| Author |
Message |
    
Fringe
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 9:31 am: |     |
Over the last 12 months I have posted various comments regarding the educational product SO-M district residents are receiving for their tax dollars. As originally stated, intuitively it appeared that the high percentage of the school budget paid by local taxes (calculated in the Report Card) in combination with the low district commercial base created a situation in which local residents were paying the highest per pupil residential property tax in New Jersey. This is incorrect.
In a study done (by me) as part of the Maplewood Citizens' Budget Advisory Committee (CBAC) Schools Subcommittee report presented to the Maplewood members of the Board of School Estimate earlier this week, the following comparative data for New Jersey districts with enrollments greater than 3,500 was generated for the 1999-2000 school year (most recent for which data is available) from a variety of sources
* Total Spending per Pupil
SO-M..........$10,042
43rd of 91 NJ districts
14th of 33 DFG GH, I & J districts
6th of 15 DFG I districts
* Total Property Tax Spending per Pupil
SO-M..........$9,245
13th of 91 NJ districts
11th of 33 DFG GH, I & J districts
5th of 15 DFG I districts
* Total Residential Property Tax Spending per Pupil
SO-M..........$8,147
7th of 91 NJ districts
7th of 33 DFG GH, I & J districts
5th of 15 DFG I districts
Note: when municipalities, not districts, are considered, South Orange has the highest Residential Property Tax burden for schools on a per pupil basis when compared with all other NJ municipalities in this size category.
As to lowest scores, the CBAC Report used as a measure the percent of 11th graders passing all sections of the High School Proficiency Test (HSPT) on the first attempt. SO-M had the lowest percentage in its socio-economic group. As seen from comments on this board, readers have various justifications and opinions for this.
A tangential point from the CBAC study: Some have stated on this board that there is a direct correlation between per pupil spending and educational outcome. Using the HSPT results and Total per Pupil Spending, the data in this study indicates that, if anything, the relationship is inverse. Generall speaking, those districts which spent the most dollars per pupil had the lowest percentage of students passing the HSPT the first time. The statistical correlation for this low, but there is absolutely no correlation between spending and high achievement on the HSPT.
The CBAC Report should be available next week. The Board of School Estimate vote on the SO-M school budget is also next week.
And henceforth, the posts will be entitled "5th highest taxes - but still the lowest scores"
JTL |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 10:11 am: | |
Stop assaulting us with those damn facts.
Just when it seemed it couldn't get worse, it did.
And the Board of Ed, and the Boss, and the curricula chairs -- well, they just march on.
Fellini was right.
Say, what do the candidates, and the members think about the facts?
DWM |
Fringe
| | Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 10:56 am: | |
{ Comparison of Spending in NJ Districts of 3,500 + with HSPT Performance Indicator
District Residential District % of Juniors
1999-00 Budget Property tax Factor passing HSPT
Municipality Enrollment $/Pupil $/Pupil Group (1st try)
Montgomery Twp 3,521 $8,683 $7,456 J 96.2
Millburn 3,807 $10,037 $7,147 J 96.9
South Orange 2,166 $10,042 $9,856 I 78.7
Ridgewood 5,085 $10,820 $8,996 I 94
Livingston 4,553 $11,885 $8,728 I 91.8
Scotch Plains-Fanwood 4,227 $10,037 $8,670 I 89.1
Fanwood 1,018 $10,409 $8,524 I 89.1
Westfield 5,215 $9,407 $8,312 I 96.7
Scotch Plains 3,409 $10,409 $8,212 I 89.1
South Orange-Maplewood 6,189 $10,042 $8,147 I 78.7
Bernards 3,940 $9,778 $7,372 I 87.4
Maplewood 4,023 $10,042 $7,227 I 78.7
Sparta 3,600 $8,922 $6,663 I 92.7
Randolph 5,055 $9,191 $6,196 I 86.1
Hopewell Twp 3,535 $10,041 $5,933 I 89.9
Cherry Hill 10,791 $9,500 $5,834 I 88.8
Hillsborough 6,823 $8,908 $5,646 I 91.3
East Brunswick 8,366 $9,626 $5,518 I 90.9
Lawrence Twp 3,908 $10,204 $5,179 I 83
South Brunswick 7,042 $9,685 $4,453 I 89
West Windsor Twp 7,971 $10,941 $4,328 I 92.3
Teaneck 4,607 $12,778 $9,803 GH 71.8
West Orange 5,508 $10,705 $8,300 GH 75.4
Montclair 6,018 $10,289 $7,678 GH 75.6
Bridgewater 6,026 $9,875 $7,173 GH 84.9
Franklin Twp 5,552 $11,024 $6,693 GH 75.1
Middletown 10,268 $9,623 $6,648 GH 86.8
Wayne 7,853 $9,913 $6,351 GH 89.8
Bridgewater-Raritan 7533 $9,500 $6,316 GH 84.9
Ocean Twp 4,362 $9,427 $5,621 GH 89.3
Parsippany-Troy Hills 6,328 $11,985 $5,455 GH 83.1
Roxbury 4,288 $9,686 $5,067 GH 86.8
North Brunswick 4,913 $8,952 $4,625 GH 87.2
Mount Olive 4,073 $10,598 $4,157 GH 83.4
East Windsor Twp 4,228 $10,907 $4,116 GH 79.2
Washington Twp 9,437 $8,844 $3,367 GH 79.8
Morris Twp 8,615 $13,519 $3,141 GH 82
Raritan 1,507 $9,875 $2,890 GH 84.9
Paramus 4,105 $10,762 $2,001 GH 88
Fair Lawn 4,581 $10,900 $7,622 FG 79.1
Wall Twp 3,778 $9,893 $6,821 FG 90
Aberdeen 2,422 $10,853 $6,784 FG 74.9
Matawan-Aberdeen 3646 $10,820 $6,780 FG 74.9
Matawan 1,223 $10,853 $6,773 FG 74.9
Ewing Twp 3,745 $10,374 $6,737 FG 64.9
West Milford 4,636 $9,327 $5,805 FG 78.6
Edison Twp 12,482 $9,926 $5,234 FG 83.9
Piscataway 6,587 $10,156 $4,907 FG 75.2
Old Bridge 9,595 $9,279 $4,432 FG 70.7
South Plainfield 3,595 $9,655 $4,361 FG 81
Hamilton Twp 12,715 $8,870 $4,240 FG 74.6
Vernon 5,361 $9,379 $4,085 FG 85.8} |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 8:39 am: | |
Fringe:
You might want to take a look at the Formatting link on the left for how to turn this into a formatted table. I'm a little unclear from the current table what the actual column descriptions are. |
Dgm
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 1:43 pm: | |
Formatted or not, it looks like SOM has a lot of work to do. Any commentary offered with the table? |
|