Quality Public Education for All New Jersey Students

 

 
     Property Tax Reform, Special Legislative Session & School Funding
11-9-06 Public hearing on school consolidation tonight, 7 pm, at Freehold Borough Chambers, 51 Main St
GSCS FYI: GSCS backs consolidation (and of course shared services which occurs frequently already) efforts of school districts, with the caveat that it remain voluntary for individual districts option.

GSCS also supports laws and regulations that would secure: 1) a tax structure that would not penalize a district via higher property taxes as a result of consolidating with another school district; 2) find an equitable way for districts not to have to share debt services incurred by one or more of the mergings district prior to merging; 3) addresses differences in teacher salaries that would not lead to joined districts' having to cover additional salary costs that are likely to occur due to the merger.

These points above are currently major stumbling blocks to districts' merging and yet the legislative dialogue on consolidation has remained silent on these issues. GSCS, as well as other groups, have noted these problems consistently when talking to legislators, in our communications in general and in testimonies as well. We formally noted it in our write-up to Gov Corzine's Transition Team/Education last December as well.

GSCS is interested in Pennsylvania's Intermediate Unit system which goes a long way in helping to provide regionalized services to local districts - from special education instruction and various education programs to transportation to textbooks etc - while sustaining local district home rule.

GARDEN STATE COALITION OF SCHOOLS/GSCS

210 West State Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

609 394 2828   Fax 609 396 7620                                                                                                        Lynne Strickland

gscs2000@.gmail.com    www.gscschools.org                                                                         

To: Members of the Early Education Subcommittee of the Public Education Policy Group  12-20-05               

Re: Education Issues – Funding Issues, Smarter Spending

 

The Garden State Coalition of Schools – formally organized in June 1992 - currently represents more than 350,000 public education students, primarily suburban, through its statewide public regular operating school district members (approximately 115/volunteer basis). On average, GSCS district support is locally funded at 90+%. Nearly half of GSCS’ members fall into District Factor Group rankings CD to GH; a bit more than half are IJ districts.

 

The Coalition’s mission to pursue and promote quality education for all public school children in New Jersey is supported by a unique grassroots mix of parent, board of education member, and school administrator volunteers. To assure the underpinnings of quality education are maintained, GSCS keeps it eye on school funding issues as they evolve at the state level, analyzes how they impact the local district level programs and curriculum. In turn, GSCS presents information and data to state leadership to advocate for public support of public education. GSCS appreciates this opportunity to delve into some – certainly not all - of the key funding issues facing the state today.

 

Public support for public education in New Jersey inextricably links to property taxes and school funding – one cannot be realistically addressed without recognizing the needs of the other. The year 2006 finds New Jersey at a critical jointure in the school funding debate: the CEIFA school funding formula has not been implemented since FY2002, nor have enrollments been counted in what aid has been distributed per the old CEIFA. Where state aid per pupil falls, property taxes will rise. In New Jersey, more than 45% of the regular operating districts are now considered too wealthy to receive basic state support aid; in California only 60 districts of 1000 school districts fall into this ‘too wealthy’ category. To keep New Jersey at the high level of student performance that is nationally recognized while detouring from the high property tax burden, the state needs to:

 

  1. develop and implement a new public school funding formula ; one that is unified, fair and responsive to student and community needs;
  2. revisit its rationale for property tax support of schools, seeking ways to offer relief to local taxpayers, while being wary not to destabilize the constancy of revenue support that property taxes best provide; the legislature should tackle this conundrum now.
  3. make gathering of accurate, up-to-date, transparent, complete school finance and district data a number one priority. Current data is out of date in many instances and incomplete – it is too often not possible to make quality decisions based on what is ‘out there’.
  4. seek legislative action in the areas that can improve efficiency; base legislation on factual evidence and fiscal notes before moving it ahead. For example, on-going conversation about regionalization being an effective and efficient avenue to improve cost and delivery of education falls flat when existing tax laws are an immediate disincentive to districts’ seeking to combine; it is also known that the combining of districts will impose higher salaries on the district[s] salary guide that is/are not the highest in the potential regional district….Move mandate relief legislation to the Governor for signature.
  5. Many cost drivers of school budgets are beyond local district control but are within the state’s purview to varying degrees: health benefits, utility costs; pensions; insurances to name a few – the state must take a proactive role in these areas if substantial change is to occur to stabilize the cost of education in New Jersey. Without that public support will continue to erode.

