IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...
NEWSPAPERS TELL CORZINE & LEGISLATURE TO SLOW DOWN ON SCHOOL AID FORMULA

Start screaming about school aid
-Editorial, Asbury Park Press, December 16, 2007

As expected, advocates for urban school districts resumed their whining last week about being shortchanged on state school aid in response to newly released funding figures. If there is any whining to be done, it should be in Ocean County and parts of Monmouth County. Actually, it should be screaming, not whining.

Last week, Gov. Corzine unveiled a new school funding formula billed as the first step in addressing some longstanding inequities. Suburban and rural districts have been shortchanged for years when it comes to school aid and per-pupil spending. The old formula has failed many middle- and lower-middle-income districts badly, including most districts in Ocean County.

Statewide, under the proposal for 2008-09, school aid would increase an average of 7 percent, with about half of the state's 616 districts getting increases of 10 percent or more. None would get less than 2 percent. In Ocean County, which has the sixth-lowest household family income in the state, only five of 30 school districts would get more than the 2 percent minimum. Monmouth County would be treated more kindly. Yet, only 17 of 55 districts would receive more than 2 percent.

Two Shore-area districts would fare particularly poorly — Sen. Andrew Ciesla's 10th District, where just one of 13 school districts is in line for more than 2 percent and outgoing Sen. Joseph Palaia's 11th District, where only five of 29 districts would receive more than the minimum. The legislative delegations there need to make some noise.

Under the new plan, 20 of the state's 31 poorest school districts, the so-called Abbotts, would receive the minimum increase. But to make the new formula more palatable to urban lawmakers, it includes a "hold harmless" provision, which ensures that Abbott districts that now receive more aid than they would under the new formula wouldn't have any aid taken away from them. The state would allocate $860 million to districts which, under the formula, otherwise would not be entitled to it. Corzine has promised there would be no decreases in aid for those districts for at least three years.

One reason most of the Abbotts would receive the minimum 2 percent increase in aid next year is because they have received almost all of the new money allotted for education in the past five years. Between 2002 and 2007, the Abbotts received an average 6 percent annual aid increase, compared with an average 1 percent increase in New Jersey's 585 other districts. And the aid to the Abbotts continued to pour in despite sharp drops in enrollment.

While suburban districts such as Jackson, which experienced a 19 percent spike in enrollment between 2000 and 2007, were flat-funded, Abbott districts such as Asbury Park, where enrollment plummeted 28 percent during that same period, continued to get massive influxes of aid. Other Abbott districts that continued to receive substantial increases in funding while experiencing substantial drops in enrollment include East Orange (down 13 percent), Hoboken and Irvington (11 percent) and Jersey City (down 8 percent).

In Ocean County, during that same time frame, school enrollment rose 27 percent in Southern Regional and 9 percent in Barnegat and Stafford. Only Stafford, which would receive an 8 percent hike in aid, would be getting more than the bare minimum.

There are other, less parochial, reasons not to like the new school aid formula, beginning with its allocation of an additional $530 million in funding — little of which will be applied to property tax relief — and its failure to offset that increase with improved efficiencies and cost-cutting measures. New Jersey spends more on education than any state. Its deficiencies are related to waste, mismanagement, its profusion of school districts and overly generous employee benefits. New Jersey should be spending less money on education, not more. And it should be allocating it in a way that is fair to all taxpayers and all children in all communities.

The new school funding formula helps right some of the inequities. But it has not done enough for middle-class and lower middle-class districts. And it has done nothing to address the disgraceful waste of resources.

State mustn't rush
school-funding debate
Editorial, Home News Tribune, December 17, 2007

The long-awaited school-funding numbers arrived last week, an event Gov. Jon S. Corzine said was five years in the making. At the very least, he and his administrators have been at it for more than a year, a time period that speaks both to the complexity of the funding formula and to the difficult and combustible mix of politics, court decisions and finances that guide every decision made about it.

The governor ought to be commended for taking on a task many before him have rejected for all the reasons stated above. There seems no doubt of his passion for the school-funding issue and his desire to reform the formula fairly. After a faulty start, Corzine also has taken steps to get influential people on his side of the debate, including many Republican lawmakers.

And the general principle at work in the formula — that aid should be based on the number of needy students within districts rather than the general and perceived need of those districts as a whole — is the right one. For far too long, working-class districts outside of the 30 urban communities covered by the court ruling as well as some wealthier districts with high numbers of poor and special-needs children have been getting less aid than they ought. Corzine's formula seems poised to erase some of those disparities.

