Since The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy, It Appears that Phil Murphy wants to Destroy New Jersey

In 1819, John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, held, “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”  McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316, 431 (1819).  Phil Murphy, an ex-Goldman Sachs multi-millionaire, wants to add well over $75 billion in spending to New Jersey’s current $35 billion budget.  Murphy admits that he wants to raise the taxes on Garden State taxpayers by $1.3 billion, even though they are already the highest taxed people in the country.  But Murphy does not explain how he will pay for the rest of his well over $75 billion spending plan.

His grandiose spending plans include government-run healthcare system.  Not only would his plan put Trenton bureaucrats between you and your doctor, destroy our current healthcare system and result in rationing healthcare, but it has been estimated to cost $65.5 billion and will go up every year going forward.

Some of Murphy’s other spending proposals include up to $2 billion for Pre-K across the state and $1 billion more for K-12 spending.  Even if you like the idea, the question remains: will the increase just go to the Abbott Districts or will it be distributed fairly to all districts in the State?  Murphy also wants $430 million more for higher education; $466 million more for affordable housing tax credits, $23 million in new affordable housing funds, and $400 million for more NJ transit funding.

Murphy has other schemes that are clearly intended to buy him votes, but that the taxpayers of New Jersey cannot afford, such as forgiving student loan debt.  The students will love it, but the taxpayers can’t afford to pay for it.

Murphy also has a New Jersey Public Bank scheme, that would be capitalized by taxpayers’ funds or by issuing new debt, which would have to be paid back with interest by taxpayers later.  Will Murphy use the “Community Reinvestment Act” standard of making loans to people who can’t pay them back?  This sounds like a New Jersey version of Fannie and Freddie that had to be bailed out by the taxpayers to the tune of about $187.5 billion.

Murphy said he would update government technology, estimated to cost over $100 million.  Previous attempts to up-grade technology systems for the NJ DMV, Medicaid, food stamps and other social services had not been successful.

Murphy wants to fully fund New Jersey’s pensions.  However, without reforms, such as finally ending double-dipping, increasing the employees’ contributions and/or raising the retirement age, Murphy’s plan will saddle New Jersey taxpayers with an estimated $83 billion.

Other schemes that Murphy has purposed include (1) declaring New Jersey a sanctuary State, putting $15 billion in federal funds at risk; (2) spending an extra $20 million in Open Space Funding, when New Jersey already has a substantial amount of open space; (3) expanding the earned income credit, estimated at a cost of $70 million; (4) creating a state retirement plan for small businesses, when the state’s current pension plan has a shortfall of some $83 billion; (5) increasing state funding for R & D, which has been defeated in the past because it should be left to the private sector; and (6) providing high speed internet for everyone in New Jersey, which is another business that should be left to the private sector.   You can go to www.murphy4nj.com for many other unrealistic and unaffordable ideas that Murphy has.

For more in-depth analysis of Murphy’s promises and proposals see,  “New Jersey Can’t Afford Phil Murphy:” “Goldman Sachs Millionaire Phil Murphy Has Proposed Over $75 Billion In New Spending If Elected, Forcing Massive Tax Hikes On All New Jerseyans,” Save New Jersey, https://savejersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NJ_Can_t_Afford_Phil_Murphy_final-1.pdf, 5/17/2017.

If New Jersey residents do not want to be forced to flee the state to avoid the tsunami of taxes to pay for all of Murphy’s spending plans, they had better elect Kim Guadagno.  The people of the Garden State need to keep Kim Guadagno working hard to promote economic growth, attract many more businesses to start or move to the Garden State, create job opportunities in New Jersey, reduce unemployment, improve education, increase school choice, reduce poverty and crime, reduce property taxes, and other taxes in New Jersey, and make the Garden State a wonderful place to live, work and raise children.  New Jersey voters must elect Kim Guadagno Governor on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, so that they can continue to enjoy the beautiful lakes, beaches, mountains and wonderful communities that New Jersey has to offer.

Kim Guadagno means Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Kim Guadagno in her job as Chair of the New Jersey Partnership

Helped Reduce Unemployment in New Jersey from 9.8% to 4.1%

By Richard T. Miner, Esq.

When Kim Guadagno became the Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State of New Jersey in January of 2010 the unemployment rate in the Garden State was 9.8%, which was above the national average.  At the time, Kim Guadagno was also appointed as the Chair of a new agency called the New Jersey Partnership for Action.  One of the Lieutenant Governor’s principal responsibilities became leading this new agency to create an effective infrastructure for economic growth and the creation of jobs in New Jersey.  The NJ Partnership for Action was formed by consolidating New Jersey’s various and often fragmented economic development activities into one agency.  See, “A Partnership For Action In New Jersey,” Business Facilities, https://businessfacilities.com/2010/02/a-partnership-for-action-in-new-jersey-2/, 2/1/2010.  In her capacity as Secretary of State, Kim Guadagno also manages New Jersey's $40 billion tourism industry, which is another important source of job creation in New Jersey.

Partnership for Action has been acting to help new or existing businesses open new plants or relocate existing plants. The Partnership has been guiding new companies through the regulatory process and helping them obtain possible tax incentives.  The Partnership has made the process of starting a new business in the Garden State, or relocating a business to New Jersey, faster and more efficient.  Under the leadership of Kim Guadagno, the Partnership developed an effective system to help potential investors and prospective business owners obtain their necessary governmental approvals in a reasonable and timely fashion.  Id.

