HAMMONTON BLOG

Admin · Status: Offline

Gov. Corzine announces new funding formula for schools - Hammonton gets great news.

Date: 03:19 PM Dec 12, 2007

This is great news for Hammonton. Finally a governor making sure our schools are funded properly and more fair to taxpayers. If the state had only met its obligations then our schools wouldn't have been in a defecit.

Admin · Status: Offline

Here is a story from the Atlantic City Press.

Growing school districts big winners as state releases aid numbers

(Published: December 12, 2007)

1:30 p.m. Update -

TRENTON - Atlantic County's growth school districts will be the primary beneficiaries of state aid using a new formula announced by Gov. Jon S. Corzine and Education Commissioner Lucille Davy today.

Every district in The Press area will get at least two percent in additional aid.

All Cape May County school districts are getting two percent. The area's Abbott districts - Pleasantville, Vineland, Millville are also getting two percent, while Bridgeton will get three percent more.

The big winners in Atlantic County are Buena Regional, Egg Harbor Township, Hamilton Township, Hammonton, Greater Egg Harbor Regional and Mainland Regional, Northfield and Somers Point which are slated to get 20 percent increases in state aid, and Galloway Township, which will get 18 percent. Much of that is attributed to enrollment increases that have not been funded over the last several years.

Other districts with increases include Egg Harbor City with 11 percent, Folsom at 13 percent, and Weymouth Township at 6 percent.

The state Legislature must still approve the new funding formula, which is budgeted to cost an additional $500 million for 2008-2009 bringing total operating aid to school districts to $7.84 billion.

Complete coverage, including district by district aid, will be in The Press Thursday. The state data is on the Department of Education web site at www.state.nj.us/education.

For complete coverage, see Thursday's edition of The Press of Atlantic City.

Admin · Status: Offline

On the Department of Education website their is a PowerPoint presentation explaining the new funding formula. Slide number two shown below shows how the CEIFA (or school funding law) has not been followed by the state since the 2001-2002 school year and that state aid has been frozen to school districts since then.

Date: 07:48 PM Dec 12, 2007

More great news for Hammonton! Boy, things are looking up around town!

Date: 11:46 AM Dec 13, 2007

Anonymous wrote:

More great news for Hammonton! Boy, things are looking up around town!

I hope now the dark forces who hate our schools can see that the state was not giving Hammonton students their fair share. Hammonton is a great town, has great schools. With this increase in state monies our schools can be on par with Eastern and Cherry Hill schools. Hammonton students have been hurt not being a top 100 school in NJ. It can be but after many defeated budgets, it affects our students and their performance against other towns that spend more per pupil.

Date: 04:00 PM Dec 13, 2007

The new school board is doing a much better job. Voters flushed out the old school board after years of problems and ethics charges. Now it looks like things are looking up there.

Admin · Status: Offline

Anonymous wrote:

The new school board is doing a much better job. Voters flushed out the old school board after years of problems and ethics charges. Now it looks like things are looking up there.

You just don't get it! What does the new school board have to do with Gov. Corzine giving Hammonton and additional 20% in fundin g this year. What does the new school board have to do with the district receiving 22.7% additional funding last year. What does the school board have to do with getting and additional $4,170,307 in funding over the last two years.
Read what the Governor said. Read what the NJ Dept of Education has been saying. They readily admit that the State has hurt many school districts for many years now by not funding them properly. And they readily admit that districts such as Hammonton, who are one step above Abbott status and has had a growing student population, are the districts that have been hurt the most. That is why this district has received a 46% increase in funding over the last two years.
It is not due to the new school board, who are now doing a good job. The problem wasn't the old school board. The problem was the lack of money.
If you really want to judge things, it is the present school board who ran a deficit, the old board never did. It is the current school board who hired a poor Business Administrator who created numerous problems, including not charging Waterford the correct tuition. The old school board did not have those problems.
The time for pointing at the old school board has passed, it has all been proven false. There is nothing to be gained by pointing fingers at the current board for some of the problems they have had, it seems to be corrected now. It is time to move forward, accept this additional funding, and put programs back in place that we lost over the last several years. It is time to work together for the sake of our kids and insure they get the best possible education we can give them here in Hammonton.

