|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on May 14, 2007 8:29:08 GMT -5
BECK INTRODUCES BILL TO PROVIDE FOR SCHOOLS THAT FALL BELOW THE THOROUGH AND EFFICIENT STANDARD
By TFitzsimmons - May 11, 2007 - 5:29pm
Tags: Beck, Freehold,
Release Date: May 11, 2007
Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck yesterday introduced legislation, A-4221, that would appropriate an additional $8.4 million to the Department of Education to provide aid to school districts in which the FY 2007 thorough and efficient spending per pupil is less than the minimum amount set under the State’s school funding laws.
“I felt it was important to bring Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kenny, as well as other state budget officials to the table to discuss the financial burden that is making it nearly impossible for certain school districts in New Jersey to achieve their educational goals and to realize their missions as institutions for learning,” said Assemblywoman Beck, R-Monmouth and Mercer. “I also think that it is vital that I introduce legislation that brings all schools up to the minimum thorough and efficient standard.”
The twelve districts set to receive additional educational assistance under the Beck bill include, Hamilton Township (Atlantic County), Hammonton Township, Brooklawn Borough, Clementon Borough, Woodlynne Borough, Commercial Township, Freehold Borough, Lawrence Township (Cumberland County), Guttenberg Township, South River Borough, Prospect Park Borough, and Greenwich Borough.
“It is impossible for these schools to function properly under these dire financial circumstances,” commented Beck. “At the very least, we need to make certain that every school is being funded at the minimum standard set by the State.”
Yesterday, Beck met with Senate Budget Chairman Bernard Kenny to discuss the financial crisis facing the Freehold Borough Board of Education which forced the district to make severe cuts to its budget, lay-off teachers, and cut popular extracurricular school sports and activities.
“The children of Freehold Borough are facing an uncertain future and the Board of Education has been forced to make some very difficult choices,” Beck said. “In fact, several people were laid off, including a math supervisor, a librarian, an arts teacher, and a guidance counselor. It’s simply unacceptable. Our children deserve better.”
Assemblywoman Beck has been at the forefront of efforts to draw attention to the plight of Freehold Borough’s school district and has led the chorus of calls for the State to provided extra funding assistance to the district as well as eleven others like it across the State that are neither spending the State mandated average cost of educating a pupil, nor have the ability to raise the money necessary meet those funding levels.
“Freehold Borough Schools have been forced into a position where they are set-up to fail their students,” added Beck. “Despite the commitment, dedication, and hard work of Superintendent Liz O’Connell, Board of Education President Jim Keelan, Freehold Teacher Association President Linda McCarthy, Freehold Education Foundation President Jean Holtz, and many concerned parents like Julie Kudish and Jeanne Vigeant, there just isn’t a way for Freehold to meet the State required spending threshold without additional state assistance.
“In the end, the structural funding problems that districts like Freehold face will not be eliminated until the State implements a new school funding formula,” concluded Beck. “However, in the meantime, this legislation will alleviate some of the burden put on school districts like Freehold Borough.”
#####
Contact:
Danielle Wyckoff 732-772-1571
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on May 15, 2007 11:31:29 GMT -5
Andrew:
Not wanting to budd into Board of Ed matters, it seems that some outreach to these other towns (Hamilton Township (Atlantic County), Hammonton Township, Brooklawn Borough, Clementon Borough, Woodlynne Borough, Commercial Township, Lawrence Township (Cumberland County), Guttenberg Township, South River Borough, Prospect Park Borough, and Greenwich Borough). for a powerful joint effort, with strong PR, might be wise.
