Inequality in Public Education in New Jersey

Why the Abbott Decision exposed a problem with Education in NJ:

and how the Abbott Solution failed to solve it.

Augusto Penaranda Jr.

Graduate Student William Paterson University 2016

2

Abstract

Education is not a right protected by the United States Constitution. In fact the word “education”

itself is not mentioned in the original document or on any amendments. These rights are given

by the individual constitutions in each of the fifty states. The decision to have states manage

their own educational systems came about because the governors did not want the federal

government to dictate how their populations should be educated, they saw this as giving too

much power to the government and a clear overreach into their state affairs. This led to the

dismantling of the only attempt by the U.S. federal government to nationalize education (1867-

1868). In 2015 the United States ranked 17th among modern nations in the world, in education.

My research will attempt to explain how this happened, after decades of being number one and if

the problem in our educational system is more about our society itself and not just about funding

formulas.

3

Why the Abbott Decision exposed a problem with Education in NJ:

and how the Abbott Solution failed to solve it.

Education is not a right protected by the United States Constitution. In fact, the word

education itself is not mentioned in the original document or on any amendments. These rights

are given by the individual constitutions in each of the fifty states. The decision to have states

manage their own educational systems came about because the governors did not want the

federal government to dictate how their populations should be educated, they saw this as giving

too much power to the government and a clear overreach into their state affairs. This led to the

dismantling of the only attempt by the U.S. federal government to nationalize education (1867-

1868).

My research will center on three areas in education for a state; yearly education budgets,

including median home values and median household incomes; how a state’s internal borders

between municipalities developed and encompassing all school districts and the advantages or

networks present within specific areas or municipalities of a state. Currently data specific to test

scores, math and science placement or overall graduation rates are ways in which education is

measured by states and also used as indicators of where more resources or scrutiny is needed.

This would seem to make sense if the districts were all the same, with regards to curriculum,

funding, staff and so on, but the results based on such data show only a current snap shot of what

is going on in education, it does not explain why it is that way.

The type of wealth or investment that goes into education is based on property values for

most states, as was the case with New Jersey. As this paper will show, legal cases against the

state of New Jersey forced the state to rethink how education was funded and as such put the

4

spotlight on this issue by other states, who were beginning to experience similar conditions. This

is where home values come into play and the property taxes collected from the different areas of

the state. Northern New Jersey has a very dense population as compared to the southern part of

the state but funding for education in the north was becoming more and more inadequate. A

breakdown from the 1970’s till the early part of the 21st century will show how the funding for

education in New Jersey progressed but this report will also show what was going on from the

perspective of population shifts and housing during the same period, which may help explain

why this issue of funding inequality actually developed, instead of believing it is related

somehow to mismanagement, inadequate parental involvement or just a random cluster of poor

performing students.

The United States ranks 17th in reading and 20th in math (PISA 2012). This is not a

ranking among democracies, but of all nations, regardless of their type of government. One

interesting fact about most of the nations that rank higher than the United States in education, is

that these nations have education as part of their nations’ constitution, unlike the U.S., which

does not and instead leaves the responsibility of educating Americans to the individual states. As

noted by David Boaz from the CATO institute (May1, 2006) in an article titled “Education and

the Constitution” he clarifies statements made by the Wall Street Journal about “No Child Left

Behind” and reminds the WSJ that even the Supreme Court of the U.S. has stated that taxpayer

funded education is not a right but a privilege.

This leads us to the state of New Jersey and how they established a new funding formula

as a result of several lawsuits that declared the funding of public education in New Jersey as

inadequate and unfair in economically challenged districts, later to be known as Abbott districts.

This paper will discuss how New Jersey developed its current school funding formula policy and

5

discuss the successes and failures that have developed since its implementation. This case

gained national recognition as many other states were facing or were soon to face similar

lawsuits with regards to the disparities in how education is funded in their respective states.

In 1975 the NJ Supreme Court ruled on the case of Robinson v. Cahill, which argued the

discrepancies in public education in the state, specifically in how the district budgets were

funded. Public education was mainly funded by property taxes in New Jersey, which unlike the

U.S. Constitution, New Jersey’s did declare the right to an equal and quality public education to

its residents. The courts found the defendants, in this case the state of New Jersey, had failed to

properly fund and maintain the free public school system in the state and that there were

significant discrepancies in the funding per pupil in poorer districts. The court ordered the state

to immediately address the issue for the 1974-75 school year. The NJ Supreme Court did not

want to over step its’ power over the branches of government (NJ Legislature and Executive

Branch) but was ready to implement a plan if the state could not find a workable funding

program to address the issue.

The state of NJ had to find a way to either redistribute funds to all districts or put the

burden on the school districts themselves to find a workable solution. In the end a per pupil

dollar amount was considered for students in the poorer districts, for at least the 1974-75 school

year. The funds would be distributed in six areas that affected public education in New Jersey;

Minimum support aid; Save-harmless funds; Building aid, foundation program; A typical pupils

aid; Transportation aid; Pension fund contributions by the State; all totaling $585,000,000. The

budget at that time for the next school year (1975-76) was unclear and the proposed emergency

funding for 1974 was still not adequate enough to equalize public education in New Jersey,

which eventually lead to continued lawsuits, which now brings us to the Abbott decisions. The

6

Robinson v. Cahill case opened a long list of discrepancies in how the state funded all aspects of

a public education but provided no clear remedy to resolve the issue.

The issue of an equal education in New Jersey was more than just the dollars needed to

properly fund a public education system, but instead had to deal with the growing divide between

the failing cities (Jersey City, Newark, Camden, and Paterson are some examples) and the

growing suburban communities, which at the time of Robinson v. Cahill, were predominately

White. As businesses and homeowners left these areas, different groups, mostly minority, moved

in.

The issue of public education in New Jersey is not just about the state officials and the

Supreme Court, in fact, in doing the research, the list of agencies and players in school funding

were part of just about every aspect of life in the state. Aside from the plaintiffs and defendants

in the Robinson v. Cahill and Abbott v. Burke, you had the Governors Byrne, Kean, Florio,

Whitman, McGreevy, Corzine and now Christie; the state agencies; Treasury, New Jersey

Economic Development Authority, Homeland Security, Higher Education Commission, State

Ethics Committee, the Education Law Center; the elected board of education trustees in all the

Abbott districts; the superintendents, the teachers unions, labor unions, attorneys on both sides of

school funding, the mayors of the Abbott district municipalities and all non-Abbott

municipalities. The list goes on and on, before it even gets to those who are and continue to be

the subject of this school funding issue, the student. The main reason for all the involvement by

all these entities is in part the protection of the right to a fair and equal education in the state but

a bigger reason for such interest in school funding is the money involved, which has already

surpassed billions of dollars.

7

In 1981 the issue of school funding in New Jersey was back in the Supreme Court,

Abbott v. Burke. The argument was the same, the state had failed in properly funding the poorer

districts in order to provide an equal education, as those who attended public school in other

districts, as was argued in 1975 (Robinson v. Cahill). At the time of the Robinson V. Cahill

decision, the state, on average, budgeted about 29% of the states’ revenue to public school

education. This number increased to 39% in the first two years after the NJ Supreme Court

decision. The goal of the increased funding was to balance the per pupil expense in the poorer

districts, by relieving some of the dependency on property taxes. The funds were distributed to

these districts by way of grants. The grants would provide poorer districts a significantly higher

amount for every dollar in property taxes collected and a lesser amount for the other districts.

