Property Tax Reform, Special Legislative Session & School Funding

10-10-06 GSCS Testimony in Collingswood
At the public hearing before the Joint Committee on Public School Funding Reform, 10-10-06

GARDEN STATE COALITION OF SCHOOLS/GSCS

                   

Testimony before the Joint Committee on Public School Funding Reform

Collingswood, New Jersey      

October 10, 2006

 

Good afternoon, Chairmen Adler and Conaway, members of the committee – we thank you for this opportunity to input into what has been noted to be the most important issue facing our state today – how to fund schools yet keep property taxes in check. New Jersey schools, communities, parents, educators, and state leaders face this enormous challenge every day.

 

As part of his property tax reform initiative, Governor Corzine has given legislators the task of creating a new school funding formula and making changes to the state’s school governance apparatus.  The time frame for this ambitious effort is tight –the Joint Committee on Public School Funding Reform has stated they intend to finish their work by November - and changes are targeted to be enacted into law by the end of 2006.

 

As you know, GSCS testified by invitation before you in early September and suggested a number of cost saving measures per your request. Today, GSCS will round out those suggestions by focusing on our members concerns regarding the potential new school funding formula.

 

One point on the emerging formula – it is widely know that the formula is being based on a 2003 study conducted by the Department of Education. This study is currently in the process of being updated to 2006 data, and reworked into a formula to reflect legislative and the gubernatorial priorities for hopeful implementation of the 2007-2008 school year. GSCS and stakeholder groups were advised by state leadership that they would be informed of the study’s parameters prior to its release, with the possibility of having viable input into the actual final product of the formula, based on the study. To date, this has not occurred. Given the November 15 date of the Joint Committees’ recommendations this is unlikely to happen in a viable way. We believe that this persistent ‘distance’ is going to be problematic for the future, and only gives birth to more worry from our member communities rather than support:

 

GSCS KEY MESSAGE POINTS for SCHOOL FUNDING

 

·          QUALITY EDUCATION SHOULD NOT BE LEFT OUT OF THE DEBATE - EFFICIENCY IS ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE EQUATION. To date, legislative discussion has overwhelmingly focused on cost efficiencies. Effectiveness – performance and quality education– need to be an integral part of the debate.

·          OUR SCHOOLS ARE NOT LEVELED DOWN. Vigilance is needed to see that the need to contain costs does not result in legislation that lowers the standard of education for all of our children.

 

·          A TOWN’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT ITS LOCAL SCHOOL BUDGET IS BASED ON A FORMULA FAIR TO ALL DISTRICTS. The formula used to determine state aid should be reworked to reflect the fiscal realities within various districts. At present 45% (compared to 6% in California, for example) of the regular operating districts [approx. 260] in New Jersey are considered too wealthy to receive regular state education aid (wealth-based aid).

 

    If the formula is to be ‘wealth-based’, consider building in parameter checks, such as:

    What per cent has the local community supported its schools in the past? Is there a

    reasonable limit to how much a community should support its schools yet not degrade

   its education programs? And vice versa …. Do not build a funding formula based on

    what is available in the funding pot, rather consider what is reasonable to ask of any

    community,  the individuals within a community, and balanced by should be provided to

    support an educationally adequate budget..

 

                                                                                          p.2/gscs/Collingswood/10-6-06

 

·          CITIZENS OF A DISTRICT HAVE A REASONABLE FINANCIAL STAKE IN THEIR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION. No district should fund schools less than 15% or more than 85% through property tax

 

If a formula provides adequate categorical funding for individual students’ special needs, the state’s low end aid (15% state and 85% local) would likely be met. In this way, no community would be disenfranchised by state philosophy - as could be reflected by demonstrable lack of state support in the state aid budget to communities, while at the same time being hampered by state code restrictions at the same time. 

 

If a formula were provided with sufficient aid to through federalTitle 1 funds, grants, and state adequacy funding, districts with high degrees of disadvantaged students would remain connected through community and parent involvement in the local budget process. It is understood that there could be exceptions to this rule.

 

 

·          STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND DISABILITIES RECEIVE STATE SUPPORT AID NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE. For example, special education and transportation must not be equalized. Many districts would receive no aid if those categorical programs were funded based on district wealth, rather than on the individual student’s needs (e.g.45% of the regular operating districts would not receive categorical aid for special education).

 

       For instance, if special education aid were equalized, state aid would be taken away

       from communities that now already support their school budgets upwards of 95%,

       often more. The message to these communities would be deafening as well as

       isolating – in effect, the state would be saying “we need your money, you can support

       yourselves without virtually any help from the state, but you still have to do as we

       say.” So these districts would lose the majority of what state support they have, while

       having to rely even more heavily on their local taxpayers. The 260 school districts

       noted above would in essence be marooned by the state.

 

·          A CITIZEN’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT HIS/HER LOCAL SCHOOL BUDGET IS CONSIDERED. Any legislation should be sensitive to not only the community’s ‘local fair share’ but also to individual residents’ ability to pay.

 

·          THE RESEARCH IS FULLY DONE PRIOR DESIGNING LAW. Analyze impacts as related to New Jersey districts’ experience in specific; avoid ‘unintended consequences’.

 

Research indicates that New Jersey is unique in the nation due to the differentiation in school funding requirements based on the Abbott decision. Because of the two systems of school funding presently operating in our state, data-driven decisions should be based on disaggregated data: i.e., separate Regular Operating District data from Abbott date when reviewing, analyzing and deciding funding formula trends, impacts and policies.

 

·          SCHOOL DISTRICTS MERGERS BE VOLUNTARY. Encourage replication of shared programs that exist; offer incentives for districts to move in that direction expeditiously.

 

We know that what happens in Trenton will directly affect not only the well-being of our children’s education, but that of our communities. We know your efforts remain a work in progress and we look forward to continuing to work with you. We look to you and your leadership for the courage to achieve a formula that works for all New Jersey’s students, it towns and its schools.

 

Thank you.