From the Asbury Park Press:
School officials unite against consolidation
BY BRANDON LAUSCH
It’s a striking scenario: Slash the nation’s highest property tax rates by asking voters to fold the state’s 616 school districts into 21 county districts.
The consolidation plan, its supporters say, would trim millions of dollars in inefficiencies and administrative costs, lightening the load for the average New Jerseyan whose $6,000 a year in property taxes mainly goes toward paying school bills.
One lawmaker who sponsored the plan, state Sen. Bob Smith, D-Middlesex, estimated that consolidation could save $400 million across the state.
But Central Jersey school officials say the striking scenario strikes out.
The uniform criticism voiced by educators hinges on their desire to maintain local control of schools and the apparent burden of reshuffling the state’s current district system in only two years.
If the consolidation plan gets past lawmakers, voters would take up the issue next year. Then, countywide districts led by governor-appointed superintendents would begin on July 1, 2009, if voters approve.
The school consolidation proposal is one of many before four special legislative committees aiming to recommend ways for the state to reduce its notoriously high property taxes. The expected deadline for suggestions is Nov. 15.
Recent polls suggest that voters would support merging local governments or school districts if officials could guarantee that consolidation would substantially cut their taxes. But educators roundly deny that merging districts would save as much money as lawmakers say.
The uniform criticism voiced by educators hinges on their desire to maintain local control of schools and the apparent burden of reshuffling the state’s current district system in only two years
“Maintain local control”=not wanting to lose my job
This is the main barrier to a very much needed consolidation of services in New Jersey. But the cat is out of the bag now and people have had enough of high property taxes. Ultimately, any move toward consolidation means elimination of duplication, just like it would in business
“But educators roundly deny that merging districts would save as much money as lawmakers say.”
Of couse not!!! Why upset the gravy train??
This idea will never happen. Housing prices in NJ reflect the quality of the local school district. As an example in Middlesex County the schools in East Brunswick are better than schools in North Brunswick, therefore families are willing to pay a premium to live in East Brunswick. East Brunswick homeowners and voters will not be eager to fuse their schools with the schools of their neighbors.
This being NJ, any attempt to consolidate schools will end up creating another layer of bureaucracy and taxes will continue thie rmarch upwards.
I understand the drive to do this but I doubt very much that it will actually save money and that there won’t be massive corruption once it’s done. I live in western Essex county and to have to consolidate with the Newark, Orange, Irvington, East Orange school districts will be especially painful. As it is, a lot of our taxes go to support the county and then to have our school taxes go to support the failing schools in Newark is unimaginable. This is what will prevent this proposal from passing.
We have chosen to live where we do because of the school system.
Sorry to go off topic. I’m voting tomorrow, can anyone tell me where to find good information on ballot question 1 regarding property tax reform? Looking at all three questions, all of them imply that there will be shifting of funds, which itself would imply additional tax burden either now or in the future.
james, quick question on weekend discussion (sorry, was traveling)… but based on the meeting you attended, what did it mean on your bullet point slide that US will follow the European housing market?
dave
This idea will never happen. Housing prices in NJ reflect the quality of the local school district. As an example in Middlesex County the schools in East Brunswick are better than schools in North Brunswick, therefore families are willing to pay a premium to live in East Brunswick.
I agree that it will probably never happen. The powerful teacher’s lobby will scare voters into thinking consolidation will mean declining quality of education.
I disagree, however, that consolidation will mean one homogeneous school system throughout a county. I checked out the schools in Wake County, NC on an exploratory trip. NC has a county-based system, but towns such as Cary have better schools than other towns. People pay a premium to live in Cary as a result.
I think the biggest advantage consolidation give us is leverage in contract negotiations with the unions. Right now, the unions play each of the 616 districts against each other. The battle hardened union negotiators can steamroll these small town Board of Ed’s and then use the concessions gained against other towns. For example, if the union wins a $50k minimum starting salary in Lincoln Park, they will then use that to push for the same in neighboring towns.