Unfortunately the per pupil funding did not change very much, if at all in the poorer districts,

which also continued to report declining amounts of property taxes collected, unlike in the

wealthier districts that showed an increase of school funding through property taxes during the

same time. James R. Knickman discusses this issue in his paper “The implementation of School

Finance Reform” (Policy Sciences 12 (1980)) in which he states that many of the poorer districts

were using the state grants to compensate for the reduction in property taxes collected in their

municipalities rather than increasing the per student funding. Part of this reduction in tax

revenue in poorer districts was the fact that property tax rates had begun to go down statewide

and property values in wealthier school districts began to increase, therefore increasing their

property tax revenue, which explains why they were able to increase their funding to their school

districts.

8

The Abbott decisions (Abbott v. Burke I, II, III, IV and V) continued the debate on school

funding in New Jersey, each case arguing discrepancies in all aspects of public education.

Abbott IV and V became the foundation for an updated school funding formula that would

address most of the concerns argued in all the school funding cases in New Jersey (School

Funding Reform Act of 2008). The main point of this case was that the former funding formula

(Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act of 1996) which provided a set per

pupil amount did not provide an equal public school education to students in poorer districts as

stated by the New Jersey Constitution. The commissioner of the department of education

submitted recommendations on a plan that would provide whole-school reform, supplemental

programs, a facilities improvement plan and other remedial measures.

The issue of school funding in New Jersey can be followed by each legal case that has

been argued since 1973. In each case the state has been found in fault and has attempted to

resolve or at least satisfy the court mandate by introducing different funding scenarios, each

costing millions of dollars in tax revenue. The argument is simple, those in poorer districts

cannot properly educate their students as the students are in wealthier districts, therefore needing

additional funding from the state, but on the other side you have the issue of how much funding

is enough and why do successful or economically sound municipalities have to pay for the

failures of other municipalities. At what point does the issue move from equal and fair public

school funding to poorly managed municipalities causing their own poorly funded school

districts. This issue is very controversial and has had very strong political outcry on both sides,

but there have been some successes in this latest funding formula. Two specific areas that have

seen measureable success are in Early Childhood Education and the increase in Math and

Reading scores statewide. Some other successes, which many may feel otherwise, are the funds

9

spent on the construction of new facilities throughout the state, but this schools construction

component of the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 is an issue that needs to be researched

independently. The argument is not whether the state provided adequate funding to build all the

facilities needed in the Abbott districts but was there any oversight over the expenditures and

contracts awarded in the program and what safety nets were implemented to prevent fraud or

corruption.

The funding issue in New Jersey is only a part of a larger issue in society. Understanding

that all the court cases and mandates along with the attempted funding formulas and current

status of funding public education in New Jersey does not address the true issue, the difference in

equality in every aspect of society; economic, political, social and educational, just to list a few,

especially between different racial groups. As mentioned earlier in my paper, the United States

does not guarantee any American a fair and equal education, that right is left to the individual

states to mandate and fund. Unfortunately this type of system allows for significant disparities

between states and how they educate their population, which may not seem an issue but consider

how the states with Republican Governors educate their populations versus those states with

Democratic Governors or look at it this way, would both Republican and Democratic governors

support the exact same curriculum or would there be significant differences in how and what

they teach.

New Jersey was the perfect case to follow with the funding issue because of the ethnic

and political demographics. In the North the population was mainly diverse and Democratic

where the South was more Republican and less diverse yet Abbott districts existed throughout all

areas. To better understand why the issue of a fair and equal public education is important, first

we need to understand that since the court cases (1973) 40 years have passed and we are still

10

discussing the issue of unequal funding. An unprecedented amount of money is provided for

education in New Jersey, for all districts ($8,458,668,581 in 2013) and yet the poorer or Abbott

districts are still showing little to no positive results in providing an equal education to their

increasing student population. Whether you use graduation rates or rates of graduates continuing

on to higher education, the wealthier districts are still performing better than the poorer districts.

This issue needs to be studied further and in more detail because the issue becomes

clearer when you look at the initial arguments of the school funding problem and then you take a

good look at the municipalities these districts exist in. Who is running these municipalities, is

the leadership functioning in a manner that provides economic incentives and investment in their

commercial areas, what is the crime rate amongst the youth and are they running their

departments efficiently. If the issue of school funding was a result of reduced property taxes

being collected, then shouldn’t the answer be, generate more property taxes? Should we be

investing more money in Abbott districts or should we concentrate on home ownership in these

municipalities or infrastructure grants to increase business investment. These discussions are not

mentioned in the Abbott decisions but have a direct effect on public school funding.

The current funding formula in New Jersey has been seen as mostly successful in that it

deals with most of the areas of funding discrepancies detailed in the NJ supreme court mandates,

even though the solution has resulted in accusations of corruption and mismanagement in many

of the agencies overseeing the specific areas of reform, those who support the Abbott decision

identify the increased graduation rates and the success of the number of children enrolled in early

childhood education and their success in higher grades, as proof the program worked. These

statistics are identifying surveys, reports and test scores but do not provide a true understanding

of what is happening in the Abbott school districts. Research has shown how other nations have

11

provided a better free public education to their population at a fraction of the cost spent here in

the U.S. with a significantly weaker curriculum. New Jersey, along with other states have

studied these other programs around the world but the one crucial issue is the resistance to

having the federal government control their education program. Many U.S. Presidents have tried

to implement reform in education (No Child Left Behind, Common Core) but the influence of

federal mandates is limited and are usually attached to grant dollars, which automatically draws

in the Abbott districts or in other states, poorer school districts.

You can now understand that the one issue, school funding and the policy adopted by the

New Jersey state Legislature to adequately fund the Abbott districts and satisfy the NJ Supreme

Court mandate has opened up a growing list of issues that now have to be addressed. In the case

of New Jersey, current Governor Christie is looking to challenge the Abbott decision and change

how these districts are funded or at least cap off their funding.

In order to make any recommendations on what type of policy changes or alternatives

New Jersey should consider with regards to public school funding, I want to clarify how we

arrived at this situation today; enormous budgets and numerous lawsuits.

In 1973 the NJ Supreme Court begins to hear arguments on unequal funding for public

schools in poorer districts (Robinson v. Cahill). In 1975 the NJ Supreme Court rules in favor of

the plaintiff and orders the state to provide an efficient and fair funding formula to poorer

districts. The initial plan is deemed inadequate.

In 1981 the Education Law Center files suit against the State of NJ arguing the failure of

the funding formula implemented as a result of Robinson v. Cahill. The case was Abbott v.

Burke, which lead to the Abbott decision in 1985. Part of the failure was due to the decrease in

tax rates statewide and an increase in property values in wealthier districts.

12

In 1990 the Education Law Center files suit again against the State of NJ arguing the

failure of the current funding formula (Quality Education Act (QEA)) implemented after the

1985 Abbott decision. The NJ Supreme Court identifies 28 Abbott districts, which later grew to

31, in what was now the second Abbott decision. The case was brought back again before the NJ

Supreme Court in 1994, which resulted in the third Abbott decision (Comprehensive Education

Improvement and Financing Act).

