| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GSCS School Funding Paper distributed 10-22-07 at Press Conf in Trenton
ࡱ > = ? : ; < y r bjbjEE 7 ' ' i % & & i i m m m 8 G . ) : c " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ u d ~ m ~ i i A d! d! d! j i m ~ d! ~ d! d! Jx # J *~ g z F ~ 0 G { { 6 { *~ { m *~ d! ~ ~ G { & / : SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT The Garden State Coalition of SchoolsOctober 2007Executive SummaryPublic support for public education in New Jersey is inextricably linked to property taxes and school funding one cannot be realistically addressed without recognizing the needs of the other. The year 2007 finds New Jersey at a critical juncture in the school funding debate: the CEIFA school funding formula has not been implemented since FY2002, nor have enrollments been counted in the amount of aid distributed per the old CEIFA. Where state aid per pupil falls, property taxes will rise. To keep New Jersey at a high level of student performance that is nationally recognized, while relieving the high property tax burden, the state needs to develop and implement a new public school funding formula; one that is unified, fair, flexible, stable, sustainable and responsive to student and community needs alike. GSCS recognizes that school funding formulas, while complex within parameters of the context of individual states, are not particularly variable in overall approaches as to how to fund schools. The concepts in this paper apply the needs of all students no matter where they reside, supported by a state share combination of enriched foundation and categorical aid (federal aid also applies where appropriate) and local revenues.The GSCS has long advocated (formally since 2003) for the state to propose and implement a new school funding formula that will address the issues that have emerged within New Jersey's changing context of school aid support.Politics play an inherent role in any school funding formula since state school aid impacts every local community directly where it counts the most in citizens' hearts (their children) and their homes (their property taxes). In recent years school funding policy-making has been relegated to the back burner due to fiscal and political concerns. Unless a new formula is enacted before the Governor's budget message in February 2008, next year New Jersey will enter its seventh year with no formula in place and with state aid amounts again being determined by the legislature via the annual Appropriations Act. GSCS believes that the continuing absence of a comprehensive new funding formula exacerbates divisiveness among communities of all types in New Jersey, creates taxpayer anxiety, and diminishes quality education over time. With this in mind, pursuant to a great deal of work and research on the subject of school funding formulae, GSCS respectfully recommends the following framework for a new school funding formula that can work for all students and communities in the state: Our schools must not be leveled down. Effectiveness and efficiency must work together, not separately, to sustain funding a good and workable formula. Within the given context and constraints of the local school district, public school communities will be responsible for the effectiveness and efficiencies reflected in their student achievement and school budgeting. Citizens of every district should have a financial stake in the children's education.A town's ability to support its local school budget must be based on a formula fair to all districts. State aid for regular education costs should provide all students with access to rigorous and relevant programs designed to meet the needs of the 21st Century.Specific students with special needs and/or disabilities must receive categorical state support aid no matter where they reside. Support for education must be composed of a combination of enriched foundation aid and categorical aid. The funding formula must allow districts to exceed funding available via state funds. Gathering of accurate, up-to-date, transparent, complete school finance and district data must be a Number One priority. The formula should be sensitive to: 1) enrollments 2) regional cost differences. This per-pupil formula should be current and updated annually.These principles will be further detailed in the body of this white paper (See, The Plan, How This Can Work- Avoiding Previous Mistakes, How This Can Work, The Evaluation Effectiveness and Efficiency/Related Rubrics and attached Appendix.)The Garden State Coalition of Schools, formally organizing in 1992, now includes an economically and geographically diverse group of over 150 school districts. Through its membership, GSCS represents more than 400,000 public school children. SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT For the past decade New Jersey has struggled with the political realities of rising property taxes, inadequate school funding, and increasing demands for improved student performance. New Jersey schools continue to lead the nation in many performance categories, but the pressure on public schools to keep pace with peer institutions worldwide and prepare students for the 21st century workplace is intense.It is clear that pressures to adjust school experiences to reflect 21st Century skill sets conflict sharply with the problems created by inequitable school funding. In the past year there has been growing consensus that the solution to this financial dilemma is inextricably tied to the states willingness and ability to develop a comprehensive and equitable approach to the funding of our states schools.Today in New Jersey more than 45% of the regular operating districts are now considered too wealthy to receive basic state foundation aid. In California only 6% of school districts fall into this 'too wealthy' category (2005). State aid as a percent of general fund budgets in New Jersey now is at:* Nearly 83% for Abbott districts 38% for 'other poor' districts (District Factor Group** A & B) 24% for middle districts District Factor Groups CD to GH) 8.8% for higher wealth districts (District Factor Groups I & J***)At the same time equalized tax rates are on a sliding scale of: .543 for Abbotts .780 for other poor districts .951 for middle districts .967 for I & J districts. *Average figures for all groups/categories**District Factor Groups (DFGs) are ranked on a socio-economic scale of low to high, beginning with DFG "A" as the lowest scaled ranking and culminating with DFG "J" as the highest. Historically, DFG's were used to level the field for test score comparisons across differing types of communities. ***See Appendix/Reock The Garden State Coalition of Schools (GSCS) is a leading