| Author | Message | ||
     Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 1097 Registered: 9-2003  |
Meant to post this earlier this week. Was reading the section of the Star Ledger on school performance, and noticed that M/SO was like an "I" (where J represented the wealthiest town). I found that kinda suprising as (I think, memory a little off) Montclair and certain other towns I think of as wealthy were lower. Yeah, I was doing the old comparison of performance, $$ etc. across DFG -- casually, while on the train...I just don't think of this town as an "I", all in. What's it based on? | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 723 Registered: 3-2003 |
OK No kidding You have to do this on your own Fringe has a website which has more info, explanation of and data bases on DFG, then you can shake a stick at. Good luck | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 763 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thanks, I suppose. DFG assignments are determined by the NJ DOE based primarily on census data. Positions do change. For instance, Montclair, which had originally been assigned to DFG GH in 1992, was moved up to DFG I in 2003. I have not checked to see if that shift resulted in a decrease or freeze in state aid. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 2000 Registered: 6-2001 |
Fringe's website is useless -- actually, worse than useless -- for anybody seriously interested in local school issues. Ever notice how many people refer others to Fringe's website without being able to provide so much as a clue in the way of an answer to a question? Hope the following helps: The New Jersey Department of Education introduced the District Factor Grouping system (DFG) in 1975. This system provides a means of ranking school districts in New Jersey by their socioeconomic status (SES). The first DFG was based on data from the 1970 decennial Census. A revision was made in 1984 to take into account new data from the 1980 Census and to slightly change the theoretical model of socioeconomic status. Following is a description of the work undertaken in the construction of the third DFG, reflecting data from the 1990 Census. The DFGs represent an approximate measure of a community’s relative socioeconomic status (SES). The classification system provides a useful tool for examining student achievement and comparing similarly-situated school districts in other analyses. Overall, the DFGs play little role in the allocation of state education aid to school districts. State aid, as calculated in the Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act (CEIFA), is determined based on wealth measures (equalized property valuation and income) and student needs (e. g., the percent of students who are low-income or the number of special education students). The CEIFA law makes little use of DFGs as either a measure of a community’s capacity to raise revenue or as a means to determine overall resource needs. As such, a change in a district’s DFG classification would not result in a dramatic change in state education aid to most school districts. There is one area, however, in which the DFG classifications have a more substantive impact on state aid. In a later ruling (Abbott IV), the court required that, as a form of interim relief to the Abbott districts, the state provide enough aid to these districts such that they are able to spend as much as the wealthiest districts to provide regular education services. The term "wealthiest districts" was defined to include districts classified as DFG I and J. This provided the benchmark for regular education funding for the Abbott districts. Socioeconomic Status and Educational Performance The DFG was motivated by research conducted in the late 1960's and early 1970's that showed a strong relationship between socioeconomic status and educational outcomes. The creators of the DFG were concerned that educational policymakers, after reviewing the educational outcomes obtained in different circumstances, would make unjustified inferences about the importance of various, school-based inputs to the educational process. Because the research showed that students (i.e. what students bring to school, including socialization that takes place before they step inside the school building) are the most important determinant of educational outcomes, the effectiveness of school systems cannot be sensibly judged without reference to the socioeconomic background of their students. The Development of the DFG for Analysis of Test Results The DFG was developed by the Department for its own use in the reporting of test scores. The use of this measure is mandated neither by statute nor by regulation. In its publicly released testing reports, the Department shows district-by-district results, arranged by DFG. Comparisons are made between districts of like SES, rather than on a geographic basis. The intent of this procedure is to reduce the variation in reported scores which is due to factors beyond the control of local educators. The Application of the DFG in School Finance At the same time as the DFG was being developed for use in the reporting of test scores, New Jersey's debate over how schools could be equitably financed had already become a state supreme court case (Robinson v. Cahill). Arguments made before the courts in Robinson and later in Abbott took explicit account of the DFG and socioeconomic status in calculating spending differences between districts. Because the supreme court explicitly used the DFG as a means of identifying the districts for which special funding provisions would apply, as well as those districts whose spending levels are to be the target, the DFG has taken on new and increased significance. The DFG Model (1990) The DFG is an index of