ESSA's Disputed Funding Rule: Comparing Older, Newer Education Dept. Language - Politics K-12 - Education Week

ESSA's Disputed Funding Rule: Comparing Older, Newer Education Dept. Language - Politics K-12 - Education Week:

ESSA's Disputed Funding Rule: Comparing Older, Newer Education Dept. Language

We've covered a lot of the vinegary debate over spending rules for the Every Student Succeeds Act that are due out pretty soon. But here's one other thing for you to consider: U.S. Department of Education guidance distributed to states in July 2015 about how federal money should be used as a supplement for school budgets..

That guidance is some of the most recent language we have from the Education Department about the issue, before the Every Student Succeeds Act passed last December. It's another window into the department's thinking on the subject. And like other facets of this issue, it highlights the big debate over the extent to which federal funds can and should be used as leverage for creating greater equity between wealthy schools and their disadvantaged counterparts.

Quick refresher: When ESSA passed, the department was tasked by Congress to work with a team of district, state, and other K-12 representatives and create rules for the requirement that federal money be used in addition to state and local cash. Those negotiations this spring, however, failed to produce a consensus plan, leaving it to the department to craft its own set of draft rules.

So what happens when we compare what the guidance says (and doesn't say) to the plans the department pitched during negotiated rulemaking? What has the department said constitutes an equitable distribution of funds by a district? And what additional questions does this comparison raise about what the department will propose for regulating federal dollars? 

Before we examine those differences, remember that the 2015 guidance on this complicated issue dealt with federal education law before ESSA passed, and it dealt with schoolwide Title I programs, instead of "targeted" programs for specific groups of students. And, finally, keep in mind the 2015 guidance does not have the same legal force as regulations.

Formula for Success

Let's focus on the department's controversial plan, made during the spring negotiations, to require that districts' state and local per-pupil spending in Title I schools (those with relatively large shares of low-income students) be the same as the average in non-Title I schools, in order for them to show they're using federal dollars under ESSA.

For your reference, here's the language in the pre-ESSA federal education law highlighted by 2015 guidance:

And here's ESSA language on how federal funds must be used by states and districts in relation to state and local money: 

The 2015 guidance gives two examples for how schools can show they're distributing non-federal funds in a way that's equitable. 

The First Example: A weighted per-student funding formula that assigns a base amount per student, plus additional money for certain types of students:

That distribution would have to cover all schools, regardless of whether any particular school received any Title I aid.

Why is this significant? As you might recall, during negotiations over how ESSA should regulate the supplemental nature of federal money, local officials complained that the proposals this past spring from the Education Department would disrupt weighted per-student funding formulas. Their complaint was that the department's proposal this past spring to create greater equalization of spending between Title I and non-Title I schools would render many such formulas unusable.

The Second Example: The guidance also uses a sample school funding method based on staffing and supplies:

Note the language at the bottom that the "assumptions" above would have to be used by a district for "all of its schools" regardless of their Title I status. Many districts create budgets based on staff allocations for schools. And some negotiators brought up this budgeting method as another way to argue that the department's proposed per-pupil spending rule wouldn't allow them to budget this way.

So, in short, here's a key difference between the guidance and the proposals from negotiated rulemaking: The guidance does not say that districts must compare total state and local spending between different types of schools. But the department's 2016 proposals in negotiated rulemaking say exactly this. 

The department responded to these concern by singling out weighted per-student formulas, or budgets based on staffing allocations, as acceptable in its proposal for the last round of negotiated rulemaking—but only as long as state and district per-pupil funding in a districts' Title I schools was equal to the average state and local spending per student in non-Title I schools.

The 2015 guidance, in its general language, does refer to a reliance on a "equitable distribution" of state and local resources. But does that mean equal spending outcomes between schools, or that one equitable method of distributing money is used for all schools? That's a key question in this debate. And remember: the formulas I highlighted above are just examples the department laid out in 2015 of equitable distribution of state and local funds.

Methods Versus Outcomes

Looking for a counterpoint to all of this? The supporters of the department's proposals on this issue, like the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, say that districts with state and local spending gaps between relatively advantaged and disadvantaged schools are, by definition, violating the requirement that their federal funds not supplant state and local cash.