 

Some other outstanding issues: Special Education delivery and cost; school construction; testing.

See GSCS website  www.gscschools.org for membership information, data, current issues, more.

 

GARDEN STATE COALITION OF SCHOOLS/GSCS

Dr. Marjorie Heller, President

Lynne Strickland, Executive Director

Betsy Ginsburg, Parent Network Representative

 

Phone 609 394 2828  Fax 609 396 7620                   Website ‘gscschools.org’                    Email ‘gscs@gmail.com

 

Testimony before

The Joint Legislative Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared Services

Statehouse Annex, Committee Room11

October 18, 2006

 

Good morning Senator Smith and Assemblyman Wisnewski, members of the Joint Committee. I am Lynne Strickland, Executive Director of the Garden State Coalition of Schools (GSCS). GSCS, currently representing 350,000 public school students in 110 school communities across the state of New Jersey, appreciates your invitation to speak to the Committee today. The proposals under discussion are sweeping in nature and we anticipate today’s opportunity signals the beginning of the most important debate in current history on the structure and delivery of public education on our state.

 

We have a few overall comments for starters:

 

(1)    Please ‘show us the money’. By that, we mean what are the costs involved in effecting any one of the plans before us today? Before the state takes steps to overhaul its education system- and in the name of saving money as its first priority – we should be apprised of inherent costs in these plans so that can appropriately be factored in the best practice of informed decision-making. To have this discussion in the absence of real number on both the plus and minus side of the ledger is very risky business.

(2)    We are wary of the need for establishing new and/or extended bureaucracies at the county level, especially when this conversation is focused more on 20th century problems rather than 21st century solutions. (See attached addenda)

(3)    Certain issues would actually increase property taxes under consolidation – they require being addressed for this conversation to have realistic legs.

ü      Salaries rise to the highest levels of the consolidated group

ü      The tax structure in New Jersey is structured in such a way that one or more districts have to pay more when merged.

ü      Consolidated districts must assume costs of one another. In the event of consolidation, districts would assume a portion of the debt of the new, consolidated entity, thus raising cost to local taxpayers.  For a number of districts, transportation costs, would rise significantly in the event of consolidation.  Again, property taxes would rise.

(4)    Assure that data used as a basis for this discussion is relevant – e.g., disaggregate Abbott district data from the regular operating district data. It is acknowledged that there are currently two systems of funding in the state, blending the figures of both can result in misleading information, thus ill-informed decisions.

 

You have asked us to confine our comments – for discussion purposes only -  to bills A54, S577, S2266 and S2267. These latter two bills were just sent to us yesterday and are still pending introduction. Mindful of the 5 minute time limit, we will only be able to give you a quick ‘take’ on some of the issues presented by these bills, as follows:

 

A54/Speaker Roberts

 

Politicization: Gubernatorial appointment issues –

 

The county executive superintendent is appointed by the Governor on a biannual basis, with the recommendation of the Commissioner; at the same time, the Commissioner is also appointed by the Governor. Politics could take the lead rather than educational and organizational leadership. How can politicization of the role not occur?

 

Bureaucracy at the county level will increase

 

How can another layer extending bureaucracy and the potential for patronage not be avoided?

 

Blurring of organizational lines of authority

The Department of Education Commissioner and the ‘super’ county superintendent are both positions that are awarded by gubernatorial appointments. Which role then would really run the show? In addition to the role of the Commissioner likely being weakened, confusion could override clarity of function; operational delegation and clarity are necessary priorities in well-functioning, efficient bureaucracies.

 

Local control is diminished in this proposed governance construct –

 

Executive superintendents have virtual veto power over school budgets as well as administrator contracts.  Since their contributions would have less effect, boards of education – local parents and citizens - could lose eventually lose heart and distance themselves from participating in local governance. It is generally accepted that increased local involvement leads to more effective education for children and a higher level of accountability for school districts.

 

Consolidation recommending power and public vote required

There are no provisions for local input into consolidation plans; while each affected locality is required to vote on the Commissioner-approved plan, the bill is silent on what criteria will literally be used to determine if the plan passes or fails. For instance, if 4 communities are affected and 3 out of the 4 vote for the consolidation plan, would that be considered a majority and the plan would then be passed? Or, does the voters’ sentiment in the one community carry the weight in the final outcome?

 

Executive superintendent’s evaluation is dependent on administrative reduction

No guidelines are stipulated, nor ways to assess qualitatively,  what is too much or too little administration. In addition, there is no easy way to determine quantitative guidelines since student demographics and needs differ district to district.