Alas, all the good in the plan and in the governor's selling of it do not make up for the fact that Corzine is attempting to rush it through a lame-duck Legislature. Having taken a year to devise the formula, the governor ought to be the first to understand that the issue of school funding is simply too complicated — and too important — for it to be voted on without exhaustive public review and legislative debate.

The governor seems to believe that too much inspection will sink his formula, mostly because home-rule concerns will override any idea of collective good: as proof, look no further than the aid numbers released last week. The formula is not really at work in those numbers since every school district has been guaranteed at least a 2 percent hike in funds in 2008, and no district, however the formula shakes out, has been promised more than a 20 percent increase in aid. To pay for that transition, Corzine has proposed hiking education funding by more than $500 million in his next budget, although he has yet to detail exactly how he will do it.

In fact, the formula apparently will not be truly at work until three years out, when the "hold harmless" provision of the law expires. The formula itself remains nebulous; many of those testifying about the proposal say they still have not been fully briefed on how the calculations are made.

In that vacuum are plenty of concerns. One of the most compelling is word that, for the first time, special education funding will be subject to a district's ability to pay. In the past, that has been given to districts, regardless of wealth. Many districts, especially those with high numbers of severely disabled students, fear that will leave them scrambling for funds.

Some wealthy districts believe the formula is intended to drive down the costs of education in their towns because the aid the state pays to the poorest districts is based on per-pupil expenditures in those towns. The Abbott districts, on the other hand, feel they are being shortchanged by the new formula; many of them received the minimum hike in funds under the proposal. It seems unlikely the formula will be put in place without a court challenge from those districts.

All of these attempts to balance competing interests illustrate how difficult it is to run a funding system based on property taxes, and thus on local rule. Since the governor seems unwilling to overhaul the funding system in its entirety, however, taxpayers will have to learn to live within those limitations.

And one of those limitations is the right of every community, and every representative of that community, to have a say. To do that, they need time. And the governor and the legislators must give it to them.

School aid formula
requires in-depth look
Editorial, Courier-Post, December 17, 2007

While the distribution of school aid was overdue for change, reform efforts should go beyond funding.

Gov. Jon Corzine's effort to more effectively spend state school aid and help the greatest number of children, particularly those who have fewer advantages, is long overdue. As Corzine pointed out in unveiling his aid proposal, too many poor children in middle-class districts aren't getting the support they deserve.

Still, state officials should be careful not to impede efforts in the New Jersey's poorest districts, the Abbott schools, with their new formula. It is a good reason legislators must not rush this proposal into law. There's still a lot of work to be done.

No school aid formula can overcome the burden of supporting 616 districts. In a state so small, this makes no sense. Corzine and lawmakers have talked about closing districts with tiny enrollments and no schools. Until the government officials and residents eliminate some of these costly districts, the distribution of aid will be unnecessarily diluted. That will mean the districts that should receive more money cannot because the funds must be spread among so many.

Certainly, parents might be reluctant to give up their neighborhood school. But, really, does each town need a neighborhood superintendent, top-paid administrators, such as child assessment professionals, to deliver mandatory services? Through consolidation, the state could eliminate some of these jobs and plow the money into the classrooms where it is needed.

For now, the attention is directed at how the Corzine administration will divvy up limited funding. There should be more discussion about how the state will pay for the planned $530 million increase in aid. The state, as usual, already is facing a budget deficit -- about $3 billion. Does Corzine have a plan to sustain the increased spending level? If so, he ought to share that information with taxpayers, too.

These are some of the issues legislators should explore in depth before rushing to adopt Corzine's school aid plan.

School idea not
for lame ducks
Editorial, The Daily Record, December 17, 2007

How best to fund schools in New Jersey has bedeviled the Legislature for more than 30 years now. Some may recall Robinson v. Cahill in the early 1970s. That was a precursor to the Abbott v. Burke case, which established the current funding scheme: the state's 31 Abbott, or impoverished school districts, get about half of the $8 billion in aid doled out by the state.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine last week released a proposed school funding plan that he says treats all children equally regardless of where they live. A child with special needs -- coming from a low-income household, or lack of proficiency in English -- would be treated the same, state aid wise, whether he lives in Paterson or Chester. So, aid for Morris County school districts is projected to increase next school year by about $18 million.

The funding plan needs to be approved by the state Legislature. Advocates want it done in this month's lame duck session. We question if that's such a good idea. There will be many changes when the new Legislature is seated Jan. 8. Rather than rushing the plan through in December, shouldn't the new lawmakers get a shot at it when they're seated in January?

