| |
Asbury Park Press on 09/25/06 "Maryland's model for public schools, held up by some Garden State lawmakers as a cheaper alternative to New Jersey's fragmented system, may not offer the kind of savings originally thought, two sets of federal statistics suggest..."
Costs at merged schools similar
Data: Savings would be little
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 09/25/06
BY JONATHAN TAMARI
TRENTON — Maryland's model for public schools, held up by some Garden State lawmakers as a cheaper alternative to New Jersey's fragmented system, may not offer the kind of savings originally thought, two sets of federal statistics suggest.
The figures, from the federal Department of Education and the U.S. Census Bureau, show that
The statistics challenge earlier evidence that seemed to indicate that
"Citizens need to know various options, but it really has to be accurate data. Unfortunately, in public discourse sometimes things get misinterpreted, and I think that's what happened," Belluscio said.
School funding is one of the key areas of focus for lawmakers seeking ways to rein in New Jersey property taxes. School bills make up the largest portion of property tax levies.
Belluscio said figures from the federal Department of Education show that a county-based school system doesn't necessarily save money. A July 2006 report from the federal department's National Center of Education Statistics shows New Jersey devoted 9.9 percent of its public school spending to administrative costs in the 2003-2004 school year. In Maryland that figure was a similar 9.2 percent. The national average was 11 percent.
"The best source for comparison is the federal Department of Education. They remove all the variables, and they have a consistent interpretation and a consistent definition," Belluscio said.
Census Bureau figures for the 2003-2004 school year, while different from the ones kept by the federal department, paint a similar picture: the data show New Jersey and Maryland dedicate similar portions of their budgets to administration, and both are close to the national average.
State Sen. Robert G. Smith, D-Middlesex, an advocate for county-based schools, said there was confusion at an earlier hearing he chaired that appeared to show that Maryland spent a far smaller portion of its school money on overhead than New Jersey.
Despite the mix-up, Smith said a revised comparison shows Maryland's central administrative costs — the costs for superintendents — are smaller than New Jersey's. He said the comparison illustrates the potential savings of using county districts.
"Instead of having 618 bureaucracies manage the entire system you would have 21 (county-based) bureaucracies, and that's where the savings come from," said Smith, co-chairman of a legislative panel examining government consolidation.
The superintendent expenses comprise a portion of overall administrative costs.
Because it spends more than
The federal DOE figures show
Belluscio said it is unlikely that combining school districts would save money. Smith plans to bring in private companies to analyze the efficiency of combining school districts and municipalities.
The Census Bureau's analysis of administrative spending reflects the different school systems, however.
Jonathan Tamari:
jtamari@gannett.com
How we can tame tax hikes and pay for education
Thursday, September 21, 2006
States all over the country are searching for new ways to distribute the support they provide for public schools. This is designed to meet two objectives:
1) to ensure that education funding is linked to and consistent with education accountability, a component of standards-based reform.
2) to provide property tax relief since, among all taxes, property taxes are probably the most disliked by taxpayers.
Standards-based reform is the decade-old approach states are using to improve schools. Under the approach, the state role has changed from providing specific education programs and services to setting education standards, measuring how well students are doing, and holding school districts accountable for student performance (the federal No Child Left Behind Act uses this same approach but allows each state to define its own performance goals).
Some states are now trying to estimate the costs that school districts face in meeting standards rather than simply allowing available revenues to be the primary factor in determining state aid.
Property tax relief has been a goal of many states ever since the passage of Proposition 13 in
A later suit, Abbott v. Burke, only affected a specific group of high need, "Abbott" school districts. As a result of this litigation, the state now uses what amounts to two different approaches to fund schools – one for the Abbott school districts (which represent 5 percent of all districts in the state) and one for all other districts.
A single approach
Since
At the same time that the state is building a uniform way of appraising need and linking school finance and school accountability, it should address existing inequities associated with property taxes.
While New Jersey's property taxes are certainly high, the state does not rely to an unusual extent on property taxes to support schools -- in New Jersey, about 52 percent of all revenue for school districts comes from local sources, most of which is derived from property taxes – the national average was 43.6 percent in 2003-04. Nine states, including
In modifying the state aid system, it is important to keep in mind the following:
·
· Many of the districts do not serve all grades (that is, kindergarten through Grade 12).
· Districts differ in enrollment and cost of living.
· There are significant differences in both wealth (based on either property valuation or personal income) and in the needs of districts (particularly in relation to the proportion of children coming from low-income families).
While no other state's school finance system can serve as a complete model for
In 2002
The new system specifies a base cost designed to reflect the cost of services needed for every student to become academically proficient. It also adjusts the base cost for students with special needs.
In fact,
The use of such a weighted funding system allows districts – not the state – to decide how funds should be used to serve students. Districts are then held accountable for student performance.
The system has been successfully implemented over several years – and "
Another state that
This can address some of the inequities of local property taxes that previously produced widely varying tax rates across school districts. It is not, however, a perfect solution, and can raise a variety of questions such as whether sales taxes are more "fair" than property taxes in terms of their impact on families of different income levels.
Circuit breakers
There are also other tools, such as "circuit breakers" and homestead exemptions, which some states have developed to reduce the impact of property taxes on low-income families.
Under a circuit breaker, such as the one used in
As it decides how to change its school funding system,
Any change will create political issues and is likely to require judicial review. But other states have shown that the job can be done if there is legislative and public will to do so.
John Augenblick is president of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc., a Denver-based consulting firm that works with states to evaluate and develop their school finance systems.