New Jersey Public School System Essay

Title:

Newark, New Jersey Public School System

Abstract:

New Jersey Constitution, Article VIII, Section IV, paragraph 1 provides us that the legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years. Here in this Research Paper we have considered the political dynamics shaping school including housing, labor, and welfare policies in the cities.

With all of the awareness given to the inconsistency between rich and poor districts, some question whether adequate concern is being shown to the silent majority in the middle of the quality spectrum. In accumulation, it is important to ensure that the issue of race does not overshadow what is, and should always be the main issue – a thorough and efficient education for all children in the state of New Jersey.

Order # 32431985

Type of order: Research paper

Number of pages: 15

Deadline: December 11 9:17

Style: APA

Nasima Talukder Monmoon

Methodology:
This research paper will examine the politics of education in particular cities. The paper will consider the political dynamics shaping school including housing, labor, and welfare policies in the cities. Through this analysis we will gain an understanding of the ways in which the political social, and economic contexts of cities and schools interact. Papers should examine, where relevant, the following issues.

Introduction:

The Constitution of New Jersey of 1844 was formally amended in 1875. The objective of amendment was the guarantee of a “thorough and efficient” education for all of the state’s children. The school law in 1871, the lion share of funding for education came from the state; a uniform property tax was collected by the state, which was redistributed to local school districts on an equal basis, per-pupil basis. Excess moneys for education that were needed were raised by individual township taxes.

The background of public education in New Jersey centers on the concept of local autonomy.  Individual school districts were responsible for meeting minimal state-wide Native school boards retained direct control over the programs and courses, which would be offered, and the local property tax was the primary source for funding the public school systems.

The discrimination between Newark, New Jersey Public School System richer districts with higher property values, which also usually had only one family living in the majority of buildings. Exorbitant money was raised through the tax to be spent on education. In the urban district property values much lower, but many families would dwell in the same apartment building. The proportion of   students to potential sources of tax income was much higher as well.

The Superior Court in 1972 held that the financing of public schools depend as heavily as it was on local property taxes. This was violation of clause of the state constitution, as well as the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. “Obviously,” the Court’s ruling read, “a large number of New Jersey children are not getting an adequate education. This lead to insufficient funds in many districts despite high taxes.” The Judicial ruling was centered on the gross inequities that the property-tax-based system of funding.

The ruling spoke of people teaching for over twenty years with only “emergency” teaching certificates, and science text books dating back thirty years.  The walking on the moon was still considered science fiction. It is assumed that local control as a defense of the current system of funding through property taxes which declaring, “local control and responsibility cannot be used to justify a system that breed substantial discrimination in the quality of education and the local control is illusory. It is control for affluent section of the community but not for the poor.”  The Supreme Court slightly modified and substantively affirmed the ruling.  After hearing the arguments from the state, , the judicial – out of deference to separation of powers . It was permitted that the current funding system to remain untouched which was sufficient time for legislative action to be taken.

The legal debates regarding parental school choice was the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. The New Jersey law permitting school districts to refund bus fare to schoolchildren who used public transportation to attend a religious school. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the district’s practice in a 5 to 4 ruling and the aid was not religious in nature and which the same aid was available to all students. Justice Hugo Black, indicated that the First Amendment “requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions, than it is to favor them.” Everson set an important precedent for other school choice cases.

The then-Governor Christine Todd Whitman signed the Charter School Program Act in 1995. The rule confined the number of possible charter schools to 135 and this limit expired after four years.[5]The Colleges and universities can open charter schools The companies can manage a charter school although they cannot be directly granted a charter. Though public schools are allowed to convert to charter schools. The Department of Education in New Jersey encourages the formation of charter schools conveying “technical assistance sessions for prospective charter school applicants.”

 The Governor Whitman issued Executive Order 30, on January in 1995 and calling for an advisory committee to study the implications of a voucher program. Ex Governor Thomas H. Kean mastermind the panel and which gave vouchers a favorable review.