Seems like all parties involved would come away with a better understanding of the problems associated with this whole funding mess and develop some effective strategies to get what we all need; not just for 2007/08, but ongoing. Just a thought.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by juan of you now on May 16, 2007 0:11:31 GMT -5
Andrew: Not wanting to budd into Board of Ed matters, Seems like all parties involved would come away with a better understanding of the problems associated with this whole funding mess and develop some effective strategies to get what we all need; not just for 2007/08, but ongoing. Just a thought. Marc need to smell the coffee. There is no funding issue with your schools, your schools are - over run with illegal aliens kids. You people are like deer steering at the headlights. Sue the Federal government, sue the Mexican government. Leave you tax payers alone. Making the local boro taxpayers shoulder this expense is terrible and the easy solution of cowardly local government. It takes a special person to make bold moves and fix this problem. Forget the liberal wimpy open enrollment to your schools. No other surrounding town has this problem because you welcome it, look at how you surrender services to the illegal alien who take advantage of you, which is what is happening, at the expense of your kids education. It is clear from the out side looking in that you value the false liberal political correctness of an open boarder society over fighting for a great, quality education for your not now college bound children. Your school board has their heads in the sand, among other places too from what we see and hear. But this must be representative of the boro, you elected them. No wonder you'r over run by illegal aliens, you let them use you like their door mates. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on May 16, 2007 10:08:20 GMT -5
Andrew: Not wanting to budd into Board of Ed matters, Seems like all parties involved would come away with a better understanding of the problems associated with this whole funding mess and develop some effective strategies to get what we all need; not just for 2007/08, but ongoing. Just a thought. Marc need to smell the coffee. There is no funding issue with your schools, your schools are - over run with illegal aliens kids. You people are like deer steering at the headlights. Sue the Federal government, sue the Mexican government. Leave you tax payers alone. Making the local boro taxpayers shoulder this expense is terrible and the easy solution of cowardly local government. It takes a special person to make bold moves and fix this problem. Forget the liberal wimpy open enrollment to your schools. No other surrounding town has this problem because you welcome it, look at how you surrender services to the illegal alien who take advantage of you, which is what is happening, at the expense of your kids education. It is clear from the out side looking in that you value the false liberal political correctness of an open boarder society over fighting for a great, quality education for your not now college bound children. Your school board has their heads in the sand, among other places too from what we see and hear. But this must be representative of the boro, you elected them. No wonder you'r over run by illegal aliens, you let them use you like their door mates. Your frustration is palatable -- and totally understandable. The Borough has been over-run by illegal immigrants -- and anyone who denies that is not credible. The problems with the schools are a result of that. (Yes -- does Jersey fund schools in a way that is simply not workable -- you bet. But that method of funding is not the prime problem for Freehold. Sufficient funds exist today for freehold schools if, and only if, they were educating people here lawfully) Your suggestion that the tiny Borough of Freehold shoulder the enormous cost and burden of National and international lawsuits is not without merit -- but does appear to be without significant thought as to the costs -- politically, socially, and economically. Indeed, even a great action brought by a great firm pro bono -- would exact costs on he Borough in bad press, counter suits, and economic and political costs as well. Are those sufficient reasons not to explore vigorously the options available -- no. No, those are the reasons why a good government should investigate and consider its option before leaping. The best place for a Borough Governing Body to make a stand is at the Schools -- IMO. In fact, I have set forth the legal strategy on these pages and in the Newspaper. It is not rocket science, and in my opinion could be successful as a legal strategy over a much longer period of time. The School Board undoubtedly has no desire or interest in tackling the problem. Like hundreds of other towns and counties -- they are waiting for someone else to do something about it -- on their own dime. Some -- unquestionably -- don't want to address the issue and are in sympathy with the open borders movement, or have bought into the NEA position which supports the growth of the education industry through mandated services required to illegal aliens. The reasons are many and complex -- but suffice it to say this School Board is not going to be taking any cutting edge action any time soon. I can think of no school system better positioned to challenge Plyler v. Doe. The truth is -- the coming amnesty bill will likely vitiate any effort now by the Borough -- which at this time must be a real consideration. I suspect that business interest republicans will combine with the democrats to provide amnesty or safe harbor to the almost 30 Million illegal aliens now in the United States. |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on May 16, 2007 11:05:01 GMT -5