advocate for public support of public education for all children, not just those in a single socio-economic group. As a statewide organization, GSCS volunteer member districts span New Jersey from Camden County to Bergen County. GSCS is the only statewide educational organization that unites parents, school administrators and Board of Education members. GSCS has developed a reputation for balanced, reasoned analyses of education financing issues. During the past year GSCS has presented well-documented evidence that a continuation of historical approaches to education finance will inevitably lead to a stalemate or produce only marginally satisfactory results. In researching options for the Coalitions consideration, GSCS has met with experts within the state and made use of research results from around the country.GSCS believes that previous attempts to develop lasting, equitable funding approaches have ignored or failed to incorporate very important guiding principles. SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT ANY NEW SCHOOL FUNDING SHOULD REFLECT THESE PRINCIPLES:Our schools must not be leveled down. We must make a permanent commitment to improving education without diminishing quality. All students must be educated for the future, not the past. The needs of students facing life in the 21st century are markedly different than the needs of students in the past century. Effectiveness cannot be left out of the debate - efficiency is only one side of the equation. Historically, discussions in Trenton have focused only on efficiencies and cost issues. Effectiveness performance and quality education must be an integral part of the debate and subsequent legislation. Citizens of every district should have a reasonable financial stake in their childrens education. No district should fund schools less than 15% or more than 85% through property taxes. A towns ability to support its local school budget must be based on a formula fair to all districts. The formula used to determine state aid should be reworked to reflect the fiscal realities within various districts. Any formula legislation should be sensitive to not only the communitys local fair share, but also to individual residents income capacity, and should be updated annually.Within the given context and constraints of the local school district, public school communities will be accountable for the effectiveness and efficiencies reflected in their student achievement and school budgeting.A Non-Partisan Review Committee should be appointed by the Governor, pending senate confirmation, to review criteria and implementation of this program annually and to revise and update criteria where appropriate.Per pupil support for public education students must be composed of a combination of enriched foundation aid for regular education and state categorical aid for specific student needs such as special education, transportation and bi-lingual education. State aid should follow each student. The combination of Enriched Foundation Aid and State Categorical Aid should be based on an enriched foundation cost of education.State aid for regular education costs should provide all students with access to rigorous and relevant programs designed to meet the needs of the 21st Century. This Enriched Foundation Aid formula should be connected to wealth. Students with special needs and disabilities must receive state support aid no matter where they live. This categorical funding should follow the individual student.The funding formula must be flexible. State funding policy must allow districts to exceed funding available via the state formula. Additional resources beyond state formula amounts would be available with local voter support. Budgets at Enriched Foundation Funding (EFF) levels will not require voter approval. Budgets below EFF levels will not be approved by the NJDOE.The formula should be sensitive to: 1) enrollments 2) regional cost differences. This per pupil formula should be current and updated annually.Gathering of accurate, up-to-date, transparent, complete school finance and district data must be a Number One priority. A primary objective of state aid formulas is to support public schools with a fair state aid distribution program directly related to each districts ability to pay. The primary goal of the Enriched Foundation Aid program is to allow for quality education to be pursued in all towns and communities in New Jersey, concomitant with education quality opportunities, provided equitably within the same funding framework for all public school children. The successful New Jersey school funding formula will provide for the reasonable, appropriate goals of stability, predictability, forethought and planning, student success, and accountability. THE FORMULAMeets the diverse needs of students and districts within the state;Utilizes a sound basis and clear definition for Foundation Aid* for regular education students, including:The availability of high quality programs designed to provide for the education needs of 21st century citizens;The adjustment based on instructional needs related to demographics, mobility, and wealth.Recognizes that aid should follow the student, based on the individual students needs;Uses Categorical Aid to underwrite special education, transportation and bi-lingual costs to districts;*Such aid is referred to in this paper as Enriched Foundation Aidaid that does not make the achievement of relatively low proficiency ratings on state tests the target for state students.Previous Mistakes . . .Inadequate Funding: The amount of money available for educating our students is critical to school success or failure. For any proposed formula to successfully address issues of concern to all stakeholders, adequate district-by-district state and local funding must be a given. While it is likely that a comprehensive reform and restructuring of the states funding approaches may yield significant savings in a number of areas, it is unrealistic to assume that the development of a new funding formula will eliminate the need for additional school funding. Such an approach creates an unreasonable and unattainable expectation. Inadequate Data: Historically the state has not had the ability to compile and organize data to determine either the effectiveness or the efficiency of programs. There is little knowledge about which programs work and why. There is little data about the relationship between school spending and student achievement. Decisions regarding past formulas have been made with rough approximations and little actual detailed information. This has resulted in inequitable distribution of funds and a wasteful uneven impact, serving neither school districts nor taxpayers