socioeconomic status that is created using data for several "indicators" available in the decennial Census of Population. Socioeconomic status cannot be measured directly. Rather, the literature holds that it is a function of other, measurable quantities (traditionally, the basic three are income, occupation, and education). Therefore, the DFG is a composite statistical index created using statistical procedures, a "model" of socioeconomic status, and input data for various socioeconomic traits. Seven indices were developed from the census data as follows: 1. Percent of population with no high school diploma 2. Percent with some college 3. Occupation 4. Population density 5. Income 6. Unemployment 7. Poverty These seven indices were utilized in a principal components analysis to produce a statistical score which was used to rank the districts. Districts were then grouped so that each group would consist of districts having factor scores within an interval of one tenth of the distance between the highest and lowest scores. Update for 2000 Census Data In updating the DFGs using the data from the most recent Decennial Census, efforts were made to improve the methodology while preserving the underlying meaning of the DFG classification system. After discussing the measure with representatives from school districts and experimenting with various methods, the DFGs were calculated using the following six variables that are closely related to SES: 1) Percent of adults with no high school diploma 2) Percent of adults with some college education 3) Occupational status 4) Unemployment rate 5) Percent of individuals in poverty 6) Median family income. Unlike the model used to create the DFGs based on the 1990 census data, this model has omitted population density as a relevant variable. The same statistical method (principal components analysis) was used to determine districts’ relative SES. The method used to group the districts into DFG categories was also the same. A number of methodological decisions were made to avoid classifying a school district in an inappropriate DFG category. First, communities in which there were fewer than 70 respondents to the Census questionnaire are omitted. Second, school districts in which more than half of the school-aged population is enrolled in non-public schools were not classified in a DFG. Both of these limitations are consistent with methods used in the previous DFG report. Third, school districts’ DFG ratings are adjusted to account for students who are part of sending-receiving relationships and, as such, live in other communities. This is the first time that such a method has been used. Note that since students’ characteristics are counted in the school district in which they attend school, non-operating school districts do not receive a DFG classification. It has been suggested that the Decennial Census data may not accurately reflect the demographics of enrolled in a district’s schools. Despite this concern, the census data are used for two reasons. First, experimentation with other data demonstrates that there are no viable alternatives to the census data. Second, considerable research suggests that community characteristics, not only an individual’s characteristics, are relevant in terms of the impact of demographics on student performance. Additionally, a small number of school districts have experienced exceptionally rapid enrollment growth in the past few years. It is possible that, despite having similar socioeconomic backgrounds, students who have lived in a particular community for a shorter period of time may not perform as well as their peers who have not recently been relocated. Some caution should be exercised when comparing student performance in such districts to others. NJ Dept of Education http://www.state.nj.us/njded/finance/sf/dfgdesc.shtml | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7498 Registered: 5-2001 |
All that is very nice, but earlier this year there was a thread about the amount of state aid received by Essex County school districts and the aid followed the DFG. The Star Ledger article the Cynical One mentions still showed Montclair as a DFG GH district (error?) and from the earlier thread they received more state aid than we do. Our communities are very unusual because we have a wide income range. The census tract in the Roosevelt Park area had median household income figures that rival Short Hills and I suspect this is also true of the Wyoming area, especially Newstead, in SO. Other areas are much less afluent with, from the 1990 census, median household income in the $55,000 range. We also have at least three schools where more than 20% of the pupils qualify for free or reduced lunches, a common indicator of financial stress. Also our test scores are below the average for DFG I by a considerable margin (see Fringe's site) in total, although the disaggregated scores show a different story. I don't know why, other than the residual effect of being in a lower DFG, Montclair gets more aid than we do. However, it might be they do a better job of lobbying in Trenton.. I try to avoid taking shots at Dr. H because I think he has a tought job, probably the toughest superintendent job in the state. However, if he deals with the state educrats the same way he deals with the local community, this might be an issue as far as aid is concerned. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7500 Registered: 5-2001 |
http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc04/menu/13-4900.html Here is a link to the "Report Cards". Click on the school you are interested in. To view disaggregated data click on the blue "details" wording. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 1098 Registered: 9-2003 |
