| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GSCS MEMBERS BULLETIN BOARD: GRASSROOTS TALK with TRENTON Recent letters from GSCS Member Districts to Governor Corzine, and legislators point out issues with school aid for FY07-08 as proposed by the Governor, as well as real problems that will negatively affect schools and programs under new legisation A1 and A4. Read to learn more, to see how these communities thoughtfully challenge some of Trenton's premises...Letters are also a good example for others to use when 'talking' with Trenton. The following are communications from West Windsor-Plainsboro and Cherry Hill.
GSCS MEMBERS BULLETIN BOARD: GRASSROOTS TALK with TRENTON
Recent letters from GSCS Member Districts to Governor Corzine, Statehouse re School Aid for FY07-08:
The following letter is from West Windsor-Plainsboro School District to Governor Corzine:
The Honorable Jon Corzine February 28, 2007
Office of the Governor
State of New Jersey
P.O. Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625
Re: A-1 and A-4
Dear Governor Corzine:
As members of an ad hoc committee of the West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District Board of Education established to focus on legislative issues, we are writing to you to offer input on two bills that are on your desk, A-1 and A-4.
A-1: Enrollment Adjustment
The West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District Board of Education appreciates the commitment you and the Legislature have made to public education by increasing state aid for all school districts in New Jersey. The three percent increase will provide some relief to our district in the 2007-2008 budget after years of flat funding.
As you consider A-1, however, we would like to point out a change in the law regarding the budget cap adjustment for enrollment growth. This change will have a significant impact on our district and other districts that have experienced slow, but steady growth. A-1 imposes a weighted enrollment adjustment that allows for no adjustment for the first one percent of growth and then only 50 percent of the growth between 1 and 2.5 percent, the category which encompasses our district.
The State’s projected enrollment increase for our district for the 2007-2008 school year is 2.29 percent or 224 students. Under the formula for the enrollment adjustment in Section 3 of A-1, we are, in effect, allowed an adjustment for only 63 students, or one-fourth, of the growth in enrollment. A year ago, an increase of 224 students would have resulted in a spending growth limitation of approximately $2.7 million. Under the new formula, the district will be able to adjust its tax levy cap by only $0.7 million. This $2 million reduction in cap allowance will have a significant impact on our ability to maintain our high quality of educational and co-curricular programs and to maintain class sizes at appropriate levels.
We urge you to thoughtfully consider the impact of the change in the enrollment adjustment on all school districts in New Jersey.
A-4: Executive County Superintendent
We urge you to conditionally veto A-4 for the reasons set forth in this letter. We understand and appreciate your efforts to provide for property tax reform, but we believe A-4 will not further that goal of reducing property taxes and could negatively impact the educational program our district provides to its students.
The Board of Education’s opposition to A-4 focuses primarily on the creation of an executive county superintendent of schools, who would be appointed by the Governor and given certain authority over local school districts. We do not believe that the establishment of this new position would result in property tax relief; moreover, we believe it would result in an expanded level of state bureaucracy, an increase in administrative expenses for taxpayers, and a significant erosion of the discretion of the local school Board. Our greatest concern about this bill is the extraordinary line item veto power that would be given to the executive county superintendent.
In Section 49, paragraph (l) of A-4, the executive county superintendent would have the authority to unilaterally disapprove a portion of a school district’s proposed budget without any prior consultation with the elected school board or school administration. We are concerned that the line item veto over non-instructional costs in the school district’s budget could result in the elimination of programs or positions that our elected nine-member Board has determined are valuable in reflecting the values and priorities of the citizens of our townships. Additionally, the local Board of Education would be forbidden to transfer funds from a different account to cover the cost of any item that was vetoed by the executive county superintendent. Our Board is responsible for fulfilling the mission of our school district and meeting the needs of our students while paying attention to the fiscal burden placed on our taxpayers.
We submit that tight administrative spending controls are already in place under the current law that resulted from the passage of S-1701 in the prior Legislature. A-4 is not an effective or needed measure to limit administrative spending. The West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional Board of Education has been quite cognizant of administrative costs when developing its budgets, which is reflected in an administrative cost per pupil that is below the county and state medians.
The expansive line item veto power of the executive county superintendent is not limited to administrative costs as it encompasses all “non-instructional” costs. Could an appointed executive county superintendent eliminate a portion of our co-curricular activities because we are above the state average in our costs? Our communities of Plainsboro Township and West Windsor Township support such activities for the social, academic, and emotional growth of our students – they ask for more – and student response to these opportunities is extremely positive. The executive county superintendent could also eliminate certain administrative positions based upon his/her own judgment that is inconsistent with the assessment of our elected officials, the superintendent of schools, and the community. Expanded state control and authority have not proved to result in greater safeguards of public monies or improvements in school district operations as evidenced by the debacle of the School Construction Corporation and the continuing problems in districts taken over by the State.
Decisions regarding local school district budgets should be determined by the local Board of Education. In the West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District, the budget has been approved six of the last six years, reflecting support for the financial resources needed to sustain our school district’s programs during a time of statewide financial concern, additional state-mandated programs, and no additional state aid.
A-4 should not be viewed as enabling property tax reform. To perform his/her duties, the executive county superintendent would create another expanded level of state bureaucracy to support his/her operations. This would likely lead to an increase in administrative expenses for taxpayers, not the decrease that the sponsors of the bill expect.
