Hoboken and Abbott Funding

An interesting article in the New York Times today discusses the proposed change in the so-called "Abbott" districts. The article and many opponents of Abbott funded districts site Hoboken as the prime example we need a new formula for children and schools.

“Hoboken is exactly why we need a new school funding formula,” said Assemblyman Bill Baroni, a Republican from Mercer County. “Hoboken has been blessed by an economic renaissance that a lot of other towns have not seen. That’s why we need to make a new formula that talks about kids and not ZIP codes.”

Corzine is proposing a new funded system that will send $400 million to schools outside of Abbott districts. If this will be for poor kids that is fine, but if also takes from these Abbott districts that still need the money that a problem exists.

For instance the article sites why Hoboken is still listed as an Abbott district. It is what I have been saying about Hoboken for years. It is a "tale of two cities," not quite Paris and London, but the reference fits. The article sites statistics that are difficult to ignore. In Hoboken, for example, school officials said that a majority of their students come from housing projects, not the upscale condos whose owners often send their children to private or parochial schools. Seventy-five percent of the district’s students are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced lunch, the seventh-highest level among all Abbott districts, according to state statistics. Union City is first, with 92.7 percent, followed by Passaic (84.7 percent) and Asbury Park (81.9 percent).

What is more is that Hoboken does not receive the same amount of state aid as other Abbott districts. Jack Raslowsky, the Hoboken schools superintendent, said that another point lost in the political rhetoric is that Hoboken receives far less state aid than the other Abbott districts. In the district’s $54 million budget, state aid accounted for just $12.4 million, of which only $4.2 million for preschool programs was tied to its Abbott status. The local share of contributions was $35 million.

That being said the state has paid for a number of construction projects in Hoboken to bring schools up to safety standards and renovating schools. This year, an $8.5 million renovation was completed on the Calabro elementary school.

Regardless, the point remains, though Hoboken's renaissance is indisputable, the renaissance reaches only so far. It does not reach those living in poverty and seventy-five percent of the schools district qualifies for free lunch. That is also indisputable. Removing Hoboken from the Abbott funding sounds nice in the papers and at the legislature, but when you really look deep into what is happening in our urban schools, specifically the Hoboken schools it doesn't make sense. An advocate for children summed it up best:

David Sciarra, an advocate for the children of the Abbott districts, called the criticisms of Hoboken a “red herring” because the district receives so little Abbott aid. More important, he said, were the educational reforms introduced under Abbott to address decades of neglect and concentrated poverty in urban schools. One such reform is the focus on preschool programs in Abbott districts. “The Legislature could remove Hoboken from Abbott, but it must have a plan in place to continue those educational reforms,” he said.