Date: 05:44 PM Dec 13, 2007

Admin wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

The new school board is doing a much better job. Voters flushed out the old school board after years of problems and ethics charges. Now it looks like things are looking up there.

You just don't get it! What does the new school board have to do with Gov. Corzine giving Hammonton and additional 20% in fundin g this year. What does the new school board have to do with the district receiving 22.7% additional funding last year. What does the school board have to do with getting and additional $4,170,307 in funding over the last two years.
Read what the Governor said. Read what the NJ Dept of Education has been saying. They readily admit that the State has hurt many school districts for many years now by not funding them properly. And they readily admit that districts such as Hammonton, who are one step above Abbott status and has had a growing student population, are the districts that have been hurt the most. That is why this district has received a 46% increase in funding over the last two years.
It is not due to the new school board, who are now doing a good job. The problem wasn't the old school board. The problem was the lack of money.
If you really want to judge things, it is the present school board who ran a deficit, the old board never did. It is the current school board who hired a poor Business Administrator who created numerous problems, including not charging Waterford the correct tuition. The old school board did not have those problems.
The time for pointing at the old school board has passed, it has all been proven false. There is nothing to be gained by pointing fingers at the current board for some of the problems they have had, it seems to be corrected now. It is time to move forward, accept this additional funding, and put programs back in place that we lost over the last several years. It is time to work together for the sake of our kids and insure they get the best possible education we can give them here in Hammonton.

The superintendent read a long letter into the record two years ago stating that the old board had run a $3M deficit. She claimed she was working to fix that.

Admin · Status: Offline

There was no deficit when the old board left. The audit done by the independent firm showed that fact.

Date: 06:45 PM Dec 13, 2007

Jim, I have to totally disagree with you, all was not fine when the two Mikes left. Nor was it a good thing that the one Mike shreaded bags of documents on the way out the door. Nor was it a good thing to pay the other Mike 70,000.00 in sick time that was earned in another district. How about the 8 million in lease purchases, or the 1 million in a lease back of books so that the district did not end in shortfall, so all is not forgotten, remember the curtain, cleaning supplies that the one Mike leased? So stop telling how you didn't leave a shortfall. The facts speak for themselves, things are better and yes it takes money and yes the other BA was a screw up but THIS BOARD has made the difference.The leasing has stopped, the bills are paid and this year the board will end with a surplus for the fist time in nearly 10 years. Also know that Mike held bills not to finish the years short, he also took a holiday in health benefits, all bills are paid and things are now running right. Just remember NO BOARD does all good or all bad.

Admin · Status: Offline

Anonymous wrote:

Jim, I have to totally disagree with you, all was not fine when the two Mikes left. I didn't say all was fine, the district had already endured several years of flat funding and it had a great impact on the district. Plus, having the top two executives of any organization creates a lot of problems in itself.

Nor was it a good thing that the one Mike shreaded bags of documents on the way out the door. That is ridiculous. And audits prove that the board lived within it's means and did not run a deficit.

Nor was it a good thing to pay the other Mike 70,000.00 in sick time that was earned in another district. That was a negotiation that was worked out by the previous board that hired him, not the board I served on.

How about the 8 million in lease purchases, or the 1 million in a lease back of books so that the district did not end in shortfall, There was not $8 million in leases when I served. We lease purchased some busses, just like the current board, we lease purchased some tractors, they were a major expense that made sense to lease just like the busses, and we leased the new computers for the high school so that they would not be included in the referendum, it made no sense to pay for them over a 30 year period when they would be obsolete in a much shorter time frame. And the books were not approved when I served, I would have voted no on that lease, that one did not make any sense to me. That was approved by the current board.

so all is not forgotten, remember the curtain, cleaning supplies that the one Mike leased? The curtains were to be paid back after the litigation with the site contractor was completed, I can not speak to whether the current board followed through with that plan (I hope they did). And the cleaning supplies were researched back then and proven not to be leased.

