Quality Public Education for All New Jersey Students

 

Property Taxes, School Funding issues
     Pre 2012 Announcement Archives
     2012-13 Announcement Archives
     2013-14 Announcement Archives
     2014-15 Announcement Archives
     Old Announcements prior April 2009
     ARCHIVE inc 2007 Announcements
     2009 Archives
     2008 Archives
     2007 Archives
     2006 Archives
     2010-11 Announcements
     2005 through Jan 30 2006 Announcements
1-25-07 GSCS - No School Aid, No Real Tax Relief...again

INITIAL CONCERNS: Department of Education School Funding Formula Cost Study

 

Concern: Leveling down of quality education. Per pupil cost measures must be substantial enough to assure that they can support effective student achievement goals and objectives.

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 achieve both in terms of equity and effectiveness, by increasing the state share of special education categorical aid to classified students in all districts.  No district over another is favored in the categorical aid method.

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 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.

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.

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