Monday, April 8, 2024

Tuition Relief Bill Reintroduced With Watered Down Version After Opposition

 Updated
The Tuition relief bill that was introduced last month came under fierce opposition from the teachers union the bill was stuck and didn't move anywhere.  Teach NJ coalition of Modern Orthodox schools in New Jersey inder the OU was hoping for passage in June.
The bill was now reintroduced again on April 4  as bill A4144 with major changes that will have many families  with higher incomes not eligible who could have been so with the initial bill. 

Another major change  the tax credit is not dollar for dollar but only 75 cents for the dollar. 
Another drastic change the maximum allowed per year to go toward the program is $37.5 Million down from $250 million in the initial bill

The eligibility requirements will knock off alot of families as it is now only for students with a  household income that does not exceed the federal income guidelines for reduced price lunch under the National School Lunch Program multiplied by 2.6.  The previous bill allowed eligibility to be multiplied by 4.32

So, a family of 4 who can make up to $55.500 for reduced school lunch can multiply that by 2.6 and make up to $144,300 and be eligible for tuition scholarship. A family of 8 can make up to $243.191 to be eligible while with the previous bill they could  make up to $404k (the income levels go up slightly every year) see income levels Here 

But regardless of the changes there have been other provisions thrown into the bill attaching it to other legislation with public school funding and disabled veterans and senior funding, could would make it tough to pass.

As some have pointed out 
9. The provisions of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) shall not supersede, impact, or interfere with any of the following: a. the full funding in each State fiscal year necessary to satisfy the requirement in Article VIII, Section IV, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution that the Legislature provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and 18 years;

There won't be a dime for nonpublic schools in Lakewood until its public schools are fully funded. Moreover, statewide, the funding formula has been fully funded only three times in the last two decades.

It also can't  pass unless there's full funding for $250 veterans tax deduction and  senior citizens and disabled persons $250 property tax deduction

Correction: Schools do NOT need to be in districts where 50% of students are eligible for free/reduced lunches.
Section 2 states: " As used in sections 1 through 10... "Eligible school" means a nonpublic school that: is eligible to participate in the National School Lunch Program; complies with all federal and State anti-discrimination statutes; and complies with the “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act,”... " .
That's all the requirements mentioned.

The 50 percent requirement is for Section 12 only.
The new Section 12 essentially gives the public school system the same amount the private system is benefitting from this bill.
It establishes a separate grant program for school DISTRICTS, funded with $37.5 million annually via the Dept of Education.
The grant may be used for tutoring programs, teacher retention bonuses, mental health or counseling services, etc.
Only districts with 50% of the student pop. eligible for free/reduced lunches are eligible for this grant.


Language of the reintroduced bill:

"full funding of the veterans’ $250 property tax deduction, required to be provided to eligible veterans pursuant to the State Constitution; the senior citizens’ and disabled persons’ $250 property tax deduction authorized by the State Constitution; the full payment of contributions required by law to be made to the State-administered retirement systems; and the full funding of the Stay NJ property tax credit program established in P.L.2023, c.75 (C.54:4-8.75a et seq.).

"business tax or personal gross income tax equal to 75 percent of any contribution made to a student support organization; in the case of the gross income tax credit, a taxpayer is required to contribute a minimum of $100 to a student support organization in order to claim a tax credit.  The value of a credit for an individual taxpayer in a given year or privilege period is not permitted to exceed the lesser of 50 percent of the taxpayer’s total tax liability or $1,000,000 for a tax credit against the corporate business tax or $100,000 for a credit against the personal gross income tax.

 "The maximum amount of tax credits allowable in each State fiscal year may not exceed $37.5 million".

"To be eligible for a scholarship from the student support organization, a student is to reside in New Jersey and intend to enroll in grades kindergarten through 12 in the next school year. A student is required to have a household income that does not exceed the federal income guidelines for reduced price lunch under the National School Lunch Program multiplied by 2.6.

 "As used in this section, “eligible school district” means a school district in which at least 50 percent of the student population is eligible for free or reduced price lunch under the National School Lunch Program".

25 comments:

  1. This is standard politics, they knew the teachers union will fight it so they played up the first bill knowing that they will have to lower it as a compromise and once it passes they can always tweak it slowly to get the numbers back up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The teacher's union will fight it no matter how much money. The only advantage Lakewood has is that the public schools in NJ (except Lakewood) will be fully funded by the state, except of course, the local fair share. This is a statewide problem (that towns are not taxing up to their share) but I doubt the statute will require full local funding in every district before giving out vouchers. It probably is referring to state aid. But Lakewood won't get anything until its own district builds a stable financial foundation. How could any legislator in our pluralistic society explain how they fund nonpublic schools in Lakewood when the public schools in Lakewood are garbage? The unions, civil rights groups, minority groups, majority groups, teachers, mothers, townships, legislators from other constituencies, and most every interest group, except big business, will laugh in their face.