So stop telling how you didn't leave a shortfall. The facts speak for themselves, Yes the truth does speak for itself.

things are better and yes it takes money and yes the other BA was a screw up but THIS BOARD has made the difference. This board has made "a" difference, not "the" difference.

The leasing has stopped, Not true, the busses are still leased, and at the recommendation of the Town fiscal oversight committee I might add.

the bills are paid as they were by the previous board and this year the board will end with a surplus for the fist time in nearly 10 years.Not quite 10 years, but obviously an extrra $4 million from the state helps in that goal.

Also know that Mike held bills not to finish the years short, I believe that had to do with the State holding that 12th payment and that still has an effect on the board today. Hopefully that is one of the next things the Governor corrects.
he also took a holiday in health benefits, Perfectly legitimate as it was part of the plan we had, the problem was created when Mike was pushed out and the following BA did not know about the holiday.
all bills are paid and things are now running right.much better

Just remember NO BOARD does all good or all bad. On this point I agree with you 100%

I am not trying to compare the two boards. I believe today's board has gained a better understanding and knows what the old board had to deal with. Both boards had their good points and bad points. But there was never any reason to vilify the people who served on that or any board. These people are volunteers who gave of their time and talents to serve the children of our district just as the board members do today.
Things were challenged in court and found to have no basis. A lot of what went on continues today. It was vendettas back then as there are today.
But the good news is that the State has admitted how it has hurt all of the schools in the state and especially schools like Hammonton. As a matter of fact, we were one of only 8 schools to get extra money last year to make up for what the State did to us. Out of over 500 school districts we were singled out as a district that was hurt the most by the actions of the State. Hopefully that is now over. But we can not rest. Just because we made out very well the last two years, doesn't mean we can expect that every year from now on. We still have to be very conservative with our spending while doing our best to bring back the programs that have been cut. We must now set ourselves up for success for the years to come. Now more than ever we all need to work together for the good and the future of our Town and our children.

Date: 08:45 PM Dec 13, 2007

Admin wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jim, I have to totally disagree with you, all was not fine when the two Mikes left. I didn't say all was fine, the district had already endured several years of flat funding and it had a great impact on the district. Plus, having the top two executives of any organization creates a lot of problems in itself.

Nor was it a good thing that the one Mike shreaded bags of documents on the way out the door. That is ridiculous. And audits prove that the board lived within it's means and did not run a deficit.

Nor was it a good thing to pay the other Mike 70,000.00 in sick time that was earned in another district. That was a negotiation that was worked out by the previous board that hired him, not the board I served on.

How about the 8 million in lease purchases, or the 1 million in a lease back of books so that the district did not end in shortfall, There was not $8 million in leases when I served. We lease purchased some busses, just like the current board, we lease purchased some tractors, they were a major expense that made sense to lease just like the busses, and we leased the new computers for the high school so that they would not be included in the referendum, it made no sense to pay for them over a 30 year period when they would be obsolete in a much shorter time frame. And the books were not approved when I served, I would have voted no on that lease, that one did not make any sense to me. That was approved by the current board.

so all is not forgotten, remember the curtain, cleaning supplies that the one Mike leased? The curtains were to be paid back after the litigation with the site contractor was completed, I can not speak to whether the current board followed through with that plan (I hope they did). And the cleaning supplies were researched back then and proven not to be leased.

So stop telling how you didn't leave a shortfall. The facts speak for themselves, Yes the truth does speak for itself.

things are better and yes it takes money and yes the other BA was a screw up but THIS BOARD has made the difference. This board has made "a" difference, not "the" difference.

