Minority, Liberal Groups Defense of Prieto Shows NJEA Power

As the chances of Vincent Prieto being toppled as Assembly Speaker by Craig Coughlin start to look real, various minority and liberal groups are now demanding that Prieto be kept as Speaker because Prieto is Latino.

Why is No One Saying that Vincent Prieto
is white?

Never mind that Prieto is looks totally white to me, and he is an admitted male, the following minority groups are denouncing any attempt to remove him as Speaker.  

A coalition of liberal groups spoke out in support of Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto on Tuesday, arguing that Democrats need more diverse leaders in New Jersey and that ousting Prieto from the speakership would remove the only minority official with real clout in Trenton. 

Prieto (D-Hudson), who hails from Cuba, has announced he�s seeking a third term as speaker after the November elections. But a challenger, Assemblyman Craig Coughlin (D-Middlesex), has the edge right now and appears on track to defeat Prieto if Democrats perform as expected in races for all 80 Assembly seats this fall. 

Coughlin is of Irish heritage, as is Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester), who has the votes for another term as the leader of the upper house. And the front-runner for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination is Phil Murphy, a former U.S. ambassador who also comes from Irish stock. 

�The time of counting on the support of diverse communities in order to win an election but completely ignore it when it matters is over in New Jersey,� said Chris Estevez, president of the Latino Action Network. �Our demand is simple, take us into account or lose our support when it counts.� 

�We reject a system that produces homogenous leadership and targets the one diverse member in a leadership body created to represent the voices and interests of diverse constituents,� said William Colon, head of the Latino Institute... 

�Our state is in crisis and those at the helm are sadly unfocused, unperturbed and seemingly unconcerned,� said Richard Smith, president of the New Jersey NAACP. �We stand united in the demand that our leaders not only represent our interests, they represent the broad diversity of our state in both makeup and progressive values.� 

Analilia Mejia, director of the New Jersey Working Families Alliance, said �the rest of the state has looked in horror at the push to roll back health care coverage� in Washington while in New Jersey �mostly white and mostly male �leaders� have been busy dividing up Senate and Assembly leadership in order to oust the one person of color in one of the most diverse states in the nation.� 

Prieto said he was heartened by the support and added that the state�s leadership �should reflect the multitude of people who make New Jersey such a vibrant and exciting place.�

What's really going on here is that these groups speaking up for Prieto are all NJEA funded and the NJEA is pulling in some favors, since the NJEA wants Prieto to stay in power due to Prieto's opposition to redistributing state aid.

For 2014, the most recent year available, the NJEA gave the Latino Institute $200,000, the NAACP $10,750, and Working Families United $10,000.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/210/524/2014-210524390-0ba0fa83-9O.pdf

What's most troubling is that the Latino Institutute is opposing the interests of most New Jersey Latinos, since most of New Jersey's most underaided districts are heavily Latino.  An injustice to non-Abbotts even Bruce Baker recognizes.

While the teacher unions have a great deal of power through their lobbying, political donations, advertising campaigns, and superPACs, it's underappreciated how much power they have through their largesse towards liberal and minority "activist" groups and think-tanks.  

The NAACP, Latino Institute, and Working Families United purport to speak for hundreds of thousands of people and thus have prominent voices.  In getting them to line up behind a state aid status quo Assembly Speaker, the NJEA is exercising a power that few realize it even has.

---

See Education Next's "The Long Reach of the Teachers Unions." 

The Coughlin/Prieto Split

The good news of the week is that Assemblyman Craig Coughlin of Middlesex County has declared his candidacy to be the new Speaker and that he already has a majority of the Democratic caucus committed to him.

This is a critical development in the fight for fair aid because the Assembly Speaker, by virtue of controlling the legislative calendar, has a de facto veto over any bill, including one that a majority of the chamber and the majority of his caucus want.  Prieto, notoriously, has used his power to protect Jersey City from any cuts, even at the expense of the state as a whole and his own District 32.

Prieto has counterdeclared that he is "strongly confident that [he] will have the support of a majority of the Assembly Democratic caucus for another term as Speaker," he has released no list of commitments and thus he is likely bluffing.

So far, these are the Democrats who are committed to supporting Craig Coughlin for Assembly Speaker:

Bob Andrzejczak (D-1)
Arthur Barclay (D-5)
Daniel R. Benson (D- 14)
John J. Burzichelli (D-3)
Herb Conaway Jr. M.D. (D-7)
Craig J. Coughlin (D-19)
Joseph Danielsen (D-17)
Wayne P. DeAngelo (D-14)
Joann Downey (D-11)
Joseph V. Egan (D-17)
Jerry Green (D-22)
Louis D. Greenwald (D-6)
Eric Houghtaling (D-11)
Gordon M. Johnson (D-37)
Patricia Egan Jones (D-5)
Rob Karabinchak (D-18)
James Kennedy (D-22)
Pamela R. Lampitt (D-6)
R. Bruce Land (D-1)
Yvonne Lopez (D-19) (candidate)
Vincent Mazzeo (D-2)
Paul D. Moriarty (D-4)
Gabriela Mosquera (D-4)
Carol Murphy (D-7) (candidate)
Nancy Pinkin (D-18)
Annette Quijano (D-20)
Adam Taliaferro (D-3)
Andrew Zwicker (D-16)

Although all but one of the pro-Coughlin Assemblymembers are from South and Central Jersey and there are undeniable geographic factors at work here, some of the reporting on the leadership election indicates that Prieto's opposition to state aid reform is a factor in the movement against him.

A South Jersey Democrat who spoke on the condition of anonymity said it was illogical that Prieto was �holding up legislation on school funding reform that benefits 85 percent of the districts�

But it's fascinating to see who ISN'T on this list.

We can't be 100% sure that everyone who isn't on the list is for Prieto so much as neutral, undecided, or intimidated, but here are the Assembly Democrats who aren't already for Coughlin.

• Sheila Oliver and Thomas Giblin, District 34, Clifton, Montclair, Orange, and East Orange.  Since East Orange is overaided by $25 million and has extreme municipal taxes, this is somewhat understandable, but it means that Oliver and Giblin aren't following through on their promises to do everything they can for Clifton.
  
  Both Oliver and Giblin voted against SFRA in 2008.

• Shavonda Sumter, Benjie E. Wimberly, District 35, Elmwood Park, Garfield, Haledon, North Haledon,Paterson, Prospect Park.
  
  All school districts are underaided in District 35.  Manchester Regional, which consists of Haledon, North Haledon, and Prospect Park, is one of New Jersey's five most underaided districts in dollars-per-student.
  
  Sumter and Wimberly are obsessed with Paterson's aid deficit, even though the districts around Paterson are much more underaided.
  