Andrew: Not wanting to budd into Board of Ed matters, Seems like all parties involved would come away with a better understanding of the problems associated with this whole funding mess and develop some effective strategies to get what we all need; not just for 2007/08, but ongoing. Just a thought. Marc need to smell the coffee. There is no funding issue with your schools, your schools are - over run with illegal aliens kids. You people are like deer steering at the headlights. Sue the Federal government, sue the Mexican government. Leave you tax payers alone. Making the local boro taxpayers shoulder this expense is terrible and the easy solution of cowardly local government. It takes a special person to make bold moves and fix this problem. Forget the liberal wimpy open enrollment to your schools. No other surrounding town has this problem because you welcome it, look at how you surrender services to the illegal alien who take advantage of you, which is what is happening, at the expense of your kids education. It is clear from the out side looking in that you value the false liberal political correctness of an open boarder society over fighting for a great, quality education for your not now college bound children. Your school board has their heads in the sand, among other places too from what we see and hear. But this must be representative of the boro, you elected them. No wonder you'r over run by illegal aliens, you let them use you like their door mates. Juan...Blam the State for this and you need to learn the facts yourself! Every School district is trapped with poorly written state mandated enrollment code that is so loosely written, just about anyone off the street can enroll. Enrollment code is just about UN-enforceable I also agree with Marc, this Boro has been kicked in the teeth for working with unprecedented challenges for a town our size! The answer to much of your Griping is more volunteerism, more open community activism like how parents have rallied to SUPPORT our schools, like the large turnout this last weekend to help FCP spruce up our downtown! Go read the definition of the word COMMUNITY and come join ours! Enough with the negative questioning, how about positive resolution so we can ACHIEVE A FIRST CLASS QUALITY OF LIFE! Stop with the complaint convention! We know we're we are at a tipping point for an upswing. Stop the slezzzzz lets hear Solutions plezzzzzz |
|
|
|
Post by Zeus on May 17, 2007 10:52:50 GMT -5
RK, how is FB in a position to challenge Plyler v. Doe. This case addresses the education of children that were brought to the US illegally, but not those so-called anchor babies that are born here to illegal immigrant parents, and are American Citizens. FB schools has a very small percentage of the former, and a whole lot of the latter, so once again I fail to see how Plyler can be challenged here. Also can you elaborate a little more as to why you think Plyler was wrongly decided? I think there are some merits to the Courts rational in Plyler’s decision, don't you? Don't you think that the San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez would be a better case to challenge? This is the root of the problem not Plyler. Seems like all parties need to smell the coffee. There is no funding issue with your schools, your schools are - over run with illegal aliens kids. You people are like deer steering at the headlights. Sue the Federal government, sue the Mexican government. Leave you tax payers alone. Making the local boro taxpayers shoulder this expense is terrible and the easy solution of cowardly local government. It takes a special person to make bold moves and fix this problem. Forget the liberal wimpy open enrollment to your schools. No other surrounding town has this problem because you welcome it, look at how you surrender services to the illegal alien who take advantage of you, which is what is happening, at the expense of your kids education. It is clear from the out side looking in that you value the false liberal political correctness of an open boarder society over fighting for a great, quality education for your not now college bound children. Your school board has their heads in the sand, among other places too from what we see and hear. But this must be representative of the boro, you elected them. No wonder you'r over run by illegal aliens, you let them use you like their door mates. Your frustration is palatable -- and totally understandable. The Borough has been over-run by illegal immigrants -- and anyone who denies that is not credible. The problems with the schools are a result of that. (Yes -- does Jersey fund schools in a way that is simply not workable -- you bet. But that method of funding is not the prime problem for Freehold. Sufficient funds exist today for freehold schools if, and only if, they were educating people here lawfully) Your suggestion that the tiny Borough of Freehold shoulder the enormous cost and burden of National and international lawsuits is not without merit -- but does appear to be without significant thought as to the costs -- politically, socially, and economically. Indeed, even a great action brought by a great firm pro bono -- would exact costs on he Borough in bad press, counter suits, and economic and political costs as well. Are those sufficient reasons not to explore vigorously the options available -- no. No, those are the reasons why a good government should investigate and consider its option before leaping. The best place for a Borough Governing Body to make a stand is at the Schools -- IMO. In fact, I have set forth the legal strategy on these pages and in the Newspaper. It is not rocket science, and in my opinion could be successful as a legal strategy over a much longer period of time. The School Board undoubtedly has no desire or interest in tackling the problem. Like hundreds of other towns and counties -- they are waiting for someone else to do something about it -- on their own dime. Some -- unquestionably -- don't want to address the issue and are in sympathy with the open borders movement, or have bought into the NEA position which supports the growth of the education industry through mandated services required to illegal aliens. The reasons are many and complex -- but suffice it to say this School Board is not going to be taking any cutting edge action any time soon. I can think of no school system better positioned to challenge Plyler v. Doe. The truth is -- the coming amnesty bill will likely vitiate any effort now by the Borough -- which at this time must be a real consideration. I suspect that business interest republicans will combine with the democrats to provide amnesty or safe harbor to the almost 30 Million illegal aliens now in the United States. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on May 17, 2007 13:06:15 GMT -5
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a Texas three-judge District Court.
