tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618709929318397424.post7625858376974697235..comments2023-10-31T07:43:37.520-04:00Comments on NJ Left Behind: Education Law Center's Field of DreamsNJ Left Behindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16739701636089453850noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618709929318397424.post-83546212199214385002010-02-04T13:02:16.939-05:002010-02-04T13:02:16.939-05:00Stepping off the charter issue for a moment... My ...Stepping off the charter issue for a moment... My impression is that central argument of the Education Law Center, in this case, is to not forget the importance of fair and adequate education funding as a necessary underlying condition to any good reform, including charters as a reform option. New Jersey has made great strides in this regard over time, especially when compared to other states. <br /><br />The SFRA gripe, in my opinion, relates to the fact that the state really blew it on a few key components of SFRA - even if the basic idea of a weighted pupil formula could be a good one. The Census Based special education formula shorts high poverty urban districts on an unfounded assumption of equal distribution of disabilities across settings (despite substantial demographic data to the contrary). The incorrectly calculated Geographic Cost Adjustment bumps up the most affluent counties. There are just some dumb errors and unfounded assumptions in SFRA which create problematic distributions - and undo some of the gains yielded from Abbott. That's a legitimate gripe for ELC.<br /><br />The national debate on reform has been problematic, often led by Ed Equality Project and similar groups, who I would argue are less relevant than you suggest. And the national debate is somewhat different from the New Jersey debate. New Jersey has put significant fiscal effort into its schools and has focused financial effort on schools in need. And New Jersey’s overall outcomes are solid, but gaps persist. NJ gaps are not, however, like Connecticut gaps where the state has put only selective effort into aiding poor urban districts. <br /><br />Pundits in the national debate repeatedly suggest that the states we should all emulate are those like Louisiana, or Tennessee, because they lack caps on charters or because they’ve got great data systems for teacher evaluation. Hey, I love data systems and I’m far from anti-charter school. But these are our national leaders for the big race? This despite the fact that fewer than 80% of kids even attend the public school system in Louisiana (including charters) - despite the fact that Louisiana is second from bottom in educational effort (% of Gross State Product allocated to K-12), damn near the bottom in test scores and damn near the bottom in shares of teachers who attended selective colleges. Tennessee is right there with them. National pundits (not necessarily NJ pundits) seem to argue that “innovation” and “deregulation” trump actual investment, including equitable and/or adequate investment in education. <br /><br />Arguably, to be really good, you’ve got to have both innovation and adequate and equitable investment. Innovation with little or no investment will likely get these states nowhere. At least New Jersey is already somewhere. And indeed, innovation on top of our existing investment may move us even further along!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731497706421596992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618709929318397424.post-14095770849929871032010-02-04T12:34:48.906-05:002010-02-04T12:34:48.906-05:00And here is a lengthy series of rebuttals of the N...And here is a lengthy series of rebuttals of the NJ Charter rebuttal:<br /><br />http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/category/new-jersey-charter-schools/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731497706421596992noreply@blogger.com