  Sumter and Wimberly have repeatedly gotten the legislature to earmark additional money for Paterson.  When Prieto announced his vague $100 million appropriation for K-12 aid, Paterson was the only district Prieto mentioned specifically.
• Mila Jasey & John McKeon, District 27, have ignored South Orange-Maplewood's BOE resolutions, phone calls, and emails, plus more sporadic activism from West Orange. All other districts in District 27 are underaided as well.
  
  Jasey and McKeon were both against SFRA in the first place in 2008, even though District 27 is suburban.
  
  District 27's State Senator is Dick Codey, who is still bitter at Steve Sweeney because Sweeney defeated him to become Senate President in 2010. 

• Tim Eustace & Joseph Lagana, District 38 (Bergenfield, Fair Lawn, Glen Rock, Hasbrouck Heights, Hawthorne, Lodi, Maywood, New Milford, Oradell, Paramus, River Edge,Rochelle Park, Saddle Brook).
• Valerie Vanieri Huttle, District 37 (Alpine, Bogota, Cresskill, Englewood, Englewood Cliffs, Fort Lee, Hackensack, Leonia, Northvale, Palisades Park, Rockleigh, Teaneck, Tenafly). Huttle is in the same legislative district as the pro-Sweeney Loretta Weinberg and the pro-Coughlin Gordon Johnson.
  
  Huttle said that �way too early,� to determine the next Speaker, and �I feel like this is a disruption and is taking our eye off the things that we need to do by the end of this session."
  
  This indicates open-mindedness, so perhaps Huttle will support Coughlin later in the year.

• Marlene Caride, Gary Schaer, District 36 (Carlstadt, Cliffside Park, East Rutherford, Little Ferry, Lyndhurst, Moonachie, North Arlington, Passaic, Ridgefield, Ridgefield Park, Rutherford, South Hackensack, Teterboro, Wallington, Wood-Ridge. All districts are underaided, often severely so, but Caride and Schaer don't really care.
  
  Schaer voted against SFRA in the first place in 2008.  He has insisted Prieto has a "plan." Marlene Caride has joined in Prieto's dilatory committee tactics.  Schaer and Caride should be considered to be pro-Prieto.

• Eliana Pintor Marin, Blonnie R. Watson District 29, Belleville & Newark. This is Teresa Ruiz' district and she is strongly pro-reform and pro-Sweeney.
  
  Eliana Pintor-Marin is the only northern cosponsor of Steve Sweeney's reform bill, so it's possible that Pintor-Marin may be keeping her head down rather than a die-hard supporter of Prieto.  The same could apply to Blonnie Watson.  

• District 28, Neil Caputo, Cleopatra Tucker. Bloomfield, Glen Ridge, Irvington, Newark, Nutley.
  
  The Senator for District 28 is the strongly anti-Sweeney/Norcross Ronald Rice.  

Daniel Benson of District 14 and Jamal Holley of District 20 are the only South or Central Jersey Assemblymembers who did not sign up for Coughlin.

Unsurprisingly, the Hudson County districts are for Prieto, Districts 31-33.  (McKnight, Chiaravalloti, Mukherji, Chaparro, Jimenez, and Prieto himself.)

In the letter announcing his candidacy for Speaker Coughlin claimed twenty-nine supporters, but that twenty-nine should be seen as a floor, not a ceiling, since at least some of the uncommitted Assemblymembers may sign up for Coughlin in the near future.

Right now Gordon Johnson of District 37 in Bergen County is the only northern Democrat to publicly support Coughlin, but hopefully he won't be the only northerner for long.

It's also fascinating that even though South Jersey and Central Jersey Assembly Democrats are clearly trying to unseat Prieto as Assembly Speaker, North Jersey Senate Democrats are not trying to unseat Steve Sweeney as Senate President.

Steve Sweeney's solid block of support includes many northern Democrats.  Even Jersey City's own Senators, Brian Stack and Sandra Cunningham, are for Sweeney.  (it is also said Sweeney could get a Republican or two to support him.)

Update: Prieto retaliates against Johnson, removes from committee chair. Replaces Johnson with loyal Benjie Wimberly.

----

See Also:

• Dear NJ Journalists, Vincent Prieto Doesn't Represent Jersey City

Prieto Fails Basic Math

Vincent Prieto has always stood firmly against any kind of fair, rational aid distribution that would hurt Steve Fulop and Jersey City, as well as annoy the New Jersey Education Association.

But now Prieto is exposing himself as more than just a tool of the Jersey City political machine, but exposing himself as an idiot at math.

Tugged into the GOP Gubernatorial Primary this evening, Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-32) slugged back at Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli (R-16), who criticized Prieto�s school funding plan. 

�Jack Ciattarelli should worry about where he�s coming from instead of talking about something he doesn�t know anything about,� the speaker said. �There is a difference between �underfunded� and �below adequacy�. The Jersey City School System is $80 million below adequacy, which is far more than Manville. 

�It appears he doesn�t quite get it,� Prieto added. �Adequacy should be the bar for everybody. Manville� is below adequacy.�

Never mind that Prieto is openly making the argument that Jersey City must not lose state aid because it is below Adequacy, even though that sub-Adequacy spending is entirely Jersey City's own fault due to undertaxing.

Far more than Manville?  Jersey City is far larger than Manville.

Manville is a district of 1481 students.  In 2016-17 it was $6,262,140 below Adequacy (due entirely to the state's underfunding by $8.5 million), or $4228 per student.

Jersey City is a district of 30,860 students.  In 2016-17 it was $96,080,360 per student below Adequacy (due entirely to itself undertaxing by $224 million), or $3113 per student.

In that same interview Prieto made an offer to debate Jack Ciattarelli on school funding, �I am willing to debate anyone on this subject, anywhere, anytime,�

I hope Ciattarelli takes Prieto up on that.

Star-Ledger Editorial Praises Sweeney's Plan

The Star-Ledger's editorial board has written an editorial praising Steve Sweeney's plan for a fairer, most just state aid distribution.

The editorial gets a lot of things right about the problems of SFRA and our state aid distribution and is a sign of how far the state's media has come in understanding what our problems are:

The fundamental problem is this: We're still locked into an outdated school funding formula that awards districts state aid based on what they looked like years ago, before their real estate booms or big enrollment fluctuations.... 

Hudson County has been a big winner in that political brawl. The state basically awards aid to Jersey City and Hoboken as if they never experienced an economic boom. The idea was to protect these districts from cuts for a few years, to help them adjust. But the temporary fix has become permanent. So Jersey City is getting $114 million in extra aid [this is misleading], while other districts are shortchanged. 

The big losers are districts that have seen enrollment growth. That's because the Legislature fiddled with the formula again by imposing state-aid caps that ignore big changes in enrollment. Bayonne is now being shortchanged by $53 million, mostly because of its increased enrollment. 

In South Jersey, Kingsway has seen enrollment explode by 1200 students, while Washington Township has lost an equal number. Yet the state aid is allotted as if those changes didn't occur. What sense does that make? 