As the Leadership Conference's Liz King put it earlier this year, the only real "flexibility" in such a scenario means that disadvantaged schools are getting shortchanged. And U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. has repeatedly argued before Congress and elsewhere that in order for federal dollars to be truly supplemental, those sorts of gaps must be closed

The guidance does caution that federal Title I funds can't be considered supplemental if they are used as "part of the basic level of education funding." In other words, if federal dollars are relied upon by schools to provide a basic education program, they're not following the requirement. In early negotiations over ESSA regulations this spring, the department proposed requiring districts to show they were providing a basic education program with state and local dollars, but after objections, it dropped that language.

We've reached out to the Education Department for its thoughts on comparing the 2015 guidance with its negotiated rulemaking proposals, and we'll update this post if we hear back.

Here are a few other questions the guidance and this past spring's department proposals raise as we look ahead to the draft rules:

• Will the department continue to stick by its guns and require much greater equalization of per-pupil spending between rich and poor schools?
• Will there be specific examples of spending approaches, such as weighted per-student formulas, that the department will specify as acceptable in the rules?
• Will the department give districts some flexibility in terms of when they have to abide by new rules, such as that controversial per-pupil spending comparison? 
• How will the department handle ongoing concerns that such a per-pupil spending rule would lead many districts to lump many low-income students together in one school?
• And will the rules attempt to address worries from teachers' unions that the per-pupil spending rule would undermine many locally bargained contracts?

---

Don't miss another Politics K-12 post. Sign up here to get news alerts in your email inbox.

Follow us on Twitter at @PoliticsK12.ESSA's Disputed Funding Rule: Comparing Older, Newer Education Dept. Language - Politics K-12 - Education Week:

The Local Control Funding Formula Is Under Scrutiny in California - The Atlantic

The Local Control Funding Formula Is Under Scrutiny in California - The Atlantic:

Why School Funding Will Always Be Imperfect

In 2013, California passed a law that was widely anticipated to better distribute resources to children in need. Now, critics say it's only making things worse.

In 2013, California passed an unusual law that aimed to revolutionize how school districts receive state funding. The Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF, gives school districts the autonomy to decide which programs and services to spend state funding on. And it’s far more than another boring funding provision: Its primary goal was to ensure equity by devising a complex recipe of budgeting mechanisms, in part by giving additional money to districts based on their numbers of high-needs students—English learners, low-income children, and foster youth. The law’s passage marked the first time in four decades that California underwent such a dramatic shift in school finance.

“The LCFF—it’s kind of a first. It’s trying to do something equitable in funding,” said Sarah Omojola, a statewide education-rights advocate for Public Counsel, a Los Angeles-based pro bono law firm. Before the law was put into place, it was pretty much a mystery as to how the districts got their money; there were different grants, different sources, and no explicit measures aimed to equally distributing resources. “It was very confusing,” Omojola said.

But the new law doesn’t mean that funding has gotten any less mysterious. Nor does it mean that vulnerable California youth have received an infusion of resources to meet their needs. In some cases, it threatens to make student funding even more unequal. In allowing for “a lot of flexibility,” the law is also prone to unintended consequences—namely, school districts statewide are taking advantage of its broad room for interpretation. An Education Trust-West study of 40 district spending plans found that many districts aren’t accounting for all of the money they’ve been allocated or annually improving services for vulnerable youth, as required. Several districts lump expenditures together or spend the money they didn’t use for high-needs students during a school year on other services. (State finance and education department officials declined to be interviewed for this piece.)

High-needs students make up the fastest growing segment of U.S. children today, which means maintaining a skilled workforce and robust economy is largely dependent on their academic success. The federal No Child Left Behind Act aimed to narrow achievement disparities between these students and their peers but came up short largely because of its focus on standardized testing and the fact that public schools are just as—if not more—segregated now as they were decades ago. California is in a special position to create equity for these youth because it educates about one in eight U.S. students, and supporters of school-finance reform there predict that the state may inspire others to adopt similar legislation. That’s unlikely to happen, however, if the Golden State fails to demonstrate that school districts will use the new resources to better serve underprivileged youth.

Many of California’s school districts have upheld the spirit of the law—targeting money toward children in need. Santa Rosa High School District, for example, The Local Control Funding Formula Is Under Scrutiny in California - The Atlantic:

John Oliver on charter schools’ corruption and inefficiency (VIDEO).

John Oliver on charter schools’ corruption and inefficiency (VIDEO).:

Attention, Class! John Oliver Is Here to Explain Everything Wrong With Charter Schools

Charter schools are the one thing that just about everyone, regardless of political ideology, can agree on: These taxpayer-funded, privately run schools have been praised by President Obama, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, Bernie Sanders—heck, even Pitbull is a fan. But John Oliver is not on board. The Last Week Tonight host spent most of Sunday night’s show breaking down all the ways that the charter school system, while admirable in principle, can and does go terribly wrong.

