| |
GARDEN STATE COALITION OF SCHOOLS/GSCS 12-18-06
GIVEN: A NEW SCHOOL FUNDING FORMULA MUST BE PUT IN PACE FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008.
INITIAL CONCERNS: Department of
AN OVERALL CONCERN:
Inadequate timelines have not been allowed for the full in-depth analyses, open discussion and understanding of the district-by-district impact that a new school funding formula requires. In addition, any funding formula viable conversation needs to be rooted in reality –to do that, the entire package needs to be revealed at the same time. A conversation about theory, when not backed up by knowledge of practical application, will likely result in confused expectations, mixed messages, and ‘having to do whole thing’ over again to get it right.
Concern: Leveling down of quality education.
Does the per pupil *cost measure (an average of $8500) demonstrate the state’s goal/expectations for quality education in
Concern: Wealth equalizing of special education aid – Keep as a categorical aid
Since special education programs are mandated for individual children no matter where they live, it is reasonable for the funding support & programs for those individual children to be the same no matter where they live. Special education support for students should not be reduced due a wealth-based calculation distributed according to district wealth, as opposed to individual student needs.
Concern: Minimum Aid is proposed for all districts
GSCS supports the concept, but points out that this can be better achieved both in terms of equity and effectiveness, by increasing the state share of special education categorical aid to all districts.
No district is favored in this method, and special education student support is appropriately increased via state share.
Concern: Ability-to-Pay
This formula needs to be disclosed, and the data run and published as soon as possible so that it can be reviewed, with an eye on significant change possibilities, and the real probability of unintended consequences.
Attendant Concern: “Hard Caps”
Reasonable caps differ from hard caps. In the proposed funding plan, hard caps apply cross the board with no exception allowed other than enrollment growth…. The data speaks loudly – these two factors alone (increase in health benefits and special education costs) made up 61.5% of local levy growth from FY02 to FY06- and makes clear that hard caps will have a negative impact on quality education. There is further stress on local districts now due to uncertainty concerning health benefits since the Governor’s recent removal of health benefits reform from the special session legislative proposal package.
ADDENDA
|
FY02 to FY06 SPECIAL EDUCATION & HEALTH BENEFITS EXPENDITURES | ||
|
IN REGULAR OPERATING DISTRICTS (RODs) v. GROWTH IN LOCAL LEVIES | ||
|
|
|
|
|
ROD Levy Growth 0206 |
2,378,240,758 |
|
|
ROD Sp Ed Growth 0206 |
678,570,214 |
.2853% of ROD levy growth |
|
ROD Health Bens Growth 0206 |
783,979,869 |
.3296% of ROD levy growth |
|
ROD Sp Ed+ Health Ben Growth = |
1,462,550,083 |
.61497% of ROD levy growth |
|
|
|
|
|
GARDEN STATE COALITION OF SCHOOLS/GSCS 11-06 |
| |
CHART (based on above data)
1 - 500,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,500,000,000 2,000,000,000 2,500,000,000 Dollars Growth in ROD (Regular Operating District) Health Benefits & Special Ed Expenditures vs. Local Levy Growth: '01-02 & '05-06 Growth in Sp Ed & Health Ben Costs 1,462,550,083 Growth In Local Levy 2,378,240,756 1 61.5% of the growth in local levy in regular operating districts from FY02 to FY06 (the same years that the state school aid formula, CEIFA, has not been implemented) has been due to increases in cost driver increases in special education and health benefits alone.