That's especially damaging in districts that have seen big influxes of Latino students who don't speak English, like Freehold and Dover. They are underfunded, and face the added cost of teaching these students English. 

Prieto's plan does nothing to address these hard inequities. Instead, he's taking the easy way out, to avoid rankling anyone: Arguing that we should distribute $125 million among all the underfunded districts [this is wrong], a one-year band aid that doesn't address the core unfairness of our system.

I'm very happy to see the Star-Ledger write this, but it gets several things wrong.  (I know that pointing this out doesn't win my any friends on the SL editorial board)

1. Adjustment Aid was always included in SFRA from the day it passed in January 2008, well before the Supreme Court conclusively reviewed the constitutionality of SFRA in 2009. In fact, in the Abbott XX decision the NJ Supreme Court (obliquely) praised Adjustment Aid.


This is a reference to Adjustment Aid written into the Abbott XX decision:

"we cannot ignore,as a practical matter, the substantial amount of additional funds that will be available from non-SFRA sources for pupils in Abbott districts. The availability of those funds further cushions the transition to SFRA�s funding scheme. In sum, although no prediction is without some uncertainty, the record 8 before us convincingly demonstrates that SFRA is designed to provide school districts in this state, including the Abbott school districts, with adequate resources to provide the necessary educational programs consistent with state standards."

2. Jersey City's nominal Adjustment Aid is only $114 million, but that is because the formula has been frozen since 2013.

If the formula were re-run, Jersey City's Adjustment Aid would actually be $159.9 million, due to the boom in its Local Fair Share.

Conversely, the Adjustment Aid that Newark and Atlantic City get is fictitious and would be converted to Equalization Aid if the SFRA formula were operating.

3. Prieto's "plan" is only for $100 million for K-12. The other $25 million is for PreK.

Bullshit, Lies, and Hypocrisy from Steve Fulop

Steve Fulop has finally spoken on state aid and what he has said is complete bullshit, saying state aid redistribution is:

�clearly an attack on poorer, primarily African American, Latino and minority districts,� Fulop said, claiming that a change would shift funding into primarily white school districts in the suburbs.

And that any claim that Jersey City can pay substantially more than $116 million towards its public schools (which is 19% of their budget)

"only takes into account the affluent waterfront section of the [Jersey City] and ignores primarily minority portions of the Jersey City that are significantly less well off."

From the point of view of taxes and state aid, it is irrelevant if only one section of Jersey City is thriving because Jersey City IS A SINGLE ENTITY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TAXES.

Even if only 15% of Jersey City's residences are worth more than $1 million, they would comprise approximately half of the residential valuation, with other high-value properties filling in the great large majority.

On top of that, Jersey City has above average amounts of commercial and industrial property.   Whereas the average town in New Jersey is 84% residential in valuation, Jersey City is only 62% residential.  Although officially Jersey City's property is "only" 25.3% commercial, it has billions of dollars in off-the-books PILOTed property that is disproportionally commercial.  (see "Property Type Extremes")

Jersey City's taxes are only the 16th highest.

If Jersey City had an up-to-date property valuation, Jersey City's low-income sections would pay a tiny portion of its school taxes.

Moreover, most towns in New Jersey have no $1 million residences at all and don't have any section that can be called "booming."  Jersey City alone is alone responsible for 10% of the increase in New Jersey's total Equalized Valuation.  From 2015 to 2016 alone, Jersey City's Equalized Valuation rose by $4 billion - from $21.7 billion to $25.7 billion.

Also, property values in many other parts of Jersey City are outperforming the state average.  Fulop's own $850,000 townhouse is in the Heights, not the waterfront anyway.

Fulop even says redistribution is wrong because it would hurt "minority districts":

�It is clearly an attack on poorer, primarily African American, Latino and minority districts,� Fulop said, claiming that a change would shift funding into primarily white school districts in the suburbs.

Fulop also said redistribution would help the suburbs "at the expense of the most needy children."  He warned that Newark would lose money, but that is a lie based on out-of-date information because Newark is now actually underaided by $90 million.

This is blatantly, blatantly, blatantly wrong.  Fulop is a liar.

First of all, many of the districts who would lose state aid are heavily white rural towns and Jersey Shore districts.  Pemberton is New Jersey's second most overaided district, with a $25.8 million excess and it is majority white.  

Second of all, the towns who would gain the most state aid are heavily Latino.  Dover is 82% Latino. Lakewood is 80% Latino.  Red Bank Boro is 77% Latino.  Fairview is 75% Latino.  Freehold Boro is 74% Latino.  All would gain millions if SFRA were fairly funded.

Even "money is everything" advocate Bruce Baker, when he took a break from his anti-charter school screeds, acknowledged that New Jersey's most underaided districts have very high Latino populations.  

All of those districts are severely underaided and would gain, so this is no "attack" on primarily poorer, African-American, Latino, and minority districts."

Fulop claimed also that Jersey City should not lose state aid because 70% of the students in the public schools are FRL-eligible.  That is true about the percentage, but what it ignores is that SFRA already gives out a $5,000 per student bonus for FRL-eligible students and Jersey City has proportionally very few students.  Whereas the average town in New Jersey has 17% of its population enrolled in the public schools, in Jersey City it is 11%.

Finally, any appeal to identity politics where Fulop bases his objection to the fact that Latinos and blacks in Jersey City might end up paying higher school taxes is staggeringly hypocritical of Fulop because Fulop himself spent years opposing a desperately-needed property tax reval and strenuously fought against a property tax reval which would have lightened the tax burden on Jersey City's Latino and black sections.  Jersey City's last tax reval was done in 1988, so Jersey City was literally a city "where poor blacks subsidized rich whites."

So, if anyone is looking at who is opposing state aid reform, as I have repeatedly said, the most powerful opponent is Steve Fulop.  

If you are wondering why Vincent Prieto OPPOSES state aid redistribution despite representing the most severely underfunded legislative district in New Jersey, it's about his relationship with Steve Fulop.

-----

See Also:

"The Two Faces of Steve Fulop"

The NJEA is Against Reform Too

The NJEA Opposes Reform Too.

On this blog, I've repeatedly criticized Vincent Prieto for betraying his own  severely underaided constituents by blocking state aid reform.  I've criticized Phil Murphy repeatedly too for his deafening indifference to state aid reform.

Prieto's real reasons for opposing reform aren't public, but much evidence points to Prieto's relationship with Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop.

Fulop, who showed his hostility to fair taxation through his strenuous and years-long opposition to a desperately-needed property tax reval for Jersey City, openly brags "I have significant clout with Speaker Prieto," repeatedly dismisses the significance of state aid reform and has confidently said "there's a long road" before any loss of Jersey City's state aid happens.