As the Chair of the Partnership, Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno has been the person primarily responsible for implementing New Jersey’s economic growth strategies, which fostered NJ’s private-sector job growth and helped bring New Jersey’s unemployment rate down from an above the national average 9.8% in January 2010 to a below the national average 4.1% by July 2017.  “Databases, Tables & Calculators: New Jersey,” US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST340000000000006?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true, 8/12/2017.

Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno described her work as the Chair of the Partnership for Action in the following way:

“My job has been to make sure that jobs stay in New Jersey, grow in New Jersey or are attracted to New Jersey. For me, working to keep people in their jobs or bring jobs to people who want to work, that’s been my job.”  Alyana Afaro, “In New Campaign Video, Guadagno Highlights Her Role in NJ Job Growth,” OBSERVER, http://observer.com/2017/03/campaign-ad-kim-guadagno-jobs-economy-new-jersey/, 3/14/17.

On her web site Kim stated that since taking office she “has been working to cut government red tape, recruit new businesses and help existing businesses stay and grow in New Jersey.”  Due to her hard work, the site says, “New Jersey has added 278,000 net new private sector jobs.”  In addition, “more than 100,000 new businesses have filed paperwork to set up shop across our state in 2016 alone.” By working with the Garden State business community, New Jersey was able to cut the number of pages of state regulations in half. Even though the Garden State’s economy has improved and become more business friendly, Kim stated that, “we can and must do better.”  “Growing Jersey Jobs,” KimForNJ.com, http://www.kimfornj.com/growing_jersey_jobs.

To keep Kim Guadagno working hard to promote economic growth, attract many more businesses to start or move to the Garden State, create job opportunities in New Jersey, reduce unemployment, improve education, increase school choice, reduce poverty and crime, reduce property taxes, and other taxes in New Jersey, and make the Garden State a wonderful place to live, work and raise children, the voters in the Garden State must elect Kim Guadagno Governor on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.

Richard T. Miner

Chairman, Sparta Municipal

Republican Committee

Union Seniority Rules Can Result in Terminating Top Teachers

While the final outcome for Chryselle Angderson, a popular stringed instruments teacher at Helen Morgan School in Sparta, New Jersey, ended well, she was among the 17 Sparta school district personnel members who were to have their positions eliminated for the 2016-17 budget year.  The cuts were to include two high school and five elementary school teachers based on their seniority rather than their merit.   At the March Board of Education meeting, Ms. Angderson, in particular, received outstanding praise and support from parents and students.  She even received a standing ovation and some students held up their instruments to show their support for her.  [See: Amy Bate, “Full house at Sparta BOE meeting,” Sparta Independent, 3/17/16, http://www.spartaindependent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20160317/NEWS01/160319974/Full-house-at-Sparta-BOE-meeting#sthash.ORD8xDJj.dpuf ].  It is clear that Ms. Angderson had the merit, but she didn’t have the seniority.

Brian Stities, a parent, said that Ms. Angderson has “the rare combination of expertise…, love of teaching and the ability to motivate….”  [See: Joseph Picard, “Community rallied to keep beloved music teacher,” Sparta Independent, 5/5-11/16, p.1.  A petition drive to keep Ms. Angderson obtained some 600 signatures.  Id. at p.2.]

Ironically, just before the April BOE meeting Ms. Angderson was notified that she would not be let go.  The district also found a way to keep a World Language teacher.  The School Administration said the decision to keep Ms. Angderson had nothing to do with the petition, public outcry and support for Ms. Angderson, but the decision was due to a sudden retirement of a music teacher.  However, there are some who feel the petition and the public support helped the BOE make the decision.  Id. at p.2.  The rest of the seniority-based laid off members of the district staff were not so fortunate.

A similar case in Wisconsin also ended well for at least one outstanding teacher.  In June 2010, Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English named Megan Sampson the outstanding first-year teacher.  However, in the same month she was among 482 educators who received their layoff notices from Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS).  [See: Erin Richards and Amy Hetzner, “Seniority system cuts fresh MPS teachers amid budget crunch” Journal Sentinel, 6/14/2010, http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/96349689.html ].

Due to the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association (“MTEA”) contract and the MTEA’s monopoly negotiating power, the MPS had to lay off teachers strictly based on seniority, even though the MPS had offered to save teacher jobs by encouraging switching medical insurance coverage. At the time the MPS offered its teachers the option of two generous health-care plans. The cost of either plan was covered in full by the MPS, meaning teachers had no financial incentive to switch from the higher-cost Aetna plan to a lower-cost United Health Care plan. Id.

Michael Bonds, Milwaukee School Board President, said that if all of the teachers switched to the United Health Care plan the MPS could have saved $48 million, enough to save the jobs of 480 teachers.  Some of the teachers expressed frustration that the Union had not contacted them (the people the Union claims to represent) about switching health care plans to save teachers jobs. Id.

However, analogous to Chryselle Angderson, Megan Sampson, who had taught English at the Bradley Tech High School in the MPS for the 2009-10 school year, was able to quickly obtain a new teaching position.  After applying to various other schools, she accepted a position teaching English at Wauwatosa East High School, starting in the fall of 2010.  Meanwhile, due to numerous resignations and additional funding, MPS “called back” Ms. Sampson, but she decided to continue in her new position at Wauwatosa East.  [See: James B. Nelson, “Gov. Scott Walker says Wisconsin’s ‘teacher of the year’ was laid off due to union contract,” POLITIFACT WISCONSIN, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/feb/16/scott-walker/gov-scott-walker-says-wisconsins-teacher-year-was-/]. 

