Disparities in Distribution: Analyzing Funding Gaps in Referendum Question 2

Based upon enrollment numbers as of January 2026, the following data is a reflection of the price per pupil cost for each referendum project per school.

With the fact that Question 1 was formulated for two purposes: to provide ‘something’ for each school while having zero tax impact, Question 2 is heavily focused on classroom instruction upgrades at CMS and GLHS while Hughes receives not a single project.

The greatest distribution of funds is for the roof replacement at GLHS coming in at $4.9 million with the media center coming in at $4.3 million.

The highest per pupil cost for projects in Q1 belong to Woodruff school (the only school in Q1 to receive necessary roof replacement). The highest total per pupil cost for projects in Q2 goes to Mountain Park for a roof replacement and mechanical/plumbing improvements.

The highest overall price per pupil is for Mountain Park and the lowest, by more than 4 times, is Hughes.

Question 2 isn’t evenly distributed across the district with the most obvious example involving Hughes which receives $0 in Question 2, while Mountain Park receives $26,650.64 per pupil. Woodruff receives $15,191.98, and MKM receives $11,377.93.

Woodruff has the highest per pupil cost in Question 1 at $13,105.71 per student which shows how enrollment size can make a major difference in how project costs are felt school by school.

And while GLHS receives the biggest ticket projects, Mountain Park still has the highest total overall price per pupil at $34,563.22, compared with $28,297.69 for Woodruff and $21,490.22 for GLHS.

CMS also stands out for a different reason: its Question 2 costs are driven heavily by Science Labs at $3,171,386.88, compared with $1,039,812.50 for mechanical and plumbing improvements.

Understanding ‘priority’ versus ‘want’ is imperative to deciding how you are going to vote. The claims that all these projects ‘need’ to be done may not be accurate. One could argue that media centers, which are widely underused by students due to various factors from max capacity to lack of noise control are not ‘needed.’ Seeing as Woodruff PTO generously raised funds to refurnish their library just last year begs the question, if spaces can be transformed for $50,000, is beautifying spaces at schools for $8.9 million justified when persistent issues affecting student learning, like inconsistency-  heating at GLHS, not being addressed?

Time will tell if soft seating and modular fixtures will contribute to student academic achievements, but I know that each day a student is in a classroom, with one of our phenomenal educators, receiving direct instruction, is one more day that our students are closer to achieving academic success at BHPS and beyond – with or without the passing of the Referendum.

Full Breakdown:

NJ21ST

shining a light on local government

Our goal in covering the Berkeley Heights Public School referendum, as with any major local government decision, is to provide a platform for residents to make informed decisions, share their perspective, and be armed with the right questions to ask.

We hope residents avoid either cheerleading or trashing the referendum — the best approach is to ask hard questions and encourage the BOE and Administration to make changes that better serve the needs of our students while also respecting the economic realities families face in our community.

Our Referendum Hub provides a thorough fact-based analysis of what works and what needs to change.

Explore the BHPSNJ referendum analysis →