| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GARDEN STATE COALITION OF SCHOOLS/GSCS
EMAILNET
Dr. Walter Mahler, President Lynne Strickland, Executive Director
Betsy Ginsburg, Parent Network Representative/GSPN
Phone 609 394 2828 Fax 609 396 7620 Website ‘gscschools.org’ email ‘gscs@ebnet.org’
GSCS Quick Facts: Please email GSCS EMAILNETS to your school community. Thank you. Next Board of Trustees Meeting: November 10,
Two important ‘public support for public schools’ grassroots meetings were held this week:
ü October 12, Marlboro Board of Education [
ü October 13 at the
ü Future Regional Meetings in the works:
___________________________________________________________________________
GOOD NEWS! A3362/Greenwald introduced this week will appropriate $18.3M in FY05 for ExtraordinaryAid for Special Education. This will meet a stated goal of GSCS to have that category of special education funding made whole. GSCS won that full funding for districts in the FY04 state budget, but it was not updated in the FY05 Appropriations Act. Providing for this aid to be made whole in this budget year shows that legislators were willing to revisit the issue and understood that districts budgets, particularly vulnerable when children with special needs move into schools, need this help.
___________________________________________________________________________
MORE GOOD NEWS! - S1701 A99 AMENDMENTS:
Assemblyman Lou Greenwald [6th legislative district] shared draft legislation with GSCS board member district
(Note: As we have previously reported in our EMAILNET 9-30-04 … “GSCS Work Groups & members have been meeting with key legislators and staff from both sides of the aisle to impress their concerns about the negative impact of this legislation to Trenton.…GSCS has been asking the Legislature to give ‘Schools the Tools’ they need to address the real cost drivers in education budgets,” and to consider cap relief for a number of items…)
Here are the Greenwald amendments. The following annual cost increases will be granted cap waivers in Greenwald’s ‘cap adjustment’ legislation, they are:
.
- Special education costs increases above 2.5%/CPI [$40K floor is deleted].
- Insurances/ costs above 2/5%/CPI:
Employee group insurance; liability;workers’ compensation; domestic/security.
- Utility costs above 2.5%/CPI.
- Courtesy/Safety Busing costs phase-down when above 2.5%/CPI, as follows:
2005-2006 based on 100% cost
2006-2007 “ “ 75%
2007-2008 “ “ 50%
2008-2009 “ “ 25%
Note: GSCS argument is succeeding, that “…clarity is needed to understand that when state aid for mandated programs is not distributed by the state, local taxpayers must make up the difference. There is a direct relationship between property tax increases and unfunded state aid. The state should acknowledge this relationship by allowing districts a cap waiver in when already legislated state aid is not given to schools. This underfunding has been occurring for the past several years, especially in mandated programs – such as special education - that experience student enrollments increases…”
MAJOR ISSUES REMAIN in S1701:
Surplus reduction: Traditionally used for property tax relief by local districts. This practice allows for a smoother budget process with advantage of foresight. Reasonable surplus tempers emergent situations. The state has no provision for rainy day funds at state level that might provide a safety net. Surplus reduction creates future ‘hole’ in budget that will have to be made up via increase in property taxes.
Second Question Restrictions – (1) Greatly reduces what local schools may place on the ballot (even when local taxpayers must approve, thus holding their local district accountable the through their vote); (2) Inappropriately assigns final control in second question decision-making to county-state administrators.
Loss of local control: separate questions require county and state approval although it is local decision whether or not to locally support the expenditure required. There is a state-controlled ‘filter’ a district must wade through before even being allowed to formally propose a second question: programs/services in a prior budget are not allowed to be put in a second question at all. Flexibility is curtailed and there is little room to promote improvement needed to maintain quality education. In certain cases, the law permits the state to dictate where a local district may spend its revenue for support and administrative services.
Administrative Spending Limits: (1) Caps administrative cost growth to 2.5%, even when district spending is lower than the state-defined benchmark for effective/efficient spending in this category; (2) even new principals hired to head new schools built due to enrollment growth are required to fit under the current 2.5%; (3) does not take enrollment growth into account; (4) does not take differing needs of student body into account.