From Marketwatch:
Fed’s Moskow sees economy picking up from weak Q3
The U.S. economy should bounce back from the weak third quarter and average “somewhat below” a 3% real GDP rate over the next year, said Michael Moscow, the president of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank on Monday. “My baseline forecast is that GDP growth will pick up from the weak third quarter and average somewhat below its potential growth rate [3.0% GDP growth] over the next year or so,” Moskow said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce/WBBM Newsradio 780 annual economic forecast breakfast. Moskow attributed much of the slowdown to the weak housing sector, but noted that this only accounted for 5% of U.S. gross domestic product.”Home construction is on average only about 5% of GDP – that’s about the same as people spend on recreation items such as books, golf clubs, and tickets to theater and opera,” Moskow said. “Currently, we do not see the slowing in housing markets spilling over into a more prolonged period of weakness in the U.S. economy overall,” Moskow said. “On balance, the 95% of the economy outside of housing remains on good footing,” Moskow said.
“Sorry to go off topic. I’m voting tomorrow, can anyone tell me where to find good information on ballot question 1 regarding property tax reform? Looking at all three questions, all of them imply that there will be shifting of funds, which itself would imply additional tax burden either now or in the future.”
My question would be – where would that money have been going and how are they going to make up the short fall when those funds aren’t there anymore? Sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul to me.
pro,
I don’t think this is what you are looking for, but here it is anyway:
http://www.state.nj.us/oag/elections/results_2006_doe.html
I think this measure has best chance of winning. If you combine polulation from not so-good school district + citizens without children, you have large majority. Yeah, the folks living in very good school district will resist, but on the State wide poll they can not get majority. Also, it absconds politicians as it is a measure selected by NJ citizens.
I would be interested in plan that outlays how the low performing schools will be made on par with Good schools.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atEk12XYMerk&refer=us
I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with this piece. From the Trentonian:
Weighing in on public questions
No. No. No.
That’s how you need to vote on the three public questions our greedy politicians got on the ballot for tomorrow.
Just say no.
They’re spending is like a highly addictive drug. Just say no, because they don’t know how to.
I don’t expect you to take my words at face value on this so let me explain.
You’ll see why “No” is the answer vote you can decide.
It seems very unlikely to me that there would not be significant savings, but how those savings are distributed would be another matter.
Someone above used the example of a highly regarded school district (East Brunswick) and a good but not as highly thought of district (North Brunswick).
While those districts certainly have some differences, cost wise it is not really that large. New Brunswick is a whole other situation however. The same holds true for urban districts vs. suburban districts in every county.
Urban districts do tend to get a great deal more state aid, but it seems like suburban districts would have a hard time realizing savings from combining school districts.
“estimated that consolidation could save $400 million across the state”
While i do believe that 400 million is a considerable chunk of change, i don’t know that it will put such a dent in property taxes as to offer meaningful relief. Consolidating schools should be a fraction of the steps that need to be taken.
Consolidation of other town resources such as fire departments should also be considered. Northern Hudson county has consolidated fire companies for years. No single consolidation of services will produce the savings. It would take changes across the board along with smarter spending to bring down taxes.
Someone tell me why NJ needs a special property tax reform account, as proposed in Question No. 1.
I agree with merging the schoool districts together. I went to a highschool with about 500 other students, and I know people who went to school with 3000 other students. I would have honestly prefered to go to a larger school.
As an example in Middlesex County the schools in East Brunswick are better than schools in North Brunswick, therefore families are willing to pay a premium to live in East Brunswick.
So becuase a family cannot afford to live in a better district that means that there children should not be entiled to a good education?
That is the most pathetic, ignorant thing I have heard. I worked my but off to get to where I am so becuase I am not rich my children should not get a good education? Reguardless of where a person comes from everyone should be able to get a good education. East Brunswick is far from being a premium place to live. If anything your paying for convience of having a bus to take you into NYC. I know many towns in NJ that dont pay anywhere what east brunsick pays in property tax, and there schools are 50 times better. So really there just over charging cause people are suckers and think they are paying for a better education when there are other places you can go that have better schools and taxes are cheaper.
I am all for schools merging together, and to resolve the issue of well I pay a premium to send my child to this school. Than thats where they need to start basing property tax on a persons income not location. And if your gonna complain about “Public” schools merging togehter its a freakin public school, meaning that the public can attend. Stop acting like these public schools are like private schools. If you want to act ignorant than send your child to private schools.
jmacdaddio Says: “This idea will never happen. Housing prices in NJ reflect the quality of the local school district.”
This is myth. I live in Montclair, and the test scores and class size do not justify house prices and taxes that are double of neighboring towns. In spite of how good the schools are, we aren’t really getting our money’s worth unless the schools and other services are twice as good — and they aren’t.
In other states with good schools — like NY, where I grew up — they manage to have excellent regional school districts and lower taxes. Why can’t the same be done here? How is NJ different?