Careful on school plans
Editorial, Herald News, December 14, 2007

In 1998, a New Jersey court decision required that preschool and full-day kindergarten become a staple of basic education for all students in the state's 31 poorest school districts. Those districts, the so-called Abbott districts, receive court-ordered extra state financial aid and other programs to compensate for decades of neglect and inequitable funding from the state.

If last year's standardized test results involving Abbott third- and fourth-graders can be seen as a barometer, the 1998 decision is already reaping measurable benefit.

A Herald News data analysis of last year's New Jersey School Report Card found the first Abbott children to take advantage of the preschool focus showed marked improvement in test scores, particularly in math. These gains are worth remembering as the state goes about the business of deciding how it will fund its schools. Gov. Jon S. Corzine's plan to fundamentally change that formula -- revealed in full for the first time Wednesday -- seeks to bring more needy children under the umbrella of special aid.

The lynchpin of the governor's plan would be to alter the current, court-ordered Abbott school funding formula, whereby the budget outlay for the state's 31 poorest districts is linked directly to amounts spent in the state's 128 most wealthy. Essentially, the governor seeks to replace that with one he says would "allocate dollars by children and their needs, not by geography or ZIP codes."

Nothing wrong with that on its face; clearly, disadvantaged children reside all over the state. Still, Corzine's plan seems in response, in part, to claims from middle-class districts and their political bidders, who feel their students are shortchanged under the current formula.

Passaic County districts such as Clifton and Haledon fit that category. Based on numbers released Wednesday, those districts would receive a 20 percent boost in funding next year as part of a statewide $533 million -- or 7 percent -- increase to $7.8 billion. Meanwhile, local Abbott districts, Passaic and Paterson, would receive increases of 4 percent and 2 percent, respectively.

One part of the new plan that concerns Abbott district advocates would greatly expand full-day preschool to other middle-class districts. Abbott administrators fear that any refiguring, given the finite amount of money available, would inevitably hurt the state's most vulnerable children, if not next year than in future years. Citing a recent study by the Education Law Center, they also say the state has not fully calculated the overall cost.

Studies in recent decades point overwhelmingly to the critical importance of a firm foundation in the education of children. The addition of quality preschool programs into the Abbott schools is just now beginning to show real, sustainable results. This is no time to tinker with that success.

Certainly, the governor's new funding plan will be ripe for debate in coming days, as he pushes for a vote in the lame-duck session. If passed, the plan must also pass court scrutiny to make sure it abides by the Abbott mandates.

Before a final vote is taken, then, local legislators -- particularly those whose districts include Abbott schools -- should remind their peers of the recent successes, and ask them to consider what might be lost if the money that's fueled those successes were suddenly to be taken away.

Rushing aid plan
causes confusion
Jersey Journal, Editorial, December 17, 2007

The one thing irrefutable about Gov. Jon Corzine's new school funding plan is how confusing it is. Last week, there were plenty of people who spoke at a public hearing on the proposal who said they do not have enough information to fully judge it.

The governor's plan would change how the state distributes $7.8 billion to public schools, increasing overall state aid by $532 million next year. Much of the funding increases will go to some of the state's older suburbs and its fastest-growing towns by linking the funding to actual student needs.

One problem is that aid for any district is capped at 20 percent, but even more worrisome is that it includes more than $800,000 in extra funding to make certain that every municipality gets at least a 2 percent increase in school funding.

Those extra monies have nothing to do with the actual funding formula. This extra aid may carry school districts for several years before the actual formula kicks in and then districts can get a real look at how well the plan works. The question then is whether Corzine will still be in office to take the bows or the blame.

Richard Shapiro, an attorney who has represented Elizabeth and other school districts in funding lawsuits is correct when he said: "What you're seeing now is a series of calculations that are designed to mask the full effect of the funding formula."

Witnesses had testified on this complicated proposed measure - and it has not even been drafted. All anyone saw were spreadsheets listing how much aid the 618 school districts will get under the new plan, when approved.

Abbott school districts would be most affected by the proposal. Of the 31 special districts, 22 would be held to the minimum 2 percent increase. State legislative sources said the state Department of Community Affairs has been asked to study the effect of tax abatements on school aid under the new plan for Jersey City, an Abbott district.

Corzine has said that he wants the formula approved during the lame duck session. Of the 10 senators at the recent hearing, half of them will leave office in January.

Lawmakers who question the viability of the proposed aid formula are correct to be concerned over having a lame duck session rush a plan into law that may contain flaws. It is our opinion that the governor would serve the state better by waiting for next year's crop of legislators to take more time to make sense of the new school funding formula.

# # # # #