well.Parts of the formulas come from coarse approximations and guesswork. Not enough care is taken with details, resulting in wasteful uneven impact on both taxpayers and school districts.In the face of these inequities, formula adjustments have been created directly by the legislature, resulting in further inequities and a system that shortchanges many school districts.Design Flaws: The flaws in the previous attempts to develop a statewide funding formula include:Wealth Calculations-- The current method of wealth calculation has created significant inequities within the state. Special Needs Student AidState and federal requirements guarantee protection for special education programs, but funding from both sources continues to lag behind the actual costs for these programs. (See Appendix . . .)Other Categorical FundingIn addition to the traditional state categorical aid funding for special education, transportation and bi-lingual students, aid for at-risk and English Language Learners (ELL) should not be wrapped into a consolidated aid formula, but should be calculated based on the actual needs of children. Aid should follow the child if he or she moves to another district.Issues of Effectiveness-- Previous funding formulas have had no method of assessing the effectiveness of school programs. Consequently, the relationship between district funding and student achievement has been absent from funding levels. Relationships vary wildly between the amounts districts spend and the achievement of their students. Analyses of casual relationships between spending and achievement have been made impossible by lack of quality student performance data.One Size Fits All Previous formulas did not contain mechanisms for accommodating the cultural, economic, transient, developmental and learning diversity of the states student population, limiting the flexibility necessary for effective and efficient education. THE PROPOSED APPROACH Because it is essential that funding to the states schools be responsive to both the efficiency and the effectiveness of a schools programs, the proposed funding formula should include the mandatory review of both after an initial period of implementation. Three years after the award of initial levels of aid, the effectiveness and efficiency of each district should be assessed by a non-partisan review panel. Adjustments to subsequent funding for the district will be completed as required by this review.Meeting Diverse Needs of Students and Communities: It is critical to recognize that while expectations for students should not vary, the resources available to insure their success must be responsive to needs that may vary considerably based on demographics, learning challenges, and program access. The proposed funding plan must continue to allocate resources based on these varying levels of need in districts where such practices already exist, and expand need-based funding to students throughout the state. The Definition of Regular Education: The education program that is received by all children in a district and is required to provide the quality of education identified in the Enriched Foundation concept. How Aid Follows the Student: Because aid is provided according to the category of need and is child specific, all such categorical aid should travel with the child. The Definition of Categorical Aid: Costs for certain special needs fit into distinct categories i.e., special education, transportation costs, at-risk programs, ELL programs. Not all students qualify for this required aid, which is separate from the enriched foundation formula.Wealth CalculationsBasic state aid should be determined using a wealth factor that is primarily based on the property values taxable within a community. Recognizing that property taxes are paid from current income, it also makes sense that wealthier communities can afford to pay a slightly higher than average rate and that communities of average and poorer wealth can afford to pay a slightly lower than average rate.THE EVALUATION: EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCYToo frequently in discussions of school funding, property taxes and state deficits, effectiveness and efficiency have been ignored. If the public schools are expected to educate students, then the primary focus for establishing success should be student performance coupled with the efficient utilization of resources. Thus, resolution of the states funding dilemma requires attention of TWO aspects of school operations.The development of an adequate and equitable method of funding schools, incorporating the basic principles developed by the GSCS (see pages 3-4);The development of a workable/practical means of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of schools as a means of determining adjustments to the formula based on demonstrated/documented status.One of the components contributing to or inhibiting successful education is the way finances are managed (Efficiency). For further explanation see page 13. Finances can be analyzed using the following criteria:A district has costs consistently on the extremes of a cost analysisi.e., the district is an outlying district.A district has contiguous audit recommendations reflective of poor practices.A districts financial practices are viewed as causal in the poor achievement of its students.A district has a high/moderate/low level of indexed combinations of experience, such as student demographics, mobility, degree of available social programs, etc.From the GSCS perspective, it is better not to overcomplicate the Efficiency component of the Effective/Efficient model. While there are many ways to assess the effectiveness of a districts programs, there are far fewer ways to develop comparably useful financial evaluations. The number of indicators used for the assessment should not be equated with the quality of the assessment. The current QSAC systems reliance on a large number of discrete indicators exemplifies this dilemma.The key to the effectiveness of the proposed model is:Use of a practical, realistic and clear system for the evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of districts;Elimination of cumbersome state reporting instruments/mechanisms that require unreasonable expenditure of district resources;Application of rewards, realignment, and consequences based on this system.The proposed formula will be implemented in two phases:The application of the new foundation and categorical aid formula to all districts for a period of three years;The use of the Effectiveness/Efficiency Continuum after Year Two to provide for:Rewards for those districts that have achieved model levels of effectiveness and efficiency AND are willing to serve as Best Practice