Insiders have reported to me that Fulop sees the potential of aid losses for Jersey City as intended to "hurt" hims personally and Jersey City as a whole.  As his opposition to a reval showed his lack of concern for working class parts of Jersey City, he has an even less of a concern for school children who live outside of his Gold Coast Abbott bubble.

Fulop's belief that aid reform is intended to hurt him personally is a strange belief for an informed New Jerseyan to have, but then again, Steve Fulop also said that the push for a property tax reval in Jersey City was "motivated purely by hatred for me," so Fulop's reasoning is more self-centered than a normal person's would be.

Not every Jersey City politician (and resident) is as bad as Steve Fulop is.  Jersey City's state senators, Sandra Cunningham and Brian Stack, appear to accept reform, but Steve Fulop and his clique certainly are absolutely indifferent to any taxpayer or student who lives outside of Jersey City.

I focus on Jersey City's role in opposition to state aid reform because it is so much more powerful than any other overaided district.  Other overaided districts are in the same legislative districts as underaided districts and so their opposition is neutralized.  For instance, Asbury Park is in the same legislative district as Freehold Boro and Red Bank Boro, and so Asbury Park's three representatives (Sen. Jennifer Beck, Asm. Eric Hougtaling and Asw. Joann Downey) are strongly pro-reform.  Pemberton has even publicly accepted state aid redistribution.

HOWEVER, Steve Fulop isn't the only special interest Vincent Prieto is listening to.

New Jersey's most powerful lobby, the NJEA, is also against reform and is making that opposition clearer.  The NJEA's opposition to aid reform goes back decades; the NJEA originally opposed the aid increases+redistribution that Jim Florio wanted as part of Abbott implementation in the early 1990s.

Since Steve Sweeney started fighting for reform, the NJEA has been conspicuously absent from the struggle for fairness, even though it would benefit tens of thousands of teachers in underaided districts.

The NJEA already called the concept of state aid redistribution "divisive" but at last week's legislative hearings on state aid, it put its power firmly against reform and for Vincent Prieto's nebulous plan for another committee.

NJEA Vice President Marie Blistan today called on members of the Joint Committee on Public Schools to commit to fully funding the state�s existing school funding formula, known as SFRA. She pointed out that since 2010, SFRA has been underfunded by approximately $1 billion per year by the Christie Administration. As a result, school funding across the state has been distorted, leading to what she called �gross inequities� among districts. 

Blistan also noted that it is incorrect to say that the SFRA formula itself is the problem, because it has been neglected for so long. She told legislators that talk about how to �fix� the formula is a diversion, because the real problem is that it�s never been funded. 

Blistan criticized two competing school funding proposals, one from Gov. Christie and one from Senate President Steve Sweeney that purport to address problems with school funding. Both proposals would reduce funding to hundreds of thousands of students. While Christie�s proposal is more draconian, Sweeney�s would reduce aid to approximately 715,000 students across the state. Both proposals would pit communities against each other and reduce funding too. Blistan was adamant that �choosing the lesser of two evils is not acceptable here.� She urged legislators to support a proposal championed by Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto that would preserve the existing formula while also studying it to determine where it could be more effective.

What the NJEA should be doing is supporting reform, but also favoring an amendment to the tax cap law so that the BOEs of aid-losing districts have the automatic power to raise their tax levies without a referendum to make up for lost aid.   This provision is already in Steve Sweeney's state aid reform bill, but the NJEA ignores it.

As usual, the NJEA demanded that the state change charter school funding and impose a moratorium on charter school expansions and approvals.

Blistan also called on the legislators to recognize the need to address charter school issues in any examination of school funding, calling for much greater transparency in how they report their finances. �Charter schools were never intended to create a separate system,� Blistan told legislators. She reiterated NJEA�s call for a moratorium on charter school approvals and expansions until a full study of New Jersey�s charter school law and its effects over the last 20 years can be completed. She lauded Assemblywoman Mila Jasey and Senator Ron Rice for sponsoring a bill to put that moratorium in place.

The charter school notion is a pathetic distraction.  Most of New Jersey's underfunded districts are not affected by charter schools in any way or any substantial way.  A change in charter school funding would do nothing for Bound Brook, Manchester Regional, Dover etc.

Several NJ districts who are affected by charter schools, such as Hoboken, Vineland, Camden, and (of course) Jersey City, are OVERFUNDED.  

Clifton is Devastated by Underaiding and Huge Cost
Increase for the Passaic County Technical Institute.

The NJEA Doesn't Give a F*^k. 

As usual, the NJEA ignores the negative financial affects of any school choice model that doesn't include charters.

For instance, the NJEA is silent on the deleterious affects of the Passaic County Technical Institute's expansion for Passaic County districts.  The expansion of the PCTI has been a large growing expense for districts like Clifton, since the Clifton BOE must pay $18,000 per student for each Clifton student at the PCTI and Clifton had an additional 70 students enroll for 2016-17.  The cost increases for the PCTI were a very large cause of Clifton's devastating 2016 budget cuts in which 50 teachers were laid off from a district whose class sizes were already very large.  

The NJEA's opposition to aid reform is also a likely explanation for Phil Murphy's indifference and silence on state aid.

Phil Murphy, NJEA's endorsed candidate for New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial primary, values educators. Share if you do too! pic.twitter.com/SVo9FLJqrW

� NJEA (@NJEA) January 27, 2017

Murphy, who was UNANIMOUSLY endorsed by the 125 member NJEA politburo back in October, has been extremely evasive on whether or not he thinks redistribution is appropriate. and his official stance is that he will "fully fund the formula," despite the state's budget crisis and Murphy's own clear prioritization of pension, post-retirement medical, higher ed, PreK, EITC funding plus a slew of new tax credits.

VINCENT PRIETO's opposition to state aid reform is blatantly political and is a true betrayal of PRieto's own severely underaided constituents in District 32 (including North Bergen, East Newark, Fairview, Kearny, and Guttenberg).

Yet, Prieto's opposition is motivated by more than just his subservience to Steve Fulop.  The NJEA's opposition likely plays a part as well.

If you are not an NJEA member there is no hope in persuading the NJEA to be realistic.  If you don't live in Jersey City there's nothing you can do to influence Steve Fulop.  But if you have not already called Vincent Prieto's office about state aid reform and Assembly Education Chair Marlene Caride's office, please do so now!

Prieto's number is (201) 770-1303

Marlene Caride's number is 201- 943-0615

The Assembly Democrats' office number is (609) 847-3500

Call them as soon as you can!

Dear NJ Journalists, Vincent Prieto DOESN'T Represent Jersey City (He just acts like he does)

I was bemused by a recent story on PolitickerNJ by JT Aregood about the the politics of state aid reform. The article contrasted Steve Sweeney's plan, which is prescriptive and is clearly an attempt to redistribute Adjustment Aid to underaided districts, with Speaker Vincent Prieto's vague plan for yet another legislative committee "without predetermined outcomes or politics."

