| Property Taxes, School Funding issues | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Corzine's school aid: How does $56 sound?
As town officials across New Jersey learned specifics last week of Gov. Jon Corzine's long-awaited plan to reform public-school funding, they began realizing that actual property tax relief for many communities may be minimal.
Though tax savings were adver tised as a core of the plan, years of flat funding and spiraling taxes in much of the state make even large percentages in school aid seem like very little when translated into real dollars.
For example, in Maplewood, an Essex County suburb where the typical property tax bill is $12,000, the new school aid formula looks like a promising gift. The local school district is in line for a 10 percent state aid increase, the maxi mum towns such as Maplewood can collect under the new plan.
But a closer look shows the increase will barely take a nibble, much less a bite, out of the town's imposing tax bills.
Divided up among the school district's homeowners, Corzine's new aid would reduce that $12,000 annual tax bill by a grand total of $56, a township official told lawmakers considering the school aid formula last week.
Even that meager reduction will be lost, the official added, with taxes expected to once again rise this year to cover increased ex penses.
"There's no property tax relief," said David Huemer, a Maplewood committee member who testified against the new aid plan at a Senate hearing Thursday. "This proposal makes the reliance on local property taxes worse, not better."
Supporters of the new formula argue the plan isn't intended to be a miracle cure, that the state's reli ance on property taxes has gone on for so long that instant change is unlikely.
"This is the first step," said state Education Commissioner Lu cille Davy. "It will happen faster in some places than others, but this situation didn't happen overnight and won't get cleaned up overnight."
Still, in many long-suffering suburbs -- where there has long been unease about the amount of state school aid flowing into impoverished cities -- the new numbers fall flat.
In Edison, the $3 million that schools would collect under the new funding formula equals the amount that would be raised by a 5-cent increase in the town's property tax levy, said Mayor Jun Choi. However, rising school costs could push tax rates up between 6 and 9 cents next year, he said. That means the extra aid will not lower tax bills.
"We're saying we're just going to lower the increase," said Choi, chairman of a Mayors School Funding Committee set up by the New Jersey State League of Municipalities.
On its face, Corzine's proposal looked good for school districts and taxpayers. A district-by-district breakdown showed 146 communities getting state aid increases of 20 percent. Another 136, determined to be spending more on their schools than the state deems ade quate, would see aid grow by 10 percent. Percentages can be misleading, however, since many wealthier towns get fairly modest amounts of state aid.
State Sen. Robert Martin (R- Morris) represents 17 Morris and Passaic County communities that will see a total state aid boost of $4.7 million.
One, Riverdale, will receive an $8,000 boost. Two that qualify for 20 percent increases will collect less than $600,000 in new aid each, state records show, despite enrollment increases of about 1,000 students since 2000.
"Perhaps 20 percent of a very small number to begin with is not much," he said. "The Branchburg Townships, the Chathams, I think they're going to have serious concerns about the increase in their enrollments versus what the increases are in their dollar amounts."
The true impact on individual towns, of course, won't be known until budgets and tax bills are struck. Corzine and others point out that scores of districts should at least see their tax burden steadied against further big increases.
The governor attempted to highlight this phenomenon last week by visiting Carteret, a community that could gain $4.3 million under the plan. The relief was welcomed by local officials, who have seen 36 of the last 38 school budgets rejected by voters.
"I would hope because of these grants, it should at least stabilize tax rates," Corzine said. "It won't be perfect, we know that, but at least they should be stabilized."
He pointed out the state has taken additional measures, including new budget caps and other limits on school spending, that last year helped keep school property tax increases to an average of 4.4 percent, the lowest in seven years.
And some are grateful the new formula at least recognizes corners of the state where school aid has been frozen for years.
"Is this the do-all, end-all? Absolutely not," said Evesham Mayor Randy Brown, after a press conference last week. "Is this a road toward fairness and equality? We think so," added Brown, a member of the New Jersey League of Municipalities' task force on school funding.
Statewide statistics show the daunting challenge any state aid plan faces in trying to knock down property tax bills, which provide just under 60 percent of the cost to run schools statewide.
Local property taxes raised $22 billion this year, and have increased by an average of better than 7 percent annually since 2000. Corzine's proposed increase of $532 million in aid is enough to offset only 2.4 percent of the total property tax tab.
After the increased state aid is delivered next year, state money will cover about 43 percent of what it costs to educate students statewide. That's virtually unchanged from the current level of state support.
About 130 communities will see an increase in state aid of $1 million or more next year.