This is also a moral issue. Why shouldn’t all the kids in a county or state not receive the same, excellent education? Because their parents make different salaries? The way NJ practices public education results in segregation, contributes to blighted cities, and does nothing to improve long term crime rates, health care, etc. I’ve never seen bordering towns so suspicious of each other and find it inexcusable. Especially when most of the premium in a better school district goes to higher administrative costs. Does Montclair a dozen “curriculum advisors,” or for that matter, town admistrators that make more than $100k per year? I don’t think defending those expenditures have anything to do with our kids.
NJ town leaders aren’t fighting consolidation because of the schools. They’re fighting it because they don’t want to share services and stop giving their friends jobs and themselves ridiculous paychecks. I think it’s important for NJ homeowners and students to move forward with consolidation.
Good example of how difficult some smaller towns have it: Town of Boonton (population 9,000) has two very old, poorly built structures for Grades k-3, and 4-7, that have become very expensive to maintain. Next year there will be a special referendum to consolidate the facilities into one upgraded building for the princely sum of $28 million, creating a k-7 school. Towns like Boonton, with expensive problems, would benefit from the consolidation, but I can imagine the bloody competition for resources that would ensue.
From Marketwatch:
Dollar gets a boost from Moskow inflation talk
The dollar strengthened a bit against its major rivals early Monday after Chicago Federal Reserve President Michael Moskow warned that more rate hikes could be on the way to help combat inflation.
Moskow also said that the risk of inflation outweighs the risk of economic sluggishness, buttressing his point that it is possible the Fed may have to keep lifting rates.
“So becuase a family cannot afford to live in a better district that means that there children should not be entiled to a good education? That is the most pathetic, ignorant thing I have heard.”
Amen Homer i think your thoughts are right on.
People shouldn’t have to pay 500K+ for a home and 12K+ in taxes so the kids can have a decent education.
One problem is that even with all the state aid, the Newark schools still haven’t improved enough to warrant all the money spent. The suburban school districts manage to have better schools even when spending less than the Abbott districts spend. What will happen to the state aid if the Abbott districts are combined with districts that don’t get state aid. Will they still get state aid or will that be done away with.
I still don’t think it will help our property taxes one bit. What will the cost of consolidation be as compared to the property tax savings? Whose palms will need greasing? Will New Jersey’s improve their rack record with corruption? I really don’t know if it’s possible.
With regards to questions 2 & 3, what was the money originally earmarked for?
Basically, if a percentage of this money in question 2 goes towards recreation and conservation and in question 3 towards funding of the State transportation system, what was previously funded with this money? Was the money previously funded towards some state or federal mandated expense that may cause future tax increases? Even if it wasn’t mandated, is there a possible tax increase in the future now that some other “area” is under funded?
Personally, I am leading towards yes, no, no unless I read more information which may change my vote. Once again, this is MY view as of RIGHT NOW and I’m not suggesting others do the same.
Rich
One more thing, the Highschool I went to was rated in the top 100 in the country at the time I was attending it. But that makes me no better than someoneone who went to another Highschool. I mean for the ignorant people out there what do you think is going to be the problem merging the schools toghter? You don’t want the rif raf? Well most of the people who did drugs in my highschool and most of the kids getting into all kinds of trouble were the kids whose parents commuted to NYC everyday.
You also say well, I pay a premium to live in a certain place so my kids should get a better education. Well than what about people who rent in your town, becuase they are not paying the premium in property tax that you are, should there kids not get to go to that school? I mean come on your paying 5000/month on your mortage and that renter is only paying 1500.00. And yet your kids both get the same education. I mean are you going to compain about that next. Where does it end?
To profuscious, Someone tell me why NJ needs a special property tax reform account, as proposed in Question No. 1. Go to web site. http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=2131
Question #1 translated into English from governmentese (that is, a combination of legalese and bureaucratic double-talk): Should the voters of New Jersey commit one-half of the new sales tax to a political slush fund?
What you will see on the ballot:
DEDICATES ANNUAL REVENUE OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO A TAX RATE OF 0.5% UNDER THE STATE SALES TAX FOR PROPERTY TAX REFORM
Do you approve the amendment of Article VIII, Section I of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, to provide for the annual dedication and annual appropriation of an amount equal to the annual revenue derived from a tax rate of 0.5% imposed under the New Jersey Sales and Use Tax, exclusively for the purpose of property tax reform, through a special Property Tax Reform Account established in the constitutionally dedicated Property Tax Relief Fund?
