| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3-26-09 New formula for funding N.J. schools ruled legal Judge's decision could end the state's Abbott program THE STAR-LEDGER
NORTHJERSEY.COM - UPDATE 3-26-09: Judge's ruling could mean end of Abbott schools funding
STAR LEDGER EDITORIAL - Reinventing the Abbott ruling in New Jersey - 3-27-09 "We have reached a watershed moment for public school funding in New Jersey.After three weeks of hearings, a judge found Gov. Jon Corzine's plan to overhaul the state aid formula meets the constitutional requirement to provide a "thorough and efficient" education for every student...By and large, we think the judge got it right..."
Doblin: Corzine - No straight man in an Abbott comedy routin-THE RECORD, 3-27-09
"...A Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that the governor's new school aid formula is constitutional. While that decision will bounce back up to the state Supreme Court, with his approval rating dropping like a fly ball and the state's middle class squeezed like a Valencia orange, this is a huge victory for the governor up for reelection...This is real middle-class relief. This is real education reform. This is progress..." New formula for funding N.J. schools ruled legal Judge's decision could end the state's Abbott program Thursday, March 26, 2009 BY KATHLEEN CARROLL FOR THE STAR-LEDGER A Superior Court judge declared the state's school-funding formula constitutional yesterday, ruling in favor of the Corzine administration and against advocates for poor students. The decision could abolish the controversial Abbott program, which has sent billions of state tax dollars to 31 low-income districts including Elizabeth, Perth Amboy and Newark. A new funding formula that treats all districts the same "represents a thoughtful, progressive attempt to assist at-risk children throughout the state of New Jersey, and not only those who by happenstance reside in Abbott districts," Superior Court Judge Peter E. Doyne wrote in his decision, agreeing with the major argument of the Corzine administration. However, he said that Abbott districts should be allowed to ask for additional aid for at least three years, to see if, in the end, they receive less state money than they need. Doyne, sitting in Hacknsack, noted that Abbott districts may face exceptional challenges due to their low local tax collection and high concentrations of poverty, agreeing with the major argument made by Abbott districts. Gov. Jon Corzine called the ruling "a significant victory for all school children," but said he would challenge the judge's recommendation that Abbott districts have access to extra state funding for at least the next three years. The Education Law Center, which represents the Abbott districts, said its lawyers support extra funding for the districts but will continue to fight against the funding formula, because it will "shortchange our neediest and most disadvantaged students." The matter now returns to state Supreme Court, which mandated the special state aid as part of the landmark Abbott v. Burke school-funding case. In the class-action suit, lawyers for poor children successfully argued the school funding formula failed to ensure enough money was spent in low-income communities to provide the "thorough and efficient" public education guaranteed by New Jersey's constitution. The Corzine administration last year asked the Supreme Court to void Abbott mandates, arguing that a new school funding formula fairly shares state aid among New Jersey's 616 districts. The case landed in Hackensack after justices asked Doyne to review it and make a recommendation. The "Abbott" designation has brought small class sizes, new buildings, preschool and full-day kindergarten to the 31 districts. But it also has pitted them against their suburban neighbors, who serve half of the state's low-income students and have watched their local taxes skyrocket over the last decade. In Perth Amboy, school superintendent John Rodecker said being declared an Abbott district had made a big difference to the schools, allowing officials to initiate technology address class size, and purchase a site for a future school, which has not yet been built. The city has about 9,000 students, in 11 schools. Rodecker said Perth Amboy did well this year under the new funding formula, because spending there is still below the "adequacy" level, but he did not know what would happen going forward if the Supreme Court ultimately sided with Doyne's decision. "Once we do reach adequacy there is a concern about being able to support the programs we now offer," Rodecker said. "It could mean less money for us in years to come, but at present time we don't know that." In Elizabeth, also an Abbott district, school district spokesman Donald Goncalves said officials are hopeful that when the state Supreme Court will note side with Doyne's recommendation. "We're of the strong belief that the Abbott versus Burke decision created positive academic achievement in Elizabeth schools," Goncalves said. The district has about 20,000 students. "Elizabeth has been successful in using Abbott funds for reducing the achievement gap. We feel we are a high-performing district as a result of the commitment of the taxpayers of New Jersey," he said. The new school funding formula awards aid based on enrollment, and then adds extra money per student for every student who is poor, has limited proficiency in English or receives special-education services. State officials have said it is superior to the current system, which calculates aid for Abbott and non-Abbott districts separately. But that special, separate status also shielded Abbott districts from the freezes in state school aid that the 585 non-Abbott districts had to contend with earlier this decade. The decision is a "a quantum change from the longtime tradition of how the Abbott schools have been treated via the Supreme Court and the state, said Lynne Strickland, executive director of the Garden State Coalition of