|
ASK 4Scores I & J District Level Scores: 2004-05 | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
District |
DFG00 |
Total Language Arts Scores |
Total Math Scores |
|
|
I |
72.5% |
72.5% |
|
ALLENDALE |
I |
96.3% |
95.4% |
|
ALPINE |
I |
|
|
|
|
I |
72.7% |
81.9% |
|
BAY HEAD |
I |
90.9% |
100.0% |
|
|
I |
91.8% |
92.0% |
|
|
I |
93.0% |
93.0% |
|
|
I |
94.5% |
93.2% |
|
|
I |
93.0% |
94.8% |
|
|
I |
94.6% |
90.7% |
|
BRIDGEWATER-RARITAN REG |
I |
90.8% |
91.2% |
|
|
I |
94.6% |
95.4% |
|
CALDWELL-WEST CALDWELL |
I |
91.1% |
89.5% |
|
CALIFON |
I |
94.7% |
94.7% |
|
|
I |
88.8% |
90.8% |
|
|
I |
84.8% |
85.1% |
|
|
I |
89.7% |
88.0% |
|
CLOSTER |
I |
96.8% |
95.6% |
|
|
I |
91.4% |
88.9% |
|
|
I |
93.8% |
89.9% |
|
CRESSKILL |
I |
89.4% |
84.0% |
|
DEMAREST |
I |
97.6% |
96.4% |
|
|
I |
91.9% |
91.9% |
|
|
I |
93.6% |
97.9% |
|
|
I |
92.4% |
91.3% |
|
|
I |
92.0% |
98.0% |
|
|
I |
90.2% |
86.2% |
|
FAIR HAVEN BOROUGH |
I |
97.2% |
95.2% |
|
FLEMINGTON-RARITAN REGION |
I |
91.9% |
90.1% |
|
|
I |
96.9% |
93.9% |
|
|
I |
93.5% |
90.3% |
|
|
I |
90.0% |
95.0% |
|
|
I |
91.6% |
85.3% |
|
|
I |
94.4% |
83.4% |
|
|
I |
87.1% |
84.4% |
|
|
I |
97.6% |
91.0% |
|
|
I |
89.0% |
93.2% |
|
|
I |
88.4% |
94.3% |
|
|
I |
91.3% |
88.3% |
|
|
I |
91.5% |
95.2% |
|
|
I |
93.1% |
89.9% |
|
KINNELON |
I |
93.6% |
91.4% |
|
|
I |
78.6% |
100.0% |
|
|
I |
91.2% |
85.3% |
|
|
I |
92.4% |
93.4% |
|
|
I |
94.8% |
91.7% |
|
|
I |
91.5% |
89.7% |
|
|
I |
91.8% |
89.0% |
|
|
I |
87.1% |
82.5% |
|
|
I |
97.2% |
94.1% |
|
METUCHEN |
I |
89.9% |
86.0% |
|
|
I |
92.6% |
90.7% |
|
|
I |
89.2% |
94.5% |
|
|
I |
85.6% |
80.8% |
|
MONTVALE |
I |
89.1% |
90.0% |
|
|
I |
91.6% |
90.4% |
|
|
I |
93.6% |
93.1% |
|
|
I |
90.9% |
89.5% |
|
|
I |
94.4% |
91.2% |
|
MOUNTAINSIDE |
I |
94.8% |
90.8% |
|
NEW |
I |
94.4% |
88.7% |
|
|
I |
89.9% |
89.9% |
|
|
I |
94.4% |
91.4% |
|
OLD TAPPAN |
I |
96.3% |
98.8% |
|
ORADELL |
I |
89.2% |
88.3% |
|
PARK RIDGE |
I |
95.8% |
92.5% |
|
|
I |
92.9% |
91.4% |
|
|
I |
94.5% |
90.5% |
|
RAMSEY |
I |
95.9% |
93.2% |
|
|
I |
92.4% |
90.8% |
|
|
I |
94.0% |
92.2% |
|
RIVER EDGE |
I |
91.9% |
87.8% |
|
RIVER VALE |
I |
96.3% |
95.6% |
|
|
I |
88.9% |
94.4% |
|
ROSELAND (ESSEX CO.) |
I |
96.4% |
91.2% |
|
SCOTCH PLAINS-FANWOOD |
I |
92.0% |
92.0% |
|
SEA GIRT BOROUGH |
I |
100.1% |
100.0% |
|
|
I |
89.1% |
92.7% |
|
SOMERSET HILLS |
I |
94.3% |
95.7% |
|
|
I |
88.7% |
89.0% |
|
SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD |
I |
81.3% |
78.8% |
|
|
I |
90.7% |
91.3% |
|
|
I |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
I |
91.2% |
90.0% |
|
TENAFLY |
I |
95.4% |
97.0% |
|
|
I |
93.7% |
90.7% |
|
|
I |
94.5% |
94.5% |
|
|
I |
96.2% |
97.9% |
|
|
I |
91.3% |
90.9% |
|
|
I |
94.3% |
93.0% |
|
WATCHUNG BOROUGH |
I |
91.8% |
95.4% |
|
WENONAH |
I |
97.5% |
95.1% |
|
|
I |
94.6% |
94.0% |
|
|
I |
96.2% |
91.7% |
|
|
J |
96.2% |
96.7% |
|
CHATHAMS, SCH DIST OF |
J |
96.1% |
93.8% |
|
|
J |
92.9% |
92.9% |
|
|
J |
91.6% |
93.1% |
|
|
J |
95.5% |
93.2% |
|
GLEN ROCK |
J |
91.7% |
91.2% |
|
HADDONFIELD BOROUGH |
J |
96.8% |
93.5% |
|
|
J |
88.5% |
92.3% |
|
HO-HO-KUS |
J |
96.8% |
93.7% |
|
LITTLE SILVER BOROUGH |
J |
87.6% |
87.6% |
|
MENDHAM BOROUGH |
J |
93.3% |
97.3% |
|
|
J |
93.1% |
93.0% |
|
|
J |
96.6% |
95.6% |
|
|
J |
90.5% |
89.4% |
|
|
J |
92.6% |
90.4% |
|
|
J |
91.9% |
84.9% |
|
|
J |
94.9% |
95.8% |
|
RUMSON BOROUGH |
J |
95.0% |
86.8% |
|
|
J |
95.3% |
97.6% |
|
|
J |
94.4% |
93.1% |
|
|
J |
94.8% |
92.9% |
|
WEST WINDSOR-PLAINSBORO R |
J |
93.3% |