The leasing has stopped, Not true, the busses are still leased, and at the recommendation of the Town fiscal oversight committee I might add.

the bills are paid as they were by the previous board and this year the board will end with a surplus for the fist time in nearly 10 years.Not quite 10 years, but obviously an extrra $4 million from the state helps in that goal.

Also know that Mike held bills not to finish the years short, I believe that had to do with the State holding that 12th payment and that still has an effect on the board today. Hopefully that is one of the next things the Governor corrects.
he also took a holiday in health benefits, Perfectly legitimate as it was part of the plan we had, the problem was created when Mike was pushed out and the following BA did not know about the holiday.
all bills are paid and things are now running right.much better

Just remember NO BOARD does all good or all bad. On this point I agree with you 100%

I am not trying to compare the two boards. I believe today's board has gained a better understanding and knows what the old board had to deal with. Both boards had their good points and bad points. But there was never any reason to vilify the people who served on that or any board. These people are volunteers who gave of their time and talents to serve the children of our district just as the board members do today.
Things were challenged in court and found to have no basis. A lot of what went on continues today. It was vendettas back then as there are today.
But the good news is that the State has admitted how it has hurt all of the schools in the state and especially schools like Hammonton. As a matter of fact, we were one of only 8 schools to get extra money last year to make up for what the State did to us. Out of over 500 school districts we were singled out as a district that was hurt the most by the actions of the State. Hopefully that is now over. But we can not rest. Just because we made out very well the last two years, doesn't mean we can expect that every year from now on. We still have to be very conservative with our spending while doing our best to bring back the programs that have been cut. We must now set ourselves up for success for the years to come. Now more than ever we all need to work together for the good and the future of our Town and our children.

All these vendettas should stop. IT doesn't help our kids who for years have not gotten their fair share from the state.

Date: 07:13 AM Dec 14, 2007

Anonymous wrote:
Jim, I have to totally disagree with you, all was not fine when the two Mikes left. Nor was it a good thing that the one Mike shreaded bags of documents on the way out the door. Nor was it a good thing to pay the other Mike 70,000.00 in sick time that was earned in another district. How about the 8 million in lease purchases, or the 1 million in a lease back of books so that the district did not end in shortfall, so all is not forgotten, remember the curtain, cleaning supplies that the one Mike leased? So stop telling how you didn't leave a shortfall. The facts speak for themselves, things are better and yes it takes money and yes the other BA was a screw up but THIS BOARD has made the difference.The leasing has stopped, the bills are paid and this year the board will end with a surplus for the fist time in nearly 10 years. Also know that Mike held bills not to finish the years short, he also took a holiday in health benefits, all bills are paid and things are now running right. Just remember NO BOARD does all good or all bad.

What is done is done. The school has turned around financially. They are charging Waterford correctly and keeping track of spending. This state money helps pay off all the old deficits and leases. Hopefully we will never again go back to the time when the school didn't know how many children were enrolled and didn't know where they were spending their money. We also will hopefully never have a school board that has to be brought up on ethics charges.

Admin · Status: Offline

Anonymous wrote:

What is done is done. The school has turned around financially. They are charging Waterford correctly and keeping track of spending. This state money helps pay off all the old deficits and leases. I whole heartedly agree with you up to this point!

Hopefully we will never again go back to the time when the school didn't know how many children were enrolled The school board I was on never had a problem with knowing the enrollment. It was a few council members who could not understand how the weighted enrollment figure was used by the State in deciding our funding. The problem BA was the one who couldn't figure out enrollment.

and didn't know where they were spending their money.
Again, not a problem when I served. We certainly were crying that we didn't have enough money, but every pennt was accounted for.

We also will hopefully never have a school board that has to be brought up on ethics charges.Hopefully we never have a council so closed minded and full of themselves again to take an action like that without understanding all of the facts. Remember, the only one brought up on charges was Mike Cuneo and it was found that there wasn't even enough basis for that and the charges were dismissed.

We are on the right track now, let's make the Hammonton School district even better than it is today. We are already envied by many other school districts, let's be envied by all.