Schools, an advocacy group of about 100 suburban districts in New Jersey. "It signals a new horizon in how school funding can be looked at by the Supreme Court and the state of New Jersey," she said. Strickland was cautiously supportive about Doyne's decision. "For many years we've been living under a bifurcated system of school funding -- one for the Abbotts and one for everybody else. We are no longer divided by the semantic of Abbott and non-Abbott. We can talk about an agenda for poor kids no matter where they live," she said. Assemblyman Joseph Cryan (D-Union), who chairs the Assembly Education Committee, said Judge Doyne "has validated the approach the Legislature and Gov. Corzine took to ensure every child gets the educational help they need, no matter where they live. "I hope that the state Supreme Court will act quickly to accept Judge Doyne's findings and reiterate the simple truth that with the right tools every child can succeed. Providing every child with a quality education should not just be something called for in a written formula, but something that is backed-up with actual dollars." Kathleen Carroll is a reporter for the Record and may be reached at carroll@northjersey.com. Star-Ledger reporters Jeanette Rundquist and Kristen Alloway contributed to this report.
UPDATE: Judge's ruling could mean end of Abbott schools funding Wednesday, March 25, 2009 BY KATHLEEN CARROLL NorthJersey.com STAFF WRITER New Jersey’s effort to right educational wrongs by bankrolling a group of low-income school districts came one step closer to an end on Wednesday. Judge Peter E. Doyne of Superior Court in Hackensack declared the state’s school-funding formula constitutional, ruling in favor of the Corzine administration and against advocates for poor students. The decision could abolish the controversial Abbott program, which has sent billions of state tax dollars to 31 low-income districts including Paterson, Passaic and Garfield. A new funding formula that treats all districts the same “represents a thoughtful, progressive attempt to assist at-risk children throughout the state of New Jersey, and not only those who by happenstance reside in Abbott districts,” Doyne wrote in a 280-page decision, agreeing with the major argument of the Corzine administration. However, he said that Abbott districts should be allowed to ask for additional aid for at least three years, to see if, in the end, they receive less state money than they need. Doyne noted that Abbott districts may face exceptional challenges due to their low local tax collection and high concentrations of poverty, agreeing with the major argument made by Abbott districts. Passaic Superintendent Robert Holster said he applauded that decision, because “there’s still an open door for Abbott districts to demonstrate need.” Governor Corzine called the ruling “a significant victory for all school children,” but said he would challenge the judge’s recommendation that Abbott districts have access to extra state funding for at least the next three years. The Education Law Center, which represents the Abbott districts, said its lawyers support extra funding for the districts but will continue to fight against the funding formula, because it will “shortchange our neediest and most disadvantaged students.” The matter now returns to state Supreme Court, which mandated the special state aid as part of the landmark Abbott v. Burke school-funding case. In the class-action suit, lawyers for poor children successfully argued that the school funding formula failed to ensure enough money was spent in low-income communities to provide the “thorough and efficient” public education guaranteed by New Jersey’s constitution. The Corzine administration last year asked the Supreme Court to void Abbott mandates, arguing that a new school funding formula fairly shares state aid among New Jersey’s 616 districts. The case landed in Hackensack after justices asked Doyne to review it and make a recommendation. The “Abbott” designation has brought small class sizes, new buildings, pre-school and full-day kindergarten to the 31 districts. But it also has pitted them against their suburban neighbors, who serve half of the state’s low-income students and have watched their local taxes skyrocket over the last decade. In Garfield, Bergen County’s only Abbott district, officials said they would not be sad to see the designation go. “To a certain extent, I feel it stigmatizes districts,” Business Administrator Dennis Frohnapfel said. “In the new formula, the money follows the student, and that’s a good concept&hellip The new funding formula has certainly benefited Garfield.” The district has received greater amounts of aid since the state began using the new school funding formula last year, he said. “They recalculated the aid based on our population, and since our special education population is increasing, the funding increased,” he said. The new school funding formula awards aid based on enrollment, and then adds extra money per student for every student who is poor, has limited proficiency in English or receives special-education services. State officials have said it is superior to the system that calculates aid for Abbott and non-Abbott districts separately. But that special, separate status also shielded Abbott districts from the freezes in state school aid that the 585 non-Abbott districts had to contend with earlier this decade. Lynne Strickland, who heads an advocacy group that primarily represents suburban districts, said she was heartened that the opinion was one that would help stabilize the debate over school funding in the state. “It gives us a chance to step back, take a breath and work together to get ahead for the benefit of all the kids,” said Strickland, executive director of the Garden State Coalition of Schools. “The Abbott decision divided us for so long.” Assemblyman Scott Rumana, R-Wayne, applauded the ruling. “For far too long our suburban districts have been forced to provide an unfair and disproportionate