Governor Scott Walker has used the Megan Sampson case as a reason why his Act 10 was needed.  Act 10 allowed school districts to avoid the strict use of seniority for layoffs. In addition, among other things, Act 10 allows school districts to put their health insurance contracts out to bid, and obtain multiple competitive bids, rather than being forced to use the teachers’ union’s WEA Trust insurance.  Id.  The bidding process allowed school districts to save tens of millions of dollars and even hire more teachers.

In one case, as reported by The Ozaukee Press, because Port Washington, Wisconsin became able to shop for insurance, the WEA Trust lowered its proposed premium for the following year from an 8% increase to a 3.3% decrease.  However, two other insurance companies offered Port Washington a 7% decrease and a savings of a million dollars.  [See: Scott Walker, Unintimidated, p. 142.]

The Appleton, Wisconsin school district was able to save $3.1 million on the same health insurance from the WEA Trust, just because the school district was able to put its insurance out for competitive bids as permitted under Act 10.  Id. at 143.  Due to Act 10, Muskego-Norway school district was able to cut its health insurance by $2 million by switching to United Health from the Union controlled WEA Trust. Id.  Dozens of other school districts across Wisconsin had similar experiences for a state wide total of $91 million in savings or 24%.  Id.

In Madison, where most of the Union protests took place, Act 10 reforms permitted the school district to avoid teacher layoffs, open a new middle school, start a kindergarten program for four-year olds and give teachers raises.  Id. at 144.  In fact, across the state there was a net increase of 1,213 in teachers in the year after Act 10 was enacted.  Id. at 145.

However, the union-controlled school boards in Milwaukee, Kenosha and Janesville rushed to lock in long-term teachers’ union contracts while Act 10 was still being debated and were forced to lay off 800 teachers, because they were unable to take advantage of Act 10 until those contracts expired.  Id.  This means that the rest of the state actually added over two thousand teachers.

Another example of union action being detrimental to the teachers

took place in Ohio.   There a union referendum was able to repeal Ohio’s new Right-To-Work (RTW) Law before it took effect, by flooding the airwaves with misleading ads claiming Ohio’s new RTW Law would lead to massive layoffs of teachers.

In reality, the public sector layoffs in Ohio were much worse than they would have been had the law not been repealed.  The law did not reduce the money spent, but only permitted more prudent allocation of the money.  Furthermore, the Ohio layoffs were much worse than those that occurred anywhere in Wisconsin, where Act 10 survived union challenges.  For example, the Cleveland School Board laid off 17% of the district’s school teachers in April 2012.  [See: “Government Union Lobby Remains Formidable,” NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK NEWLETTER (NRWN), July 2012, p. 3.]

Analyzing these examples raises the question whether certain provisions in the teachers’ union contracts, such as seniority rather than merit determining promotions and layoffs or full monopoly bargaining power affecting some of the costs such as health insurance, actually help the teachers or are detrimental to the teachers, the students, the parents, the school system and the taxpayers.

Scott Garrett Introduced LEARN Bill in House of Representatives

Congressman Scott Garrett (R-5^th CD NJ) introduced H.R. 2394 the Local Education Authority Returns Now Act (the “LEARN Act”), which would (1) allow states to opt out of Obama’s Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS); (2) not have to return the money received under CCSS, and (3) receive a credit for their appropriate share of future CCSS money that will be distributed to other states still in the CCSS.

There has been growing criticism of the CCSS.  For example, the CCSS require an excessive number of tests that must be taken on computers, and force teachers to teach to the tests, rather than the materials that they had been previously been teaching.  Furthermore, because the CCSS are copyrighted, they cannot be changed or modified.  The standards do not permit teachers the time or opportunity to adjust to individual students’ learning needs.  Retraining teachers, as well as buying the computers and the required test materials, will cost local school districts millions of dollars.  The standards themselves are below the current standards in many states, including New Jersey.  The CCSS have been described as raising the bar for low achieving students and lowering the bar for high achieving students.  One size does not fit all, but the CCSS prevent the teacher from meeting each student’s needs.

Dr. Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas, who is credited with developing the highly regarded Massachusetts K-12 standards, served on the CCSS Validation Committee.  However, she refused to sign off on the English Language Arts portion of CCSS citing “poor quality, empty skill sets, the de-emphasis on literature, and low reading levels, such as 8th grade levels for 12th grade students.”  Dr. James Milgram of Stanford University, who was the only mathematician on the CCSS Validation Committee, referred to the math program “as almost a joke to think students [under CCSS] would be ready for math at a university.”  For more information and a discussion of CCSS see, “New Jersey Student Achievement Threatened by Common Core”; “Weak Common Core Curriculum Dumbs Down New Jersey Students”; and “Common Core is ‘Education Without Representation’ – NJ Legislators Start to Object,” www.watchdogwire.com/new-jersey.

After briefly reviewing Obama’s CCSS and George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind, Congressman Scott Garrett recently wrote in an op-ed published by The Star-Ledger:

“For half a century, Washington has pursued control of the classroom by attaching strings to federal education dollars sent to the states. Yet despite spending roughly $2 trillion and decades of increased federal regulation, reading scores remain flat, education costs have more than doubled, student-teacher ratios continue to decline, high school graduation rates remain unchanged since the 1970s and achievement gaps persist.

“The tradition of federalized education has failed our students. And on this tradition the president proposes to double down.

“Common Core is the predictable result of the Obama administration’s coercion of cash-strapped states. In return for a state’s adoption of Common Core, the administration promised the states a share of a $4.35 billion bounty.