The U.S. currently has 6,700 charter schools across 42 states, plus the District of Columbia. Slate has previously explained why for-profit charter schools tend to fail—establishing high-quality education isn’t the same as running a business. But as Oliver lays out the problems with Ohio’s once absurdly lax charter law and Pennsylvania’s repeated problems with charter school fraud, he also reminds us that the real victim in all this isn’t the taxpayer—it’s the students: “The problem with letting the free market decide when it comes to kids is that kids change faster than the market. And by the time it’s obvious a school is failing, futures may have been ruined.”

That won’t stop Oliver from wanting to open his very own charter school, though. And he knows just what to call it: The John Oliver Academy for Nervous Boys.John Oliver on charter schools’ corruption and inefficiency (VIDEO).:

New York politicians maneuver to support charter schools - World Socialist Web Site

New York politicians maneuver to support charter schools - World Socialist Web Site:

New York politicians maneuver to support charter schools

A letter from New York State Senate leader John Flanagan, a Republican, to Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, has drawn attention to the continued maneuvers within the political establishment to promote corporate interests in education.

The communication, dated June 20 but only made public by the New York Times nearly two months later, reveals that charter school advocates were able to have last-minute changes made to education legislation, under which they are now seeking a waiver from school district regulations for these publicly funded but privately-managed schools.

Flanagan urged Cuomo to have the State University of New York Charter Schools Institute (SUNY-CSI) exempt charter schools that establish pre-k (pre-kindergarten) classes from local New York City regulations.

The Governor appoints a majority of the SUNY trustees, giving him effective control over the Charter Schools Institute. Based on his past support for privatizing public education there is every indication that Cuomo will agree with Flanagan.

Legislation was passed in 2015 by a strong bi-partisan vote that allowed charter networks to seek authorization to set up new schools through a more charter-friendly SUNY-CSI in preference to the State Board of Regents. Neither the CSI nor the Board has slowed the proliferation of charter schools.

The 2015 legislation also doubled the limit on new charter schools to be opened from 25 to 50 in New York City, above the existing 183 city charters, as well as increased the number of non-certified teachers that charters may hire.

A few hours before the state legislature ended its session in June, a vague provision was added by the Republican-controlled Senate leadership that New York politicians maneuver to support charter schools - World Socialist Web Site:

Movement to opt out of standardized testing is growing

Movement to opt out of standardized testing is growing:

Movement to opt out of standardized testing is growing

Some parents taking other steps to move forward in their education

PEMBROKE PARK, Fla. - A movement to ditch standardized testing is growing. Parents are organizing on social media to have their children opt out of the state's assessment and accountability program.

The Opt Out Of Miami-Dade Facebook page has about 1,700 followers, while the Opt Out Of Florida page has nearly 4,000 followers.

Some teachers are also supporting the movement because they feel their teaching can't be creative in order to ensure students pass the exams.

There are only two times, third grade and in high school, when testing it considered "high stakes," meaning it weighs heavily on a decision of whether or not to promote a student to the next grade level. 

If a third-grade student does not take the standardized tests, the school district can use a collection of the student's work from that year to decide whether or not that student will be promoted to fourth grade.

Broward County Public Schools' chief academic officer Daniel Gohl says promotions are never solely based on a test score. "We have a number of mechanisms in Broward County we use to make the very important decision of whether a student will be promoted and we will not be reduced to one single measure," Gohl said.

Last year, in Broward County, only 61 students out of 17,000 didn't have a score for standardized testing. As for Miami-Dade Public Schools, they told Local 10 News they only had a handful of cases last year.Movement to opt out of standardized testing is growing:

Announcements & Current Issues - Charter Schools (CA Dept of Education)

Announcements & Current Issues - Charter Schools (CA Dept of Education):

Announcements & Current Issues - Charter Schools

What's New

PCSGP Planning and Implementation Grant Request for Applications page for Fiscal Year 2016-17 
Access to application materials and pertinent information about the PCSGP Planning and Implementation Grant.

2016-17 Charter Schools Annual Information Survey 
The annual Charter School information page with links to the 2016-17 survey, helpful survey instructions, and a feature that allows the survey to be printed.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Systems Presentation (PDF) 
Charter Schools Presentation on the Smarted Balanced Assessment System.