share of the school funding burden for Abbott districts,” he said in a statement. “While Northern New Jersey suburban school districts remained flat-funded for years, Trenton poured billions of taxpayer money into Abbott schools, resulting in runaway property tax bills.” But some in affluent North Jersey districts are critical of the funding formula, which also prescribes an “adequacy” amount of how much districts should spend per student. They worry that the new funding formula will lower the bar for everyone. Doyne’s opinion “shattered faith in common sense,” said Richard Snyder, a Ramsey school trustee and executive director of Dollars and Sense, a Bergen-based school funding advocacy group. State Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Cresskill, noted he was one of the few Republicans who voted in favor of the new school funding formula last year. “This [new] formula is a way of phasing out Abbott without retreating from the notion that all kids deserve educational opportunity,” he said. Staff writers Patricia Alex, Jennifer H. Cunningham, Giovanna Fabiano and John Reitmeyer contributed to this story. E-mail: carroll@northjersey.com
Doblin: Corzine - No straight man in an Abbott comedy routine Friday, March 27, 2009 By ALFRED DOBLIN JON CORZINE finally caught a break. A Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that the governor's new school aid formula is constitutional. While that decision will bounce back up to the state Supreme Court, with his approval rating dropping like a fly ball and the state's middle class squeezed like a Valencia orange, this is a huge victory for the governor up for reelection. The so-called Abbott court decisions that ultimately created 31 special-needs school districts have become a "six-letter" four-letter word to the state's middle class. The state Supreme Court created Abbott districts to ensure that all New Jersey children have a "thorough and efficient" education. The results have been mixed. In some Abbott districts, the quality of education improved, but not in all. Of most concern to the residents of the state's 585 non-Abbott districts is that public money – billions of it – was disproportionately poured into Abbott districts. And that many of them were not managing their largesse well. For example, the Paterson school district became notorious for so mismanaging Schools Construction Corp. money that it paid for the repair of a Mahwah firetruck with that funding. Abbott evolved from a progressive court ruling into bad Abbott and Costello, with "Who" and "What" off the field, running wild with public funding. Enter catcher Corzine in a navy sweater vest. Corzine wasn't successful pitching asset monetization. It may be he's least effective on the mound. But he has had continued success directing others to aim at what seemed an insurmountably high wall: Abbott funding. The governor's first attorney general, the Penelope Pitstop of lawyers, Zulima Farber, did accomplish one thing before she sped off to political oblivion. She convinced the state Supremes that Abbott funding could not be increased as the state struggled to balance its budget. Corzine went further. By creating a new funding formula, his administration is trying to dismantle Abbott and create something more equitable. For once, New Jersey is not throwing money at a problem. It is attaching money to students. Districts with high numbers of poor and non-English speaking students will receive more funding than a more affluent district that has fewer children with special needs. What will not continue is the assumption that 31 Abbott districts continue to need the same levels of funding. While there are success stories to applaud, the Schools Construction Corp. blew through billions of dollars and built too few schools. It was a money tree shaken bare by the greedy and the incompetent. Municipalities dumped unwanted real estate. School designs were not uniform. And the cost savings that could have been achieved by building en masse never occurred. The SCC was killed, buried and recreated. But the funding formula remained the same. Ironically, the Corzine administration is not entirely happy with the court's latest ruling. The court recommends that Abbott districts have access to additional funding for three more years. Considering that Abbott funding has been like a narcotic to some districts, what amounts to a fiscal fix of methadone is not surprising. What New Jerseyans should note is that "the unfixable" is improving and it's a liberal politician that is doing it. This is huge. It's bigger than the new Fairway Market in Paramus. The state Supreme Court should recognize that Abbott doesn't work. Yes, some schools improved. And yes, the state has a constitutional requirement to provide a thorough and efficient education to every child. But every means every — that means the children living in the 585 non-Abbott districts, as well. The governor has little control over lowering local property taxes. But by changing the school funding formula, he is at least giving taxpayers more control over where their money goes. In the ongoing race for the governor's office, Republicans will be hard-pressed to spin this court decision to their advantage. Liberal Corzine came up with an exit strategy out of Abbott. Rather than lament Abbott districts' three years of fiscal rehab, the Corzine folks should be celebrating this big time. This is real middle-class relief. This is real education reform. This is progress. Corzine caught a political break when he needed it: Today. Which, by the way, is the name of the catcher in the famous Abbott and Costello routine. Alfred P. Doblin is the editorial page editor of The Record. Contact him at doblin@northjersey.com STAR LEDGER EDITORIAL - Reinventing the Abbott ruling in New Jersey March 27, 2009 We have reached a watershed moment for public school funding in New Jersey. If Judge Peter E. Doyne's recommendations are accepted by the state Supreme Court, it would mean the end of "Abbott" as we know it.