“Some officeholders don’t trust people outside Washington to come up with solutions. I disagree. Rather than centralizing education, I believe that states and localities — those closest to the students — should set academic standards. The state and local governments are our laboratories of democracy. By promoting innovation at the state and local level, where parents and teachers have a louder voice, we provide ourselves with the opportunity to replicate our successes and learn from our mistakes.

“But arrogant, top-down dictates, such as Common Core, rob us of this opportunity. We should allow federalism to work and defer to local experience.

“That is why I’ve introduced the Local Education Authority Returns Now Act. The LEARN Act would allow states to opt out of federal education regulations and retain the dollars that would have been sent to Washington by reimbursing the taxpayers through a tax credit. The process is simple, straightforward, and empowers parents, teachers, school boards and local officials.”  Scott Garrett, “Rep. Scott Garrett: Put education back into state, local hands (Opinion),” Star-Ledger, NJ.com, www.blog.nj.com/new_jersey_opinion/print.html, 4/10/2014.

 

New Jersey currently has two bills in the State Senate and six bills in the Assembly to delay and assess or, in some bills, to restrict portions of CCSS.  Senate S253 and companion Assembly Bill A990 would (1) establish a CCSS Evaluation Task Force (ETF) to review and examine CCSS and (2) delay the implementation of any tests and assessment developed by the Partnership of Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) until the ETF submits its final report.  Many people believe that if the ETF is able to set forth the truth about the CCSS, the CCSS will be repealed in New Jersey.

 

Momentum against the CCSS is building in New Jersey and around the country.  Various County Boards of Chosen Freeholders have passed resolutions in support of the state legislature to delay and investigate the CCSS.   On September 17, 2013, the Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders unanimously adopted resolutions supporting passage of these NJ legislative bills. On October 8, 2013, The Morris County Board of Freeholders passed resolutions which said (1) that they supported the bills to delay and investigate the CCSS, but (2) went even further, by stating that the Morris BOF opposed CCSS, and (3) they asked Congress and the Administration to withdraw support and discontinue funding CCSS.  Warren, Hunterdon, and Cape May Boards of Freeholders have passed various similar resolutions.  On February 14^th the Sussex County Board of Freeholders became the 6^th BOF to act and unanimously passed a resolution to support S253 and A990.  Richard Miner, “Common Core, what is it and what does it mean for Sparta?” Sparta Independent, p. 12, 3/27/2014, www.spartaindependent.com, posted 4/11/14.

Indiana became the first of the 45 states that adopted the CCSS to withdraw from the standards.  After signing the withdrawal law, Indiana’s Governor Mike Pence predicted that Indiana would be just the first of many states to reconsider the CCSS.  He stated, "I believe when we reach the end of this process there are going to be many other states around the country that will take a hard look at the way Indiana has taken a step back, designed our own standards and done it in a way where we drew on educators, we drew on citizens, we drew on parents and developed standards that meet the needs of our people."  “Open the floodgates? Indiana becomes first state to scrap Common Core,” FoxNews.com, www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/3/25.  Jim Stergios, Executive Director, Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based think tank, said that Indiana’s action could "open the floodgates."  Id.

Criticism of the CCSS around the country has grown in part due to the excessive costs, which have been estimated to be more than four times the total Race to the Top money.  These extra costs will be borne by state and local taxpayers.  Probably, the local property owners will suffer the most.  Criticism is also increasing because of fear that the CCSS will establish a national curriculum, because whoever controls the standards and the tests effectively controls the curriculum.  Id.  Many teachers have complained that they must teach to the test, and cannot teach their normal curriculum.  The most qualified members of the CCSS Validation Committee pointed out the poor quality of the standards and refused to certify the CCSS.  Many parents object to the extensive longitudinal and intrusive personal data that schools would be required to collect on their students.  Some people have even referred to CCSS as the Obamacare of education and others are calling CCSS Obamacore.

National School ChoiceWeek and Choice Media

Kicked off School Choice Week In Newark, NJ

 

On January 22 at 8:30 AM at the Newark Club, National School Choice Week (NSCW) launched its 2014 Whistle-Stop Train and Bus Tour, followed by Choice Media’s New Jersey School Choice Summit.  The day dawned bright and clear, but freezing cold, with wind chills below zero.  The people who braved the cold were treated to interesting speakers and lively panels and felt that the programs were well worth the trip.  The Newark Club is on the 22^nd floor, One Newark Center, which provided spectacular panoramic views of Newark, the surrounding area and the New York City skyline.  The National School Choice Week whistle-stop train and bus tour was launched by Andrew Campanella, the President of NSCW and has scheduled stops in Washington D.C., Charlotte, Columbia SC, Augusta GA, Birmingham AL, Jackson MS, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Tucson, Los Angeles and San Francisco.  The NJ School Choice Summit was hosted by Bob Bowden, founder of Choice Media.

 

This article will focus on the Legislative panel, since various speakers, other panels and other aspects of the Summit have been covered in other articles including L. Tierney, “NJ: School Choice offers ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty,’ Teen Says,” www.watchdogwire.com/new-jersey; Leslie Brody, “Manchester Regional student speaks about benefits of school choice program,” NorthJersey.com; and Peggy McGlone, “N.J. lawmakers discuss school choice bills during education summit,” The Star-Ledger, www.nj.com/education/2014/01.

The Legislative Panel was particularly interesting with Senators Tom Kean, the Minority Leader (R-Morris, Somerset and Union), Raymond Lesniak (D-Elizabeth and Union) and Steven Oroho (R-Sussex, Warren and Morris) and moderated by Derrell Bradford, Executive Director of Excellent Education for Everyone (E3).  Senator Oroho mentioned that school choice was about the quest for excellence and that he would like every parent to have a choice.  He wants to bring competition into education, and he has supported school choice every step of the way.  [For a description of those steps along the way see related article, “A HISTORY OF SCHOOL CHOICE IN NEW JERSEY.”]
 