The Lincoln Park School Board voted to create a voucher system in 1997 that would have allowed students to use public money to attend a public or private school of choice. Every student of Lincoln Park’s 325 high school students attends l in the Boonton school district, as there was no school in Lincoln Park. The vouchers would have been worth between $1,000 and $4,600.[9]After two month later of the February 11 vote in favor of the program. The officials who favored the vouchers were replaced in a Lincoln Park School Board election. The board reversed in May 1997 its decision and voting 5 to 4 against vouchers.

The two bills in Assembly 2320 and Senate 1279 were introduced in the summer of 1998 to create a public school open enrollment program. After having received districts would not have been allowed to enroll more than 7 percent of a sending district’s student population. The sending districts would have paid 90 percent of the per-pupil cost for each transferring student. It was established in the legislation a five-year pilot program and The 10 districts offering choice in the first year and the 15 districts in the second yearend the remaining 21 districts in the third year.

The New Jersey State Board of Education approved a pilot public school choice program on September 1, 1999. The measure has been in place for five years. The program is similar to that proposed in A. 2320 and S. 1279. The 10 districts participating during the first year, the expected 15 during the second. The number capped at 21 in the third year. Transport was provided for students residing within 20 miles.

The response to the favorable ruling on the Cleveland on July 25 2006 voucher program and the Camden City Council unanimously passed a resolution calling on the state legislature to create a voucher program for their city. Camden. District serves more than 18,000 school-age children. The legislature of New Jersey and governor has not responded to the request.

The Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling conducted a poll of state residents in 2003 and revealed that 66 percent of New Jersey families support vouchers.  The respondents over seventy who earn less than $50,000 per year were in favor of vouchers. Seventy percent of urban residents were in favor.

The Camden City Council voted 5-1 to ask the state again in September 2003 to provide vouchers to students so they can transfer to a public or private school outside their district. Every middle school students in the district are eligible to transfer.  All Camden middle schools are in need of improvement by state standards.

 Woman legislature Loretta Weinberg (D-37) introduced A. 4033 in January 2004, which would have forced home-school students to be subject to state assessments.  Which have granted extensive powers to the state board of education over home-schooling families. The amendment was referred to the Education Committee and no action was taken.

 The parents rallied twice in the summer of 2004 in New Jersey calling for more school choice. The participant came from outside between 40 and 50 parents of the Camden City Hall in June and July to protest poor conditions.

 The outcome came from a Star Ledger- Rutger poll on “innovations in public education” were released. The results showed considerable public support for school choice. Respondents were asked the question “support or oppose using tax funds to pay for a voucher program so children living in low-income areas can go to a different school,” and 54 percent of respondents said yes while 37 percent said no.

The bills were introduced in the state Assembly in November 2005. The Senate to create an educational tax credit program. A4376 and S2785 would create a five-year pilot program.  The corporations would receive tax credits for contributions to scholarship-granting organizations in four districts: Camden, Newark, Orange, and Trenton. The students of low-income families get priority in receiving scholarship at New Jersey. The A4376 was referred to the Assembly Education Committee, and S2785 was referred to the Senate Education Committee.

Hundreds of Thousands of children in New Jersey attend schools on a daily basis. As a conscious parent.  We would like to informed and involved in your child’s schooling. you expect that your child is not cheated by someone out of his/her right to a fundamental and quality education. The education lawyers of New York are ensured that this right is not snatched away from students and their parents.

The government of New Jersey is responsible for maintaining a good public school system. The legislatures of New Jersey have the power over the operation of each public school. They required providing equality in education.  The education lawyer of New Jersey are specialized in New Jersey education legislations and ensured a proper level of education for New Jersey children.

New Jersey Education Data on High School Dropouts
Dropout numbers and rates in grades 9-12, by state: School year 2000-01 not available. Upgraded students 2 3 reported dropouts† Not applicable. In New Jersey

Total 9th-12th graders
351,496
Number
9,882
Dropouts Total
2.8
9th
2.3
10th
2.8
11th
2.9
12th
2.6
Note
These states reported on an alternative cycle
Source: National Center for Education Statistics

Demographics of Poor Children

The federal poverty level in 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four. The living standard of Children who reside with families with incomes below the federal poverty levels are referred to as poor. The research mention that, families need an average income of about twice the federal poverty level to meet their basic needs. The United States measures poverty level by an outdated standard developed in the 1960s.