In 1996 and 1997 the case was once again brought before the NJ Supreme Court which

resulted in the Abbott IV and Abbott V decision. It was these last two arguments that lead to a

recommendation from the Commissioner of the Department of Education to implement a

program of whole-school reform; supplemental programs, a facilities improvement plan, and

other remedial measures known as, the School Funding Reform Act.

In 2002 Governor Jim McGreevy (democrat) created the Schools Construction Agency to

comply with the facilities mandate imposed by the NJ Supreme Court case in 1997 (New Jersey

Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act). Governor McGreevy allocated nine

billion dollars for the agency to comply with the court order but no significant research was done

to determine an actual dollar amount required to build and repair the facilities identified, in the

Abbott districts. Former Governor Christine Todd Whitman (republican) did not address the

issue during her term.

In 2004 the NJ Schools Construction Agency runs out of funding with less than half of

the scheduled projects completed. Accusations of mismanagement and corruption begin to

engulf the agency. In 2007 The NJ Schools Construction Agency was abolished and the Schools

Development Authority took over the responsibility of schools construction.

13

In 2008 the New Jersey Legislature enacts the School Funding Reform Act. The state of

NJ requested the Supreme Court release them of the mandates indicated in the 1996 and 1997

Abbott decisions and accept the SFRA as a comparable solution for the Abbott districts. The NJ

Supreme Court felt the School Funding Reform Act was adequate for all districts in the state.

In 2010 the New Jersey Legislature adopts Gov. Christie’s budget which cuts 15% or 1.1

billion for the School Funding Reform Act. The Education Law Center petitions the NJ Supreme

Court once again to force the governor to comply with the 2008 School Funding Reform Act as

stipulated by the NJ Supreme Court. The NJ Supreme Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff.

What is next for school funding in New Jersey? In the eyes of the New Jersey Supreme

Court, the 2008 School Funding Reform Act appears to have addressed most of the main issues

with regards to providing a fair and equal education in accordance to the states constitution but

the policy itself is being attacked by New Jersey’s own current Gov. Chris Christie which leads

into question the reasoning behind such a decision. Is the State of New Jersey going to go back

to the Supreme Court and once again try to establish a new funding formula or is this just

political posturing on behalf of an elected Governor who wants to run for President? Regardless

of which reason you feel is more relevant, the issue behind how to fund public education in New

Jersey is still a key issue of debate. In my research, the successes claimed by the Abbott districts

with regards to the increased funding seem minimal at best compared to the billions of dollars in

funding that has been provided.

Instead of concentrating on the funding for an equal public school education, we should

consider getting these municipalities back in the black economically which would have a direct

effect on the residents in these municipalities therefore generating tax revenue back to these

municipalities, therefore beginning the slow but actual reduction in state funding to support the

14

school districts but still maintaining the funding formula as a safety net when the economy takes

a negative turn, as was the case in 2008 in the United States. If we continue another 40 years of

school funding in poorer districts, we give those municipalities no incentive to improve their

economic situation and therefore become totally dependent on state aid. This will not be an easy

task and there will be great opposition to any such initiative because as I have mentioned in

detail, the money that has been part of all the school funding formulas and court cases is

astronomical and because of this, greed and corruption have taken hold in many levels of this

process. I am unclear if Gov. Christie’s budget cut is a good or bad thing for the state, but one

positive aspect of his decision is that Abbott or poorer districts are now or should be looking at

the possibility that they may lose a significant portion of their school funding and should plan

alternatives to compensate for the possible loss of significant school funding, because neither the

children or the state is ready for another 40 years of court cases.

New Jersey Education by the Dollar

The funding issue in New Jersey is only a part of a larger issue in society. Understanding

that all the court cases and mandates along with the attempted funding formulas and current

status of funding public education in New Jersey does not address the true issue, the difference in

equality in every aspect of society, especially between different racial groups. In New Jersey’s

case, current republican Governor Chris Christie has defunded 1.1 billion or 15% of the Abbott

funding in his current budget and does not appear to be worried of any backlash or lawsuit.

New Jersey was the perfect test case for my research because it already had the answer to

the question of inequality in education and had implemented a solution to deal with the issue. To

keep things in perspective, the new funding formula and the issue in its entirety has been

ongoing for forty years (1975-2016). Additionally, understanding how property taxes play in

15

public school funding, we can now begin to break down specific information for each county in

New Jersey and compare the results to see if the new funding formula has worked and if there is

any difference in the success of a student going to school in one county versus another. I will be

using graduation rates for students who have completed a four year public high school education

(National Center of Educational Statistics NCES) and where there are multiple high schools in

one district, I will find the average between them and then list them from lowest to highest

according to their specific county. My initial thought is that the averages between all twenty one

counties in New Jersey would be similar with maybe a 2-3% difference, but the data showed a

greater discrepancy and in some areas a double digit difference.

In order for one to better understand the graduation rate, I need to compare it to

something that would be relative to the discussion about an equal public school education,

regardless of where a student lived in the state. I selected two additional variables to help make

my point referenced earlier; the median home values in each county (gauge for property tax

revenue) and household median income (to identify if any differences in graduation rates relate

to differences in family household income). In my research I also decided to list the amount of

state aid that was budgeted for each county in 2013. This data can be used to relate the

graduation rate to the dollar amount budgeted for that county’s school districts.

16

Table 1: Graduation Rates by County in New Jersey

County Graduation Rate (%)

Household Median Income

Median HomeValue

State Aid per County

Hudson 79.19 58,442 347,200 999,626,723Cumberland 81.27 50,750 168,900 375,691,724Cape May 81.96 56,494 312,800 63,665,793Passaic 82.17 57,540 351,000 795,052,326Essex 82.91 55,095 364,800 1,296,320,000Salem 84.54 59,718 190,200 86,443,251Mercer 84.94 73,480 286,900 370,406,233Camden 85.67 61,683 210,700 707,811,454Atlantic 88.45 54,559 237,400 284,739,138Union 89.43 68,507 362,300 686,859,671Gloucester 89.99 79,524 224,700 268,226,837Middlesex 90.46 79,442 330,000 569,366,380Ocean 90.58 61,136 268,100 302,221,973Burlington 91.32 78,446 252,500 389,593,160Somerset 91.41 99,020 398,800 101,218,308Monmouth 92.63 84,526 389,900 423,864,855Sussex 93.4 87,335 285,800 108,958,522Bergen 93.6 84,255 451,400 200,158,950Warren 93.76 70,912 271,100 104,694,360Morris 94.93 98,633 432,400 133,053,345Hunterdon 96.1 106,143 404,300 40,553,884

National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES)State of NJ Department of Education 2013-14 State Aid and SummariesU.S. Department of Commerce-United States Census Bureau 2009-2013

Looking at the data, you can see that the difference between graduation rates in Hudson

County and Hunterdon County is almost 17%. Then you consider the state aid as a possible

reason for the discrepancy but Hudson’s budget is over fifty nine million dollars over what

Hunterdon was budgeted for the same 2013 school year. The data seems to show that at least in

2013, the wealthier districts still out performed the poorer districts.

The data in table 1 still only provided a broad view of how household income and state

aid compared to graduation rates in New Jersey but in order to better understand the discussion

about neighborhoods and districts in New Jersey and how that affects the education a student

17

receives, the county themselves needed to be divided into the various districts and the same

comparison needed to be performed for each municipality within a particular county. For the

purposes of this paper, we selected Passaic County because it is both geographically and

demographically diverse between municipalities.