Senator Kean said improving schools used to be just about the money.  Now it is about the outcomes and what is being achieved by the students.  He mentioned that a prior Commissioner of the NJ DOE thought it would likely take 12 years to see improvement in the schools, but Kean said that was too long.  It would mean three full sets of high school students would have gone through high school before the schools improved and that was not acceptable.  School choice allows students to move from failed schools to accredited, performing schools now.

Senator Lesniak said he was going to focus on making the public schools better, but he did not specify how he would do it.  However, he did say that he believes that school districts are wasting money and implied that he would reinstate after-school programs.  He stated that Elizabeth High School was one of the best performing high schools in the State but that others were not performing well, and he indicated that improving those lower performing public schools was where he wanted to put the emphasis.  He also described how he had applied for a charter school for students with substance abuse.  He said that studies showed that such programs greatly reduced recidivism.  However, his application was rejected, because it was opposed by the superintendent of schools.  Lesniak proposes to amend the charter school law [The New Jersey School Charter Program Act of 1995, signed into law by Governor Christine Todd Whitman], so that the charter school does not have to be just for adjacent districts, because he would like to have his charter school for recovering substance abuse students just for Elizabeth and Roselle.

Senator Oroho emphasized that the demand for school choice demonstrated that it was working.  The charter schools had waiting lists and only about 20% of the students who wanted to attend were able to do so.  He mentioned that Massachusetts was ‘best in class,’ as far as money spent and outcomes in education.  New Jersey spent $30 billion or 30% more than Massachusetts with lower outcomes.  He emphatically stated that the money is there, it is just a question of allocating it properly.  Senator Oroho said that the role of parents is critical and that school choice met the special needs of students and their families.  He also felt that charter schools should be in all geographic areas in the State, not just concentrated in Newark.  Students in all of the school districts have special needs.  However, Derrell Bradford pointed out that Stanford University’s CREDO study found that Newark had the highest performance improvement in the country.  [See, Joy Resmovits, “New Jersey Charter School Study Shows Gains In Newark Schools,” www.huffingtonpost.com, 2012/11/27.]

Senator Kean mentioned that he was one of the two original sponsors of The Interdistrict Public School Choice Program Act of 2010, signed by Governor Chris Christie.  He said the bill had been held up at first, but suddenly took off and was signed into law.  The IPSCP allows school districts with space for additional students to apply to the Commissioner of Education to be approved as a Choice District.  In the program’s first year, only 1,000 students and 15 schools participated in NJ School Choice Program.  The cost to the state in tuition aid to the receiving school was $9.8 million.  However, by 2013 4,700 students and 110 schools participated in the program with a cost to the state of $49 million.  Currently, there are 136 Choice Districts approved for the 2014-15 school year.  Due to budget constraints, despite the popularity of the program, the state limited the number of seats a Choice District could offer in the 2014-2015 school year to 5% more than the number offered in the 2013-2014 school year.   This limit has drawn a substantial amount of criticism.  Senator Oroho stated that the demand for the IPSCP shows that the program is working.

On the proposed Opportunity Scholarship Act, things started to heat up.  The current bill was modeled on the Pennsylvania law and provides for tax credits for corporations that make contributions to a scholarship fund.  The scholarships would be granted to low-income students in failed schools so that they could attend participating private or parochial schools.  Senator Kean pointed out that the bill provided for a clear definition of a failed school – one in which 40% of the students failed both the English and Math tests or 60% failed one of the tests.  Kean said it was an immediate solution for a child caught in a failed school.  He also said he believed that it could pass, if it got to the floor of the NJ Senate.  Senator Lesniak was a co-sponsor of the OSA and had crusaded for the bill, but said "It's toast. Stick a fork in it. Move on."  [Leslie Brody, Manchester Regional student speaks about benefits of school choice program, NorthJersey.com.]  This comment was in sharp contrast with his passionate speech before the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, which then approved the bill out of Committee by a vote of 8-5.  Before the Committee Senator Lesniak said:

“The intent of the Opportunity Scholarship Act is to give children from low-income families, who are forced to attend a chronically-failing school simply because of their zip code, an opportunity to get a quality education.  But the Opportunity Scholarship Act will also save tax dollars—a huge amount of tax dollars. If it were in place ten years ago, the Opportunity Scholarship Act would have prevented most of the private school closings that now cost our taxpayers $600-800 million a year.
“Recently, the Diocese of Trenton announced that its 44 Catholic schools will open their doors for the 2011-12 school year, but their fate beyond that is uncertain. I would add, without the Opportunity Scholarship Act, their fate is just about certain. Most will soon close, like Paterson Catholic and St. Mary & St. Peter Academy in New Brunswick did last year, and like St Anthony's in Elizabeth did a few years ago. I fear for the future of St Pat's and Benedictine Academy in Elizabeth as well. Trenton City itself closed one parochial school a year for 15 years until its last school closed. And with every closing, as those students return to traditional district schools, comes a greater burden on our taxpayers. 


“But there's an even greater burden on the children attending New Jersey's chronically-failing schools. They have no choice. They are stuck, and most of them will be educationally deprived, through no fault of their own.