The Supreme Court's decision held that a school-financing system based on local property taxes was not an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The majority opinion stated that the appellees did not sufficiently prove that education is a fundamental right or that the financing system was subject to strict scrutiny.
The District Court had decided that education is a fundamental right and that the financing system was subject to strict scrutiny.
[edit] Background
This lawsuit was brought by members of the Edgewood Concerned Parent Association representing their children and similarly situated students. The suit was filed on June 30, 1968 in the federal district court for the Western District of Texas. In the initial complaint, the parents sued San Antonio ISD, Alamo Heights ISD and five other school districts, the Bexar County School Trustees and the State of Texas contending the “Texas method of school financing violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.” The lawsuit alleged that education was a fundamental right and that wealth-based discrimination was a constitutionally suspect class. Eventually, the school districts were dropped from the case leaving only the State of Texas as the defendant. The case advanced through the courts system, providing victory to the Edgewood parents until it reached the Supreme Court in 1972. The school districts in the San Antonio area, and generally in Texas, had a long history of financial inequity. Rodriguez presented evidence that school districts in the wealthy, and primarily white, areas of town, most notably the north-side Alamo Heights Independent School District, were able to contribute a much higher amount per child than Edgewood, which was a poor minority area. From the trial brief, Dr. Jose Cardenas, Superintendent of Schools, Edgewood Independent School District testified to the problem in his affidavit, the following information:
1 “Edgewood is a poor district with a low tax base. As a result, its ad valorem tax revenue fall far short of the monies available in other Bexar County school districts. With this inequitable financing of its schools, Edgewood cannot hire sufficient qualified personnel, nor provide the physical facilities, library books, equipment and supplies afforded by other Bexar County District.” 2 “To illustrate the Edgewood residents are making a high tax effort, have burdened themselves with one of the highest proportion of bonded indebtness in the county to pay for capital improvements and, never, in the history of the district have they failed to approve a bond issue.”
Cardenas cites a study, A tale of Two Districts” that makes the following comparisons in 1967-8:
Northeast had 70.36 square feet classroom space Edgewood had 50.4 square feet classroom space Northeast had 9.42 library books Edgewood had 3.9 Northeast had 1/19 teacher/pupil ratio Edgewood had 1/28 Northeast had 1 counselor for every 1,553 children Edgewood had 1 for 5,672 Alamo Heights 1 for 1,319 Northeast had 8% dropout rate between 7-12 grade Edgewood had 32%
In fact, the financial disparity Edgewood and Alamo Heights increased in the four years it took for Rodriguez to work its ways through the court system, “from a $310 total per-pupil disparity in 1968 in state and local support between the districts to a $389 disparity in 1972.” In the Supreme Court, a new group of justices had been appointed since the filing of the case. The most significant new member was Justice Lewis Powell, who proved to be the swing vote in the Rodriguez case. Powell led the 5-4 majority in deciding that education was “neither ‘explicitly or implicitly’ protected in the Constitution.” He also found that Texas had not created a suspected class related to poverty. These two findings allowed the state to continue their school financing plan as long as it was “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
|
|
