Streams

Reaction: NJ Schools Spared Budget Cuts

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty)

Welcome to Politics Bites, where every afternoon at It's A Free Country, we bring you the unmissable quotes from the morning's political conversations on WNYC. Today on the Brian Lehrer Show, WNYC reporter Bob Hennelly discussed the breaking New Jersey Supreme Court ruling ordering the state to increase funding for the state's poorest schools.

Unconstitutional austerity

Fiscal austerity has been Chris Christie's bread and butter, but the State Supreme Court just ordered him to cease and desist when it comes to New Jersey's poorest schools. This morning the Court ruled 3-2 that the depth of spending cuts to some 200 school districts violated the State Constitutional guarantee of a thorough and efficient education for all children, regardless of where they live.

The Associated Press has since reported that Christie will abide by the ruling, which forces another $500 million in education spending. Earlier today, however, Bob Hennelly said it was possible Christie might buck the decision, given the Supreme Court's depleted roster.

They barely had a quorum because of the back and forth between Christie and the Democrat-controlled legislature over court appointments; it's down to five from seven, so a 3-2 ruling is hardly a major mandate.

But Hennelly's suspicion, and what ultimately happened, was that Christie wouldn't go to the mattresses. The governor would face a tough sell if he decided not to pay—especially considering the state's recent tax revenue surplus, which would offset the extra spending on schools.

The state already has major fiscal problems, and they got some good news in that the price tag for getting past this is $500 million dollars. [Christie's] got issues, including massive battles over Medicaid. They're in the full throes of a crisis trying to reinvent health care for a million people...Does he need to pick this fight?

More money, more problems

One of the reasons Christie is reluctant to pour more money into struggling districts is the lack of return on investment in the past. It's not as though this is the first time the Supreme Court has sent more cash to these schools; far from it, according to Hennelly. Throwing money at the problem has traditionally proven ineffective.

The state has invested billions of dollars—and it's important to say this—in the Abbott districts, where they're spending $20,000 per student. New Jersey has also spent, under court requirement, billions of dollars for school construction...There was massive corruption, billions were spent, and only a fraction of the schools built that were required. Christie ran on this very issue and managed to get Democratic suburban voters to vote for him after going for Barack Obama in 2008. He said, 'Listen, it's not just about money. We've been spending money in urban areas, committing money to building schools in these districts, and not getting results.'

Tags:

More in:

News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [3]

Huol from USA

Problem isn't the money, it's the fact that, like the article said, the money doesn't do much when it's invested into these urban districts. Many of these districts, such as the ones in Camden and Newark, are full of students whose parents do little to nothing in nurturing their academic life. Many of them don't have fathers, and most of their guardians and mentors either don't emphasize education or are too busy working low wage jobs to give the student the time and devotion to nurture them in a healthy emotional and social manner.

The problem isn't the budget and how much money is allocated; instead we ought to be focusing how to fix the systematic failures of the current infrastructure and to change the detrimental culture and values of these urban areas.

May. 26 2011 12:16 PM
Amy from Manhattan

Brian, when you said the NJ Supreme Court rebuked Gov. Christie, did you mean that they issued a formal rebuke or that the decision could be taken as a rebuke?

May. 24 2011 11:09 AM

Why doesn’t nj want to invest in education and infrastructure, Instead of building malls

May. 24 2011 11:09 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.

Sponsored

About It's A Free Country ®

Archive of It's A Free Country articles and posts. Visit the It's A Free Country Home Page for lots more.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at revsonfoundation.org.

Feeds

Supported by