In attempting to explain Prieto's frosty attitude towards redistributing state aid, the article made a very telling, very blatant error.

Prieto, whose home district encompasses Jersey City, opposes Sweeney�s plan. 

Jersey City and other districts in Hudson County would stand to lose under Sweeney�s plan to phase out state Adjustment Aid and funding caps for districts with significant enrollment changes over five years. 

Those protections for individual districts were put in place in 2008, the last time lawmakers revised the school funding formula. Sweeney holds that removing Adjustment Aid and funding caps would bring every district in the state to 88 percent funding.

John Reitmeyer made the same error in a piece on NJ Spotlight:

But so far, Prieto is not onboard with Sweeney�s proposal, which could significantly cut funding for school districts in some of the communities Prieto represents, including Jersey City.

wrong Wrong WRONG!!!



Vincent Prieto does NOT represent Jersey City!

Vincent Prieto represents District 32, which includes East Newark, Edgewater, Fairview, Guttenberg, Harrison, Kearny, North Bergen, Secaucus, and West New York.

Jersey City is in legislative Districts 31 and 33. Its Assembly members are Nicholas Chiaravalloti, Angela McKnight, Annette Chaparro, and Raj Mukherji, NOT  Vincent Prieto.

Every single district in District 32 is underaided, with East Newark, Fairview, Guttenberg, and Kearny being severely so.

East Newark, in fact, is the third most underaided district in New Jersey, with an aid deficit of $7782 per student.  East Newark's school spending is barely $10,000 per student and its students attend school built in the 1890s.

Fairview is NJ's fifth most underaided district too, with a deficit of $7,118 per student.

(See: "Will Vincent Prieto Put Hudson County First")

I wouldn't be surprised if Jersey City's four Assemblymembers are urging Prieto to preserve Legalized Aid Hoarding "Adjustment Aid."  Raj Mukherji, for one, has made public statements defending Jersey City's state aid.  But, Vincent Prieto does not have a single Jersey Cityan or Hobokener among his actual constituents.

Then again, maybe Vincent Prieto's most important constituent is just Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop?

It was Steve Fulop himself who told PolitickerNJ:

�We�re lucky to have the speaker here,� he said, a reference to Assembly Speaker Vinny Prieto (D-32). �I have significant clout with Speaker Prieto.�

Indeed. Steve Fulop has tipped off his influence over Prieto and the Assembly in his statement it would be a "long road" before any state aid changes happened.

Based on Prieto own constituents' interests as well as the state-interests he is supposed to act in as Speaker of the Assembly, Speaker Prieto should be in the vanguard of state aid reform.  His indifference to this issue and clear attempts at stalling reform is hard to understand unless it is an attempt to benefit Jersey City, Weehawken, Hoboken, and Jersey City's mayor, Steve Fulop, at the expense of poor districts.

Why is this?

The 8th Congressional
district does include the
Gold Coast.

Agusten Torres reports that Vincent Prieto wants to represent the 8th Congressional district, after Rep. Albio Sires retires, and the 8th district does include Jersey City and Hoboken.

Prieto's residence in Secaucus is not in the 8th district, but since Prieto is originally from Union City, his personal relocation to a town in the 8th district would not be a major move.

If Prieto does have designs on Sires' seat, then Steve Fulop's support would be critical in the Democratic Party.

-----------

Finally:

Not Everyone from Jersey City is Against Justice

I do not think that every Jersey City politician is opposed to state aid reform.

Sens Sandra Cunningham and Brian Stack actually abstained from voting on Steve Sweeney's aid bill. Councilman Michael Yun has said Jersey City's state aid "doesn't make sense."  Mayoral challenger Bill Matsikoudis seems resigned to, not opposed to, having Jersey City's state aid cut, a position I believe a few Jersey City BOE members also share.

There are also many ordinary Jersey Cityans who recognize that Jersey City has become wealthier and can pay for more than 17% of its school budget.  Many Jersey Cityans warn City Hall to reduce its promiscuous PILOTing due to the inevitability of state aid losses.

The people in Jersey City who are operating contrary to progressive values are Steve Fulop and a clique around him.

Note: This piece has been updated to include the NJSpotlight error.  

Vincent Prieto Proposal for SFRA II

For years, the loudest silence on state aid has been from Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto.

Aside from vocational education, Prieto leaves education legislation to other people.  His references to state aid fairness have been nonexistent.

Although most of the legislature, frankly, ignores state aid, Prieto's indifference to state aid is hard to accept because his own District 32 in Hudson and Bergen counties is savagely underaided.

Red indicates Abbott.

So Vincent Prieto's entry into the state aid battle is welcome after years of neglect, but that doesn't mean that Prieto's ideas actually are good ones.

As Prieto wrote with Assemblywoman Marlene Caride in the Star-Ledger on October 24th:

We also recognize New Jersey has not properly funded its schools. It's a longstanding problem that should have been resolved years ago, but remains festering due to economic struggles and political ideology. 

The status quo is unacceptable, but the ideas proposed by Gov. Chris Christie and another approved by the Senate are unacceptable options. 

That brings us to the Joint Legislative Committee on Public School Funding Reform, our proposal to fairly fund schools in our state free of politics and ideology.

Free from politics and ideology?  Excuse me?  How is that possible? There isn't a single person in the edusphere who isn't ideological and the subject of state aid is no exception to that tendency.  Some people worry more about taxes than others; some people worry more about inequity; some people want teachers to be much higher paid.  Everyone with an opinion on state aid is ideological to some degree.  

Anyway, here is the proposal for "SFRA II"

This commission would be modeled after the [PJP - Professional Judgment Panel] 2006 committee that devised the current school funding formula, the first school funding plan deemed constitutional by the New Jersey Supreme Court in nearly 30 years.

The main problem has been the state's failure to fund it. The provisions have been ignored and overridden.

We believe this is still the model, but it's been 10 years, so we can now take a look back at what was right and wrong with that formula....

The committee will review the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 and formulate proposals that address problems and issues that have arisen since the enactment of the law, including issues associated with changes in the demographics and fiscal conditions of districts that have impacted the ability of local communities to support the education of their students.

The 2006 committee availed itself of the expertise of numerous stakeholders. We would expect this committee to do no less. The legislation would create a public school funding reform working group comprised of 12 members from expert education organizations across the state. This working group would serve in an advisory capacity and as a resource for committee deliberations.

No part of the school funding formula or the processes associated with the formula would be off limits. We expect the committee to look at all problems and issues that have arisen in the past 10 years, as well as demographic changes and changes in the fiscal conditions of school districts.

We want a realistic proposal that can be fairly funded annually.

One particular area that we hope will get special attention is preschool opportunities � a proven indicator of future educational success. We also hope the committee will focus attention on funding for special education.