91.2% |
|
|
J |
94.2% |
82.5% |
|
I & J Average |
|
92.4% |
90.6% |
|
State Average |
|
81.2% |
80.2% |
All districts must have a reasonable financial stake in their children’s education.
- Promotes community and parental involvement via budget planning process
15%-85%solution:No district should fund its schools less than 15% nor more than 85%
(It is understood that there could be anomalies to this rule.)
- Ability-to-Pay considerations can apply within this framework.
- State funding of categorical aids outside an adequacy foundation can achieve 85%.
- State & federal funding of adequacy foundation amounts, plus categorical aids,
can fund the highest concentrations of special-needs children.
Wealth Formula
- Adjustment of the current 50% property + 50% income/aggregates per community over enrollment should not occur unless they results in a significant benefit to a significant supermajority of districts across the state; nor should it occur if there is significant negative impact to one type/segment of communities within the state.
- For example, removing income or lessening income part of the wealth formula by a certain factor, e.g., will benefit cities more where citizens have lower income on average.
- There is a need to compare overall impacts: i.e., evaluate how the local fair share determinations are balanced against state and federal aid that localities are currently receiving to support their education and municipal needs.
Ability toPay: sensitive not only to community local fair share, but also to individual residents’ income capacity as well
- Circuit Breakers: offset property taxes/individuals who meet certain criteria/wealth ranges
Defining ‘regular education’ is critical; determine first what is not to be considered as regular education.
- Regular education is first organized and delivered to all students attending public schools (i.e., applying today’s core curriculum standards).
Categorical/Special Needs program for certain students only
No equalization re mandated programs – current big 3; any new mandates – e.g., preschool; full-day Kindergarten; if at certain wealth measure/concentration ‘at risk’ students is required, must fund that mandate at state level.
- Individual students with special needs will determine these ‘categorical’ aids: special-needs services for these students will be determined by the individual student’s needs within a district. These services will not be available for the entire student body compared to regular education programs that would be provided for all the students in a given district.
- Special Education programs and related services: specifically, child study teams and related service/special education staff must realistically be included under the special education aid umbrella. The functional time that child study teams must devote to special education students is approximated to be well over 90%.
- Transportation
- Bi-Lingual
- At-Risk students
- Adult Education
- Debt Service
- Per-Pupil aids must be kept current by enrollment fluctuations.
- Supplemental programs can be justified via special grant programs, with annual review and justification.
- Constitutionality can be checked formulaically by built-in ‘floor’ or ‘benchmarking.’
ADDITIONAL AREAS OF CONCERN REQUIRE DEFINITION/CONSIDERATION.
Accountability process
Caps v. mandates v. cost drivers – type and impact – what districts can and cannot control
No restricted aid categories
Cost containment – Effective and Efficient / justify, define, quantify and qualify uses.