Table 2: Graduation Rates in Passaic County New Jersey

Municipality GraduationRate (%)

Household Median Income

Median HomeValue

State Aid

Passaic 71 57,540 328,400 224,983,917Paterson 71.9 33,583 278,400 397,980,917Prospect Park 81 57,656 271,700 7,684,019Haledon 81 59,957 306,400 6,650,544North Haledon 81 107,755 460,900 358,901Clifton 83 64,163 343,000 25,533,579Bloomingdale 92 71,250 353,600 1,947,915Little Falls 92 74,026 372,900 511,201Totowa 92 74,556 373,100 422,031Woodland Park 92 77,866 360,400 735,696Hawthorne 93 80,474 375,000 1,998,491West Milford 94 92,829 303,100 14,329,315Wanaque 95 89,726 313,800 2,464,024Pompton Lakes 95 90,467 327,100 3,766,552Wayne 95 103,045 462,300 3,784,984Ringwood 95 109,752 366,700 2,884,847

National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES)State of NJ Department of Education 2013-14 State Aid and SummariesU.S. Department of Commerce-United States Census Bureau 2009-2013

The results for Passaic County showed greater disparity across the board. The overall

graduation rate between the municipalities is greater than between counties. When you compare

the household median income, you can see almost a 50% difference from Passaic to Ringwood,

but the most relevant figure is the state aid. Some figures look out of place, but they are not. In

the case of North Haledon, this is a town that has to send its high school students to a regional

18

high school, unless the student attends a private school, along with Haledon and Prospect Park;

you can clearly see that these are three very different social communities. There are two other

groups of municipalities in Passaic County that share a regional high school; Little Falls, Totowa

and Woodland Park share one high school and Ringwood and Wanaque share another.

The data in Table 2 shows a wider difference between the municipalities than there was

between the counties. Students living in the municipalities that have a graduation rate below

90% have a 78.15% chance of graduating from public high school, in a household where the

annual family income may be $30,000-$65,000 with an average home value of $250,000-

$350,000. I did not calculate North Haledon in these averages because aside from having to

share a high school, the municipality is clearly out of place economically and demographically

compared to Prospect Park and Haledon. Additionally, North Haledon receives less than four

hundred thousand dollars in state aid where the other municipalities in that category receive

between six and four hundred million in annual state aid. On the other side of table 2, a student

has a 93.5% chance of graduating high school in four years where the family incomes ranges

between $70,000-$100,000 and live in homes valued from $300,000-$500,000. Students living

in the wealthier municipalities have a 15% advantage over those in the other districts in regards

to graduating high school in four years.

My research has shown that the new funding formula in New Jersey has not achieved the

goal it was intended for. Even with supporters of the new funding formula pointing out the many

successes since the NJ Supreme Court mandate, the overall result is still unequal. This poses

many problems for students who are educated in districts with lower graduation rates.

19

Looking beyond the Funding Formula in New Jersey

New Jersey was an excellent state to research with regards to education, but not just

because they were in the spotlight for having to create a new way of funding public school

education that was not proportional to property taxes, but because New Jersey is also very

diverse in its population.

Unlike many other states, New Jersey is a state where you can drive a few minutes or a

few hours and be in a completely different setting. From small towns to big cities, New Jersey

municipalities (in some cases at extreme cost) have defined their borders to their neighboring

municipalities. This is clearly more evident in the north because of the density of the population

and its proximity to New York City, but even in the southern part of the state, you clearly know

when you are crossing from one town to the next, especially in terms of race and wealth.

The funding formula issue in New Jersey was based on property taxes but after forty

years and billions of dollars spent on this new formula, there is still inequality between the

wealthier districts and the poorer districts, which then raises the question of why, why has the

new funding not worked? This is where I go in a different direction with regards to education in

New Jersey. Instead of concentrating on the money, maybe we should look at the actual districts

themselves. It would be an overwhelming task to research all aspects of a district, for example,

teachers, staff, facilities, neighborhoods, employers, elected officials etc. so instead, before most

of what was just listed came into play, we need to discuss or look at how these districts came

about, how did all these areas in New Jersey get divided into the municipalities they are today

and why haven’t they changed much since? This is where the issue of segregation may explain,

why regardless of how much money is thrown into some districts, it would not correct the

20

problem of education inequality because the district itself was created on the basis of protecting

equality for one race versus another.

A Look Back into New Jersey

In the 1970’s, the first of many legal battles began to take shape with regards to the

quality of public education in New Jersey. The base argument stated that poorer districts (which

were not always poor) could not maintain the same quality of education as their wealthier

counterparts. The immediate cause that was seen as the main factor in this issue, was how the

public educational system in New Jersey was funded; through property taxes.

It would seem simple enough to calculate the amount of property taxes collected for each

municipality in New Jersey from 1970 until today but all that will show is various levels of funds

paid to the state that are redistributed back for such things as education. This data would also

show significant drops in taxes collected from specific areas in New Jersey as a result of

manufacturing leaving these areas and no new industry coming in to replace the lost tax revenue.

This data would seem to suggest that investment in industry or incentives in attracting new

businesses to these areas would help to fill the gap in school funding and in-turn fund the public

educational systems in each of these areas, but that did not happen.

Many of these areas had a very balanced society, like the City of Paterson. The eastside

was filled with mansions of the mill and factory owners, the outer wards with homeowners who

had businesses in town and then the poor areas, mainly home to those factory workers that lived

near their jobs. Similar characteristics existed in many other areas in New Jersey, which funded

its’ public educational system like every other municipality in the state, but the closing and

moving of factories and mills from these cities and towns eventually laid the foundation to the

expansion and eventual perpetuation of poor neighborhoods. These poor neighborhoods became

21

areas of high crime, high unemployment, failing schools and eventually Abbott districts, as

characterized by the NJ State Supreme Court.

Race became another characteristic of an Abbott district in New Jersey, which is where

my research will focus on next. The racial make-up of New Jersey has changed throughout the

years but it is the concentration of a specific race associated to the Abbott districts that we will

focus on. In order to understand why race would play a role in the issue of unequal public

education funding, we first have to look back at how race has helped define the borders of many

of these districts in New Jersey and in many other northern states.

In the U.S. from 1916 through the 1970’s millions of Black Americans moved to the

northern states. The assumption was that the north was less segregated than the southern states

and there were more economic opportunities for Blacks than were available in the south, but

research done by Taeuber and Taeuber, (Negroes in Cities, pp. 39-41. Segregation is by blocks)

shows the opposite, in fact continued research confirms that segregation was worse in the north

than in the south. One explanation for this was the layout of southern neighborhoods; Whites

would live on the main street and avenues and the Blacks would live in the alleys or the side

streets, clearly knowing where their place was in that society. The likelihood that a White

person would see or pass a Black person was high but in the north, the opposite was true.

When Blacks began to move up to the north, before the Great Depression, they would

find their way to Black neighborhoods, which more often than not, were in poor areas of the city

or town but for a short time, both White and Black communities were enjoying economic growth

and stability under the cover of segregation. It was not until the Great Depression that Blacks

began to feel the brunt of economic stress, at a greater concentration than Whites were suffering.