Admin · Status: Offline

It's a little strange that Councilman Bertino did not report on the new State Funding formula at the council meeting, especially since it is such good news.

Date: 08:00 AM Dec 18, 2007

Jim , Bertino didn't talk about it for the simlpe reason that the district by no means have gotten this money. This is just the Govs plan of which no Senator nor Assemblyman has even sponsored a resolution. It is the opinion of manyTrenton insiders that this is about to go up insmoke like all other items for education.The real question is what is the Gov going to cut to fund this, I also point you to an article in the Press on Saturday that 5 past Nj Gov's said that this is the right thing to do but will be DOA. That is the sad fact, as taxpayers and parents it is truly time for us but don,t get excited just yet. Please remember that this session of the Senate and Assembly will come to an end soon, if it doesn't happen now I don't think it has a shot with the new group, remember they all have new groups to answer to. I don't even think the newspapers will make a big splash because the money is far from any school bank account.

Date: 08:06 AM Dec 18, 2007

Admin is right, Bertino should have mentioned it because it is a significant sum of money to help the school.

Admin · Status: Offline

But mentioning it is exactly what should happen. We need to start being vocal as a Town in support of this plan. It is the fairest plan accross the board that we have seen in a long while. His reporting of the facts should have been followed by a comment on contacting our legislators and letting them know our feelings on the proposal. We should be using every means at our disposal to lobby for passage of this plan. We need to push our legislators to find the money needed to fund this plan or something very similar to it.
This is why we should be members of every organization that has a voice that can be heard in Trenton, such as the Atlantic County Mayor's Association. These organizations can help spread out the costs of pushing these proposals, such as litigation, lobbying, etc.
This issue can save the taxpayers of Hammonton a lot of money and therefore Mayor & Council need to be involved and the School Board also needs to be very active. The Board should not take a wait and see approach either.

Date: 12:02 PM Dec 18, 2007

We need to be more proactive in making our schools better. For far too long, many have bashed the schools and would vote No on every school budget no matter what. Hammonton schools are a great asset to town and can help attract businesses. I'm glad to see the state is planning on properly funding our schools. From my understanding Hammonton is one level shy of being an Abbott district. We're level B while schools in Camden and Newark are level A. They get most of the state money while we get very little and only get as much as more affluent school districts. People forget that Hammonton actually is short changing its kids spending the least in the county. Our kids are competing with the whole country not just the county.

Admin · Status: Offline

As a note, Hammonton spends the least in the State for our type of school, not just the county. It's time we thought of our kids as a priority.

Date: 12:56 PM Dec 18, 2007

Admin wrote:
As a note, Hammonton spends the least in the State for our type of school, not just the county. It's time we thought of our kids as a priority.

Those were the old numbers before the school started correctly counting students and charged Waterford the correct tuition.

Admin · Status: Offline

District: HAMMONTON TOWN (1960)
Enrollment Group: F. K-12 / 1801-3500
County: ATLANTIC

F. K-12 / 1801-3500 Summary:

State Level Summary:

Total Cost Per Pupil (Definition)
04-05 Actual Costs Amount per Pupil: $8,443
04-05 Actual Costs Rank per Pupil: 2
2005-06 Actual Costs Amount per Pupil: $8,915
2005-06 Actual Costs Rank per Pupil: 3
Per Pupil Amount (06-07 budget): $8,406
Per Pupil Ranking (06-07 budget): 1

As you can see from this report issued by the State of New Jersey, Dept of Education, Hammonton is the lowest spending district in the State of New Jersey. This has been consisten for the last 6 or more years. The interim BA who couldn't count students properly was not here that long. The same with the Waterford tuition. If these figures were only like this while she was here, then your statement would make sense, but that is not the case. The new figures will be released in March.