      Just go ahead and follow your marching orders to elect the same dummies for the BOE, the supposed supervisors of a $400 million corporation, but the most important decisions are made so that one boss can get $20.00 for his school, another get $15.23, and another gets some other paltry sum, all at the cost of $400 million organization being run terribly, and Lakewood taxpayers getting into $300 million in debt. Just keep your heads in the sand and don't pay attention to your civic duty. Such people were called "idiots" the democracies of old because these people who were not interested in politics and only cared about themselves, and not about their government or the klal. When we perform our civic duty (or become active in other community services), vote conscientiously, serve the public, we become greater than our own selves.

      Delete
  2. Ironically the askanim will now need to join the Lang lawsuit to make sure Lakewood public gets properly funded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, fully funded means according to the current formula. Lang is fighting to change the formula.

      Delete
    2. Lang says that he already got a finding of constitutional deficiency for Lakewood. So no matter how you look at it, the state is not providing a thorough and efficient education in Lakewood. But, even if we did not win on that MAJOR decision (now is the easy part, to prove that the formula was the cause of not having enough funding rather than all the stupid excuses the state makes), and it means just that the formula is fully funded, it has only been fully funding in 2009, 2011 and 2025.

      It is almost comical. The acting commissioner says that the state monitors can't supervise EVERY employee. Then, why have the taxpayers of Lakewood been paying them over $2 million since 2014? We should get that money back. And the loans have to be forgiven. It is almost as funny as when the state says that if we raised taxes by $3 million in 2011-14, we would not be in debt. Obviously we were not going to get any relief from the executive branch of government. Every governor since Whitman has known about the fiscal problems in Lakewood. And yet the politicians don't appreciate the litigation and keep on promising that they will get it fixed without a court order.

      Delete
    3. I guess I know the answer to how the $2 million wasted on the monitors can play out, but won't. Inzelbuch has made about $8 million since 2017. So what is an extra $2 million for good men such as David Shafter, Mike Azzara, Robert Finger and others who have served somewhat selflessly, but should be held accountable for allowing Michael and Dr. Winters and her yes-girls to continue to mismanage a corporation with $400 million annual revenue. There DEFINITELY has to be political change. Not everything happens by way of the Courts. The courts are just the forum of last resort. In a prefect political system, and America is as good as any, courts should not be making political decisions. So the Courts will say Lakewood needs more funding, but it is up to the people of Lakewood and the people of NJ to decide the remedy. The courts are just there to react, not to be proactive. And they have reacted to what is going on, but they will wait, and wait, until someone gets it right. And that can take years UNLESS the people start taking their civic responsibility seriously.

      Delete
  3. How ironic the modox from North Jersey sponsored a bill that will help Lakewood youngeleit and moslems in Newark while they get left out

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why would any corporation give to this fund if they only get 75% tax credit and are maxed at a certain amount

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would becoming maxed out be a reason not to contribute?

      Delete
  5. Another useless bill and perk for rebbeim and yungeleit as only they will be eligible and the ones that need the help the most are left hanging as usual. Few rebbeim pay tuition to begin with and if they do it’s drastically reduced as is for yungeleit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No perks for the poor!

      Perks for the poor are useless!

      The poor are richer than the rich, so any perks for the poor means that the poor get richer and the rich get poorer.

      Ah freilichn Purim!

      Delete
  6. Why did Lakewood need to elect Schnall as a Democrat when there were others who sponsored this bill as the OU has been working on it for a while

    ReplyDelete
  7. Covering your décolletage with the flowing locks of your sheitel doesn't make the cut for our pre COVID community standards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, I'll stop then. Thanks for the info

      Delete
    2. You that has noticed is worse than who you noticed. Shame on you. Quite typical those who can control themselves blame others for their downfall.

      Delete
    3. Two totally separate issues. A man is supposed to control what he looks at. A woman is supposed to control what she wants.

      Delete
    4. And of course a men's place to make comments is right here for the most dramatic effect

      Delete
    5. A women's job is to control what she flaunts. There's no excuse called "you shouldn't look" when you're letting too much show.

      Delete
    6. Talk to your wife about it

      Delete
    7. To the "kadosh" who wrote this comment, since when is nivul peh in French allowed???

      Delete
    8. Rabbi Perr from Far Rockaway always said “Sometimes talking about Pritzus can be Pritzus”. This comment is so sick for so many reasons. I feel bad for the guy.

      Delete
    9. Rabbi Perr misspoke.
      Speaking about pritzus is ALWAYS pritzus.

      Delete
    10. That depends on who

      Delete
  8. Correction: Schools do NOT need to be in districts where 50% of students are eligible for free/reduced lunches.
    Section 2 states: " As used in sections 1 through 10... "Eligible school" means a nonpublic school that: is eligible to participate in the National School Lunch Program; complies with all federal and State anti-discrimination statutes; and complies with the “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act,”... " .
    That's all the requirements mentioned.

    The 50 percent requirement is for Section 12 only.
    The new Section 12 essentially gives the public school system the same amount the private system is benefitting from this bill.
    It establishes a separate grant program for school DISTRICTS, funded with $37.5 million annually via the Dept of Education.
    The grant may be used for tutoring programs, teacher retention bonuses, mental health or counseling services, etc.
    Only districts with 50% of the student pop. eligible for free/reduced lunches are eligible for this grant.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you enjoy being disappointed, keep voting Democrat.

    ReplyDelete