 

Mandate ‘downsizing’ –

 

The executive superintendent is granted recommending powers to eliminate certain mandates, while the legislature is given final oversight opportunity as a check and balance. This is positive.

 

Local districts may apply to executive county superintendent for certain services

 

This part of the bill is reminiscent of Pennsylvania’s Intermediate Unit structure which operates successfully and saves local district monies and yet retains the essence of home rule. GSCS believes that Pennsylvania’s system offer positive ways to be cost-effective and, very important, educationally effective at the same time.

 

S557/Senator Kyrillos:

 

This bill establishes an interesting structure similar to BOCES (Board of Cooperative Educational Services) in New York State.

 

Since a new school funding formula is to be proposed in the near future, certain questions arise that may require the bill to be reworked however.

 

The bill establishes two types of County School Business Boards, one for Abbotts and one for all remaining districts. The new school funding formula under current debate is liable to erase the lines between Abbott and regular operating districts, resulting in one system of school funding for all districts with the funding based on the individual students’ needs and not on district wealth.

 

The cross-involvement with the Business Boards’ membership split between the Commissioner of Education and the Board of Chosen Freeholders gives cause for concerns: competing management styles which could inhibit progress in decision-making and additional bureaucratic layers. Patronage is also a concern.

 

S2266 and S2677/Senator Smith:

 

This bill overhauls public education as we know it today, creating a locus of power at the county level (with political appointment power of the Governor, the Chief Executive of the County and the County Board of Chosen Freeholders) that would exercise virtually all critical aspects of school districts’ education program, including instructional programs and personnel. We have included parts of the bill below to demonstrate its overwhelming absorption of school district functions, down to making school boards of education irrelevant and advisory only. Quality education is certainly threatened by this bill.

 

Per the bill’s statement, S2266 “Provides for submission to voters in each county a binding referendum on the establishment of a county administrative school district to govern and operate all public schools in the county.”

 

“…a county school board would be established and a chief school administrator would be appointed by the Governor, and they would be responsible for supervising the operations of the county district.  A board of school estimate would develop a county administrative school district budget and would determine the amount of school taxes necessary for the operation of the district.  The law would allow local boards of education to remain in place, however, these boards would only be advisory.  The law also would provide that students remain in the school in which they were enrolled prior to the establishment of the county administrative school district….” 

…(the Office of the State Auditor estimates that current salaries and benefits costs of local) superintendents of schools, assistant superintendents of schools, school business administrators, and information technology coordinators currently employed in local public school districts, county vocational school districts, and county special services school districts equals approximately $553 million Statewide… (the bill further states that)…The elimination of these positions would be factored into the overall cost savings that may be realized by the establishment of a county administrative school district…”

                             ______________________________________________

There are a number of compelling issues that are stand out in these bills and that challenge common sense:

 

1. Whither quality education? In order to determine and shape the most fitting instructional and delivery system for student bodies, it is most effective to have those decisions in the hands of those who are most intimate with the students in the districts. One size does not fit all, and a gubernatorial appointee who is imposed on local district determinations - and an appointed county board - cannot have the local sensitivity (of school district administrators and local school boards) and knowledge base when sprung from, and having to answer to, the ‘political top down’.

 

2.  The ballot as configured has to prejudice the voters: The purported savings, by county, are listed right on the ballot. These so-called savings are not a net figure, rather only a simple listing of totals achieved by eliminating jobs of four main district administrative positions. What are the costs that would be incurred in setting up a county district system and why are they not noted? What are the personnel costs involved therein to support the 74 districts in Bergen County for instance? What are the related costs in terms of facilities and superstructure? Without full balance sheet analysis this proposal, demonstrated by the ballot sample, falls flat.

 

3. Why are county vocational and special services schools included when they already are county-based?

 

4. What kind of additional bureaucracy will be created at the county level to literally fulfill the functions of the local districts? How political might the bureaucracy be when the positions are appointed by the Governor?

 

5. How will teacher contracts, for instance, be negotiated and to what reasonable extent could taxpayers be further burdened when, most likely, faced with salaries and benefits being lifted to the highest package in the county?

 

6. With no local district chief in charge, for instance, how will the county administrator effectively and quickly deal with emergencies that occur, especially in more than one district at the same time….