Children in New Jersey, by Income Level

In New Jersey, there are 1,236,560 families, with 2,150,436 children.

Poor Children: 9% (199,947) of children live in poor families (National: 18%), defined as income below 100% of the federal poverty level.

Parental Employment
Parents’ Employment Status in New Jersey, by Income Level

28% (55,891) of children in poor families have at least one parent who is employed full-time, year-round.

   34% (67,812) of children in poor families have at least one parent who is employed

Parental Education
Children in Poor Families in New Jersey, by Parents’ Education

* 42% (65,298) of children whose parents do not have a high school degree live in poor families.

*  16% (74,561) of children whose parents have a high school degree, but no college education live in poor families.

·         4% (60,088) of children whose parents have some college or more live in poor

families.

Child’s Race/Ethnicity

Children in Poor Families in New Jersey, by Race

·         4% (44,502) of white children live in poor families.

·          20% (68,681) of black children live in poor families.

·          20% (78,353) of Latino children live in poor families.

Child’s Age
Children in Poor Families in New Jersey, by Age

12% (78,348) of children under age 6 live in poor families.

   8% (121,599) of children age 6 or older live in poor families.

Type of Residential Area
Children in Poor Families in New Jersey, by Residence

  19% (28,683) of children in urban areas live in poor families.

   8% (133,005) of children in suburban areas live in poor families.

Residential Move
Children Who Have Recently Moved in New Jersey, by Income Level

  21% (41,798) of children in poor families moved last year.

  9% (168,325) of children in not poor families moved last year.

Parental Nativity
Children in Poor Families in New Jersey, by Parents’ Nativity

14% (73,044) of children of immigrant parents live in poor families.

8% (126,167) of children of native-born parents live in poor families.

Home Ownership
Children in Owner-Occupied Housing in New Jersey, by Income Level

  26% (52,168) of children in poor families live in owner-occupied housing.

  77% (1,497,060) of children in not poor families live in owner-occupied housing.

Family Structure
Children Living in Families in New Jersey with no Parent Present, by Income Level

  7% (14,418)* of poor children live in families with no parent present.

   2% (42,799) of not poor children live in families with no parent present.

Use the 50-State Demographics Wizard to build custom tables by selecting your own variables for one or more states.

* This estimate should be used with caution. It may be unreliable due to a small sample size.

Some graphs may not be shown because of extremely small sample sizes.

Because of rounding, not all figures will add up to 100%.

Poverty: Income below the federal poverty level (FPL), $20,000 per year for a family of four in 2006.

Low income: Income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL); $40,000 per year for a family of four in 2006.

Child: A child is defined as an individual under the age of 18. Children living independently, living with a spouse, living in group quarters, and children ages 14 and under living with only unrelated adults are excluded from these data.

Parent: For children who do not live with at least one parent, parental characteristics are those of the householder and/or the householder’s spouse.

For definitions of other terms, please refer to Explanations of Terms and Data Sources.

1. State data were calculated from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (the March supplement) of the U.S. Current Population Survey from 2004, 2005, and 2006, representing information from calendar years 2003, 2004, and 2005. NCCP averaged three years of data because of small sample sizes in less populated states. The national data were calculated from the 2006 data, representing information from the previous calendar year.

New Jersey Economic Scenario

The position of New Jersey ranked ninth in terms of population in 2002, approximately 8.5 million people. New Jersey is the nation’s most urbanized and most densely populated state, staying 1,144 persons per square mile. The national population density in 2000 was just 80 persons per square mile.

Between 1991 and 2001, New Jersey saw its population rise steadily between 1991 and 2001, by 0.85 percent per annum. The number of people approximately 8,414,350 dwelled in 2000 lived in New Jersey; the state had 8,484,431 residents by July 2001. New Jersey’s population grew faster than any other state in the northeast region during 2000-2001. The state lost 39,200 inhabitants through domestic migration, but this was offset by the influx of 60,400 international immigrants.  Therefore, New Jersey ranked sixth among the states in foreign immigration between 2000 and 2001. The state’s population grew and the average household size actually shrank during the 1990s.

