"We'd sure like to see how they are defining it," she said, expressing frustration at a lack of dialogue over the issues.

"I would hope that we get a really open and viable discussion," she said. "These things must be aired in a public domain with enough credit given to the public to discuss it productively."

E-mail: carroll@northjersey.com

Mid-level districts short on funding, school study finds

N.J. report: Hundreds feeling cash crunch

Saturday, October 21, 2006

BY DUNSTAN McNICHOL AND JOHN MOONEY

Star-Ledger Staff

Hundreds of New Jersey school districts, too well-off to receive large amounts of state aid but not wealthy enough to count on local taxpayers for more support, don't have enough funding to provide their students an "adequate" education, a state report indicates.

The controversial report, ordered to be released by a judge two weeks ago after an advocacy group filed suit to obtain it, shows most of New Jersey's wealthiest districts spend more than enough for all the teachers, supplies and classroom services the state says their students need.

Poor districts, the recipients of vast infusions of state aid in recent years, also spend enough, on average, to meet the "adequate" threshold.

But for more than 250 communities in the middle -- Rahway, Woodbridge, Brick and Clifton are a few examples -- spending falls nearly $500 million short, the state data show.

The report, compiled by the state Department of Education, is likely to add more volatility to the debate over how best to cut New Jersey's highest-in-the-nation property taxes, which account for 55 percent of school funding, at a time when the state already is grappling with a budget crisis.

The findings came as no surprise to school officials in middle-income communities, where superintendents and school board members have long complained about funding inequities.

"By state aid remaining flat, it's pushed the burden onto the taxpayers," said Vincent S. Smith, superintendent of Woodbridge schools, which according to the report, spent $18 million below the $148 million the state formula says should be needed. "So how much more can they take?"

The report compares district-by-district spending figures with what should be spent, as determined through a complex formula that takes into account the number of children who qualify for free lunches and those for whom English is a second language, among other factors.

Lobbyists assailed the state report, saying it is a sloppily developed tally that will muddy the debate as lawmakers and state officials prepare to unveil a new formula for distributing more than $7 billion in school aid.

"These budgets are not credible unless and until the department can fully document how they were calculated," said David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center, the organization that sued for the report's release and that has handled a long-running lawsuit over public school funding in 31 of the state's neediest communities. "Clearly, the department's effort to determine education costs was not professional, rigorous or thorough."

As presented by the state, there is a clear pattern to school funding in New Jersey.

Across the school districts identified as the state's neediest, those included in the Abbott vs. Burke lawsuit Sciarra has handled, actual spending in the 2004-2005 school year was almost exactly in line with the spending levels the state determined to be necessary.

In those districts, a total of $3.9 billion was spent compared with the $3.874 billion the state calculated to be needed -- a difference of barely one-half of 1 percent. Almost all of that spending is bankrolled by state aid, required by a series of state Supreme Court orders in the Abbott lawsuit.

Among the 128 communities classified as the state's wealthiest, actual spending exceeded the amount the state formula determined was needed.

Those communities spent a total of $3.14 billion on school last year, about $166 million above the amount the state formula deemed adequate. There, state aid is minimal and local property taxpayers shoulder the bulk of school costs.

For hundreds of communities in the middle, however, the state tally paints a different picture. Officials in those communities say state aid has fallen far short of meeting actual needs, and local taxpayers have been tapped out.

"The burden falls on the taxpayers to come up with the difference, and this community is a middle-class type of environment and not in the position to come up with the money to pay these expenses," said Frank Buglione, superintendent of schools in Rahway, one of the districts in the middle. "There's a limit they can pay, and we understand that."

State Education Department officials, who fought a lengthy court battle to try to keep the tally under wraps, declined to go into detail about the report.

"It's work product; it's preliminary," department spokeswoman Kathryn Forsyth said.

On Tuesday, the author of the formula on which the state based its report is scheduled to appear before the special legislative committee developing a new school funding formula.

That consultant, John Augenblick of Denver, could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Augenblick was hired three years ago to oversee the development of a method for calculating how much money it should take to offer an adequate public school education in each New Jersey community. Using local costs and local school demographics, the state report is an attempt to tally the cost of the particular number of teachers, aides, special services and other expenditures needed in each community.

Lynne Strickland, executive director of the Garden State Coalition of Schools, whose membership includes many of the state's wealthier school districts, accused state officials of skewing the numbers to underestimate the actual cost of schooling in New Jersey.

"Without the ability to review this and see what goes into it, how can we say the spending above this prescribed line is inappropriate? I don't think we can," she said. "Given the way this has been rolled out at the last minute, this smacks to me as a low ball entry into the first round of this debate."

The report raised concern in districts where it said spending was higher than necessary.

"I'm very nervous," said Bonnie Granatir, president of the Board of Education in Livingston, where total spending of $67.1 million was calculated to be $8 million more than the amount needed. "This is all about the bottom line, not the education or the kids."

Granatir said her community is comfortable with how much it spends.

"When you look at how our children perform, they would see the money is well spent," she said.

Staff writer Mark Mueller contributed to this report.