TRENTON, NJ – A story in today’s Star-Ledger entitled N.J. school funding winners and losers: See how your district fared under new plan is a glaring example of the unfairness, cruelness, and unsympathetic approach by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy to pick ‘winners’ and yes, ‘losers’ in New Jersey’s educational funding.
Yes, folks, we’re in such a state that we are putting school children into the loser bracket. So much for fair and equitable.
Governor Phil Murphy’s recent announcement about New Jersey’s revamped public school funding formula for the 2024-25 academic year highlights significant discrepancies that raise concerns about equity and fairness. The formula, first enacted in 2008 and now fully implemented, was designed to address discrepancies in funding across the state’s nearly 600 school districts. However, the reality is that it seems to create as many problems as it solves, inadvertently picking “winners” and “losers” among districts.
Under the new system, state aid varies dramatically, with some districts seeing substantial increases while others face severe cuts. For example, Deal in Monmouth County, a small affluent town, has witnessed a staggering 1,756% increase in funding. Contrastingly, Wildwood City School District in Cape May County saw an 80% decline in state funding. Such stark differences are ostensibly based on factors like district size, student demographics including low-income and special education needs, and other variables. However, the sharp decline in funding for some districts seems disproportionately harsh and suggests that the formula might be overly punitive.
The formula’s complex nature, considering numerous variables beyond mere enrollment numbers, aims for a tailored approach to school financing. Yet, this complexity does not necessarily equate to fairness. The delayed decreases in aid for so-called overfunded schools and the immediate boosts for underfunded ones have set a precarious stage where educational equity is promised but not universally delivered. It’s crucial to question whether these adjustments truly reflect the needs of the districts or if they merely shuffle resources, creating new forms of disparity.
Furthermore, the impact of such a formula extends beyond mere numbers. It influences the quality of education, resources available to students, and the broader community’s socio-economic development. By significantly reducing funding to certain districts, the state risks impairing their ability to provide quality education, potentially leading to wider gaps in educational outcomes across the state.
Governor Murphy’s administration needs to reconsider the implementation of this funding formula. It is essential to ensure that no district is unduly penalized and that every student in New Jersey has equal access to quality education, regardless of their district’s historical funding levels or socio-economic status. As it stands, the formula seems less about equitably distributing resources and more about redistributing inequalities.
This approach is not just about fairness; it’s about the fundamental right to education. As the state moves forward, it must seek a balance that genuinely reflects the needs of all its students, not just those deemed winners in the current system.
So much for the American philosophy of ‘no child left behind’, because if your child is in a district that didn’t support the governor in his two elections, it appears they will probably be left behind under the S2 funding formula.
Now, maybe it’s just a coincidence, but there is definitely a correlation between funding cuts and districts that voted Republican in 2017 and 2021.