 “The Opportunity Scholarship Act is not the savior for all the children forced to attend New Jersey's chronically-failing schools, but it is the savior for some. And we should not fail to act to save some, because we can't save all***Thousands of children have suffered in substandard schools since the Opportunity Scholarship concept was introduced. They should not wait another moment.  I urge you to support the Opportunity Scholarship Act.”  Press Release, by Jason Butkowski, “Lesniak Opportunity Scholarship Act Advances,” PolitikerNJ, www.politiker.com/44293/lesniak-opportunity-scholarship-act-advances,  1/20/11.

Senators Kean and Oroho support the OSA.  Senator Kean stated in a telephone conference call, that he believed that “IF” the OSA got to the NJ Senate floor for a vote, then Kean could get 21 votes to pass it.  Kean said he felt that Senator Lesniak would be one of those votes, despite Senator Lesniak’s comment at the NJ School Choice Summit.  Possibly, Kean remembers Lesniak’s passionate speech before the Committee.  However, the question remains: Can the OSA be brought to the Senate floor? At least back in March of 2011, Senate President Stephen Sweeney said that although he opposed the Opportunity Scholarship bill that would allow New Jersey students to transfer out of failing public schools, he left open the possibility that he would post it for a vote.  Maya Rao and Rita Giordano, “Sweeney says he may allow a vote on the school bill,” Philly.com, www.articles.philly.com/2011-03-17/news/29139147_1_opportunity-scholarship-act-offer-scholarships-public-schools.

What You Should Know About School Choice

Governor Chris Christie Signed NJ Public School Choice Program Act

National School Choice Week

Since National School Choice Week is coming up at the end of this month, it is a good time to study the various issues involved in the different types of school choice.  More than 5,500 independently-planned events are being scheduled across the county in all 50 states by a variety of groups from January 22 to February 1, including rallies, information sessions, roundtables, school fairs and movies to raise awareness about the various types of school choice programs.  National School Choice Week will include a whistle-stop train and bus tour beginning in Newark, New Jersey on January 22 with stops in Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Charlotte, Columbia, Augusta, Birmingham, Jackson, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Tucson, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Andrew Campanella, President of National School Choice Week said, "During National School Choice Week, millions of Americans will hear the uplifting and transformational stories of students, parents, teachers, and school leaders who are benefiting from a variety of different school choice programs and policies across America.  Our hope is that by letting more people know about the successes of school choice where it exists, more parents will become aware of the educational opportunities available to their families."

Andrew Campanella continued, "During the Week, Americans from all backgrounds and ideologies will celebrate school choice where it exists and demand it where it does not.  National School Choice Week will be the nation's largest ever series of education-related events, which is testament to the incredible levels of support that exist for educational opportunity in America."  “Americans Prepare to Support School Choice at 5,500 Events in January,” www.schoolchoiceweek.com/press/57.

Supporters of school choice believe that parents, working with their student children, are in the best position to choose the best educational system and environment for their children.   That choice could be a higher-performing and/or safer public school, a charter school, a private school, a parochial school, a magnet school, an academy, a Vo Tech, a computer-based educational program, an online virtual school or homeschooling.   Magnet schools might be in math and science or in performing arts.  Magnet schools are designed to match the program to the desires and talents of the students.

History of School Choice Around the County

In 1990, Milwaukee started the first school choice program in the nation, called the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.  The Program allowed students who lived in Milwaukee to attend participating private schools, if they met certain eligibility requirements.  The private schools receive state aid payments for each of the eligible students that they accept and enroll.  Later the program, called the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program, was expanded to the entire State of Wisconsin.   “Milwaukee Parental Choice Program,” Wisconsin Dept. of Public Instruction, www.sms.dpi.wi.gov/sms_choice.

In 1992 Los Angeles established its first charter school and in January 2010 California adopted a “Parent Trigger” law, which some commentators say was the first Parent Trigger law in the country.   The California law allows 51% of the parents of a failed school to form a Parents Union and fundamentally take over control of the school with the ability to transform it into a charter school.  Subsequently, similar laws were adopted by Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and Texas.  Arne Duncan, the Secretary of the US Department of Education, is reasonably amenable to the idea of shutting down failed schools and turning them over to private management, i.e. a charter school.  After all, that is basically what Duncan did when he was the head of the Chicago schools.  “Whistle-Stop Tour 2013,” National School Choice Week; “Parent trigger,” Wikipedia, 10/23/13; Eddy Ramirez, “A Plan for Parents to Shut Down Schools,” U.S. News & World Report, www.usnews.com/education/blogs/on-education/2009/05/12.

In 2012, New Mexico opened the New Mexico Virtual Academy, the state’s first virtual learning center.  “Whistle-Stop Tour 2013.”  NMVA offers full-time students in grades 6-12, tuition-free, online, award-winning, public school options supported by New Mexico-licensed teachers.  The virtual program leads to graduation with a high school diploma that meets all of the state’s requirements.  NMVA boasts a robust Advanced Learner Program that even allows students to earn college credits while in high school, as well as interesting courses that introduce students to a variety of careers.  NMVA offers a supportive school community and a range of extracurricular activities.  NMVA also provides a blended virtual and in person option at their Learning Center.   New Mexico Virtual Academy, www.k12.com/nmva.

Chicago currently has some 50,000 students attending approximately 126 charter schools.  These charter schools have raised the state’s test scores and allowed the students to reach their full potential.  Now there is a bipartisan movement to extend the charter program to private and parochial schools.    “Whistle-Stop Tour 2013.”  Pennsylvania has pioneered using tax-credit scholarships to allow some 41,000 of the state’s students to enjoy a variety of otherwise unavailable education choices such as charter schools, magnet schools and online education opportunities.  Id.