Charter School Authorizer Webinar 
Guidance and Technical Assistance for Prospective Charter School Authorizers.

Charter School Authorizer Oversight and Monitoring Webinar 
Guidance for the Oversight and Monitoring of Charter Schools by an authorizer.

Charter School Authorizer Oversight - Renewal, Revocation and Closure 
Guidance from the California Department of Education Charter Schools Division for charter school authorizers regarding Renewal, Revocation and Closure.

Charter School Closure Process 
The following page provides information on charter school closures, the handling of documents and notification, record transfer and retention, student transfers, and recommended procedures for financial close-out. The page now includes lists of charter schools that have closed.

Enactment of Senate Bill 1290 
Information on the enactment of Senate Bill 1290 (Chapter 567, Statues of 2012).

Charter School Map of California 
Map of California broken down by county. Click on the county and find a charter school. Non classroom based schools are highlighted in pink and also specified.

Non-regulatory Guidance: NCLB LEA Plans for Direct-funded Charter Schools Receiving Federal Monies 
Information regarding the requirements for completing the Local Education Agency (LEA) Plan required by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.

School Accountability Report Card (SARC) 
Information for charter schools to submit a School Accountability Report Card (SARC).

Charter Schools Division Contact 
Phone and e-mail contact information for Charter Schools Division staff by topic and geographic regions.

Sign Up for the Charter School Listserv 
Details on how to subscribe to the Charter School Listserv, access to historic postings on the listserv, and Frequently Asked Questions related to user participation on the listserv.

Public Charter Schools Grant Program 
Information on the Public Charter Schools Grant Program.

Return to Charter Schools main page

Questions: Charter Schools | charters@cde.ca.gov | 916-322-6029 

 Announcements & Current Issues - Charter Schools (CA Dept of Education):

Nancy Carlsson-Paige: Our misguided effort to close the achievement gap is creating a new inequality: the ‘play’ gap - The Washington Post

Our misguided effort to close the achievement gap is creating a new inequality: the ‘play’ gap - The Washington Post:

Our misguided effort to close the achievement gap is creating a new inequality: the ‘play’ gap

“Play is the primary engine of human growth. It’s universal — as much as walking and talking.” That’s what Nancy Carlsson-Paige, an early childhood development expert, wrote in this postabout just how “twisted” early childhood education that ignores the value of play has become. Classes for young children that concentrate on academics and force kids to sit in chairs and do worksheets for hours on end are harmful — and now, there is a risk that a new “play disparity” between kids from poor and better-to-do families is widening and could be exacerbated by a push for universal pre-kindergarten.

[How twisted early childhood education has become — from a child development expert]

Here’s a new post on this issue by Carlsson-Paige, who for decades has been at the forefront of the debate on how best to educate — and not educate — the youngest students. She is a professor emerita of education at Lesley University in Cambridge, Ma., where she taught teachers for more than 30 years and was a founder of the university’s Center for Peaceable Schools. She is also a founding member and senior advisor of a nonprofit called Defending the Early Years, which commissions research about early childhood education and advocates for sane policies for young children.

Answer Sheet newsletter

Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.

Carlsson-Paige is author of “Taking Back Childhood.” The mother of two artist sons, Matt and Kyle Damon, she is also the recipient of numerous awards, including the Legacy Award from the Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps for work over several decades on behalf of children and families, as well as the Deborah Meier award given by the nonprofit National Center for Fair and Open Testing.

[The decline of play in preschoolers — and the rise in sensory issues]

By Nancy Carlsson-Paige

Soon many of our nation’s young children will be starting school for the first time. What they will likely find is something dramatically different from what their parents experienced at their age. Kindergartens and pre-K classrooms have changed.  There is less play, less art and music, less child choice, more teacher-led instruction, worksheets, and testing than a generation ago. Studies tell us that these changes, although pervasive, are most evident in schools serving high percentages of low-income children of color.

The pressure to teach academic skills in pre-k and kindergarten has been increasing since the passage of the No Child Left Behind act 15 years ago.  Today, many young children are required to sit in chairs, sometimes for long periods of time, as a teacher instructs them.  This goes against their natural impulse to learn actively through play where they are fully engaged–body, mind, and spirit.

