Most of the dots cluster along a fairly predictable pattern. As enrollment increases, per-pupil spending tends to rise modestly. This makes intuitive sense. Larger districts often face higher costs related to staffing, specialized services, transportation, and facilities, but those increases are usually incremental rather than dramatic. The trend line drawn through the data captures this general relationship and reflects what we would expect spending to look like for districts of different sizes.
One dot, however, clearly stands apart: Hoboken.
Hoboken’s enrollment places it squarely in the middle of this peer group, yet its per-pupil spending sits far above both the trend line and most comparable districts. In other words, given its size, Hoboken spends substantially more per student than what is typical for districts in the same enrollment cohort. This is not a subtle difference—it is visually and statistically notable.
 |
| Click to Enlarge |
It’s important to be clear about what this chart does not claim. It does not say that higher spending is inherently bad, nor does it tell us how effectively dollars are being used. Spending more per pupil can reflect deliberate policy choices, higher local costs, contractual obligations, or specific programmatic investments. Those questions require deeper analysis.
But what the chart does do—very clearly—is establish context. It shows that Hoboken is not simply “a little higher” than average. It is a fiscal outlier among districts serving a similar number of students. Any serious conversation about budgets, equity, efficiency, or educational outcomes needs to start from that empirical reality.
Too often, debates about school funding get stuck in abstractions or anecdotes. This figure grounds the discussion in publicly available data and a reasonable comparison group. When a district falls this far outside the typical spending pattern of its peers, it is fair—and necessary—to ask why, what tradeoffs are involved, and what outcomes taxpayers and families are receiving in return.
Good policy begins with clear-eyed description. This chart is a first step in that direction.
SUMMARY: Based on New Jersey Department of Education FY 2024–2025 data, per-pupil spending generally aligns with enrollment size across NJDOE cohort districts, but Hoboken’s spending substantially exceeds that of comparable districts, highlighting a potential resource-allocation imbalance.
* Methodological and Analytic Notes for Readers Who Want More Detail
Several predictable critiques tend to arise when presenting comparative fiscal data, so it is worth being explicit about what this analysis does—and does not—claim.
First, this figure is intentionally a descriptive, not causal, analysis. It does not attempt to explain why Hoboken spends more per pupil, nor does it claim that higher spending necessarily leads to better or worse educational outcomes. The purpose is narrower and more foundational: to establish comparability and deviation. By restricting the comparison to districts within the same NJDOE enrollment cohort, the analysis controls—by design—for one of the strongest structural predictors of district spending: scale.
Second, the use of a simple bivariate scatterplot with an OLS trend line is not a limitation but a choice aligned with the question at hand. Multivariate regression models can and often should be used for explanatory work, but they also obscure magnitude and intuition. Here, the goal is to make visible whether a district’s spending is broadly consistent with what is observed among similarly sized peers. Hoboken’s position well above the fitted line indicates a large positive residual, meaning its per-pupil spending exceeds what enrollment size alone would predict.
Third, concerns about omitted variables—such as student need, special education prevalence, transportation costs, or local wage structures—are valid but incomplete as rebuttals. Those factors may explain some variation, but they do not negate the empirical fact that Hoboken is an outlier within its cohort. Any explanation invoking these factors must therefore demonstrate not merely that they matter, but that they matter enough to account for the size of the observed deviation.
Fourth, this is not a ranking exercise. Rankings compress information and encourage superficial comparisons. Residual-based interpretation, by contrast, asks a more policy-relevant question: Given what we know about peer districts, is this spending level typical, elevated, or exceptional? On that question, the answer for Hoboken is unambiguous.
Finally, descriptive analyses like this are a necessary precursor to normative debate. One cannot meaningfully discuss equity, efficiency, or outcomes without first agreeing on the empirical landscape. This figure establishes that landscape using publicly available NJDOE data and a defensible comparison group. Disagreement should therefore focus not on whether Hoboken is an outlier—it is—but on whether that outlier status is justified, intentional, and delivering commensurate public value.
Finally, This chart below shows NJ school districts by size (enrollment >3500) and spending per student. Most districts fall within a predictable range. Hoboken stands out — spending far more per pupil than similarly sized districts, even after accounting for enrollment. The red dot isn’t a partisan claim; it’s a statistical outlier. So, whether you compare Hoboken to K-12 districts with enrollments between 1801-3500 students or K-12 district with more than 3500 students, Hoboken is a spending outlier.
 |
| Click to Enlarge |