districts for the state;Reduction in state agency oversight for districts that have attained a rating of satisfactory or above for as long as those districts are able to maintain that status;Adjustments based on uncontrollable changes, such as demographic shifts, mobility, etc.;Direct agency intervention and/or support for those districts failing to attain a rating of satisfactory in either the effective or efficient categories.The calculation of Effective/Efficient status will be based on a revised and simplified version of the current QSAC district reporting and evaluation system.Effectiveness RubricRatings in this category will focus heavily on student performance with indicators, including:Student performance (total and sub-group) on state tests (growth model);Student graduation rates;Post graduate success rates;Program access and success (AP, Honors, International Baccalaureate)Ratings will be benchmarked to average levels by District Factor Groupings (See Appendix)Efficiency RubricThe efficient aspect of the Effective and Efficient concept includes the following principles:There is a key distinction between the development of a funding formula and the resolution of New Jerseys revenue/tax problems. The concept that the formula alone will resolve the revenue issue is not factually sustainable.Without significant changes in the way expectations are established and programs are made available, there is no way to significantly reduce costs and, by extension, reduce the tax burden.The highest percentage of school costs are in the areas of human resources. Unless class sizes, approaches to education, continuation of programs, etc. are variables on a large scale, school costs cannot be reduced sufficiently to satisfy expectations for significant tax relief.Historically, none of these options (doubling class size, eliminating extra-curricular programs, etc.) have been viewed as acceptable. An Efficiency Score is based on each districts per-pupil expenditures after adjusting for certain student characteristics. The measure omits expenditures for bilingual education and transportation. Additionally, the final per-pupil expenditures are adjusted to account for the higher cost of educating low-income students and for expenditure variations for different grade levels. Rating components include:A district has costs consistently on the extremes of a cost analysisi.e., the district is an outlying district.A district has contiguous audit recommendations reflective of poor practices.The districts financial practices are viewed as causal in the poor achievement of its students.A district has a high/moderate/low level of indexed combinations of experience, such as student demographics, mobility, degree of available social programs, etc.Ratings will be benchmarked to average levels by DFG.APPENDIXP.12How This Plan Can Work: Wealth CalculationsAny tax system that includes taxes on property must take into account the great disparities in real property valuation totals between districts. There should be a state commitment to create a fair system of local support so that districts without an adequate property tax base receive sufficient state aid to balance the inequity of resources.However, we also recognize that property taxes are paid out of current income. Therefore, the income wealth of districts must also be considered.Unfortunately, the present system, originated under QEA and continued under CEIFA, mixes the two measures of wealth in a way that does not produce equitable results. This failure has been pointed out time and again by research.Instead of blending these two wealth measures in one composite step, the income measure should be determined separately and then used to modify the local fair share amount determined via the analysis of property wealth.An additional amount of state aid support should be set aside for those districts in which individual incomes are significantly lower than the community income composite level. This should be built directly into the school aid formula as opposed to the current practice of issuing rebates.In order to calculate local fair share, a standard multiplier for property wealth should be applied. That multiplier can be modified according to income wealth by means of a fair factor to be determined on a reasonable and generally acceptable basis. e.g., x-y low end wealth $1.35 x statewide property multiplier $1.50 x+y high end $1.65y represents the deviation from the average multiplier example of 10%]Combining the analysis of property wealth with student weighted enrollment will produce, in effect, a fair statewide property tax rate for schools at the enriched foundation level. The modifier for composite income would then allow those who could afford a higher level of local support to pay it. The ability of communities with a lower composite income wealth to pay would be measured and their property tax rate could be reduced accordingly.The legislature can determine the upper and lower limits of the basic local fair share property tax rate, taking into consideration the fact that some communities have so much property wealth compared to their required local support level that their effective school property tax rate will be much lower than the desirable range established by the legislature.It is important to remember that all general state aid serves to reduce reliance on local property taxes.P16--Effectiveness RubricDistrict Factor Groups (DFGs) are ranked on a socio-economic scale of low to high, beginning with DFG "A" as the lowest scaled ranking and culminating with DFG "J" as the highest. Historically, DFG's were used to level the field for test score comparisons across differing types of communities. Over time, DFGs have been used incorrectly, and sometimes pejoratively, as a stand-alone measure of district wealth. Since DFG scales include such variables as housing, profession, and education, they are not an accurate depiction of community wealth as it relates to the ability-to-pay factor.It is notable that, without exception, the average score of New Jersey students in each state administered assessment has increased as the DFG risesi.e., the average score of students in DFG B is always higher than the average score of students in DFG A. This pattern has continued historically throughout the entire DFG range.Based upon the reliability of this historical trend, it is safe to say that schools in which the average score of students exceeds the DFG average and schools in which students score in the average range of a higher DFG, have achieved a notable level of effectiveness. PAGE PAGE 9IntroductionThe PrinciplesThe PlanHow This Can WorkAvoiding Previous MistakesHow This Can WorkThe PlanFunding New Jerseys SchoolsFinding a Workable Solution ! " # $ & L T \ ] n o p иНjR<