[Why so many kids can’t sit still in school today]

Play is an engine driving children to build ideas, learn skills, and develop capacities they need in life. Kids all over the world play and no one has to teach them how. In play children develop problem solving skills, social and emotional awareness, self-regulation, imagination, and inner Our misguided effort to close the achievement gap is creating a new inequality: the ‘play’ gap - The Washington Post:

School Takeover Measures Opening Door to Charter Expansion

School Takeover Measures Opening Door to Charter Expansion:

Educators Mobilize as School Takeovers Open Door For Charter Expansion

This Election Day, Georgia will face a constitutional amendment that asks whether the state’s constitution can “be amended to allow the state to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve school performance?” Their answer will determine whether the Peach State will follow the footsteps of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Michigan, where voters said “Yes.”

To some, the question may sound noble. But Carly Shaw, a middle school teacher for Georgia’s Fulton County Schools, knows better. She wants others to know better, too.

“The language on the ballot basically says the governor would have the right to take over any school that’s low performing,” says Shaw, who is a teacher and vice president of the Fulton County Association of Educators. “But, it doesn’t get to the meat of the matter of what this means.”

If history is any indication of what this could mean, Georgia will be among several states to fragment school authority, disenfranchise communities of color, and ignore parent and community concerns.

A Sleeping Giant

School takeovers are not a new concept. According to The Trentonian, New Jersey took control of Jersey City’s schools in 1989, and is considered “the first state to mount such a takeover.” The state returned some elements of control back to the city in 2007 and 2014. This year, it was announced that the city was expected to regain full control.

What is relatively new, or different, about the takeovers of today is states now can yank individual schools out of their local districts and place them in a state-managed district, which then typically turns them over to charter operators.

“It’s turning it from retail privatization to whole sale privatization,” says Leigh Dingerson, a consultant for the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, a national policy research and reform-support organization. “Instead of privatizing one school at a time . . . they can take over a whole set of schools in one fell swoop.”

The Facts About State Takeovers of Public Schools Source: The Alliance to Reclaim Our Public Schools (Click to Enlarge)

The first model of this kind comes from Louisiana.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina awoke a sleeping giant: Act 9, a 2003 law that made way for the Recovery School District (RSD). The law gave authority to the state education department to pull low-performing schools out of local control and operate the school itself, or contract with a university or a charter operator.

While the law applied to the entire state, its focus was on New Orleans.

In 2004, one middle school in the city was put under RSD and designated to run as a charter school. Four more schools followed in 2005.

At the time, Dingerson described Act 9 as a “sleeper” that didn’t generate much attention. “But when the storm hit, I think the charter industry recognized Katrina as School Takeover Measures Opening Door to Charter Expansion:

Pledge to Shop union for Back to School - Badass Teachers Association

Badass Teachers Association:

Pledge to Shop union for Back to School

Please join BATs and UFCW as we stand in national solidarity to tell everyone to shop union for Back to School and all year long! 

 Pledge to Shop Union!


 I pledge to shop union and NOT to shop at non-union stores like Walmart or Hobby Lobby.  Many non union stores and their foundations  support the  privatization and destruction of public education

Whereas non union stores have supported

The expansion of for profit charters to the tune of $1 Billion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teachers-union-blasts-walmart-for-its-back-to-school-promotion/2016/08/12/8be9d30c-60b2-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html

Teach for America and their program to place unqualified teachers in our most neediest districts (replacing qualified teachers and teachers of color) 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/walton-foundation-teach-for-america-walmart_n_910615.html

An agenda that has been horrific to their workers, women, immigrants, LGBTQI,  and does not allow them to unionize.  http://reclaimdemocracy.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/walton_philanthropy.pdf

http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/10/11/judge-yes-hobby-lobby-discriminated-against-illinois-trans-woman

https://thinkprogress.org/breaking-hobby-lobby-wins-right-to-refuse-to-cover-birth-control-561fb18b0904#.c9jk3dm5l

Many anti public education organizations as seen here https://dianeravitch.net/2015/09/23/who-got-money-from-the-walton-family-foundation-you-might-be-surprised/

 School choice which does NOT offer choice at all, it removes it from parents and from communities.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/03/17/the-walmartization-of-public-education/

Removal of a teachers right to due process  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/us/teacher-tenure-is-challenged-again-in-a-minnesota-lawsuit.html?_r=0

Be it therefore resolved, on this 23rd day of August, I pledge to shop union for my Back to School supplies and all year round. 