Neighborhoods began to change as businesses closed down and poor areas began to transform

22

into areas of declining social, economic and educational infrastructure. Even with the economic

downturn, Blacks still sought out Black neighborhoods, because they were considered safer for

them, due to the continued violent situations that were occurring to some Blacks in non -Black

neighborhoods. Even middle class Blacks were forced to live in fear of violent attacks and

intimidation, because many tried to live outside of poor Black neighborhoods and moved into a

mixed or White neighborhoods. Massey and Denton discuss this period of time in U.S. history

in American Apartheid, which explains how the United States, in the early 1970’s decided to end

segregation by not speaking about it anymore. This was mainly attributed to the passing of the

Fair Housing Act of 1968, but the research data used in the study showed that Blacks in the north

were still dealing with the threat of violence if they chose to live outside of Black neighborhoods

and through time this form of forced segregation morphed from acts of violence to contractual

agreements among White neighbors and as the research details eventually developed into

government supported segregation.

Research done into the Black migration and the issues of segregation have provided some

useful guidelines for others to use. One specific tool calculated what has been called the “tipping

point” (Massey 1990) for White neighborhoods. This is a calculated percentage specific to

Black integration in White or mostly White neighborhoods, where Whites would no longer feel

comfortable and would most likely move out. This figure has been calculated at 5% integration,

in other words if a community is less than 5% Black, then the neighborhood would most likely

remain stable, if the percentage of Blacks in a neighborhood goes above 5%, then the

neighborhood would most likely see an increase in families moving out, preferably into

neighborhoods with less than 5% Black integration.

23

Integration may be considered a good thing, especially since Blacks would be moving out

from overcrowded crime ridden neighborhoods into what was or may still be stable integrated

neighborhoods. Unfortunately, changing an address does not necessarily change the other

factors in a family. If a family is unable to change their economic standing, then many options

such as home ownership may be out of reach. If a family is unable to purchase and maintain a

vehicle, then they can only stay near or around areas with mass transit. If school systems in poor

neighborhoods are unable to provide the same level of education or even opportunities after

graduation, then the prospect of finding a better paying job to be able to buy a home or own a car

still stay out of reach. Basically, moving from one block to another is not enough if everything

else that is part of a neighborhood or society is not available to all the residents.

Education, as mentioned earlier, is also affected by the integration of neighborhoods. In

poor neighborhoods, school facilities were usually in need of maintenance or repair, many of the

teachers and staff that worked in these neighborhoods also moved out or moved to schools in

better neighborhoods. Teachers and staff members that came in to replace those that left would

usually be individuals who lived in the poor neighborhoods or could not find employment

outside that specific area. Academically qualified individuals may isolate themselves from these

schools therefore causing a gap in role models for students to seek higher goals and degrees.

This list can go on and on but it shows what has happened in many northern towns and cities

since the Black migration began.

There is a counter balance to the growth of integrated neighborhoods which is not scene

as segregation but is clearly meant to segregate communities. One key group in the changing

neighborhoods of the north were real-estate agents and agencies. These were the outlets in

which neighborhoods were either integrated for profit or maintained White by choice. The State

24

of NJ has documented cases of rental discrimination (no section 8) and home sale discrimination

towards Black and Hispanic families. Understanding that these individuals and groups were not

solely responsible, they did have a big part to play in how neighborhoods were created and

maintained. In New Jersey, you can see how certain areas were opened up to minorities because

a natural border (river) or manmade border (industrial park) would create a barrier that would

protect another neighborhood from being integrated and was significant enough to insure

children on one side of the barrier would not be forced to attend any educational institution on

the other side.

The brief history presented about the development or make up of many New Jersey

districts was necessary for this paper because it would help in understanding the data that was

collected and it will allow one to see where or estimate what municipality or district is going

through a change that may be linked to the integration level of the neighborhood. One key

community that is not part of this paper is the Hispanic effect on White neighborhoods. This

may be a follow-up to this study, but because of the well documented history of Blacks in the

U.S., the data available does provide patterns related to Black migration in the U.S.

New Jersey by the Numbers

The data has shown that as a result of 40 years of Abbott funding in NJ, education has

improved in the poor districts, formerly known as Abbott districts and graduation rates among

the Abbotts’ has gone up. If the data were broken down by municipalities within each county,

we should see similar results in graduation rates, but that is not what the data shows.

Passaic County was the sample I used to look at graduation rates, income and state aid, to

see if the results would mirror the same data available for each county. The results show that in

this county, the graduation rate was lower and the gap between the poorest district and the

25

wealthiest district was twenty four percent. The data also showed that the wealthier districts’

graduation rates went up, higher than the average between all twenty one counties in New Jersey.

The state has funded Abbott districts for over 40 years and the data shows a significant

difference in public education between poor and wealthy districts. This brings into question the

idea that money was not the solution to the disparity in education in NJ and that continued

proportional funding for education, as mandated by the NJ Supreme Court, may have been a

waste of tax payer money. On that basis, we need to look at the districts themselves and identify

the characteristics that exist in the poor districts (Abbotts) versus the wealthy districts (non-

Abbotts).

In the sample used (Passaic County) there are two Abbott districts, Paterson and Passaic.

These two municipalities have the lowest graduation rates in the county (Paterson 71% and

Passaic 71.9%). As seen on Table 2, the median income and home values between these two

municipalities is considerably different, including the amount of state funding received each

year. Paterson and Passaic have a very diverse population which has changed throughout the

years. Today the majority of residents in both of these municipalities are Black, and Hispanic,

keeping in mind that there are other smaller communities that are growing.

The make-up of the other Abbott districts were similar to Paterson and Passaic, noting

that the Black and Hispanic populations were greater than the White population in all of them.

Using Black and White population percentages for each municipality in Passaic County, I

wanted to see if there was a connection or relationship between the racial make-up of the Abbott

districts in Passaic County and the disparity in graduation rates. Table 3 details the results of

each population, degrees earned by residents and the percentage of Black and White residents in

each municipality in Passaic County.

26

Table 3: Percentage of Black and White Residents per Municipality in Passaic County (2013)

MunicipalityPopulatio

n  %BA or higher   %Black

%White  

Little Falls 15,062 37.7 0.65 92.1 *Bloomingdale 8,178 27.1 1.1 86.1West Milford 16,274 34.4 1.2 92.7 *Pompton Lakes 11,116 33.9 1.4 81.3Ringwood 12,377 40.8 1.4 88.3Wayne 54,407 50.3 1.66 88.3 *North Haledon 8,512 43.9 1.8 86.1Totowa 10,937 29.6 2.3 76.4Hawthorne 19,048 32.2 2.3 78.7Wanaque 11,447 28.1 3.1 81.1Woodland Park 12,403 30.5 4.2 69.7Clifton 85,927 30 4.9 53.3Passaic 71,509 13.8 10.6 16.1 Haledon 8,471 24.7 11.8 40.8 Prospect Park 5,931 13.5 19.9 25.2 Paterson 146,753 10.2 31.7 9.2

U.S. Department of Commerce-United States Census Bureau 2009-2013

* U.S. Department of Commerce-United States Census Bureau 2010

The data in table 3 clearly supports Massey’s “tipping point” theory with regards to the

percentages of Black residents considered acceptable with respect to integration. The data also

confirms that residents that have achieved higher degrees after high school tend to live in

municipalities where the White population is over 50%. To better understand how this data

shows any type of border scenario mentioned earlier, we need to look at the Passaic County map.