Last updated: Wednesday March 25, 2009, 10:34 PM
RECORD EDITORIAL COLUMNIST
After three weeks of hearings, a judge found Gov. Jon Corzine's plan to overhaul the state aid formula meets the constitutional requirement to provide a "thorough and efficient" education for every student.
Since the high court's 1990 ruling known as Abbott vs. Burke II, certain school districts -- mostly urban, with high concentrations of poor residents and relatively low property values -- have been entitled to special state aid.
What began as a noble effort to equalize educational opportunity has, over time, developed its own inequities. Judge Doyne, appointed by the Supreme Court to review the new funding plan, took full measure of the Abbott system:
‡¤Total state aid to the 31 Abbott districts for 2008-2009 is $4.65 billion -- 55 percent of all state aid to schools.
‡¤Twenty-three percent of students are in Abbott districts; 77 percent in non-Abbotts. And 49 percent of students considered to be disadvantaged are in non-Abbott districts.
‡¤Districts in the lowest socio-economic categories that are not considered sufficiently "urban" to qualify under Abbott are deprived of the benefits.
‡¤On average, the Abbott districts are actually capable of raising more local tax money per pupil than some wealthier districts.
"The time for reform is now," Judge Doyne wrote.
By and large, we think the judge got it right.
The central idea of Corzine's funding plan is that aid for disadvantaged students follows the students, not the boundaries of 31 districts. The new formula takes into account a number of variables to provide extra assistance where it is needed to help children who are poor, have limited English proficiency or are in need of special education.
However, a lot will depend on whether the state continues to live up to the spirit of Abbott. Time will tell if the end result of this new formula leaves poor children in urban districts more vulnerable than before, and if gains under Abbott evaporate under new economic pressures. Corzine has demonstrated his commitment to education, one of the only areas where his new budget proposal calls for more spending, but his policies will not bind future governors and lawmakers.
There is no denying that over the years, non-Abbott districts have watched in dismay as their property taxes went through the roof, and Abbott districts such as Newark, Paterson -- and even Jersey City and Hoboken -- got billions of additional aid. There was a growing sense that the Abbott designation had outlived its usefulness, had calcified around old arguments and circumstances that no longer applied.
But we also think it was correct for Doyne to leave the door open for supplemental funding for three years. There are a lot of unknowns about how the state will implement its plan, and if Abbott experience is any guide, there's a lot that can go wrong.
School construction in the Abbott districts was a debacle as a result of state mismanagement. Administrators in the Abbott districts have complained of an onerous and often adversarial process for obtaining supplemental funds when needed. The judge urged the court to require improvements in that process.
Abbott funding allowed many urban districts to effect real change in ways that have improved the education of poor children, including providing early childhood classes, smaller class sizes, professional development for teachers and better facilities. It defined a basic standard for urban districts, cast a harsh spotlight on inequities and required the state to take responsibility for addressing those failings.
The sentiment that Abbott districts have become mere money pits is not borne out by any number of independent audits. One former school official noted that a two-year audit of the Newark Public Schools by KPMG questioned $400,000 out of $2 billion in spending. That's a better record than any number of corporations under the spotlight in recent days.
We've long known that urban school districts with concentrated poverty have special needs beyond what the schools are equipped to address. With or without Abbott, the burden remains on the state to fulfill its obligations for the students with the greatest need -- wherever they live.