| |
Loss of categorical special education aid that is distributed to disabled students no matter where they live, via equalization by implementing wealth-based formula for special education, appears to be under the Administration's consideration in new funding formula: Consequences are real - In the name of property tax relief, hundreds of districts will be pushed to raise property taxes to meet reduced aid for special education programs and students. Read today's op-ed piece in the Asbury Park Press by Marlboro Schools superintendent David Abbott and Glen Ridge parent Julie Raskin's thoughtful write-up on why sustainded support of special education students and programs works best for all; read Press of Atlantic City's piece on 'NJ struggles to define adequate education' for schools.
See listing of possible reductions in current categorical special education aid for every district in the state in announcement lines just below this announcement.
Special education funding cut to hurt most districts
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on November 7, 2006
BY DAVID C. ABBOTT
The Legislature has taken on the Herculean task of revamping school funding, which is presently supported primarily through property taxes. The education community supports and applauds this long-overdue effort. We hope the recommendations will result in a significantly reduced property tax burden for every resident while, at the same time, maintaining and supporting the state's high quality of education.
Unfortunately, several proposals under serious consideration indicate that property taxes may not be decreased at all. Instead, property taxes may be increased, creating an even greater burden on our citizens.
It has been determined that the state can save $500 million through the reduction of special education aid to all districts except Abbott districts. If that occurs, school districts would be left with two very difficult choices: ask taxpayers to replace those lost dollars through increased property taxes or significantly reduce services to regular education students.
Since school districts are bound by federal and state laws to provide special education services deemed necessary as indicated on students' Individual Education Programs, the lost dollars must be taken from somewhere else in the budget. Special education services cannot be reduced. Those dollars must remain untouched. Therefore, the money to continue funding special education would have to come from a transfer of dollars from regular education programs.
Should special education funds be distributed in a manner consistent with the present distribution of Core Curriculum Content Standards aid via the District Factor Group Index as proposed, my district, Marlboro, would lose $2.3 million in special education aid. That translates to an additional $230 annually in property taxes for a home assessed at $300,000. If the district does not ask for these funds to be replaced through increased property taxes, we're looking at a loss of about 40 regular education teachers, which will result in increasing class sizes beyond what research time and time again has proved to be instructionally unsound practice.
What else would this $2.3 million cut do? It would pit parent against parent; special education vs. regular education. And, it would create deep divides and resentments within a community that historically has supported Marlboro schools and all of its children.
Be aware that this $500 million will be redistributed to other school districts and called "property tax relief." For them, but not for us.
And there's even more bad news. Extensive data in a release last month from the state Department of Education compares districts' actual spending in 2004-05 with an education adequacy budget developed by department staff, with help from John Augenblick, a Denver-based consultant. According to this document, suburban districts classified by the education department as affluent and educationally successful — called District Factor Groups "I" and "J" — spent $166 million, or 5.3 percent, in excess of the department's adequacy budget.
Marlboro, an "I" district, actually spent 11.43 percent under the adequacy budget. Because the state would probably not individualize its reductions but would take them across the board, Marlboro would be penalized.
Shouldn't there be consideration for those districts that are doing an outstanding job managing public funds and fostering high academic achievement? It appears the state would rather lump all of us together and administer even further cuts in state aid to redistribute in other places. Why doesn't the state use Marlboro, and other districts that have track records of fiscal responsibility and efficiency, as models for those districts that spend beyond a reasonable norm?
Right now, Marlboro residents pay 84 percent of the total cost of education through property taxes. If the state reduces its aid to our schools, that percentage will increase and property taxes will rise. The only decrease we foresee with these cuts is in the decline of educational excellence for our children.
Contact your legislators now, before such recommendations are presented by the Legislature, with Gov. Corzine's nod of approval, to the public Nov. 15. Act before Marlboro schools, as well as other schools across the state, are irreparably harmed.
David C. Abbott is superintendent of Marlboro schools.
Comments by a GSCS special education parent, Oct. 30 2006:
Equalization Creates Inequity--Why All
All special education students, regardless of their address or socioeconomic standing, need our full support. We cannot and must not abandon any of these children.
· Special Education students are among the most vulnerable in
If districts decide not to cut special education programs or existing programs for typically developing students, there will be only one option. Raise property taxes.
· There will be no other way to make up the loss in funds from the state of
An investment in special education saves money in the long run.
· When the needs of special education children are addressed in a timely manner and these children are provided with the resources they need to make progress in their studies, they grow up to become productive, working members of society rather than dysfunctional adults who are a drain on society. Without proper supports, these children are at risk for becoming adults who are unemployed, underemployed, homeless or behind bars. Let’s do what we can to prevent these awful scenarios.
Reduced funding from
· Many Districts throughout the state have already created in-house specialized and inclusion programs that are flourishing. Those students who remain out of district need highly specialized private programs or courts have mandated that these children be educated in private settings. Even if districts wanted to bring some of the few remaining students back into district, the courts may not let them. Court costs are excessive in themselves and judges may decide that these students should remain where they are. Districts will have to shoulder litigation and tuition costs. Why should we go through this futile process?
Do not set up
· The No Child Left Behind Law requires that all students, including special education students, make adequate yearly progress and meet basic grade level proficiency expectations. Without proper funding to all districts for special education students, we may find ourselves out of compliance with these federal requirements. Let’s make sure that all our students and schools are able to make adequate yearly progress.
In order for special education students to succeed in the highly competitive global workforce, we must increase, not reduce, funding for special education funding.
· Across the
Press of
How much does it cost to provide an adequate education to a child in
The state Department of Education last month estimated the base cost of educating a child at about $8,000 for K-8 students and $8,500 for those in high school. Keep in mind the base cost is like buying the base model of car. It will run, but it won't be as powerful or enjoyable as the higher-priced model.
Advocates on all sides were appalled, saying districts already spend more than that and are struggling to maintain programs. The
The report indicated that the wealthiest districts and the 31 poorest urban districts spent about the same per student — almost $11,000. That's because the state Supreme Court ordered the state to fund the poor schools at the same rate as the state's most successful schools. It's not a coincidence that so many successful schools happen to be in the wealthiest towns.
Meanwhile, the middle-class suburban schools are about $1,000 behind per student, and other poor districts, many of which are in the southern part of the state, are more more than $1,500 behind.
The
Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau reported in April that
So it might appear that we are spending more than we absolutely have to for an adequate education. But that still doesn't answer the question of why we spend so much, and how much is enough.
David Sciarra, of the
“Give everyone some base state aid increase next year, then take a year to really do the formula right so we don't just end up back in court,” he said.
Assemblyman Herb Conaway Jr., D-Burlington, Camden, co-chair of the Joint Legislative Committee on Public School Funding Reform, said last month that before they can consider any new way to pay for public education, lawmakers must first know how much educating our children actually costs. “Otherwise, any funding formula will be doomed to the same fate as past, failed models,” he said.
The committee has a Nov. 15 deadline to develop a new funding formula. So far the one thing all school districts agree on is that the state should not tell them to spend less without first proving they can still do a good job. Right now, that proof is not evident, and the clock is ticking.
