percent would use a charter school.
Fifty-four percent of black voters support school choice vouchers, another key part of the Christie’s education reform plan. The governor has proposed publicly funded scholarships to enable school children to attend private schools with public funding.
While black voters support this idea, only 36 percent of white voters agree. As with other parts of his education plans, those favoring the governor are stronger supporters of vouchers, 51 percent to 44 percent opposed. Among those holding an unfavorable view of the governor, only 30 percent support vouchers, while 65 percent oppose them.
“Vouchers are perceived to be of most benefit to families in failing urban school districts,” Redlawsk said. “Since most white voters do not perceive their schools as failing, few seem to support the idea of using tax dollars to allow children to move to private schools where public schools are failing. These results show a clear sense of localism – if my schools are ok, then why use tax dollars for someone else?
“The governor’s voucher plan is not overly popular among his core constituency,” Redlawsk said. “Though conservatives and Republicans strongly support charter schools, they are evenly split of vouchers. Democrats in general strongly oppose vouchers, except for African-Americans, who clearly want more choice of schools. The usual political coalitions have a hard time with this issue.”
About a month before the annual school elections, voters are not sure if they will vote for or against their local school budgets. Thirty percent say they will vote yes (34 percent in households with children, 27 percent childless households) while 16 percent say they will vote no (14 percent with children at home; 18 percent without). However, 39 percent say they are not sure how they will vote (38 percent children, 40 percent without.)
Christie backers are less likely to favor their district’s budget. Only 24 percent favor their school budget, while another 24 percent plan to vote against it, and 36 percent are not sure. Among those unfavorable toward the governor, 40 percent plan to vote for their budget, 8 percent oppose it, and 41 percent are unsure.
“Signs point to another contentious season for school budgets,” Redlawsk said. “As with most other things in New Jersey these days, where the governor comes down on the issue matters. If he makes another effort to defeat school budgets as he did last year, he’s likely to motivate his base and see some success.”
Results are from a poll of 773 registered voters conducted among both landline and cell phone households from March 28 through to Monday, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. -TOM HESTER SR., NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