With community support of budgets proposed by the local school Board, the West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District has developed into a school district that is highly regarded on the state and national levels. The West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District is an excellent school district dedicated to serving the needs of all our students. We believe that our locally elected Board of Education will do a better job as trustees of the public funds than a politically appointed executive county superintendent. We strongly urge you to conditionally veto A-4 by removing the provisions that establish the position of the executive county superintendent and all references to this proposed position that will neither reduce costs, nor improve public education in the State of New Jersey.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration of our input on A-1 and A-4.
Sincerely,
Robert Johnson Anjani Gharpure
Vice-President, WW-P Board of Education Member, WW-P Board of Education
Stan Katz Ellen Walsh
Chair, WW-P Board of Education Chair, WW-P Board of Education
Finance Committee Administration and Facilities Committee
c: The Honorable Peter Inverso, State Senate
The Honorable Bill Baroni, State Assembly
The Honorable Linda Greenstein, State Assembly
Peter Cantu, Mayor, Plainsboro Township
Shing-fu Hsueh, Mayor, West Windsor Township
Members, WW-P Board of Education (9)
Robert L. Loretan, Superintendent, WW-P Regional School District
Lynne Strickland, Garden State Coalition of Schools
The following two communications are written by the Cherry Hill School District re: its concerns for FY07-08 State Aid, to: (1) Governor Corzine, and (2) the second, is a sample letter for the Cherry Hill community to reference when communicating the issues to the Governor, and local legislators.
Dear Parents, Staff, and Community Members:
On Tuesday, we received information on state aid for 2007-2008. After five years of flat state aid, Cherry Hill will receive an increase of just 3%.
This small increase does not approach the amount required to “equalize” our state aid with that of other districts in our District Factor Group (DFG). The DFG ranking is based on a community’s relative socioeconomic wealth. Following the 2000 Census, Cherry Hill’s DFG ranking was changed from I to GH; however, our state aid has never been adjusted to reflect the changing demographics of our township. This year, less than 10% of Cherry Hill’s general fund budget comes from state aid.
In short, Cherry Hill is not receiving its fair share. We are hopeful that our local representatives, who understand the impact on Cherry Hill, will not support this approach to funding our schools.
We urge you to read through the letter below, copy it, and send it to Governor Corzine, Senator Adler, Assemblyman Greenwald, and Assemblywoman Lampitt (e-mail information is also provided).
If you’d like to write your own letter, you’ll find information on state funding on the New Jersey Department of Education website: http://www.state.nj.us/njded
Contact information for our elected officials is as follows:
Governor JON CORZINE
Office of the Governor: PO Box 001, Trenton, NJ 08625 (609) 292-6000
http://www.state.nj.us/governor
Senator JOHN H. ADLER
District Office: 1916 Route 70 East, Suite 3, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 (856)-489-3442
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us
Assemblyman LOUIS D. GREENWALD
District Office: 1103 Laurel Oak Avenue, Suite 142, Voorhees, NJ 08043 (856)-435-1247
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us
Assemblywoman PAMELA R. LAMPITT
District Office: 1103 Laurel Oak Avenue, Suite 142, Voorhees, NJ 08043 (856)-435-1247
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us
Thank you for taking the time to advocate for Cherry Hill’s fair share of state funding.
Sincerely,
David Campbell, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
John R. Galie
President, Board of Education
Sharon S. Giaccio
Chair, Business & Facilities Committee
*****SAMPLE LETTER*****
Dear Governor Corzine:
The 3% increase in state aid for 2007-2008 falls far short of the amount that the Cherry Hill School District should be receiving. Based on 2000 Census data, Cherry Hill’s District Factor Group designation was changed from I to GH. It simply isn’t fair that our DFG designation has changed, reflecting our community’s changing demographics, but our funding levels have not.
The funding formulas are based on outdated community information. Therefore, the amount appropriated to older districts such as Cherry Hill is much lower than the amounts received by newer neighboring districts. The formulas are also based on the mean salary of residents, rather than the median, resulting in inflated salary value for many of our households.
Cherry Hill is the largest GH district in Camden, Burlington, and Gloucester counties. The funding disparity is evident when you compare Cherry Hill’s state aid with the state aid provided to two regional high school districts in the tri-county area: Lenape and Eastern.
Lenape Regional, with 7,500 students, will receive $28.2 million in state aid next year. Eastern Regional, with less than 2,500 students, will receive $9.8 million. By comparison, Cherry Hill, which has 11,700 students in grades PreK-12, will receive just $15.4 million.
With about 10,300 students in grades K-12 and a DFG GH classification, Middletown Township School District in Monmouth County is similar in size, configuration, and demographics. Yet it will receive nearly $20 million in state aid next year – about $4.5 million more than Cherry Hill.
Four other New Jersey districts have been reclassified from DFG I to DFG GH and three of those are receiving increases greater than 3% for 2007-2008: Leonia (Bergen County), Lawrence (Mercer County), and Roosevelt (Monmouth County) are receiving increases of 4.3%, 6.6%, and 4.1%, respectively.
We are hopeful that our local representatives, who understand the impact of the funding formula on Cherry Hill, will not support this approach to funding our schools. We fully expect the legislature to correct the faulty funding formula and fund Cherry Hill at appropriate levels. However, if this is not possible for 2007-2008, please at least provide for our school district an increase that is comparable to the 4.1% average provided to GH districts throughout the state. In any case, we respectfully request a thorough explanation of exactly how this year’s funding decisions were made. Our students and community deserve nothing less.
Respectfully,
[YOUR NAME]