27

In Passaic County, the City of Paterson seems to be the largest of the four municipalities

with Black integration above 5%. You can also see where Haledon and Prospect Park border

Paterson and how their Black integration numbers are changing. The City of Passaic does not

border Paterson but the data shows that in Clifton, the Black integration is increasing and may or

is above 5% which would mean that White residents have started or will begin to move out of

Clifton into other towns or other areas of Clifton with a lower Black integration percentage.

Yellow areas show >5% Black IntegrationGreen areas show near or at 5% Black IntegrationBlue areas show <5% Black Integration

28

Without going into much detail, a visual review of the areas being discussed in this paper can

actually show how this integration physically appears from street to street. As mentioned before,

Clifton New Jersey is at 5% integration and if you look at the map, you can see what area of

Clifton is directly affected by Paterson and Passaic therefore that specific area of Clifton should

be more integrated than the other areas of Clifton. This paper is concentrating on data from the

county level to the municipal level but can be taken further, such as wards or neighborhoods.

The easiest example, though not directly related to this paper is Manhattan or New York City.

The city is divided into neighborhoods, each with their own characteristics yet all in the same

city (Lower Manhattan, Chelsea, Hell’s Kitchen, Tribeca, Chinatown, Midtown, Harlem, etc.)

New Jersey cities and towns are no different, for example in Clifton we have the following

neighborhoods; Albion, Allwood, Athenia, Botany Village, Delawanna, Downtown, Dutch Hill,

Lakeview, Maple Valley, Montclair Heights, Richfield and Rosemawr. If we take the racial

breakdown of each of these areas and their median home values and median family income, we

should see clear differences and if my theory is correct, the neighborhoods that are located in the

area between Paterson and Passaic, should show a higher integration rate and lower home values

than the areas not in between Paterson and Passaic.

Integration is a subject that has an indirect effect on school funding that most individuals

may not understand. We have discussed how these districts have been effected by Black

integration and how neighborhoods have changed. These changes have economic effects on a

municipality via property taxes. The same property taxes that were the main source of funding

for public education in New Jersey. When White families moved away and Black families

purchased or rented homes in these integrated neighborhoods, there was a direct impact on

property values which had a direct effect on property taxes. Blacks found it more and more

29

difficult to move to less integrated neighborhoods because if they were lucky enough to buy in

one of these neighborhoods boarding a poor neighborhood, their home values would go down as

more and more Black families moved into the neighborhood.

This in turn would force the Black homeowner to stay in their home because they would

not be able to afford to buy a new house in a better neighborhood. Additionally mortgage

companies, working with real-estate agencies made it difficult for Black families to qualify for

loans large enough to purchase a home outside certain areas. Therefore, we can begin to see how

these districts began to drop in quality with regards to their public education. In time, schools in

wealthier districts were upgrading and expanding their public education system because their

property values increased causing an increase in property taxes collected. These schools went

from text books to laptops, from dial up internet to wireless internet and became more attractive

institutions for teachers to want to work in.

In the districts that were characterized as poor and the expanded districts that had gone

through Black integration, the standards dropped across the board even though their populations

increased substantially. When it comes to determining where and with whom Americans live,

race overwhelms all other considerations (Massey).

A Second Look: Essex County

The data specific to Passaic County shows that municipalities with higher than 5% Black

integration have the lowest graduation rates as compared to the other municipalities with less

than 5% Black integration. The data also shows that residents who completed a bachelor’s

degree or higher tend to reside in areas where the Black integration rate is below 5%. In Passaic

County there is a sharp change in integration between Blacks and Whites when you get to 5%.

The next municipality is Passaic with a 10.6% Black integration and a 16.1% in White

30

integration. Clifton, which is the next level up in contrast is 4.9% Black integration and 53.3%

White integration, a sharp contrast for two towns geographically connected. In Passaic County,

the integration of Blacks and Whites is clear and definite with no areas showing different stages

of Black integration in progress with clear borders existing between the municipalities bordering

poor neighborhoods.

To see if this was the same around the state, we took a similar look at another county in

New Jersey, Essex County.

Yellow areas show >5% Black Integration with <50% White population.Blue areas show </= 5% Black Integration.Green areas show >5% Black Integration with >50% White population.

31

Essex County New Jersey is made up of twenty two municipalities and the largest city in

the state, Newark. In order to see a clear comparison between Passaic County and Essex County,

we only used specific data for each: Graduation rates and the percentage of Black and White

residents. The other data used earlier could also be used but this data would give a better

comparison either supporting or opposing my hypothesis.

Table 4 shows data specific to Essex County and how the “tipping point” coincides with

higher graduation rates when below 5% but unlike Passaic County, Essex County data shows

specific areas in transition. It is unclear if the transition is up or down with regards to Black

integration (many municipalities may be reinvesting in infrastructure which could increase home

values and make it more difficult for other Black families to move in causing Black integration

to drop) but you can clearly see these well integrated areas having slightly lower graduation rates

but still significantly better than those areas with over 40% Black integration and White

integration still over 50%.

32

Table 4: Graduation rates for all of Essex County in relation to Black and White residents

MunicipalityGraduatio

n  % Black  % White   

RateResident

sResident

sFairfield* 98.45 0.7 94.8North Caldwell* 98.45 0.7 91.7Essex Fells* 98.45 1.1 94.6West Caldwell 97.04 1.3 92.9Millburn 98.32 1.6 80.2Roseland* 98.45 1.8 90.7Verona 100 2 91.2Nutley 95.38 2.2 82.5Livingston 97.01 2.3 76.2Cedar Grove 98.25 2.5 89Caldwell 97.04 3.3 86.8Glen Ridge 97.76 5 86.2 Belleville 91.96 9.1 60.5Bloomfield 89.9 18.5 59.6West Orange 85.94 26.6 57.1Montclair 91.42 27.2 62.2South Orange 90.78 28.7 60.2Maplewood 90.78 35.3 56.3Newark   69.59 52.4 26.3 AbbottOrange 86.58 71.8 12.8 AbbottIrvington 70.33 85.4 5.6 AbbottEast Orange 75.58 88.5 4.1 Abbott

U.S. Department of Commerce-United States Census Bureau 2010* West Essex Regional High School

Using the data for Passaic County, we looked at a map in order to visually see the results

of segregation or the assumption that segregation had some part in the makeup of specific

neighborhoods in New Jersey. Those results clearly showed that the areas with Black integration

higher than 5% were concentrated to one area of the county and those municipalities sharing a

border with these highly Black integrated areas were showing a growing Black integration level

as well, which also appears to coincide with reduced graduation rates and reduced White

33

integration but no clear areas of balanced integration were visible on the municipal level but if

we took the next step and dissected the municipality by neighborhoods, we may see similar

results as we had on the municipal and county level.