The economic Planning for the early 2000s sought to channel growth by restricting state infrastructure spending in many rural and suburban areas which focusing instead on urban redevelopment. The recession also affected development schemes in 2001 .New Jersey’s cities faced a difficult future.

The survey of redevelopment has been watched closely.  If the former industrial sites, it could be successfully transformed into residential properties. Following decades of decline, the city of Perth Amboy (population 47,000) welcomed $600 million in housing and retail development has been achieved on former industrial sites. Myriad number of   problem facing many of New Jersey’s cities was the brown fields and contaminated vacant or under-utilised industrial properties. With the objective of rewarding developers interested in cities by reducing the red tape associated. New Jersey secured an early federal grant and worked out an arrangement with the state environmental officials

According to the state Planning Commission chairperson, Joseph Mara ziti holds the view that the city’s redevelopment plan had widespread implications and quoted. “I have seen an evolution in Perth Amboy, and not just a visual change but a spiritual one that is exactly the message of the State Plan.

Our Endeavor is to revitalize New Jersey’s cities and towns. If It does not happen, nothing else in the state perform well.” Other older industrial cities like New Brunswick, Jersey City, and Newark were also looking at Perth Amboy’s example. The Governor Christine Todd Whitman delivered her state address in early January 2001 and New Jersey had the sixteenth largest economy in the world and the second highest per capita income in America. The accomplishment as governor was the creation of over 435,000 employment opportunities in the state, but budget deficits accrued and a $2.8 billion budget gap improved under his administration. Whitman boasted that her administration had already created ten new business incubators before stepping as governor in 2001 and thirty “cyber districts” in New Jersey, promoting high technology.

The state under Governor James E. McGreevey faced a $2.9 billion to $5 billion shortfall in 2002. Due to this shortfall, the governor demanded 5 percent cutbacks in all agencies, and lay off 600 non-union public employees. McGreevey suggested that a sports arena would be a catalyst for development He proposed a stimulus package that would include public investment in the state’s other urban centers and job training programs to improve the quality of the state’s work force.

 In 2002, In spite of the governor’s optimism New Jersey suffered revenue shortfall that ranked the worst in the nation, problems with the black business economy in northern New Jersey The important issues surrounding the state’s redevelopment areas, and problems facing New Jersey’s “urban 30” cities.

New Jersey and its public schools will face serious setback during the next four years, the reform of the school revenue system to closing the achievement gap and directing resources constraint to the classroom. The School Boards Association of New Jersey indicated its beliefs on the role and responsibilities of the state and federal governments and local school districts in public education The School Boards Association of New Jersey a federation of district boards of education, corroborated the interests of school districts, trains local school board members, and provides resources for the advancement of public education.

Issues Facing Public Education Include:

The Achievement Gap. Watching the academic performance gaps between students of various ethnic and economic backgrounds will need a state-level system. The tracks student records as they move between communities . The commitment to early childhood education, class-size reduction, and adequate school facilities

School Finance.

The finance system of New Jersey’s should enable all public school student, irrespective of community wealth-to meet the state’s Core Curriculum Content Standards. The assumption of NJSBA that improving the system will be a major issue facing the new administration. The state has failed to provide financial assistant to its current school finance formula since 2001-02. As the anticipated school expenses enhanced, property taxes must increase to fill the gap created by stagnant funding.

Tax Reform.

Immediate requirement of New Jersey is a fair revenue system that will enable it to maintain excellent schools. The expectation of NJSBA revenue-neutral property tax reform that would be shifting a significant portion of school revenue away from the local property. That depends on a permanent state-funding source, without increasing total taxes or spending.

No Child Left Behind:

 This federal law empowers state departments of education authority to make important decisions concerning implementation. To evaluate accurate measurement of school performance under NCLB, the New Jersey Department of Education should bring its test reporting procedures into line with those of other states. Education department emphasized   to assess the costs incurred by the state and local school districts to meet the Act’s requirements.