ࡱ > = ? : ; < y r bjbjEE 7 ' ' i % & & i i m m m 8 G . ) : c " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ u d ~ m ~ i i A d! d! d! j i m ~ d! ~ d! d! Jx # J *~ g z F ~ 0 G { { 6 { *~ { m *~ d! ~ ~ G { & / : SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT The Garden State Coalition of SchoolsOctober 2007Executive SummaryPublic support for public education in New Jersey is inextricably linked to property taxes and school funding one cannot be realistically addressed without recognizing the needs of the other. The year 2007 finds New Jersey at a critical juncture in the school funding debate: the CEIFA school funding formula has not been implemented since FY2002, nor have enrollments been counted in the amount of aid distributed per the old CEIFA. Where state aid per pupil falls, property taxes will rise. To keep New Jersey at a high level of student performance that is nationally recognized, while relieving the high property tax burden, the state needs to develop and implement a new public school funding formula; one that is unified, fair, flexible, stable, sustainable and responsive to student and community needs alike. GSCS recognizes that school funding formulas, while complex within parameters of the context of individual states, are not particularly variable in overall approaches as to how to fund schools. The concepts in this paper apply the needs of all students no matter where they reside, supported by a state share combination of enriched foundation and categorical aid (federal aid also applies where appropriate) and local revenues.The GSCS has long advocated (formally since 2003) for the state to propose and implement a new school funding formula that will address the issues that have emerged within New Jersey's changing context of school aid support.Politics play an inherent role in any school funding formula since state school aid impacts every local community directly where it counts the most in citizens' hearts (their children) and their homes (their property taxes). In recent years school funding policy-making has been relegated to the back burner due to fiscal and political concerns. Unless a new formula is enacted before the Governor's budget message in February 2008, next year New Jersey will enter its seventh year with no formula in place and with state aid amounts again being determined by the legislature via the annual Appropriations Act. GSCS believes that the continuing absence of a comprehensive new funding formula exacerbates divisiveness among communities of all types in New Jersey, creates taxpayer anxiety, and diminishes quality education over time. With this in mind, pursuant to a great deal of work and research on the subject of school funding formulae, GSCS respectfully recommends the following framework for a new school funding formula that can work for all students and communities in the state: Our schools must not be leveled down. Effectiveness and efficiency must work together, not separately, to sustain funding a good and workable formula. Within the given context and constraints of the local school district, public school communities will be responsible for the effectiveness and efficiencies reflected in their student achievement and school budgeting. Citizens of every district should have a financial stake in the children's education.A town's ability to support its local school budget must be based on a formula fair to all districts. State aid for regular education costs should provide all students with access to rigorous and relevant programs designed to meet the needs of the 21st Century.Specific students with special needs and/or disabilities must receive categorical state support aid no matter where they reside. Support for education must be composed of a combination of enriched foundation aid and categorical aid. The funding formula must allow districts to exceed funding available via state funds. Gathering of accurate, up-to-date, transparent, complete school finance and district data must be a Number One priority. The formula should be sensitive to: 1) enrollments 2) regional cost differences. This per-pupil formula should be current and updated annually.These principles will be further detailed in the body of this white paper (See, The Plan, How This Can Work- Avoiding Previous Mistakes, How This Can Work, The Evaluation Effectiveness and Efficiency/Related Rubrics and attached Appendix.)The Garden State Coalition of Schools, formally organizing in 1992, now includes an economically and geographically diverse group of over 150 school districts. Through its membership, GSCS represents more than 400,000 public school children. SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT For the past decade New Jersey has struggled with the political realities of rising property taxes, inadequate school funding, and increasing demands for improved student performance. New Jersey schools continue to lead the nation in many performance categories, but the pressure on public schools to keep pace with peer institutions worldwide and prepare students for the 21st century workplace is intense.It is clear that pressures to adjust school experiences to reflect 21st Century skill sets conflict sharply with the problems created by inequitable school funding. In the past year there has been growing consensus that the solution to this financial dilemma is inextricably tied to the states willingness and ability to develop a comprehensive and equitable approach to the funding of our states schools.Today in New Jersey more than 45% of the regular operating districts are now considered too wealthy to receive basic state foundation aid. In California only 6% of school districts fall into this 'too wealthy' category (2005). State aid as a percent of general fund budgets in New Jersey now is at:* Nearly 83% for Abbott districts 38% for 'other poor' districts (District Factor Group** A & B) 24% for middle districts District Factor Groups CD to GH) 8.8% for higher wealth districts (District Factor Groups I & J***)At the same time equalized tax rates are on a sliding scale of: .543 for Abbotts .780 for other poor districts .951 for middle districts .967 for I & J districts. *Average figures for all groups/categories**District Factor Groups (DFGs) are ranked on a socio-economic scale of low to high, beginning with DFG "A" as the lowest scaled ranking and culminating with DFG "J" as the highest. Historically, DFG's were used to level the field for test score comparisons across differing types of communities. ***See Appendix/Reock The Garden State Coalition of Schools (GSCS) is a leading advocate for public support of public education for all