Essex County data showed similar results in respect to graduation rates and Black

integration levels below or at 5% but unlike Passaic County, Essex has a significant area that

according to the data is going through Black integration but has not had the significant drop in

graduation rates or reduced White integration as in Passaic County data but significant enough to

notice that the percentages did drop. Additionally when you look at the Essex County map, just

like Passaic, the areas with 5% or higher Black integration rates are located in one area of the

county and in this case the municipalities that are in transition can clearly be seen as buffer areas

for those areas under 5% Black integration. The data clearly points to the possibility that what

has happened to Passaic and Essex County may not be by coincidence. If that data showed a

more scattered pattern of areas with Black integration over 5% then the argument can be made

that segregation may not be a cause for districts changing and becoming ghettos but that data is

showing something else, something that looks structured or organized. On a state level, yes the

areas with Black integration above 5% would seem scattered, when compared on a map with all

other counties, but on a county and municipal level, the data is clear. I have to estimate that on a

neighborhood level as well, the data will fall in the same line as did the other results; showing

the concentration of 5% or greater Black integration in one part of the county surrounded by

municipal areas with 5% or less Black integration.

Comparing both counties gives you a clear indication of a pattern that supports this paper

and the tipping point phenomena researched by Massey, which appears to correlate with

dropping graduation rates. (Table 5). There is an abundance of data on education in New Jersey

34

and in the United States and there is the same if not more data specific to states, education,

funding and race but it is pulling out specific information and finding the pattern or correlation

that becomes the issue for trying to find and understand, in this case, why the funding formula in

New Jersey has not worked in total (some successes have been recorded) yet 40 years and billions of

dollars have been invested and continue to be invested in New Jersey.

Table 5: Passaic and Essex County Comparison

Essex Graduation  % Black  % White  Passaic Graduation % Black % White

  Rate Residents Residents     Rate Residents Residents  

Fairfield* 98.45 0.7 94.8 Little Falls* 92 0.65 92.1

North Caldwell* 98.45 0.7 91.7 Bloomingdale* 92 1.1 86.1

Essex Fells* 98.45 1.1 94.6 West Milford 94 1.2 92.7

West Caldwell 97.04 1.3 92.9 Pompton Lakes 95 1.4 81.3

Millburn 98.32 1.6 80.2 Ringwood* 95 1.4 88.3

Roseland* 98.45 1.8 90.7 Wayne 95 1.66 88.3

Verona 100 2 91.2 North Haledon* 81 1.8 86.1

Nutley 95.38 2.2 82.5 Totowa* 92 2.3 76.4

Livingston 97.01 2.3 76.2 Hawthorne 93 2.3 78.7

Cedar Grove 98.25 2.5 89 Wanaque* 95 3.1 81.1

Caldwell 97.04 3.3 86.8 Woodland Park 92 4.2 69.7

Glen Ridge 97.76 5 86.2 Clifton 83 4.9 53.3

Belleville 91.96 9.1 60.5 Passaic 71 10.6 16.1 Abbott

Bloomfield 89.9 18.5 59.6 Haledon* 81 11.8 40.8

West Orange 85.94 26.6 57.1 Prospect Park* 81 19.9 25.2

Montclair 91.42 27.2 62.2 Paterson 71.9 31.7 9.2 Abbott

South Orange 90.78 28.7 60.2

Maplewood 90.78 35.3 56.3

Newark 69.59 52.4 26.3 Abbott          

Orange 86.58 71.8 12.8 Abbott

Irvington 70.33 85.4 5.6 Abbott

East Orange 75.58 88.5 4.1 Abbott

U.S. Department of Commerce-United States Census Bureau 2010 National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES)* West Essex Regional High School * Regional High Schools

35

CONCLUSION

The issue of school funding came into the main stream in the mid to late seventies after

lawsuits brought before the Supreme Court in New Jersey presented evidence that poor school

districts were not able to educate their student populations on the same level as wealthier school

districts. Other states that were having similar funding issues looked at how New Jersey handled

both the legal case and the mandate handed down to them by the Supreme Court. Forty years

later and approximately two hundred billion dollars, the data clearly shows continued

discrepancies between poor and wealthier school districts. The entire bases for the case against

the state was the fact that the public education system in New Jersey was being funded by

property taxes collected in the municipalities, which the plaintiffs argued was inadequate in

urban areas, where industry had left and the revenue from property taxes fell significantly. The

State of New Jersey attempted several different forms of new school funding but none of the

programs worked, even where many claimed success, the data still showed a significant gap

between wealthier school districts and poor school districts.

If two hundred billion dollars was unable to balance out public education between poor

and wealthier districts, then maybe the original problem was not necessarily caused by the loss of

property tax revenue. This is the line of thinking that led to my comparison between counties

and then municipalities within a county, in an attempt to find something specific about a poor

municipality versus a wealthier municipality, that may be more in-line with the issue of, why

poor districts are unable to provide a public education equal to the public education provided in

wealthier districts.

Race became the next variable in which I compared the different municipalities and the

graduation rates of each, specifically between Black and White residents. The data clearly

36

showed a correlation between Blacks and lower graduation rates, in fact when comparing all

municipalities in one sample county by graduation rates, you can clearly see where the increase

in the Black population correlates to a lower graduation rate, but in the same comparison, areas

where the White population was still near or above 50%, graduation rates still went down, but

not as drastic. These areas were described as being fully integrated or well integrated areas, but

if the process used on the county and municipal level was taken one more step and used to

compare racial breakdowns in neighborhoods within a municipality, my guess would be a similar

result, as was presented earlier in this paper for the twenty one counties in New Jersey and the

County of Passaic; neighborhoods with a greater percentage of Black residents would be

surrounded by neighborhoods with a greater percentage of White residents.

What does all this mean? With regards to the discrepancy between the levels of education

provided students in poorer districts verses wealthier districts was not specifically the result of

lost property tax revenue. Part of the problem has to do with the districts themselves,

understanding that they were not a result of any natural human migration, in the sense of

individuals and families moving to neighborhoods by choice, but instead these districts, or

neighborhoods were systematically created and then supported by government institutions to

limit the migration of these residents to other neighborhoods but not necessarily stop the

expansion of such districts, in other words, segregation by regulation. Regulations that replaced

mobs, regulations that replaced community contracts, regulations that replaced racism,

regulations that made it difficult for anyone or any Black person or family from moving out of

areas which were predominantly Black into areas of predominately White or mixed residents.

These neighborhoods became and continue to be areas with high concentrations of poor

residents, high crime rates, dilapidated homes, poor infrastructure, corrupt or inadequate

37

governance, poor social and moral values and failing school districts. The State of New Jersey

attempted to cure one symptom of a greater problem, which after forty years had only manifested

itself into a larger and more politically fueled issue, than when the original case came to the

Supreme Court in the mid-seventies. The wealthier districts tend to have smaller populations

than the urban cities and as shown in this paper, two of the three largest cities in New Jersey have

some of the largest student populations receiving a public education that is still inadequate

compared to the wealthier districts. Fewer students in poorer districts will graduate high school,

which will then create a demand for work in areas where jobs are limited both in availability and

salary.

Students who do manage to graduate, will have a difficult time in higher education and

many will need to attend community colleges as a result of poor test scores, which for many will

cause doubt in their ability to finish and therefore resulting in more of these students dropping

out or never finishing their degree and in turn limiting their ability to leave these neighborhoods.

Now, after forty years, these municipalities have become nothing more than sustained ghettos

with little opportunity and little incentive to leave but have become dependent on the mandated

state aid, which has had very little effect on graduation rates.