Admin · Status: Offline

P.S. Here is the summary for the State and when the two numbers are compared, you can see how low we really are:

Enrollment Group: L. ALL
Measure: 5. State average - All operating types

Total Cost Per Pupil (Definition)
04-05 Actual Costs Amount per Pupil: $11,156
2005-06 Actual Costs Amount per Pupil: $11,728
Per Pupil Amount (06-07 budget): $12,098

Admin · Status: Offline

An interesting article that appeared today:

Q&A: A look at proposed changes in state school funding

by South Jersey News Online

Wednesday December 26, 2007, 12:05 PM

By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer

Two legislative committees were scheduled to hold a joint hearing Thursday to consider Gov. Jon S. Corzine's proposed new formula for how the state would give money to local schools.

The topic could be hot for the next few weeks. Democratic lawmakers, who hold the majority in both houses in Trenton, want the law passed by Jan. 8.

Here are some questions and answers about what the new formula means for students, schools and taxpayers.

Q: What is different about the new proposed formula?

A: There would be one formula for allocating money -- simplified compared to the current one, but still complex -- that would apply to each of the state's 618 school districts. Currently, 31 districts in poor areas -- known as the "Abbott districts" -- get a lot of extra help. Other districts, especially in recent years, haven't seen much increase in their state aid. Under the new formula, the number of low-income students in a district would be a major factor.

Q: What are other factors in this formula?

A: New Jersey will calculate how much it costs to meet the requirement in the state constitution to give every student a "thorough and efficient education." The state bases its share of the requirement by the wealth of a district; poorer districts would get a higher precentage of their budget from the state.

Q: How much does it cost to provide a thorough and efficient education?

A: The state says it starts at $9,649 per year for an elementary school student. Middle school and high school students cost more to educate, as do students learning English, and those with speech issues.

Q: Will schools get more money now?

A: The state is planning to pump an extra $530 million into the education system next year. For the first three years, each district would get more state aid than it saw this year. For the 2008-09 school year, every district would get at least 2 percent more.

Q: Would certain schools benefit more than others?

A: The biggest increases will be in relatively low-income non-Abbott districts, such as Pennsauken and Lakewood, and to fast-growing districts, such as Elmwood Park and South Brunswick. There's a cap on increases, so districts cannot see their allocations rise by more than 20 percent each year.

Q: Do any schools stand to lose money?

A: Not at first. But some could see smaller contributions starting with the 2011-12 school year. Those most likely to be see cuts, or the smallest increases, would be wealthier districts where the enrollment is shrinking -- like Princeton and Middletown. Also, the Education Law Center says 26 Abbott districts could see decreases in the future.

Q: How will this affect taxpayers?

A: That's a tricky question. The bulk of school budgets in most New Jersey communities come from local property taxes. Property taxes have skyrocketed this decade in most towns partly because state aid to schools has barely increased while the cost of running the schools has risen sharply.

Corzine says some schools that are spending more per pupil than the state estimate could be pushed to reduce spending -- and taxes -- in the coming years. But some say that could hurt the education in those districts.

Q: What else is new under the proposal?

A: Free preschools could be expanded. The state funds all-day programs for 3- and 4-year-olds in the Abbott districts -- something credited with giving those students a huge boost later on. Under the plan, the state would eventually pay for similar programs for all 3- and 4-year-olds in lower-income districts.

Q: What about special education?

A: Educating special needs kids can be pricey, averaging more than $20,000 per student, per year, with some children needing several times that amount. One big change in the proposed formula is that the state would now pay a higher portion of the bills for special education students in lower-income communities.

Q: What happens to the proposal now?

A: Lawmakers say they hope to get it approved by the time the legislative session ends on Jan. 8. That would give the state and local school districts time to work the new figures into their budget years that start in July.

Q: Will there by opposition?

A: Yes, but perhaps not enough to derail quick passage. Education advocates are concerned that the new formula will hurt schools; Republican lawmakers say it won't do enough to ease the property tax burden.

HAMMONTON BLOG

School funding formula adds 20% to 100 districts

by John Mooney/The Star-Ledger

Q&A: A look at proposed changes in state school funding

by South Jersey News Online