Ok. I'm not enamored of the SFRA PJP committee>legislative amendment process.  According to Chris Cerf, the legislature arbitrarily increased the Professional Judgment Panels' recommendation for weights for at-risk students and created "Adjustment Aid" out of nowhere.

Although Prieto doesn't rule out cutting or eliminating Adjustment Aid, any formula that Prieto's "Joint Legislative Committee on Public School Funding Reform" comes up with will primarily rely on new money for K-12 education and if the next governor decides to prioritize things other than K-12 education or there is a recession, Prieto's "SFRA II" will fail just like the original SFRA did.

Prieto's suggestion that the state put more money into Pre-K education may or may not have merit, but budgeting is a zero-sum game and putting more money into Pre-K would subtract from money for K-12, higher ed, pensions, senior tax rebates etc etc etc.  If Pre-K is provided by public schools themselves, in the long run, Pre-K even increases the state's pension liabilities since Pre-K teachers are pension-eligible public employees.

Pre-K itself is incredibly expensive, around $13,500 per student.  To provide Pre-K to the 50,000 students who are statutorily eligible for it under SFRA would cost nearly $700 million.

Source:
http://bit.ly/2eCFTWE

Although Vincent Prieto has said he would "love a millionaire's tax," increasing rates on high incomes is enough. In 2014, raising the 8.97% top rate to 10.75% on income over $1 million would only have brought in $565 million.  A 2015 version that would also have raised business taxes by 15% would only have brought in $1.1 billion.

$565 million isn't enough.  $1.1 billion would be a good deal more helpful, but it would make our corporate taxes the country's second highest (after Iowa's 12% top rate).  Since New Jersey's other taxes are the highest in the country or among the highest, making our corporate taxes #2 is insane.

The state's debt and pension payments alone increase by nearly $1 billion a year, in some years increasing faster than the state's revenue growth, so the hope we might "grow our way" out of the budget mess is far-fetched.

Prieto is also wrong about why Congress hasn't reopened the base closing process.  Congress hasn't reopened that because it doesn't like the idea of an empowered committee, it hasn't reopened that because it doesn't want to close any more based. Period.

Anyway, I'm glad that Prieto is finally talking about state aid and not ruling out redistribution, but I wish it were something that put redistribution front and center and addressing other problems, such as the state aid growth limits and PILOTing.

---

See Also:

• Will Vincent Prieto Put Hudson County First?

Will Vincent Prieto Put Hudson County First?

The only ray of light on the landscape of New Jersey school aid is the long-incubating, still-unreleased aid reform bill that Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Senator Jennifer Beck are working on.

Given that Sweeney is the Senate President and Beck is a respected Republican, the bill's chances in the State Senate are fairly strong. Chris Christie will have the final say on whether this bill becomes law, but even before the bill gets to Christie the bill would have to pass through the State Assembly where the political calculations are much less certain.

Even before any vote takes place, this may come down to Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto.

Prieto's own constituents are severely underaided and he should be spearheading aid reform (more below), but he has a close relationship with Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop.  Prieto is a backer of Fulop for governor and is not inclined to do Steve Sweeney any favors.

Star-Ledger columnist Agusten Torres says the the Fulop-Sweeney-Prieto dynamic goes like this:

Prieto is the counterbalance in the state Legislature to Senate President Steve Sweeney, who is considered a major Fulop rival for governor. If Sweeney tries to get legislation approved that would enhance his political stature or hamper Fulop's, Prieto is there to "fix" the situation or seek a compromise. I am not insinuating that their actions would hurt the state or its residents � you're thinking those thoughts. A classic example is the battle with Sweeney over competing legislation for adding two new casinos in New Jersey.

The Assembly Speaker's loyalty could well be rewarded when it is time to find a seamless replacement for U.S. Rep. Albio Sires of West New York, who is like Prieto, a Cuban-American out of North Hudson. A possible Gov. Fulop's endorsement would boost a Prieto run for Congress in 2018.

I wouldn't go as far as Christie went about Fulop being Prieto's boss, but the close relationship is there.  Fulop himself has said "I have significant clout with Speaker Preito."

Prieto himself is the chairman of the Hudson County Democratic Organization. As chairman, Prieto has made strengthening the Hudson County Democratic Organization a priority, saying "The (Hudson County) Democratic organization has always been renowned across the state. It's something everyone always talks about. We want to restore it to what it has been."

Since redistributing state aid would offend the Hudson County Gold Coast aid hoarders, Prieto may be reluctant to allow a vote to even take place.  Mayor Steve Fulop's strong opposition to a property tax revaluation for Jersey City indicates that he would oppose even more strongly the redistribution of state aid, since that would cause money to leave Jersey City instead of just be redistributed within Jersey City.

Christie and Zimmer
(This was pre-Hurricane Sandy)

Nor would Fulop be the only alienated Gold Coast politician. Among just the Gold Coasters who have been vocal about maintaining aid levels, Jersey City/Hoboken Assemblyman Raj Mukerji who defended Jersey City's state aid, saying critics of it "don't get the challenges of urban education,"   Jersey City/Bayonne State Senator Sandra Cunningham, who voted against SFRA in the first place, Assemblyman Ruben Ramos of Hoboken who had no qualms about demanding 100% state-funding for construction in Hoboken despite Hoboken's astronomical tax base and desperation elsewhere.  Mayor Dawn Zimmer of Hoboken has been more of a passive exploiter of the rest of the state, but she puts low taxes as a major priority and while clearly a Democrat endorsed Chris Christie in 2013 (well before Hurricane Sandy), saying "he had been good for Hoboken."

A greater difficulty of prediction is that Prieto is not an education legislator by any stretch.  At his 2016 swearing in as Assembly Speaker his only remark on education was a platitude that he wanted "Quality of education for all children."

Although Prieto voted for SFRA, his statements on education funding are few and far between. What few stances he does take on education funding are restricted trying to get more money to vocational education and Pre-K, although he never proposes any offset to pay for either. The education funding legislation Prieto has sponsored has included every kind of education other than K-12; he has sponsored money for vo-tech, adult education, county colleges, a NJ version of the Dream Act, aid for nursing students, and $110 million for Pre-K but nothing for K-12 in at least the last two legislative sessions.

In fact, Prieto seems to think that the education-world talks about funding too much.

Prieto's points about how little attention vo-tech gets in contrast to K-12. In an interview Prieto said �[Vo-tech] one component in education that�s often neglected. We always talk about K through 12 and higher education."

Prieto is right about vo-tech, but do we really "always" talk about K-12?

The vo-tech bill, which Prieto has authored in multiple legislative sessions, is telling because it would give additional state aid to vo-techs whose student populations have gained 10%. Why Prieto does not author a parallel bill for K-12 districts whose populations have grown by 10% is beyond me.