Lawmakers, who hope to adopt the new plan by Jan. 8, say they would like to mandate property tax refunds for some of the higher- spending communities getting new aid through the formula.
"Taxpayers should get a break here," said Sen. Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester). "That can't get lost."
School formula, if applied, would slash millions
By JONATHAN TAMARI
Gannett State Bureau
|
TRENTON -- If Gov. Jon S. Corzine's new funding formula were applied today, Vineland's schools would be out $42 million in state aid. Under the new criteria, other big cuts would be in store for city schools in places such as Jersey City ($11 million), Newark ($88 million) and Camden ($48 million).
These districts are among the 31 historically poor, urban "Abbott" districts that in recent years have received more than half of state education aid, helping them keep their own property taxes down. The new formula, if strictly applied, would take some of that money away as it requires all communities to pay their local "fair share." But a "hold harmless" provision in Corzine's plan says no schools will lose money for at least the first three years of the new program, even if the formula says they are already spending more than necessary. In fact, every district will get at least a 2 percent increase this year, regardless of what the formula says. The hold-harmless provision would cost $860 million next year and help roughly 40 percent of the state's school districts. That's more than the $532 million in aid increases being touted as help for the largely middle-class schools that have received limited increases in state support over the past six years. And, among the districts now due for massive aid hikes, increases will be capped at 20 percent. For many of those communities, that means a continued reliance on local property taxes to pay for most school costs. While Corzine hopes his plan will move beyond the two-tier system that has dominated education funding for a decade, the caps and hold-harmless provision represent nods to political, financial and legal realities. They also limit the help and harm the formula could bring in its first year. If Corzine imposed large aid cuts, the new formula could force urban schools to slash spending and put more pressure on property taxpayers in those communities. A plan with such cuts would also have almost no chance of winning legislative approval and might face a tougher challenge in court. "We are in no way backing away from our commitment to adequacy funding for all of our children, including those in the Abbott districts," Corzine said. "We are trying to draw a different approach to that and we understand there's going to have to be a transition period." With the hold-harmless provision in place, Abbott districts will still receive 56 percent of all state support. But David Sciarra, an attorney for the Education Law Center, said the hold-harmless funding conceals the impacts of a formula that could hurt schools in poor areas. He said that aid was "larded on top" to win lawmaker support and hide what would otherwise be an overall cut in state education support. Administration officials say the aid caps will prevent runaway spending that might result from floods of money heading to some districts. The caps also help control the price tag on the new formula, cutting its immediate cost by $1 billion. Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said the approach ensures an orderly transition into a new, more fair system. "We didn't get here in one year," Davy said. "I don't think it's really practical to expect us to change the entire thing overnight." Overall, many districts would do well under the new formula. Roughly half of the state's 616 school district would see aid increases of 10 percent or larger, far more than they have received in recent years. But Sen. Robert Martin, R-Morris, said that doesn't make up for years of stagnant aid. "Twenty percent after almost six years of flat funding doesn't begin, at least for some of us, to provide the kind of relief a middle-class community like Washington Township would deserve," Martin said. Edison is one of the middle-class districts that would receive the maximum 20 percent boost, but the Central Jersey suburb would still have to rely on property taxes to pay at least 80 percent of its school costs. With the added aid, property taxes won't rise as much as in the past, but the township might have actually cut taxes if it received the full complement of aid from the new formula, said Mayor Jun Choi. With limits on annual increases, Edison will have to depend on the state continuing to ramp up funding. "We're expecting a few years of gains, assuming the state has the money for it," Choi said. Corzine said he hoped all schools could receive the amounts they are entitled to within four to five years. Despite the limits, Choi said the caps are generally a good idea. "You don't want to expand programs too quickly without quality controls on it," Choi said. Davy said districts would only lose money after the first three years if they have decreasing enrollment or large demographic changes -- fewer special needs students, for example. They also may be required to chip in more money from local property taxes if they have significant wealth gains. The formula generally calls on more affluent communities to pay more of their own costs and sends more state support to poorer ones. "There's an expectation that communities provide their local fair share, and that's going to be applied to the state as a whole," Davy said. But asked if some districts will be spared the full ramifications of that requirement by having their state funding sustained at old levels, Davy responded, "I think you could say that." |
Corzine and school funding / Finally, a sensible plan
Press of Atlantic City (Published: December 16, 2007)
The centerpiece of Gov. Jon Corzine's proposed new school-aid formula is refreshingly sensible and long overdue: Breaking the rigid, court-ordered formula that has channeled enormous amounts of state funds into the state's 31 Abbott districts.
