Corzine’s School Spending: Adequate Spending Per Student

Governor Corzine’s new school spending plan is based on the assumption that education recourses should be tied to a student’s relative economic status as well as the school district’s that he or she attends. His proposal establishes adequate spending for a thorough and efficient education at 47 percent more for an “economically disadvantaged student” and depending upon the school district attended, an extra 10 percent more.

Here’s the spending schedule the governor has proposed for next year:

Corzine’s plan uses economic status as a proxy for students “at-risk” as opposed to achievement test results which specifically identifies those students who truly are “at-risk”.

Under the governor’s plan, adequate spending remains unchanged for a student testing below grade-level if he or she is from a so-called “economically advantaged” family. However, a student from a low-income family is automatically considered “at-risk”, requiring 47 to 57 percent in additional spending, even if he or she has proven to be proficient or advanced through testing.

Clearly, the governor’s auto-pilot plan is not the best way to determine school spending needs and allocate scarce resources. It’s not geared to student achievement or school accountability and it’s certainly not equitable.

Corzine’s proposal is an expansion of the failed Abbott school distinct model. A spending model he told the New Jersey Supreme Court had no correlation to student achievement.

“Abbott districts have been spending at some of the highest levels in the State, and well beyond non-Abbott districts, with no discernable correlation to improved achievement.”

As Department of Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said:

“We need to figure out why we are not getting the outcomes. It's clearly not a matter of resources."

Despite years of evidence that this spending model does not produce results, the Corzine administration proposes more of the same and calls it the “New Formula for Success".

The plan should be rejected by citizens and lawmakers - it’s a formula for more spending and higher taxes. It has no correlation to a plan for public school education success.