Bobkat, your post 7498 was where my thoughts were tending. And thank you, harpo, for the explanatory post. I was wondering whether M/SO was inappropriately DFG'ed, and whether that had an effect on other funding available for our district. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 764 Registered: 5-2001 |
From the archives. Note that it appears the DFG change was made after the Spring 2004 tests were administered. I suppose it also means that Montclair will see any resulting changes in state aid this year. ........ amandacat Citizen Username: Amandacat Post Number: 465 Registered: 8-2001 Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:53 pm: I'm surprised no one on this board has yet brought up the new DFG classifications that were recently announced; most significantly, Montclair moved up one notch, and now shares the same DFG as us. There was an article outlining all the changes in DFG status in the Star Ledger, sometime in the last week . . . jem Citizen Username: Jem Post Number: 1008 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 5:21 pm: I noticed it, too, and I'm surprised as well. I believe that some hopes had been pinned to the prospect of moving down to the same DFG as West Orange (and formerly, Montclair) because that would have given us a bit more state funding. Now instead, Montclair is just as screwed as we are. amandacat Citizen Username: Amandacat Post Number: 467 Registered: 8-2001 Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 6:01 pm: Here's the link to the Star Ledger article, it will probably explain things better than I can: http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1083486610230890.xml?starledger? nso Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1810 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 6:36 pm: I don't think that the DFG defines aid (with one small exception for IJ districts and core curriculum aid). Wealth (income plus property values) is used to define ability to pay, which affects state aid calculations. While a higher ability to pay usually means a higher DFG, we don't get less aid because we are IJ. We get less aid because we have higher wealth per student relative to other districts, and that makes us IJ. Hoping that we would be reclassified GH would mean that we were looking for our overall wealth per student to decline relative to the average - not a good thing to root for. Joan Auer Citizen Username: Joan Post Number: 65 Registered: 6-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 8:53 pm: Below is a post of BobK's from back in February. "I finally got a chance to look at the state aid figures for Essex County in yesterday's Star Ledger and I noticed a couple of things. First, it appears that the lower the DFG (District Factors Group) the more state aid a district receives. As examples Montclair, a GH District (one level below SOMSD) will receive $8mil in state aid next year while we will receive around $5.5mil. Montclair has a significantly smaller school population than we do. This is a significant difference. The contrast is even greater with Bloomfield, a DFG DE district, and Belleville, a CD district, who will receive over $15 mil and $18 mil respectively." If the state does not use the district factor groups in determining state aid, then what do they use? Brian says they use income and property values. Are Maplewood and South Orange's residents much wealthier than Montclair's? Are our property values a lot higher than Monclair's? Something doesn't seem to make sense here. Joan Auer Citizen Username: Joan Post Number: 66 Registered: 6-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 9:12 pm: For 2002-2003, 11% of Montclair's school budget came from the state. In Maplewood/South Orange, 8% of our monies came from the state. Montclair also spent more per student than we did, and so received even more per student than the above figures suggest. Is there anything that our school district can do to get more state funding and so lessen the burden on our taxpayers? bobk Citizen Username: Bobk Post Number: 5440 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 4:17 am: I guess I was correct that Montclair shouldn't be in a lower DFG than SOMSD. Unfortunately, the way the state handled that was to move Montclair up a notch instead of us down a notch. It would be interesting to see how Montclair manages to get more aid than we do. Is it grants? Do they have someone in their administration who specializes in this? Overall, an interesting area for discussion imho. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 1099 Registered: 9-2003 |
Yep, fringe. That set of posts was what I was wondering. I was thinking about "ability to pay" v "need" and how the DFG thing related to other kinds of aid. And, I imagine there's often a lag, as well, which is unfortunate. A young man I work with, who currently lives in Jersey City, is considering a move after his marriage. He and his fiance were looking at all kinds of stuff. In the short run, a town like Montclair looked desirable because there's lots of nightlife, bookstores, Hoboken like attributes for an initially childless couple. But, they were also looking at the long run so he was asking about schools and such and saw the Star Ledger article. I was also thinking about my own move, where the COLA I was offered in no way matched the reality I faced. So, together we were pondering the various data available to match the cost of living in a town, the available resources, etc. If DFG takes awhile to adjust, and doesn't signal need for aid, that doesn't seem at all a good thing. If it takes having one of those people who know how to get aid $$, well, that would be a position worth having. | ||
| doublea Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 863 Registered: 3-2003 |