Instead, state funding would be based on the needs of students wherever they reside. It would pump money into districts based on such factors as the number of low-income and immigrant students, overall wealth of the community and the district's enrollment figures.
That concept is a welcome return to sanity in a system gone increasingly askew since the early 1990s, when the Supreme Court mandated that the state give the 31 Abbott districts enough money to spend at least as much per pupil as the state's richest districts.
That formula has been fine for the Abbott districts and the richest communities, which can afford to fund that level of spending.
But the vast number of middle-class districts have been increasingly squeezed - especially growing middle-class communities like Hammonton and Egg Harbor, Galloway and Hamilton townships.
The Supreme Court will need to rule on this new formula, if implemented by the Legislature. Not surprisingly, Abbott-district advocates are vehement in their opposition and will argue against the changes in court. But let's hope the court realizes that state funds are not limitless and that inequities between the Abbott districts and other communities are getting worse. This formula makes far more sense. As Corzine noted Wednesday, half the low-income students in the state do not reside in the 31 special districts.
Many questions still need to be satisfactorially answered. Corzine has proposed a three-year bridge period in which no district would lose funds. What happens after that? How will the state come up with the resources to fully fund this program? What is the impact of proposed changes in special-education funding and increased mandates regarding pre-school? The state is already facing a $2-billion-plus deficit next year: How will it even come up with the additional $530 million to partially fund the plan next year?
That being said, this plan is at least on the right track.
December 16, 2007
Start screaming about school aid
As expected, advocates for urban school districts resumed their whining last week about being shortchanged on state school aid in response to newly released funding figures. If there is any whining to be done, it should be in Ocean County and parts of Monmouth County. Actually, it should be screaming, not whining.
Last week, Gov. Corzine unveiled a new school funding formula billed as the first step in addressing some longstanding inequities. Suburban and rural districts have been shortchanged for years when it comes to school aid and per-pupil spending. The old formula has failed many middle- and lower-middle-income districts badly, including most districts in Ocean County.
Statewide, under the proposal for 2008-09, school aid would increase an average of 7 percent, with about half of the state's 616 districts getting increases of 10 percent or more. None would get less than 2 percent. In Ocean County, which has the sixth-lowest household family income in the state, only five of 30 school districts would get more than the 2 percent minimum. Monmouth County would be treated more kindly. Yet, only 17 of 55 districts would receive more than 2 percent.
Two Shore-area districts would fare particularly poorly — Sen. Andrew Ciesla's 10th District, where just one of 13 school districts is in line for more than 2 percent and outgoing Sen. Joseph Palaia's 11th District, where only five of 29 districts would receive more than the minimum. The legislative delegations there need to make some noise.
Under the new plan, 20 of the state's 31 poorest school districts, the so-called Abbotts, would receive the minimum increase. But to make the new formula more palatable to urban lawmakers, it includes a "hold harmless" provision, which ensures that Abbott districts that now receive more aid than they would under the new formula wouldn't have any aid taken away from them. The state would allocate $860 million to districts which, under the formula, otherwise would not be entitled to it. Corzine has promised there would be no decreases in aid for those districts for at least three years.
One reason most of the Abbotts would receive the minimum 2 percent increase in aid next year is because they have received almost all of the new money allotted for education in the past five years. Between 2002 and 2007, the Abbotts received an average 6 percent annual aid increase, compared with an average 1 percent increase in New Jersey's 585 other districts. And the aid to the Abbotts continued to pour in despite sharp drops in enrollment.
While suburban districts such as Jackson, which experienced a 19 percent spike in enrollment between 2000 and 2007, were flat-funded, Abbott districts such as Asbury Park, where enrollment plummeted 28 percent during that same period, continued to get massive influxes of aid. Other Abbott districts that continued to receive substantial increases in funding while experiencing substantial drops in enrollment include East Orange (down 13 percent), Hoboken and Irvington (11 percent) and Jersey City (down 8 percent).
In Ocean County, during that same time frame, school enrollment rose 27 percent in Southern Regional and 9 percent in Barnegat and Stafford. Only Stafford, which would receive an 8 percent hike in aid, would be getting more than the bare minimum.