The first federally-funded school choice program passed Congress in January 2004 entitled, “The District of Columbia Choice Incentive Act of 2003.”  The program, also known as the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, provided up to $7,500 in scholarships to approximately 2,000 low-income students in Washington, D.C.  A Department of Education study found that students who received scholarships obtained higher academic achievement at their new schools, including higher reading scores, than their peers at the public schools.

Furthermore, several studies of both privately and publicly funded scholarship programs around the country, including studies in New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin, found that students who participated in scholarship programs made significant gains in math and reading achievement compared to similar students in the public schools.  Safety is often a primary motivation for parents to decide to participate in school choice programs, particularly in cities like D.C., where violence in schools is a persistent problem.   Shanea J. Watkins, “Safer Kids, Better Test Scores: The D.C. Voucher Program Works,” The Heritage Foundation, 6/20/08.

However, President Obama sided with the special interest groups, such as the teachers’ union and school administrators, and passed legislation to phase out the program in 2009, when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.  But after the 2010 elections, when the Republicans gained control of the House, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) introduced the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act, which reinstated the D.C. scholarship program and increased the amounts that could be granted to $8,000 for k-8 students and $12,000 for 9-12 students. SOAR was not a bad deal for the taxpayers, considering the average cost per student in the D.C. schools is $18,000.  After hard negotiations, the entire SOAR Act was included in the 2011 long-term continuing resolution.  Therefore, the SOAR Act received authorization to be the funded for five years.  However, Obama provided zero funding for the scholarship program in his 2013 budget, signaling that the fight will go on.  “D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program,” Wikipedia, 8/30/12.

School Choice in New Jersey

As part of her ‘good schools’ program, in 1996 Governor Christine Todd Whitman signed two programs into law.  One was a five year pilot School Choice Program that allowed families to send their children to schools with open seats outside their local districts.  This program had evolved from a 1992 law, for which the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) had successfully lobbied the state legislature.  This 1992 law allowed children of teachers to enroll in the district in which their parent taught, as a resident student, regardless of where the student resided.  Laura Waters, “New Jersey’s interdistrict school choice program is working well,” New Jersey Left Behind, 6/6/13 (“Waters, NJ Left Behind”).

The other law was The New Jersey Charter School Program Act of 1995, NJSA 18A:36A et seq.  This Act provided for obtaining a “charter” issued by the Commissioner of Education to operate a public school outside the control of the local school board, with fewer of the restrictions that are placed on public schools.  The charter school can be established by (1) the teaching staff, (2) parents of children attending the school, (3) a combination of teachers and parents, (4) by institutions of high education or (5) by a private entity located within the state in conjunction with teachers and parents.  An existing public school is eligible to become a charter school if at least 51% of the teaching staff or 51% of the parents of students attending the school sign a petition in support of the school becoming a charter school (both a “teacher trigger” and a “parent trigger”).  “Governor Christine Todd Whitman Biography,” Center on the American Governor, Rutgers, www.governors.rutgers,edu/njgov/whitman_biography.php.

In 2010, Governor Chris Christie signed the Interdistrict Public School Choice Program Act of 2010, NJSA 18A:36B et seq., which allows school districts with additional student space to apply to the Commissioner of Education to be approved as a Choice District.  The application shall, among other things, describe the proposed program, indicate the number of student openings in each grade, the application process, and any criteria required for admission, and potential impact on diversity of the student population.  Choice Districts are required to create a parent information center.  The state pays the Choice District for each student it receives and the student’s home district either provides or pays for the student’s transportation to the Choice District up to 20 miles.

The Public School Choice Act provides substantial restrictions on the enrollment process.  Section 18A:36B-21 of the Act allows the Sending District to limit the number of students that may transfer to the Choice Districts.  Section 18A:36B-20 requires the Choice District to hold a lottery, if there are more applications than there are spaces available.  The Choice District may evaluate a prospective student on the basis of the student’s interest in the program, but the Choice District is not permitted to discriminate on the basis of athletic ability, intellectual aptitude, English proficiency or any basis prohibited by State or federal law.  The Act provides that the Commissioner may take action consistent with State and federal law to insure student population diversity in the participating districts.

Benefits of the New Jersey School Choice Program

The New Jersey Department of Education described the following benefits of the New Jersey Public School Choice program, “The Public School Choice Program benefits students and parents, as well as the choice districts. Choice programs might have smaller class sizes, increased instructional time, and a school culture more conducive to a student's success in school. Many choice districts have established specialized and innovative programs and courses that focus on areas such as art, music, foreign languages, and technology, and are open to students who demonstrate an interest in the special programs.  Opening enrollment to students outside the district can bring in more students interested in taking advantage of these special programs and courses, allowing both the programs and students to grow and flourish.

“The state also has many small districts and schools that sometimes experience population shifts that result in budget crunches.  Opening enrollment beyond the district's boundaries can alleviate the effects of these shifts and bring greater stability to operations, since choice students bring additional funding to the district. The addition of students with different backgrounds and perspectives from those of the district's resident students also can enrich the school community.”  “Interdistrict Public School Choice Program,” NJ Department of Education, www.state,nj,us/education/choice/.

According to the NJ DOE there are currently 136 Choice Districts approved for the 2014-15 school year.  Id.  In the program’s first year, only 1,000 students and 15 schools participated in NJ School Choice Program.  The cost to the state in tuition aid was $9.8 million.  However, by 2013 4,700 students and 110 schools participated in the program with a cost to the state of $49 million.  Due to the popularity of the program the state felt forced to limit the number of seats a Choice District could offer in the 2014-2015 school year to 5% more than the number offered in the 2013-2014 school year.  “Working to Improve Public School Choice for New Jersey Students,” New Jersey Interdistrict Public School Choice Association, www.njipsca.org/?p=195 (“Working to Improve School Choice”).