children, not just those in a single socio-economic group. As a statewide organization, GSCS volunteer member districts span New Jersey from Camden County to Bergen County. GSCS is the only statewide educational organization that unites parents, school administrators and Board of Education members. GSCS has developed a reputation for balanced, reasoned analyses of education financing issues. During the past year GSCS has presented well-documented evidence that a continuation of historical approaches to education finance will inevitably lead to a stalemate or produce only marginally satisfactory results. In researching options for the Coalitions consideration, GSCS has met with experts within the state and made use of research results from around the country.GSCS believes that previous attempts to develop lasting, equitable funding approaches have ignored or failed to incorporate very important guiding principles. SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT ANY NEW SCHOOL FUNDING SHOULD REFLECT THESE PRINCIPLES:Our schools must not be leveled down. We must make a permanent commitment to improving education without diminishing quality. All students must be educated for the future, not the past. The needs of students facing life in the 21st century are markedly different than the needs of students in the past century. Effectiveness cannot be left out of the debate - efficiency is only one side of the equation. Historically, discussions in Trenton have focused only on efficiencies and cost issues. Effectiveness performance and quality education must be an integral part of the debate and subsequent legislation. Citizens of every district should have a reasonable financial stake in their childrens education. No district should fund schools less than 15% or more than 85% through property taxes. A towns ability to support its local school budget must be based on a formula fair to all districts. The formula used to determine state aid should be reworked to reflect the fiscal realities within various districts. Any formula legislation should be sensitive to not only the communitys local fair share, but also to individual residents income capacity, and should be updated annually.Within the given context and constraints of the local school district, public school communities will be accountable for the effectiveness and efficiencies reflected in their student achievement and school budgeting.A Non-Partisan Review Committee should be appointed by the Governor, pending senate confirmation, to review criteria and implementation of this program annually and to revise and update criteria where appropriate.Per pupil support for public education students must be composed of a combination of enriched foundation aid for regular education and state categorical aid for specific student needs such as special education, transportation and bi-lingual education. State aid should follow each student. The combination of Enriched Foundation Aid and State Categorical Aid should be based on an enriched foundation cost of education.State aid for regular education costs should provide all students with access to rigorous and relevant programs designed to meet the needs of the 21st Century. This Enriched Foundation Aid formula should be connected to wealth. Students with special needs and disabilities must receive state support aid no matter where they live. This categorical funding should follow the individual student.The funding formula must be flexible. State funding policy must allow districts to exceed funding available via the state formula. Additional resources beyond state formula amounts would be available with local voter support. Budgets at Enriched Foundation Funding (EFF) levels will not require voter approval. Budgets below EFF levels will not be approved by the NJDOE.The formula should be sensitive to: 1) enrollments 2) regional cost differences. This per pupil formula should be current and updated annually.Gathering of accurate, up-to-date, transparent, complete school finance and district data must be a Number One priority. A primary objective of state aid formulas is to support public schools with a fair state aid distribution program directly related to each districts ability to pay. The primary goal of the Enriched Foundation Aid program is to allow for quality education to be pursued in all towns and communities in New Jersey, concomitant with education quality opportunities, provided equitably within the same funding framework for all public school children. The successful New Jersey school funding formula will provide for the reasonable, appropriate goals of stability, predictability, forethought and planning, student success, and accountability. THE FORMULAMeets the diverse needs of students and districts within the state;Utilizes a sound basis and clear definition for Foundation Aid* for regular education students, including:The availability of high quality programs designed to provide for the education needs of 21st century citizens;The adjustment based on instructional needs related to demographics, mobility, and wealth.Recognizes that aid should follow the student, based on the individual students needs;Uses Categorical Aid to underwrite special education, transportation and bi-lingual costs to districts;*Such aid is referred to in this paper as Enriched Foundation Aidaid that does not make the achievement of relatively low proficiency ratings on state tests the target for state students.Previous Mistakes . . .Inadequate Funding: The amount of money available for educating our students is critical to school success or failure. For any proposed formula to successfully address issues of concern to all stakeholders, adequate district-by-district state and local funding must be a given. While it is likely that a comprehensive reform and restructuring of the states funding approaches may yield significant savings in a number of areas, it is unrealistic to assume that the development of a new funding formula will eliminate the need for additional school funding. Such an approach creates an unreasonable and unattainable expectation. Inadequate Data: Historically the state has not had the ability to compile and organize data to determine either the effectiveness or the efficiency of programs. There is little knowledge about which programs work and why. There is little data about the relationship between school spending and student achievement. Decisions regarding past formulas have been made with rough approximations and little actual detailed information. This has resulted in inequitable distribution of funds and a wasteful uneven impact, serving neither school districts nor taxpayers well.Parts of the formulas come from coarse approximations and