Local Cost Efficiency:

The financial resources to our classrooms at New Jersey need statute. The policies that will give boards of education the ability to control employee benefit costs through negotiations and will preserve school districts’ ability to subcontract non-instructional services. This will promote shared services, which will encourage the study of rationalization at the community level.

Student Mobility
With the objective of narrow down the achievement gap, New Jersey introduces a system to track the academic history of all students. The system would make capable the student to overcome the obstacles facing children who change residence repeatedly.

School Boards Association of New Jersey study identified student mobility as a deterrent to student achievement in many school districts in 2001. Students who change schools frequently may suffer academically and socially. They are bringing down the student grade. They also are belonging to low income group and inner city, migrant or limited-English-proficient children.

Early Childhood Education
The financial system of New Jersey ‘s school should encourage-rather than discourage-the establishment and maintenance of full-day Kindergarten in all communities.

New Jersey needs and funds full-day Kindergarten in the Abbott districts. The other poor communities provide state aid based on the cost of operating half-day Kindergarten-even if a full-day program is offered. It has makes difficult for middle-income districts and other communities to maintain full-day Kindergarten.

NJSBA advocates The changing of system so that the cost of operating full-day Kindergarten is factored into the state aid calculation for all school districts.. The supports efforts gave by association to give all children the opportunity to attend pre-school. The state creates incentive partnerships between school districts and other organizations with the objective of providing quality early childhood education services for young children and their families.

Reducing Class Size
New Jersey School Boards Association report cited federal research in 2000 to justify, Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know?  How perform significant increases in student achievement when class sizes range between 15 and 20 students. The baby classes in the early childhood and primary years, which enable teachers to provide the attention, needed to overcome the disadvantages of poverty.

NJSBA advocated the establishment of a state-supported matching-grant program to help school districts reduce the average class size through Grade 3 to no more than 18 students on each certified teacher.

No Child Left Behind
The unprecedented   No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) represents federal involvement in the operation of the nation’s public schools in 2002.  This Act gives state departments of education significant authority over its implementation.

To make sure appropriate measurement of school performance under No Child Left Behind, the State Department of Education in New Jersey should establish the same requirements as neighboring states for reporting the academic progress of students of various racial group education subgroups.

The state mastermind a comprehensive assessment of the concern are expenses related to the development and administration of additional costs incurred by New Jersey and its local school districts in implementing NCLB. It would continue to advocate before Congress and the U.S. Department of Education for changes in NCLB requirements and funding that would benefit New Jersey students.

The accountability is about school performance and to ensure that all children meet academic standards. The schools need to measure the academic progress of students of various racial, education groups so that educators can determine the effectiveness of programs.

The elements of the federal law and state decisions on its implementation detract from these principles and goals. The subgroup size established by the New Jersey State Department of Education-20 students for most categories emphasized flaws in the NCLB reporting process causing misperceptions about a school’s academic progress.

NCLB   would assess the report test results for the total student population and each of ten student subgroups to determine a school’s and a school district’s Adequate Yearly Progress.

New Jersey introduce its subgroup size at 20 for all but disabled students Making comparison with Pennsylvania and New York set the minimum at 40. The countrywide average subgroup size is 30 students.

The result: In New Jersey, The examination result of subgroup test affect   the AYP status of more schools and districts than in other states. The entire school could be labeled as not making adequate progress as the test scores of a handful of children in only one of the subgroups.

New Jersey ‘s School Finance System
The state Legislature indicate that the state’s school finance formula having Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Funding Act of 1996 (CEIFA is no longer viable. The state has not funded the CEIFA formula as intended since 2001-02. The school expenses have enhanced, flat state funding has caused in property tax increases to fill the gap.

New Jersey’s school finance system provide scope all public school students irrespective of their community’s wealth with the of meeting meet the state’s Core Curriculum Content Standards. State funds rose through aid to education and school property tax relief programs and should have equal at least 50% of the total cost of education statewide.

State funds is provided through assistance to education and school property tax relief and should have equal at least 50% of the total cost of elementary and secondary education state base. State assistance to education should be supportable and not subject to annual manipulation.