New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation

Earlier in the paper I listed the New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation as another

component of the new school funding formula in the state but because of the complexity and

corruption surrounding the agency, it would need to be researched independently in order to fully

understand how this particular component of the last school funding formula had the right idea of

how to address the discrepancies in education between the poorer and wealthier school districts

but fell short of the goal because of fiscal abuse and corruption.

38

The goal of the schools construction program was to replace or repair old school

structures in poorer districts to address the issue of overcrowding and climate control,

specifically during the warmer months. This was also the avenue in which technology was going

to be introduced into districts that could not afford or maintain networks sufficient enough to

support the number of students enrolled. The end result as noted earlier was the exhaustion of

nine billion dollars in eighteen months with less than half of the projected projects being

completed. Accusations of inflated salaries, costly engineering changes and just the general

mismanagement of the program led to the closure of this agency and many poorer districts still in

the same scenario they were in before the agency was created.

I bring this up, not because I want to discuss this segment of the new funding formula but

of the idea that investing in the infrastructure of a school district may have been a better way of

handling the issue of education in New Jersey instead of just pumping money into the districts

themselves.

An alternate solution for New Jersey

The data shows that the new funding formula was not successful in providing a quality

education in poorer districts as is provided in wealthier districts. It is unclear if the current data

would be the same or similar if no new funding formula was ever instituted and school districts

were still managing with budgets representative of the property tax revenue collected but looking

at the issue now, after forty years, maybe it is time to look at the root cause of the issue and work

on both the infrastructure in and around a school and develop a program designed to help

residents in these poorer districts, purchase homes and add to the tax base which in turn will

generate more property tax revenue for that district.

39

The need to build new facilities will still be part of this new program but instead of just building

a school, the surrounding school zone will become part of the project itself. The same would be

true for updating and repairing existing schools in these districts. The end result would be

schools that are adequate and prepared to educate students on all levels, plus provide a

surrounding infrastructure (sidewalks, street lights, trees, playgrounds, signage, crosswalks etc.)

which would make the entire school zone or neighborhood specifically designed for students.

Additionally, these school zones would be part of a home ownership program that will help

families in acquiring a mortgage and in turn become part of the municipalities’ tax base.

The key to this new form of school funding is the ability for minorities to get access to

reasonable mortgages which will help in stabilizing neighborhoods which will have or will be

benefiting from infrastructure investment. This idea will not address the core issue that has been

discussed in this paper but it will change the discussion about a quality education in poorer

versus wealthier districts. It will be very difficult to try and integrate municipalities that fall into

what the state of New Jersey called Abbott districts but by investing in the school and the

surrounding school zone, may help restore neighborhoods which in turn can help municipalities

increase tax revenue, which can be monitored and compared each year, and begin to reduce,

proportionally the dependence on state funding and over the next forty years, reduce the burden

from the state and hand back the responsibility of school funding to the municipalities.

The integration of these new neighborhoods will not be about Black and White anymore

as new immigrants continue to come to the U.S. and New Jersey is a popular destination for

many, especially because of its’ proximity to New York, but education should be standard

regardless of the neighborhoods in which the schools are located.

40

New School Funding Proposal-Fair Funding 2016

As the data was being collected for this paper, Governor Chris Christie has started

promoting a new funding plan for funding education in New Jersey, the Fairness Formula, which

would provide the exact amount ($6,599) of state aid to each student in the state. This will

drastically cut state funding to urban districts, which as seen in my paper house most of the

students in the state and get more than 50% of their aid from the state. In an article posted by

Adam Clark of the NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, Clark explains Gov. Christie’s argument for

the Fairness Funding proposal. Camden, NJ receives $30,000 per pupil yet has one of the lowest

graduation rates among urban districts; under the Fairness Formula, Camden’s state aid would be

cut by 78%. The state of NJ has been funding 31 poor districts under the last approved school

funding formula, based on the last Supreme Court decision in 2008.

The overall result of Gov. Christie’s Fairness Funding is that 75% of the school districts

(mostly suburban) will see drastic property tax reductions and increased school budgets, in some

cases 100% increases. As expected, the Democrats on the NJ Legislature are coming out against

the proposal stating it would be a huge step backward and an attack on students. Gov. Christie is

standing his ground that the current school funding formula has been a failure, noting graduation

rates being below state standards. In my paper, I show how the graduation rates are still

significantly unbalanced after forty years of Supreme Court mandated school funding. The

Fairness Funding proposal is supposed to be put on the 2017 ballot during the next gubernatorial

election in New Jersey.

Below is a chart that was part of the NJ Advance Media for NJ.com article (June 21,

2016) which shows the different municipalities in Passaic County with the current funding

41

provided by the state per student followed by the change in state funding if the Fairness Formula

passes and the difference (+/-) in percentages for each municipalities school districts.

Municipality County Current funding New funding Difference (+/-)

Clifton City Passaic $2,446.24 $4,053.76 166%

Haledon Boro Passaic $6,492.90 $7.10 0%

Paterson City Passaic $16,175.82 -$9,675.82 -60%

Passaic City Passaic $17,070.89 -$10,570.89 -62%

Prospect Park Boro Passaic $8,709.82 -$2,209.82 -25%

Wayne Twp Passaic $504.02 $5,995.98 1190%

Totowa Boro Passaic $429.14 $6,070.86 1415%

Woodland Park Passaic $799.90 $5,700.10 713%

Little Falls Twp Passaic $618.41 $5,881.59 951%

North Haledon Boro Passaic $603.46 $5,896.54 977%

Pompton Lakes Boro Passaic $2,357.25 $4,142.75 176%

Wanaque Boro Passaic $2,642.35 $3,857.65 146%

Bloomingdale Boro Passaic $3,361.80 $3,138.20 93%

Ringwood Boro Passaic $2,435.09 $4,064.91 167%

West Milford Twp Passaic $4,191.21 $2,308.79 55%

42

References

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Taeuber, K. E., & Taeuber, A. F. (1965). Negroes in cities: Residential segregation and neighborhood change. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.

State of NJ Department of Education 2013-14 State Aid and Summaries.

U.S. Department of Commerce-United States Census Bureau 2009-2013.

U.S. Department of Commerce-United States Census Bureau 2010.

National Center of Educational Statistic (NCES).

State of New Jersey Department of Education. www.state.nj.us/education/data/grate/2013.

Boaz, David, Education and the Constitution. CATO Institute (May 2016) www.cato.org/blog/education-constitution.

OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012www.oecd.org/united states/PISA-2012-results-US.pdf

Robinson v. Cahill, 69 N.J. 449, 355 A.2d 129 (N.J. 1976).

Abbott v. Burke, 100 N.J. 269, 495 A.2d 376 (N.J. 1985) (“Abbott I”).

Abbott v. Burke, 119 N.J. 287, 575 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1990) (“Abbott II”).

Abbott v. Burke, 136 N.J. 444, 643 A.2d 575 (N.J. 1994) (“Abbott III”).

Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145, 693 A.2d 417 (N.J. 1997) (“Abbott IV”).

Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480, 710 A.2d 450 (N.J. 1998) (“Abbott V”).

Knickman, James. R. and Reschousky, Andrew. Policy Sciences Vol. 12 No. 3(Oct., 1980), pp. 301-314 The Implementation of School Finance Reform.

N.J. School Funding Reform Act of 2008, www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A0500_I2.pdf