Does the fact that SOM places so many special ed. students out of district have a bearing on the amount of state aid we receive? It's my understanding that the number of special ed. students in a district is one of the factors in determining the amount of state aid a district receives, and when those students are sent to another district, they are counted in the receiving district rather than the sending district. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 1100 Registered: 9-2003 |
harpo and others, does the CEIFA thing then determine eligibility for aid (if the DFG does not)? Seems like it would have to somehow take into account need. Could be I'm trolling in waters too complex for threads. I was just struck by M/SO apparent need, which DFG doesn't seem to signal. | ||
| doublea Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 864 Registered: 3-2003 |
Cynicalgirl - Take a look a the third paragrph in Harpo's post beginning "Overallall, the DFGs play little role in the allocation of state aid aid..." When you combine our relatively high equalized property values with the large number of special ed. students sent out of district, I think that explains why we receive very little state aid. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 1101 Registered: 9-2003 |
I hear you, doublea, it that's how it works: the receiving district gets the $$. But it does leave me wondering about other kinds of extra-ordinary needs that fall short of some definition of special ed (the definition of the latter seems a little fluid). Like, if we have a lot of kids who fall short of some ed standard or other, how is that handled? If we have a profound need for remediation/intervention, does that help get $$? ESL, other kinds of special needs, etc. Or, is every district handling that to the same degree so one must simply suck it up? | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 1102 Registered: 9-2003 |
Just as a complete side note: Why on earth does it take so long to gather and use newer data in these formulae? I find it hard to support using data more than 2 years old for things like this. I know gov't tends to spend weakly on computing, but given rate of change and importance, it's worth the attention. A cynical person might consider it an almost deliberate tactic to keep the data mysterious. This is not a specic slam on M/SO, just a general comment. When I see the kinds of data available to marketers or shippers (thinking about those UPS and Fed Ex sites where you can track packages) I wonder why schools are in the dark ages vis-a-vis data. | ||
| doublea Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 865 Registered: 3-2003 |
I'm curious what others have to say. I think we're all learning something here. I certainly had thought state aid was based on DFG, and it's clearly not. Even if you look at the Star-Ledger comparisons, the amount of state aid to DFGs in the same category in different counties varies significantly. | ||
| finnegan Citizen Username: Finnegan Post Number: 181 Registered: 6-2001 |
doublea, Students who are classified as eligible for special education services have a federally guaranteed right to a free and appropriate public education. Schools are under pressure to keep kids in-district to comply with the Least Restrictive Environment mandate of the IDEA. Most classified kids are educated in-district, but some are sent out when our district cannot offer then an appropriate education here. Whether the kids sent out-of-district go to another public school program or a private school specializing in their disability, those kids are counted as SOM pupils. You can see how many kids we have classified and their placements here: http://www.nj.gov/njded/specialed/data/2003/ If you look at the data, you will see that SOM is not unusual in % of kids classified, or % of out-of-district placements. The IDEA provides some funding for the federally mandated education of children with disabilities, but it has never been fully funded; we've never even come close to the 40% funding promised by Congress when it was enacted. The state also gives districts some amount of extraordinary aide for children whose education is very expensive. (I think, but am not sure, that extraordinary aide kicks in when district per pupil costs are over 40K, including transportation.) And yes, the education of children with disabilities is a chronically under-funded mandate, and it would be wonderful if all enraged tax payers lobbied the feds to provide more special education (and general education!) funding. | ||
| doublea Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 866 Registered: 3-2003 |
Finnegan - Thanks for the information. I had looked at that link previously, but just needed confirmation that my understanding was as you describe regarding %'s of kids classified or out-of-district placements. We drifted a little from the subject of how aid is allocated by the state, and at least I now know it's not by DFG. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 728 Registered: 3-2003 |
Harpo; your first paragraph is false. But thanks for posting an explanation of the DFG taken directly from Fringe's website. Most importantly, cynicalgirl has received some good fresh input. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 2001 Registered: 6-2001 |
Reflective, You don't know true from false, and neither does fringe. Nor does he care. He has a different agenda. I didn't take what I posted from fringe's website. I took it from the state education website. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 775 Registered: 5-2001 |
As always, if there are factual errors on the website, please notify me with the corrections and I will make them. Opinions, unsupported by independently verifiable facts, are not of interest. |