What is shocking about Prieto's lack of interest in education funding is that Prieto's constituents are among the most underaided in New Jersey.

And who are his constituents?

Despite his deep involvement with Hudson County politics, Prieto does not, in fact, represent "Hudson County."

Prieto's constituents are the residents of a legislative district known as "District 32," consisting of East Newark, Edgewater, Fairview, Guttenberg, Harrison, Kearny, North Bergen, Secaucus, and West New York. He does not represent Jersey City (overaided by $130 million or $4,272 per student, plus Pre-K), Hoboken (Officially overaided by $7.5 million or $2,887 (but I believe Hoboken's SFRA aid target is too high given its wealth), plus Pre-K), or Weehawken (overaided by $1 million or $773 per student).  District 32 touches the Hudson River, but the Hudson River towns of District 32 aren't prime "Gold Coast" real estate (yet).

And Fairview and Edgewater are in Bergen County too.

All of the school districts of District 32 are underaided, sometimes severely so.  East Newark is NJ's third most underaided and is farther below Adequacy than any other district.   Fairview is the fifth most underaided and is the lowest spending district in New Jersey.  Guttenberg is the 10th most underaided district in New Jersey.

The cumulative aid deficit for District 32 is $103 million. Since the total deficit for all 380 underaided districts (not counting vo-techs) is $-1,871,376,087, District 32 alone represents 5.5% of the state's total aid deficit.

District 32's cumulative deficit has to be one of the largest of any legislative district in New Jersey.

When I Googled Prieto and "SFRA," "state aid," etc I get nothing substantive. In Prieto's Twitter and Facebook feed references to education are almost nonexistent and I went back years. There are no photos of Prieto visiting schools that many other politicians like to share.

When Christie came out with his FY2017 budget, Prieto ignored the underfunding of SFRA and the unfair distribution within the amount that was disbursed.

Governor Christie gave his annual budget address to the legislature today and he continued to mislead on several of our...
Posted by Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto on Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Prieto is a progressive and supports important parts of the progressive agenda, especially measures to alleviate poverty, but on education funding there is nothing there.

Prieto's constituents are uniquely underaided, but Prieto is not unique in indifference to education funding or prioritization of pensions and the Transportation Trust Fund.  However, most other legislators from underaided districts don't depend on politicians from NJ's most overaided districts for political support nor want the mayor of NJ's most overaided city to become governor.

In contrast to Prieto is District 32's State Senator, Nicholas Sacco (also mayor of North Bergen). While I haven't heard Sacco call for redistribution, Sacco is fired up about state aid unfairness. Sacco called the Abbott district list "totally artificial" and says "tell me the difference between North Bergen, Union City, and West New York in the real sense of the children?"  "Because of the state�s bizarre interpretation of the funding formulas, districts like North Bergen, that are not wealthy and don�t receive Abbott funding, are hurt the worst."

(Sacco overstates the similarities, but his basic point is correct.)

Redistribution has to Happen

It's 2016 and New Jersey's economy remains below where it was pre-Recession.  Whereas the country has recovered 154% of the jobs lost in the Recession, we have recovered on 87% and in January and February 2016 New Jersey had  a net loss of jobs.  The state's debts are more intractable than ever.  Moody's has cut our outlook from "Stable" to "Negative."  The pension funds lost over 6% of value in the twelve months preceding February 2016.   If NJ loses Berg v Christie (over COLA suspension) the state's obligation will increase by $500 million.  Even without COLAs, NJ's unfunded pension obligations increased by over $2 billion last year.

There's always going to be another recession, but even before the next one arrives, New Jersey is not going to be able to fully fund SFRA even if the next governor is willing to raise taxes.   I don't even think the current $8 billion distribution is sustainable.

Although redistribution wouldn't come close to bringing all underaided districts up to their SFRA targets, it would be more than enough to bring severely underaided districts up to less-awful deficits and among those severely underaided districts are several in District 32.  Hoboken/Jersey City Assemblyman Raj Mukerji said that critics of Jersey City's state aid "don't get the challenges of urban education," but he's flat out wrong.  The critics do get the challenges, but see identical or more severe challenges outside of Jersey City, know the state's finances are limited, and know that Jersey City's $22 billion tax base is capable of paying more than $112 million in school taxes.

Given who is real constituents are in District 32, Prieto should be leading the charge for fair aid on his own, but because of a personal lack of interest and political conflicts of interest with Gold Coast politicians, Prieto has done nothing.

Now the question is what will happen when the Sweeney/Beck bill forces Vincent Prieto to take a stand on education funding and the acceptability of redistribution.  If so, Prieto will have to choose whether his aspiration is to serve his own constituents or his "friends" in Jersey City and Hoboken.

Thanks to all who attended my event tonight, especially my friends @NicholasJSacco @StevenFulop + @NJDSC Chm. Currie pic.twitter.com/MSlf4zBSKs

� Vincent Prieto (@VincentPrieto) October 16, 2014

Prieto with the Gold Coast Team:
L-R: Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer, Hoboken/JC Assemblywoman Annette Chaparro, Hoboken/JC Assemblyman Raj Mukherji, Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, Vincent Prieto.

See Also:

Vincent Prieto Proposes SFRA II

Sweeney, Beck Propose Help for NJ's Neediest Districts

Senators Stephen Sweeney and Jennifer Beck continue to work on legislation that would redistribute state aid away from overaided districts to districts that are underaided and truly needy.

In an article by Adam Clark that appeared on the cover of the Sunday, March 27th Star-Ledger, Beck and Sweeney explained:

"The hold harmless provision [Adjustment Aid] was meant to make sure there was no losers," state Senate President Stephen Sweeney said. "It absolutely created losers." [my emphasis]

Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and Sen. Jenifer Beck (R-Monmouth) are finalizing a plan that they say would make school funding more equitable. Beginning in 2017-18, the proposal would gradually phase out hold harmless aid [ie, Adjustment Aid] for districts that don't need it and reallocate that money to growing districts that are underfunded, Beck said.

Political Courage

This is truly a brave move on both senators' parts. Both Sweeney and Beck have some overaided districts among their constituents who may oppose any redistribution and this bill faces an uphill struggle through ignorance, selfishness, and parochialism of the legislature.  Remember, SFRA barely passed in 2008 and it was an aid increase (even overaided districts were supposed to gain 2%), not an aid redistribution.

Not to overpraise Sweeney (who I criticized here for talking Pre-K expansion without having a way to pay for it), but I see him as a truly bold politician.  Between being the primary Democratic backer of pension reform, supporting the consolidation of K-8s with their regional high schools, and now state aid reform, Sweeney is someone who is willing to take stances that offend interest groups and some of his own constituents if he believes they are correct.  A sincere bravo to him on this.