 The local property taxes imposed toward the foundation level should reflect the community’s ability to pay and be based on its property valuation strength of its and not on per capita income. The foundation amount depending on deduction of the community’s fair-share contribution and should be provided through state aid. The implementation of formula should allow for adjustments to a district’s state aid in response to sharp increases in student population.  Communities should be capable to disburse above the foundation level through locally raised revenue.

The implementation of formula should provide aid, on a per pupil basis, for state-required categorical programs.

Federal Funding for New Jersey’s Schools
New Jersey receives the lowest percentage level of federal funding for elementary and secondary public education for New Jersey. The leaders advocate the changes in federal policy that would provide-

·         Regional cost differentials for distributing federal funds

·          Adequate funding of No Child Left Behind

·          Full funding of the federal commitment to special education

The government paid 2.8% of the total cost of elementary and secondary public education in New Jersey in 2004 to 2005. That figure represents the lowest percentage level of federal support among the 50 state as per National Education Association’s Ranking of the States  .The Additional federal funding for New Jersey’s schools would relieve high property taxes and would enhance school districts’ ability to provide services.

Conclusion:

Political development of New Jersey reflected the changing social and economic climates, and changing demographic patterns. Because New Jersey’s state constitution of envisioned a weak executive with no veto powers and it was not until modern times and the governor wielded more power than the state legislature.

 The state government has always been sensitive to the demands of business. During the political movement of the Jackson Ian era and the forged the first ties between business and state government. Following the Civil War, the unremitting pressure industrial giants like-helped establish the corporate control of state politics. Then during the height newly expanded executive power to begin his assault on these corporations with his “Seven Sisters” monopoly legislation. These political reforms, though, did not prevent the political parties of the early twentieth century from being controlled by urban bosses, such as Frank Hague of Jersey City

Reference:

1) Pulliam, John D. and James J. Van Patten. 1999. History of Education in America. 8th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. [Chapter-9, Page 241-277.]

2) Lance, Fusarelli D.  The Political Dynamics of School Choice: Negotiating Contested Terrain Palgrave Macmillan; 1st edition (January 15, 2003) [Chapter 6, page 139-152]

3) Bennett, William J., Chester Finn and John Cribb. 1999. The Educated Child. New York: Simon & Schuster. [ Chapter 2,  Page 36- 41]

4) Louise Adler Politics Of Linking Schools And Social Services, Taylor & Francis; (1st edition March 3, 1994), [Chapter-2,  P19-32, Chapter 2,  P 51- 120]

5) Chubb, John E. and Terry M. Moe. 1990. Politics, Markets, & America’s Schools. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. [ Chapter 4,  Page 136- 41]

6) Star Ledger. “Parity Funds Bring Along Perks and Optimism in ‘Need’ Districts” September 4, 1997. [ Chapter 2,  Page 26- 51]

7) Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa International.

8) Home News and Tribune, “Lawmakers Still Learning After Many Hard Lessons.” May 15, 1997. [Chapter 5, Page 126-198]

9) Roscoe West, Elementary Education in New Jersey: A History. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, 1964. [ Chapter 3  P 78-96]

10) http://www.bicoastal.com/home/clip11.html

11) Robinson v, Cahill 118 N.J. Super 223.(1972)

12) Philadelphia Inquirer. “Ruling on N.J. School Assailed.” Friday, May 16, 1997

13) Home News and Tribune, “Whitman Has More Homework on School Funding,” August 11, 1997.

14) Statement of the Senate Education Committee to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 23, March 19, 1992.

15) David Sciarra, N.J. Office of the Public Advocate, Public Hearing before the Senate Education Committee. June 8, 1992.

16) Paul Tractenberg, Esq., Public Hearing before the Senate Education Committee. June 8, 1992

17)  William Maxson Stillman The origin of the free public school system of New Jersey , [10 Page Report]

18) William R Monat The impact of a community action agency on a public school system: Collaborative decision-making in Trenton, New Jersey, Pennsylvania State University (1971), [Chapter 3 ,P 98 121]