guesswork. Not enough care is taken with details, resulting in wasteful uneven impact on both taxpayers and school districts.In the face of these inequities, formula adjustments have been created directly by the legislature, resulting in further inequities and a system that shortchanges many school districts.Design Flaws: The flaws in the previous attempts to develop a statewide funding formula include:Wealth Calculations-- The current method of wealth calculation has created significant inequities within the state. Special Needs Student AidState and federal requirements guarantee protection for special education programs, but funding from both sources continues to lag behind the actual costs for these programs. (See Appendix . . .)Other Categorical FundingIn addition to the traditional state categorical aid funding for special education, transportation and bi-lingual students, aid for at-risk and English Language Learners (ELL) should not be wrapped into a consolidated aid formula, but should be calculated based on the actual needs of children. Aid should follow the child if he or she moves to another district.Issues of Effectiveness-- Previous funding formulas have had no method of assessing the effectiveness of school programs. Consequently, the relationship between district funding and student achievement has been absent from funding levels. Relationships vary wildly between the amounts districts spend and the achievement of their students. Analyses of casual relationships between spending and achievement have been made impossible by lack of quality student performance data.One Size Fits All Previous formulas did not contain mechanisms for accommodating the cultural, economic, transient, developmental and learning diversity of the states student population, limiting the flexibility necessary for effective and efficient education. THE PROPOSED APPROACH Because it is essential that funding to the states schools be responsive to both the efficiency and the effectiveness of a schools programs, the proposed funding formula should include the mandatory review of both after an initial period of implementation. Three years after the award of initial levels of aid, the effectiveness and efficiency of each district should be assessed by a non-partisan review panel. Adjustments to subsequent funding for the district will be completed as required by this review.Meeting Diverse Needs of Students and Communities: It is critical to recognize that while expectations for students should not vary, the resources available to insure their success must be responsive to needs that may vary considerably based on demographics, learning challenges, and program access. The proposed funding plan must continue to allocate resources based on these varying levels of need in districts where such practices already exist, and expand need-based funding to students throughout the state. The Definition of Regular Education: The education program that is received by all children in a district and is required to provide the quality of education identified in the Enriched Foundation concept. How Aid Follows the Student: Because aid is provided according to the category of need and is child specific, all such categorical aid should travel with the child. The Definition of Categorical Aid: Costs for certain special needs fit into distinct categories i.e., special education, transportation costs, at-risk programs, ELL programs. Not all students qualify for this required aid, which is separate from the enriched foundation formula.Wealth CalculationsBasic state aid should be determined using a wealth factor that is primarily based on the property values taxable within a community. Recognizing that property taxes are paid from current income, it also makes sense that wealthier communities can afford to pay a slightly higher than average rate and that communities of average and poorer wealth can afford to pay a slightly lower than average rate.THE EVALUATION: EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCYToo frequently in discussions of school funding, property taxes and state deficits, effectiveness and efficiency have been ignored. If the public schools are expected to educate students, then the primary focus for establishing success should be student performance coupled with the efficient utilization of resources. Thus, resolution of the states funding dilemma requires attention of TWO aspects of school operations.The development of an adequate and equitable method of funding schools, incorporating the basic principles developed by the GSCS (see pages 3-4);The development of a workable/practical means of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of schools as a means of determining adjustments to the formula based on demonstrated/documented status.One of the components contributing to or inhibiting successful education is the way finances are managed (Efficiency). For further explanation see page 13. Finances can be analyzed using the following criteria:A district has costs consistently on the extremes of a cost analysisi.e., the district is an outlying district.A district has contiguous audit recommendations reflective of poor practices.A districts financial practices are viewed as causal in the poor achievement of its students.A district has a high/moderate/low level of indexed combinations of experience, such as student demographics, mobility, degree of available social programs, etc.From the GSCS perspective, it is better not to overcomplicate the Efficiency component of the Effective/Efficient model. While there are many ways to assess the effectiveness of a districts programs, there are far fewer ways to develop comparably useful financial evaluations. The number of indicators used for the assessment should not be equated with the quality of the assessment. The current QSAC systems reliance on a large number of discrete indicators exemplifies this dilemma.The key to the effectiveness of the proposed model is:Use of a practical, realistic and clear system for the evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of districts;Elimination of cumbersome state reporting instruments/mechanisms that require unreasonable expenditure of district resources;Application of rewards, realignment, and consequences based on this system.The proposed formula will be implemented in two phases:The application of the new foundation and categorical aid formula to all districts for a period of three years;The use of the Effectiveness/Efficiency Continuum after Year Two to provide for:Rewards for those districts that have achieved model levels of effectiveness and efficiency AND are willing to serve as Best Practice districts for the state;Reduction in state agency oversight