Conditioning Aid Distribution on Adequacy = Inadequate Redistribution

Sweeney and Beck haven't released any details of their plan yet, but there are hints that they will consider where districts are relative to their Adequacy budgets.

According to the Adam Clark Star Ledger article:

The districts that would receive less hold harmless money are already "above adequacy," meaning they spend more money per student than the state's funding formula says is needed for a thorough and efficient education, Beck said. Those districts should be able to adjust their budgets, especially if their enrollment has dropped, she said.

Any redistribution of Adjustment Aid is a good thing, but if New Jersey only takes Adjustment Aid away from districts that are above Adequacy the amount of Adjustment Aid that could be redistributed is greatly reduced because 71 Adjustment Aid districts undertax so significantly that they actually below Adequacy.  Important examples of Adjustment Aid districts that are below Adequacy are Jersey City, Brick, and Toms River.

According to the Education Law Center Policy Brief on Adjustment Aid, for 2015-16:

• The above Adequacy Adjustment Aid districts get $174,024,179 in Adjustment Aid.
• The below Adequacy Adjustment Aid districts get $381,745,553 in Adjustment Aid.

So, if Adequacy is considered then the potential amount of Adjustment Aid that could be redistributed is only $174 million, not the full $550 million that the state labels as "Adjustment Aid."
(NJ hasn't run the SFRA formula in several years and the amount of money that districts get that is labeled "Adjustment Aid" is divorced from the amount of Adjustment Aid they should get.  For instance, Newark and Atlantic City both get something called "Adjustment Aid," but both are underaided and the Adjustment Aid should be converted into Equalization Aid.  Conversely, since Jersey City increasingly becomes richer and its student population grows slowly, more of its Equalization Aid should be converted to Adjustment Aid.)

Also, the Adjustment Aid districts that are above Adequacy are often only slightly above Adequacy, meaning that because they undertax, their aid excesses are greater than their surpluses above Adequacy.

For instance, even though Pemberton gets $32 million in Adjustment Aid, it is only above Adequacy by $14 million.

• Asbury Park gets $24.2 million in Adjustment Aid, but is only $13.9 million above Adequacy.  
• Keansburg gets $8.6 million in Adjustment Aid, but is only $5.9 million above Adequacy.  
• Phillipsburg is gets $10 million in Adjustment Aid, but is only $125,000 above Adequacy.  

Adam Clark writes about this as a "bipartisan plan to change how that money � more than $500 million � is allocated" but if only Adjustment Aid districts that are above Adequacy lose aid, the amount that could be redistributed would be nowhere near $500 million.

Population Change isn't the Only Factor in Overaiding and Underaiding

Another concern I have is that redistribution will be overly conditioned on population changes.  Although Sweeney and Beck haven't released any details yet, Jennifer Beck has talked often about aid being taken from districts that have lost population and giving it to districts that have gained population.

"The bottom line is that we as a state have not allowed our methodology for funding to keep up with what's actually happening at a district," Beck said. "If you've lost 100 students and the state of New Jersey is giving you the same state aid as you had five years ago... there should be some cost savings along the way."

And, in a statement at a recent Senate budget hearing Beck said:

"According to Beck, school funding needs to be redistributed throughout the state so that districts that have lost enrollment are not getting funding above the adequacy standard at the expense of schools where enrollment has increased. She said that that issue is not only central to the discussion in Paterson, but in a number of schools statewide including those in Asbury Park and Freehold, both of which fall in her district."

I'm a fan of Jennifer Beck, but I do not think she has it totally right about the causation of overaiding and underaiding.

Some districts in New Jersey have always been overaided or always been underaided, even before any recent population shifts.  For many districts, it is difficult to say why they have always been privileged or always been victimized, but it's not like NJ ever was "on formula" for a lot of districts who are now underaided.  

What logic was there ever in giving Marlboro twice as much aid per student as Bloomfield? What on earth justified giving Hillsborough more money than Belleville? Why did Randolph get more money than Hackensack?

Freehold Boro (then DFG CD), whose population growth has been often cited in its underaiding, only got $3,153 per student in 1998-1999, which is not significantly more than what Hillsborough got.

The aid distribution has been unjust for a very long time.  

I am worried that Beck neglects causes of overaiding and underaiding other than population change. Although Asbury Park and Pemberton's extraordinary overaiding are partly due to population loss and the zombie power the Abbott "Parity Plus" Doctrine, there are other districts that are overaided because they have had increases in wealth.

Hoboken and Jersey City represent two districts that are overaided despite gaining population.

Increase in wealth is difficult to quantify because historic Local Fair Share data is not available and even if it were available I would have to adjust it for inflation, but I can use Equalized Valuation (as a percentage of statewide EV) to show that Hoboken (an extreme, but illustrative example) has become overaided because of an increase in wealth, not because it has lost student population (on the contrary, it's slightly growing.)

Were I to go back even farther the effect would be more dramatic.  In the late 1990s Hoboken had only 0.3% of the state's total Equalized Valuation.   (see Divergent Fates of NJ's Big Cities.)

Likewise, some underaided districts haven't had much population change either.  Perhaps they were always underaided, or their population has stayed constant but become poorer.  They could also have seen a decline in ratables.

Atlantic City would be a prime (if extreme) example of a district who was once overaided (hence the Adjustment Aid artifact) and whose population has actually fallen, but has become deeply underaided (-$6,770 per student) because it has had an enormous decrease in wealth.

Will Anything Change?

Sweeney and Beck themselves have said that their proposal will be controversial, but the moral arguments for redistribution are so strong that I have some hope that this legislation will at least pass the State Senate.

The big question marks are the Education Law Center, Vincent Prieto, and Chris Christie.

The Education Law Center, led by lawyer David Sciarra, has opposed redistribution in the past and I consider it to be reactionary and economically blind, but in the fall of 2015 it softened its opposition to cutting Adjustment Aid for districts that were above Adequacy.  The ELC is influential among Democratic legislators and NJ's education activist community, so its support would help tip the scales in favor of justice.

As recently as 2012, Christie, through Chris Cerf's Education Funding Report, supported cutting Adjustment Aid too for districts that are above Adequacy.  Christie actually followed through on this for two years before setting into a flat-aid policy.  Christie, obviously, has become erratic and no one knows what he would think of redistribution.  He even created "Additional Adjustment Aid" to protect Interdistrict Choice districts from ever losing aid.

Prieto is a big unknown. All of Prieto's constituents - East Newark, Edgewater, Fairview, Guttenberg, Harrison, Kearny, North Bergen, Secaucus, and West New York - are underaided, but Prieto is also a close ally of Jersey City and Hoboken politicians whose districts are overaided.  Prieto is known to be a backer of Steve Fulop too and may not want to do Steve Sweeney any favors.

Anyway, I appreciate what Sweeney and Back are trying to do and look forward to learning more about their proposal.

---

See Will Vincent Prieto Put Hudson County First?