Yes/Yes in Montclair

The desk-drawers were stuffed with unpaid bills. It's occupant, the business administrator, had left, and the new superintendent was left holding evidence of more than $12.6m in outstanding, unbudgeted obligations. The Montclair school district owes $12.6m in accumulated deficits and is facing a $7.6m structural deficit going forward. Montclair has a choice: settle these obligations through local taxation; or relinquish local control, accept state oversight, and pay for it through local taxation.

Neither of these options is very appealing, but the second holds a candle for something everyone feels right now. If the problem is mismanagement, then the solution is simple: throw the bums out. Vote no on either or both questions on the December 9th special election and accept a state monitor who might bring some discipline and accountability to the school district. Unfortunately, it’s a response that is probably simple, plausible and wrong.

Should Montclair choose “no” for either or both questions, Montclair will accept emergency funding from the state and pay it back through the withholding of state aid over ten years. Montclair budgeted $13m in state aid for the 25/26 school year. Two no votes would mean a loss of over $2m of state funds per a year, which is two-thirds of the Extraordinary Aid listed in the User Friendly Budget* provided by the state to support Montclair’s special education programs. Montclair’s special education program budget is already underfunded by 5%, overall, per pupil, when comparing the district to Millburn’s special education funding from state and federal revenues. Losing $2m a year would underfund Montclair by 21%.

Special education is a thicket of laws and compliance and obligations, so perhaps cuts could come from somewhere else. The current discussion has focused on teachers, the compensation of whom should fit within the line items, Instruction and Regular Programs-Instruction – just over $52m to work with. Certainly Montclair could absorb a ~4% cut of ~$2m a year. Well, it’s going to be difficult. Montclair’s current and undistributed instruction expenses are $8,350 per pupil, 10% lower than Millburn’s, already. After the teacher cuts, Montclair could always fall back on Basic Skills/Remedial instruction, but Montclair budgeted 78% less per pupil – thirty cents to every dollar in Millburn. 

The great state of New Jersey came through with a recommendation, though. Their supplemental audit of Montclair’s finances noted ballooning personnel expenses associated with healthcare benefits. We can find this in the Personal Services–Employee Benefits line-item. The state said, helpfully, that Montclair could shop around to help contain these costs and discipline inflation. Montclair budgeted $27.8m for the 25/26 school year, compared to the seemingly lean $20.6m in Millburn. Do a little math, and you discover, on a per pupil basis, Montclair spends 2% less than Millburn on employee benefits, already, and yes, the per pupil ratio is appropriate. Both Millburn and Montclair have an 11:1 student to teacher ratio according to US News and World Report.

But certainly, if Montclair throws the bums out, accepts the emergency funding and takes on a state monitor, they will solve the problem. Indeed, a state monitor would have remarkable powers. They would hold absolute control over the school board and the district with the sole objective of cutting school district expenses and raising money to pay back the debt. They will have all options available to them, but they will center on those over which they have immediate control: cutting expenses, selling assets, and raising taxes. 

What they are not likely to do, however, is advocate for funding from state and federal sources for Montclair. This is hard and requires people who are committed to the community, not a temporary overseer. While the monitor makes cuts, sells assets, and raises taxes, they’re likely to miss that state and federal contributions are budgeted to underfund Montclair by $862k in 25/26, compared to Millburn. The paltry contribution of $409k more in Title I funding to Montclair is easily dwarfed by disparities with state transportation funds, state security funds, and state and federal special education funding. 

Yes, Millburn receives 5% more transportation funding from New Jersey on a per pupil basis than Montclair.

Sadly, cuts and tax-raises are probably unavoidable and unaffordable. Montclair is already over-taxed. At the Millburn tax-rate, Montclair would miss its current school levy by 46%. One might say, but Montclair just needs to tax its property at the market rate. Well, if you used the market rate —the Estimated Equalized Valuation— for all taxable property in Montclair, it would miss the current levy by 31%. Nonetheless, Montclair’s levy per pupil is budgeted 4% below Millburn’s: $21.9k to Millburn’s $22.8k per pupil. Once again, Montclair, doing more with less.

What Montclair won’t get with a state monitor is missed revenues. The state monitor would lack the incentive and not be equipped to press for these funds. Instead, they would be focused on what they can control – cutting expenses, selling assets, raising taxes, quickly.

Montclair needs to stand on its own, so it can fight – starting with $862k from state and federal sources.

So vote yes/yes. Please.

*Analysis is based on the 25/26 proposed budgets in the User Friendly Budgets of Montclair and Millburn, generated as of October 1, 2025. The Montclair UFB varies slightly from the May 8 UFB, but it does not incorporate any of the recently proposed cuts.

**If you want to know how Montclair and New Jersey got into this mess, you need to know about Hands Across New Jersey