for districts that have attained a rating of satisfactory or above for as long as those districts are able to maintain that status;Adjustments based on uncontrollable changes, such as demographic shifts, mobility, etc.;Direct agency intervention and/or support for those districts failing to attain a rating of satisfactory in either the effective or efficient categories.The calculation of Effective/Efficient status will be based on a revised and simplified version of the current QSAC district reporting and evaluation system.Effectiveness RubricRatings in this category will focus heavily on student performance with indicators, including:Student performance (total and sub-group) on state tests (growth model);Student graduation rates;Post graduate success rates;Program access and success (AP, Honors, International Baccalaureate)Ratings will be benchmarked to average levels by District Factor Groupings (See Appendix)Efficiency RubricThe efficient aspect of the Effective and Efficient concept includes the following principles:There is a key distinction between the development of a funding formula and the resolution of New Jerseys revenue/tax problems. The concept that the formula alone will resolve the revenue issue is not factually sustainable.Without significant changes in the way expectations are established and programs are made available, there is no way to significantly reduce costs and, by extension, reduce the tax burden.The highest percentage of school costs are in the areas of human resources. Unless class sizes, approaches to education, continuation of programs, etc. are variables on a large scale, school costs cannot be reduced sufficiently to satisfy expectations for significant tax relief.Historically, none of these options (doubling class size, eliminating extra-curricular programs, etc.) have been viewed as acceptable. An Efficiency Score is based on each districts per-pupil expenditures after adjusting for certain student characteristics. The measure omits expenditures for bilingual education and transportation. Additionally, the final per-pupil expenditures are adjusted to account for the higher cost of educating low-income students and for expenditure variations for different grade levels. Rating components include:A district has costs consistently on the extremes of a cost analysisi.e., the district is an outlying district.A district has contiguous audit recommendations reflective of poor practices.The districts financial practices are viewed as causal in the poor achievement of its students.A district has a high/moderate/low level of indexed combinations of experience, such as student demographics, mobility, degree of available social programs, etc.Ratings will be benchmarked to average levels by DFG.APPENDIXP.12How This Plan Can Work: Wealth CalculationsAny tax system that includes taxes on property must take into account the great disparities in real property valuation totals between districts. There should be a state commitment to create a fair system of local support so that districts without an adequate property tax base receive sufficient state aid to balance the inequity of resources.However, we also recognize that property taxes are paid out of current income. Therefore, the income wealth of districts must also be considered.Unfortunately, the present system, originated under QEA and continued under CEIFA, mixes the two measures of wealth in a way that does not produce equitable results. This failure has been pointed out time and again by research.Instead of blending these two wealth measures in one composite step, the income measure should be determined separately and then used to modify the local fair share amount determined via the analysis of property wealth.An additional amount of state aid support should be set aside for those districts in which individual incomes are significantly lower than the community income composite level. This should be built directly into the school aid formula as opposed to the current practice of issuing rebates.In order to calculate local fair share, a standard multiplier for property wealth should be applied. That multiplier can be modified according to income wealth by means of a fair factor to be determined on a reasonable and generally acceptable basis. e.g., x-y low end wealth $1.35 x statewide property multiplier $1.50 x+y high end $1.65y represents the deviation from the average multiplier example of 10%]Combining the analysis of property wealth with student weighted enrollment will produce, in effect, a fair statewide property tax rate for schools at the enriched foundation level. The modifier for composite income would then allow those who could afford a higher level of local support to pay it. The ability of communities with a lower composite income wealth to pay would be measured and their property tax rate could be reduced accordingly.The legislature can determine the upper and lower limits of the basic local fair share property tax rate, taking into consideration the fact that some communities have so much property wealth compared to their required local support level that their effective school property tax rate will be much lower than the desirable range established by the legislature.It is important to remember that all general state aid serves to reduce reliance on local property taxes.P16--Effectiveness RubricDistrict Factor Groups (DFGs) are ranked on a socio-economic scale of low to high, beginning with DFG "A" as the lowest scaled ranking and culminating with DFG "J" as the highest. Historically, DFG's were used to level the field for test score comparisons across differing types of communities. Over time, DFGs have been used incorrectly, and sometimes pejoratively, as a stand-alone measure of district wealth. Since DFG scales include such variables as housing, profession, and education, they are not an accurate depiction of community wealth as it relates to the ability-to-pay factor.It is notable that, without exception, the average score of New Jersey students in each state administered assessment has increased as the DFG risesi.e., the average score of students in DFG B is always higher than the average score of students in DFG A. This pattern has continued historically throughout the entire DFG range.Based upon the reliability of this historical trend, it is safe to say that schools in which the average score of students exceeds the DFG average and schools in which students score in the average range of a higher DFG, have achieved a notable level of effectiveness. PAGE PAGE 9IntroductionThe PrinciplesThe PlanHow This Can WorkAvoiding Previous MistakesHow This Can WorkThe PlanFunding New Jerseys SchoolsFinding a Workable Solution ! " # $ & L T \ ] n o p иНjR<