Translation into English (there are a lot of interesting words in the governmentese version):
We have words like approve, which really means you are giving the government permission to once again reach into your pocket and take your hard-earned dollars.
Dedication is another one, which really means taking your money and putting it into more government spending. When the income tax was passed in 1976, that was supposed to solve the property tax problem once and for all. It didn’t and property taxes have continued to rise. This “dedication” locks in the sales tax increase and takes more money from you.
Appropriation is a great governmentese word. It really means the ripping off of more tax dollars to be wasted on more government programs and more big spending for the purpose of buying more votes in Trenton.
All this money is going into a Property Tax Reform Account. What exactly does reform mean and what is this account? Reform means different things to different people. To the politicians in Trenton, it means taking your money and spending it on more government programs. This reform account is just another slush fund to be used by the Trenton politicians to buy votes.
Vote NO on Public Question #1!
Rich,
Did you get my email? I didn’t know if the email you use to comment is your actual email address.
jb
JB,
Yes, and I replied back.
Thanks!
will the person(s) who actually proposed question no. 1 please stand up? There’s a taxi waiting to drive you across the river to Philly, your services are no longer wanted here in the garden state.
profuscious, don’t even think joke it.
We just cleaned up crap over here and there’s more scoopin to be done.
Get your own doggy-bags.
Combine the districts, not the schools! People need to realize regionalizing is more about gaining the upper hand in negiotiations, cutting administrative overhead and gaining efficiency. Towns should continue to have their own schools, it would never work any other way, taxes paid by a town should be allocated to their schools, no others, but infrastructure should be shared, efficiency should be built into the new structure. Shared overhead will be split by number of students.
The other this is Newark, Orange, irvington, etc would not be joined to suburban schools. Towns should join up and have maybe groups of 250k population and similar budgetary situations. Their is no need to tie large troublesome districts to well performing ones. In bergen county alone there are many good school systems that could consolidate. Really is their that much of a difference between ridgewood vs. ramsey vs. Franklin lakes vs. Montvale vs. Wycoff, etc. Many of these districts could combine. In other counties it is dicier but in Essex west essex schools, Essex Fells, Glen Ridge, and Livingston could join up. I think it could work nicely. Also resources are not the only thing that creates a better school or district it is really the kids and more so the parents. I look at the resources spent in Jersey City, beautiful new schools etc. But given the violence that occurs and the lack of concern for education that some parents have, it will never be a high performing district.
Let’s say $10k/student, 20 students per classroom. That’s $200k per school year per classroom. That should be enough to cover any reasonable set of salaries and expenses, given a school with at least 10 classrooms.
20 students per class is fine, I went to schools with that or much more in NYC and had no problems passing all the regents’ exams with higher than 90%.. (still remember the 92% I got on the Latin regents, even if I can barely cite all the cases of a first declension noun..)
Question 1 + Question 2 + Question 3 = More Taxes
Well in general I think there needs to be something done about schools in this state. I read one towns budget of 100 million dollars for 1 school year to run 3 schools. I am sorry to say but schools are as corrupt as the government. Start merging schools together, get rid of the teachers union. Make the teachers have a 401k and pay bennifits like the rest of the world. Ohh well we dont make that much money, we only make 60k we can’t afford to pay for our own bennifits, well neither can half the freakin state of NJ but we all some how manage. The schools budget I came across online 13 million was designated for bennifits. And we all wonder why property taxes are so high. Even if we dont merge all the schools we still need to fix the whole school issue.
The Head of the NAR was on CNBC this morning. the segmentwas AWESOME. He got his butt handed to him on a plate by Nouriel Roubini (sp?).
Paraphrased, but close to accurate.
CNBC: “why are you doing this campaign, is it because sales are so slow”.
NAR : “why no, we’re at the 3rd strongest year for sales in HISTORY!!! in fact, since we’ve followed housing, housing prices have never come down! We project that housing will finish this year as the 3rd stongest year in history, and then next year housing will appreciate at 1-2%”
CNBC: “If sales are so strong, why have a $40 million ad campaign then?”