 

7. Local parents will “vote with their feet” in the event of the major disruption and possible diminution of quality education that could be caused by conversion to a county-based system.  Local property values would decline.

                ____________________________________________________________________

 

S2267 EXCERPTS: The county board would consist of the county superintendent of schools and four members appointed by the chief elected executive officer of the county, or the director of the board of chosen freeholders, with the advice and consent of that board, as appropriate to the appointment procedures established by the form of government of the county.  The bill would require each member of the board to be a citizen and resident of the county during service and for the three years preceding appointment.  The bill would permit no more than two members of the same political party to serve on a county board.  County boards would organize annually on November 1 by the election of a president and vice-president.

                County boards would have the power to: 

                a.  Make purchases and to enter into contracts for the provision or performance of goods or services;

                b.             Provide or contract for the provision of transportation for all public and nonpublic pupils within the county;

                c.  Purchase, sell, and improve school grounds, erect, purchase, lease, enlarge, improve, and repair school buildings, including any building or buildings for school purposes owned by any municipality in the county, with or without furnishings and equipment, and purchase school furniture and other necessary equipment; 

                d.  Take and condemn land and other property for school purposes in the manner provided by law regulating the ascertainment and payment of compensation for property condemned and taken for public uses;

                e.  Insure school buildings, furniture, and other school property, and receive, lease, and hold in trust any and all real and personal property for the benefit of the school district; 

                f.  Employ and dismiss district supervisors, principals, teachers, janitors, mechanics, and laborers; fix, alter, and order paid their salaries and compensation, and prescribe the course of study to be pursued; 

                g.  Appoint a treasurer and fix the treasurer’s salary and term of office; 

                h.  Make, amend, and repeal rules for its own government, for the transaction of business, and for the government and management of the school and school property under its control; 

                i.  Provide textbooks and other necessary supplies and apparatus; 

                j.  Adopt an official seal by which all its official acts may be authenticated;

                k.  Make an annual report to the commissioner on or before August 1 in the manner and form prescribed by him; 

                l.  Appoint a secretary and fix his salary and term of office; and

                m.  Do all other acts and things that may be necessary for the proper organization and functioning of the public schools of the district during its first year.

                Provisions of law relating to contracts for the furnishing of goods or services that are applicable to a board of education of a local school district would be applicable to a county board.

                The position of chief school administrator would be appointed by contract by the Governor for a term of no fewer than three nor more than five years.  An appropriate certificate, as prescribed by the State board, would be required for the position.  The chief school administrator would have general supervision over all aspects of the county administrative school district, including fiscal operations and instructional programs, under rules and regulations prescribed by the State board, and would have such other powers and perform such additional duties as may be prescribed by the board of education of the county administrative school district. 

 

ADDENDA:

 

TWENTIETH CENTURY SOLUTIONS FOR TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY PROBLEMS

 

Across the state out member districts are looking to new, cost efficient ways of delivering high quality, more customized education.  These educational innovations include the use of accredited distance learning programs, cooperative arrangements with local colleges and universities and the sharing of best practices through benchmarking consortiums.  Innovations like these are already a reality in some districts and will become reality in many more—perhaps the majority—in the next five to ten years.  Creating incentives that will help facilitate these twenty-first century solutions will ultimately be much more cost effective than old-fashioned remedies like expensive and disruptive forced consolidations or the creation of county-based systems with the attendant growth in expensive bureaucracy and the loss of local accountability.

NEWS EXCERPTS RE SALARIES INCREASING WITH MERGERS:

Gannet State Bureau 9-7-06:”…Maryland lagged behind New Jersey in reading and math tests, according to data supplied by Senate Democrats, and in graduation rates, according to School Matters, a Web site that collects education data. Maryland and New Jersey students score about the same on college entrance exams, according to School Matters.

A University of Toronto scholar offered a less promising analysis for saving money through consolidating municipalities, based on observations of years of mergers between Toronto and its surrounding areas. She said those efforts often resulted in higher expenses.

"There are reasons to consolidate municipalities, but I would argue that cost saving is probably not one of them," said Dr. Enid Slack, of the Munk Centre for International Studies. When towns combined, Slack said, workers' salaries usually gravitated up to the level in the higher-paying municipality, costing more money. ..”

Assoc Press 9-7-06: “…William Dressel, director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, said Slack's comments confirm his position that consolidating local government does not produce major tax savings. "In fact, the Toronto experience indicates salaries actually increased because when salaries were blended they went to highest salary scale," Dressel said.