Most Commentators appear to praise the New Jersey Interdistrict Public School Choice Program

Valarie Smith, who helped organize the school choice pilot program under Governor Christine Todd Whitman, had nothing but praise for the NJ School Choice Program.  She said “calling it an overwhelming success would be an understatement.”  She referred to individual programs in Deal Elementary in Monmouth County and Audubon High School in Camden County, which drew a substantial percentage of their students from underprivileged areas such as Asbury Park, Neptune, Long Branch, Camden and Gloucester City.  Audubon High School has 108 applications for the 2014-15 school year, of whom 64 are from disadvantaged areas.  However, with the new caps, Audubon is limited to only five new openings, even though it has the capacity to take 45 more students.  Because of the School Choice Act, Glassboro High School has been able to establish two specialized programs: a Performing Arts Academy and a STEM Academy, and Sterling High School has been able to establish a Navy ROTC program.  The recent caps may jeopardize these special programs.  Valarie M. Smith, “Demand for Seats Speaks to Success.” Id.

Wendell Steinhauer, the President of the NJEA, also had great praise for the NJ School Choice Program, while he went to great lengths to stress that it was not a voucher program.  On the praise side he said:

“By just about any measure, New Jersey’s Interdistrict Public School Choice Program is a success.  Students across the state have taken advantage of that program to attend public schools that they believe best meet their needs, while the districts involved in the program have benefited from additional state aid intended to protect both sending and receiving districts from financial harm as a result of their participation.

“That’s exactly what NJEA believed would happen when we supported the original legislation establishing the pilot program over a decade ago.  By matching public school districts that have capacity to educate additional children with students who would like to attend the public schools in those districts, the program helps facilitate the efficient and effective use of public tax dollars.  It’s the sort of win-win solution that is often available to policymakers when they are willing to be creative.”  Wendell Steinhauer, “PROGRAM HELPS MEET INDIVIDUAL NEEDS,” Id.

Wendell Steinhauer went on to say:

“[IPSCP] meets an important need, and it does so utilizing New Jersey’s excellent public schools.  Students in the program may find opportunities to take classes and study subjects not available in their home districts.

“At the same time, Choice districts may find it easier to offer such specialized opportunities if they are able to draw from a wider pool of students.

“Together with county vocational and technical schools, charter schools and district magnet schools, schools in the Interdistrict Public School Choice Program provide another option for families looking for the best public school fit for their children’s specific needs and interests.  Along with New Jersey’s excellent traditional public schools, it’s a rich menu of opportunities for New Jersey families.

“The success of the Interdistrict Public School Choice Program is evidence that parents are eager for their children to attend great public schools.  It’s also a reminder to all of us that we can never stop working to strengthen and improve our public schools.  That imperative drives NJEA, because we believe that every child in New Jersey deserves access to a great public school.”  Id.

Laura Waters, the President of the Laurence Township School Board, has expressed a substantial amount of praise for the IPSCP, except for the recent cap, which she severely criticized.  In one of her New Jersey Left Behind blogs, she traced the program from the 1992 teachers’ children only law, to the Whitman pilot program and Christie 2010 law.   She felt that the series of small steps was the reason that it was able to survive severe political attacks.  Laura Waters said, “An anemic tip-toe through the feral fields of education reform, right?  Hardly worth the bother [for a political battle] for 900 kids [who had continued from the expired pilot program].”  However, once the 2010 NJ School Choice was enacted into law, it blossomed, as Laura Waters continued, “In 2011, 2,131 kids attended choice schools in 56 districts. In 2012, 3,356 kids attended 67 choice schools and crossed those hallowed district boundaries. In September 2013 there will be 6,144 non-resident kids attending 107 choice districts.

“A typical story comes from Ocean City Public Schools, which in 2011 offered 14 seats to students outside the district. In September [2013] the district will accept 58 kids, who will generate tuition revenue, fill empty seats, and allow the district to maintain programs, class size, and upgrade technology. That's a win for the choice district and a win for those out-of-district families who, moneyed or not, get a choice. It's not a win for sending districts, which lose students and pay tuition…. But maybe it forces them to up their game. Maybe it forces a little healthy competition into a moribund marketplace.”  Waters, NJ Left Behind, Id.

 Professor Paul Tractenberg of Rutgers Law School raised many questions about the program, but appeared to have few, if any answers.  He criticized the states charter school program by saying, “Overall, charter school students perform about the same as, or even a bit worse than, comparable students in regular public schools.”  He seems to agree with the ACLU, which urged that school choice should be used to advance a civil rights agenda, without mentioning that the School Choice Act makes it clear that the Choice District cannot discriminate based on race and that other commentators pointed out that the program actually has increased minority representation in the Choice Districts.  Paul Tractenberg, “MANY DISTRICTS OPT FOR CHOICE FOR THE WRONG REASON: MONEY,” “Working to Improve School Choice.” Id.

Conclusion

It is amazing that the NJEA, teachers, parents, school districts, Republican Governors, Republicans and Democrats in the legislature, were able to come together to pass and implement a series of school choice laws that appear to most people to allow for win-win improvements in New Jersey’s educational achievement.  Other states also appear to be experiencing encouraging results from their school choice programs.  With 5,500 events planned for School Choice Week, it is likely more people will become aware of the choices that are available where school choice programs exist and demand such programs where they don’t exist.