Him: “well, our members were worried because the media is portraying the market faslely as having a severe downturn, scaring buyers and sellers alike. We wanted to give a more balanced viewpoint. Thus, we did this ad campaign to show our members we’re behind them, and we won’t allow this biased journalism any longer”
CNBC: “here’s our next guest: Nouriel Roubini (sp?). Sir what do you have to say”
Roubini: “Well, the reason people are no longer buying as much as before is simply because housing is dropping at a rapid rate. And in fact, we expect housing to go through a severe depression, with housing values falling 20% more over the next year, they’ve already fallen 10% in most areas. As housing continues it’s depression, more and more contractors, homebuilders, real estate agents, brokers will find themselves unemployed, making the situation worse. Housing is simply unaffordable now. As for balanced journalism, I didn’t hear the NAR complaining about media attention the last 5 years, only now. it seems fairly obvious why they would need a $40 million ad campaign now, and it’s because housing is doing so poorly”
jcer said: “The other this is Newark, Orange, irvington, etc would not be joined to suburban schools. Towns should join up and have maybe groups of 250k population and similar budgetary situations. Their is no need to tie large troublesome districts to well performing ones.”
Why not? I fail to understand why all the schools in the state can’t be better. What you make and where you live shouldn’t have anything to do with public education. Certainly, we’d see benefits in the crime rate and public health costs if education were more consistent throughout the state.
Or am I missing the point and it’s really all about not letting our wealthy, white children go to school with poor, black children. I mean, god forbid Glen Ridge students mingle with their their poorer neighbors only 7 miles away.
I have a friend in Canada who told me that they don’t even ask about the school system in a particular area, because it’s basically the same throughout a province. How refreshing.
BOOOOYAAAA,
Great find. Sounds like a great segment!!!
I don’t see the how this would be saving anyone any money. There is something called “Abbott District”.Like JC almost/close to equal spending to that of Saddle river if I am not mistaken.Who really lose out currently are the middle class because the Abbott districts and the SR’s get the new computers but the middle class neighborhoods have to squeeze the parents to keep up with the Abbotts and the SR’s.And if they are talking combining administration.. I am all for it.. there are too many assistants to the assistant in the schools in NJ.
Canada only has 34 million people, like the state of California.
Punks come in all sizes, shapes, and colors, all of which is irrelevant to the fact that they’re punks.
Monopoly, housing bust edition (originally posted on CR),
http://www.erimez.com/misc/Monopoly_Housing_Bust.jpg
getting rid of administrators is not going to harm education one bit. my wife is a teacher (in CT), and I can tell you that most of these people only make teachers’ jobs harder by constantly dreaming up new standards and means of evaluation. basically, they need to come up with an excuse for why they go into work each day. people shouldn’t be fooled. getting rid of these positions will do anything but save money.
you could apply the same logic to any number of gov’t functions. in every state office, for every one person who is providing a service to the community, there is at least one more who is in a back room twiddling his thumbs.
lawmakers need to hand over authority to make the necessary cuts to a special commission of independent auditors. they need some political insolation if thousands of state workers will be fired. hand the job off to McKinsey and you would see your taxes cut pretty quickly
“getting rid of these positions will do anything but save money.”
that should read won’t do anything but save money
Economist Roubini comments about his appearance on CNBC this morning, the NAR ad campaign, and the housing market.
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/155898
Jay/Bob,
That’s great what was said on CNBC. One thing I do love about debates is when two opposing views are pitted against each other. The one that doesn’t tell the truth will have their argument shredded.
I don’t have full cable, only basic because I do not feel cable tv is worth it. We get stuck w/ ridiculous costs of programming, through higher rates. Since it’s only $50-75 a month most people don’t care. Talk about ripoffs and monopolies. So easy to use other forms of entertainment. Netflix, internet, etc. I stopped ordering cable after I got high speed access. Now I just burn all my programs or record it on Media Center. That’s my OT rant…
CNN Video that takes a look at property tax burdens, highlighting a homeowner in NJ:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp_v3/viewer/index.php?pid=16573&rn=289004&cl=1115314&ch=289023
It is not a matter of equal education, it is not a matter or race or anything else! We want to save money, we want government to work efficiently and we want instances of consolidation to be a success. Addressing the numerous failures of the education system and it inequalities are not the focus.
Tying poor performing schools to good ones is a recipe for pissing people off and creating greater failures in the future. Not to mention there will be no consolidation in those places because the population is huge, they are so big they don’t need it. Know onto the Abbotts, well lets just say it doesn’t work in these places because certain politicians use positions in the school system as a political gift. Why if I am trying to prevent corruption and reduce spending would I give the gravest offenders any role in this!
Pingback: Anonymous
Pingback: Anonymous
Pingback: Anonymous