There are other, less parochial, reasons not to like the new school aid formula, beginning with its allocation of an additional $530 million in funding — little of which will be applied to property tax relief — and its failure to offset that increase with improved efficiencies and cost-cutting measures. New Jersey spends more on education than any state. Its deficiencies are related to waste, mismanagement, its profusion of school districts and overly generous employee benefits. New Jersey should be spending less money on education, not more. And it should be allocating it in a way that is fair to all taxpayers and all children in all communities.
The new school funding formula helps right some of the inequities. But it has not done enough for middle-class and lower middle-class districts. And it has done nothing to address the disgraceful waste of resources.
STAR LEDGER EDITORIAL:
School funding plan shows promise
Sunday, December 16, 2007
For nearly 38 years, New Jersey has been trying to figure out how to meet the state constitutional mandate to provide for a "thorough and efficient system of free schools." Previous efforts either have been rejected by the state Supreme Court or, as is the case with the current system, found to be grossly unfair by many residents.
Now Gov. Jon Corzine has come up with a valid approach to this persistent problem. Caution is called for because some details remain unknown, but that said, maybe, just maybe, the state has a proposal that will work.
Past efforts -- generated by lawsuits brought on behalf of children in the most impoverished school districts -- have centered on equalizing education funding between the richest districts and the poorest. Half the $7.8 billion in state education aid now goes to 31 urban districts known as the Abbotts -- shorthand for the plaintiffs in the 1981 Abbott vs. Burke lawsuit.
The court's concentration, properly so, has been on mak ing sure children in those districts get what they need. Forgotten have been the thou sands of other students just as disadvantaged but denied Trenton's education funding largesse simply because they aren't in an Abbott district.
The Corzine formula ig nores district boundaries and considers what's needed per child, examines special needs, weighs a community's ability to cover costs and then calcu lates how much state aid should be provided. Whether a child goes to school in Perth Amboy or Mountain Lakes makes no difference.
The premise is that money should follow the child. It's hard to argue with that. Why, for example, should Dover, where nearly three-quarters of the students are poor enough to qualify for a free or reduced-cost lunch program, not get any of the Abbott aid? In fact, about half of the children who come from families with incomes low enough to qualify for a federal lunch program live outside Abbott districts.
The new plan would bring state education funding to nearly $8 billion. Still, some critics complain that New Jersey's spending (about 41 percent of total education costs) is below the national average (50 percent.) What shouldn't be overlooked is that overall -- with local and state funding combined -- New Jersey spends more on education than just about any other state, and state aid per pupil is fifth highest in the nation behind only Alaska, Hawaii, Delaware and Vermont -- all of which have fewer students. The problem isn't the amount of money, but rather how it's spent.
Much of that is dictated by politics -- the part of the process that doesn't appear in the funding's calculus. Never mind that Corzine's aides and many politicians are denying that any political considerations entered into construction of the new plan. We're not buying that or any bridges this week.
Every lawmaker wants to ensure that his district's schools aren't shortchanged. It's why the funding figures are bundled according to legislative districts. And this time around, the Corzine administration has been skillful in apportioning that aid. An original run of the numbers showed scores of districts, including a majority of the Ab botts, receiving no aid increase. The bottom line was approximately $430 million in new funding. When the final list was released, that total had jumped to $533 million and every district was guaranteed at least a 2 percent hike.
In short, the Corzine plan calls not only for the money but also the votes to follow the child. That extra $100 million or so amounts to hush money, designed to keep lawmakers quiet because schools in their districts are getting a share.
It's a tradeoff but one that may be worth it if the result is a fair school funding program that garners court approval. Still, it would be a mistake to make school funding double as property tax relief. To be sure, more state aid should control property taxes. But that should not be the principle motivation.
While the premise behind Corzine's plan is laudable, major questions remain. Prime among them is funding. We would be more enthusias tic in our embrace of the plan if we knew exactly where he's going to get the extra $533 million. As of now, the Corzine administration is simply lumping that aid into the $3 billion budget shortfall that must be closed. How the governor does that remains unanswered.
Then there's the expansion of the preschool program to include another 23,000 children; currently, 45,000 are enrolled. That will cost an esti mated $300 million when it's fully operational in six years. Where's the funding source?
And finally, under the plan, some towns may have to raise property taxes because the formula shows the local share isn't what it should be. But none of that has been spelled out because the legislation in corporating the Corzine plan hasn't been completed yet.
As we've said before, this plan deserves full public discussion. Rushing it through the Legislature in three weeks during the holidays prevents that. Short-circuiting discussion is a tactic used by those who fear open debate will reveal shortcomings. But a thorough vetting can also make a good plan better.