If you wish to sign onto this pledge please sign on this form and we will be transferring names onto this blog daily for the next few weeks.  Check back to see your name added! - Thank you for your support
https://goo.gl/forms/gUe08ZpTsElWHdlw2

Badass Teachers Association:

The Race For LAUSD District Two: A Status Report - Change The LAUSD

The Race For LAUSD District Two: A Status Report - Change The LAUSD:

The Race For LAUSD District Two: A Status Report

In many ways, District 2 is a microcosm of the 2016 Presidential race. I am a Berniecrat running on a platform that supports public education, empowers parents and teachers and stands up for the most vulnerable, including students with special education needs. The incumbent, Monica Garcia is an establishment Democrat who attended the Democratic convention as a delegate for Hillary Clinton and whose Facebook page is titled @iamwithmonicagarcia. Standing in for Trump is Walter Bannister, who even uses the slogan “make our schools great again”. He has tweeted that we should forcibly arm ALL teachers, thatvaccines are ineffective and harmful, blows the dog whistle by calling for the “end [of] compulsory busing” and says that “government ownership, operation, regulation and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.” There are also two other candidates who currently have a limited internet trail.

In the 2015 elections, charter supporters spent “nearly $2.3 million” in “the nation’s most expensive school board elections”. This trend is expected to continue as they have already contributed $119,858.40 to Monica Garcia for this year’s election. In return, the charters face limited oversight as the District teaters towards bankruptcy. I propose a new approach towards the charters that recognizes the fact that instead of “partnering” with charters, the law that created these organizations specifies that public schools are supposed tocompete with them. Most importantly, the Charter School Division, which is supposed to regulate the charters, needs to be re-staffed with people who are not former employees of the California Charter School Association. Otherwise, we will continue to see public funds wasted due to “financial shenanigans”.

Special Education and vocational education also will be addressed by the campaign. Monica Garcia has stated that:

“When we say $1.4 billion for special ed and we only have $700 million from the federal government and the other $700 million are coming from every child in this district, I’m not about defunding special ed. I just know that we have a serious issue to how can we serve our own kids?”

I believe that children with special education needs are our own kids too and I will fight to provide them the services that they require. Additionally, while the incumbent forces “college prep for all”, I recognize that all students will not attend college. Therefore, vocational classes, music and art must also be made available. All students should also be required to take a life skills class that includes subjects such as how to balance a checkbook, how credit card interest works and how to participate in government.The Race For LAUSD District Two: A Status Report - Change The LAUSD:

Jersey Jazzman: Chris Cerf's Late Conversion On School Funding and Testing

Jersey Jazzman: Chris Cerf's Late Conversion On School Funding and Testing:

Chris Cerf's Late Conversion On School Funding and Testing

Chris Christie's "Fairness Formula" is so blatantly unfair and illogical that even Chris Cerf -- Christie's former Commissioner of Education and current State Superintendent of Newark Public Schools -- can't support it:

The superintendent appointed by Gov. Chris Christie to run Newark's state-controlled school district said a 60-percent cut in aid projected under a new funding formula proposed by the governor would be "catastrophic" for the district.  

"I don't mind saying explicitly that a reduction in our budget of 60 percent would be catastrophic," said Superintendent Christopher Cerf, a former state education commissioner under Christie, who appointed Cerf to run the state's largest district last year.

Cerf's comment was in response to a reporter's question about the impact on the district of a projected 60 percent cut in aid under the new Fairness Formula proposed by Christie.

The formula, unveiled in June, would dole out precisely the same amount of aid per pupil — $6,599 — to all New Jersey school districts, regardless of affluence, resulting in a savings for 85 percent of the state's property taxpayers, while translating into dramatic cuts in aid to poor districts that rely on the state to fund a much higher proportion of their school budgets. 

An analysis by NJ Advance Media found that aid to Newark and some other poor districts would be cut by 60 percent or more under the governor's proposed formula. [emphasis mine]

As I pointed out last October, this is quite a shift in thinking for Cerf. When he was in Christie's administration, he used to go around the state saying NJ's urban districts were getting way too much money:

Pumping more money into our worst-performing districts has provided us with moral cover, persuading us that we have met our obligation to the students in those districts while allowing us to under serve them.More money has permitted past governors and legislatures to avoid the politically difficult reforms – like implementation of an educator evaluation system, tenure reform, and ending the pernicious “last in, first out” policy – so critical to turning around our lowest-performing schools. And more money has likewise allowed the Department of Education to be satisfied with a role as district compliance-monitor rather than district partner, collaborator, and, where necessary, instigator of seismic reform. [emphasis mine]

Funny how actually running a district causes you to think about this stuff a little Jersey Jazzman: Chris Cerf's Late Conversion On School Funding and Testing: