| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Star Ledger 5-10-06 - Top court orders 'Abbott freeze' but lets schools appeal Gannet State Bureau in the Asbury Park Press on 05/10/06 - Court upholds aid freeze to 31 districts
Associated Press in Press of Atlantic City 5-9-06 ‘Unanimous court rules poorest school districts must trim budgets’
Phila Inquirer - N.J.'s tight rein on neediest schools is upheld while justices allowed the hold-the-line budgetary
New York Times - Court Allows Corzine to Freeze Aid to Poor School Districts
School budgets might be taken off the ballot Associated Press in Asbury Park Press on 05/10/06 — April school elections would be moved to November, but New Jersey voters would lose their say on school budgets under long-discussed legislation
Star Ledger 5-10-06 on Assm Budget hearing - Superintendents take heat on 'obscene' compensation
Asbury Park Press 5-10-06 on Assm Budget Hearing - 31 ABBOTT DISTRICTS: Get about half of state aid COMMISSIONER: Work at poor schools has just begun- Lawmakers seek to identify schools to remove from list
31 ABBOTT DISTRICTS: Get about half of state aid
COMMISSIONER: Work at poor schools has just begun
Lawmakers seek to identify schools to remove from list
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/10/06
BY JONATHAN TAMARI
TRENTON — Grasping for remedies for what they called the most divisive state issue in recent memory, lawmakers requested information Tuesday that could help thin the ranks of so-called Abbott school districts receiving enhanced levels of state funding.
Assemblyman Louis Greenwald, D-Camden, asked the Department of Education to recommend a list of districts that no longer meet the criteria for Abbott funding and could be removed from the program intended to help poor schools, saying the state needs a more unified way to support education.
"This is the most divisive issue that I think I've ever seen in my lifetime in the state," Greenwald, chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, said after questioning education officials at a hearing. "We need to get away from this. We are one state."
The 31 mostly urban "Abbott" districts receive more than half of state school aid, leading to growing anger and resentment in other parts of the state where stagnant state support has contributed to skyrocketing property tax bills.
Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole, R-Essex, said more than $35 billion has been poured into the Abbott districts since 1998. The additional funding came as the result of the Abbott v. Burke rulings of the state Supreme Court, after education advocates sued the state for not adequately supporting the poor schools.
"It is the largest social experiment ever conducted in this country, and it has failed miserably," O'Toole said.
Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said real work in the Abbott schools has only recently begun, but that results are starting to show, ironically, in some of the districts that are not the biggest spenders.
"We are seeing the fruits of those investments," Davy said.
Eight Abbott districts are being forced to contribute more from local taxes to their budgets this year. Greenwald said that list, which includes
The state, meanwhile, is working on a new way to fund all schools, Davy said.
"One of the things that we're talking about . . . is returning to a unified system and not having Abbotts and non-Abbotts," Davy said.
Members of both parties angrily pointed to a recent state investigation that found some administrators in the Abbott districts making $200,000 a year or more in salary, not counting perks such as personal drivers and bonuses.
Davy makes about $141,000 to supervise education throughout the state, she said.
Jonathan Tamari:
jtamari@gannett.com
Top court orders 'Abbott freeze' but lets schools appeal
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG AND DUNSTAN McNICHOL
Star-Ledger Staff
The New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday allowed the state to freeze aid to its 31 poorest school districts in order to balance the budget, but also gave the districts a right to appeal for more funding.
The unanimous ruling came on the same day acting Education Commissioner Lucille Davy told lawmakers the Corzine administration is working on plans to overhaul the state's school funding for mula completely by July 2007.
"You really want one funding formula that funds kids based on what they need rather than where they live," Davy said.
The high court issued its decision one week after it heard lawyers for the "special needs" school districts argue that with costs rising, flat state aid would translate into cuts in educational services. Attorney General Zulima Farber countered that given the state's "dire" budgetary circumstances, "we simply don't have the money" to increase education funding.
The justices gave the special needs districts until May 31 to reduce their budget requests and re submit them, as Davy had ordered in March. The 31 districts originally requested about $500 million more than the $4.25 billion that Gov. Jon Corzine provided in his proposed budget, which is being reviewed by state lawmakers.
The justices also ordered the Department of Education to go ahead with planned audits of four special needs districts:
The justices agreed and set a November deadline for completing the audits.
While that much of the ruling backed Corzine, he declined to call it a "victory," saying that would be achieved only when all students are prepared to meet the challenges they will face upon graduation, "and not a moment sooner."
"We have a great deal of work ahead of us to ensure that all children across New Jersey receive a thorough and efficient education, and that public, local and school officials are accountable for the public funds they receive," Corzine said. "Our focus will be to get resources to children."
The justices also handed a par tial victory to the poorest districts by granting them a broad right to appeal "inadequate funding" for "demonstrably needed" school programs. Corzine had proposed a strict budget cap that did not allow poor school districts to appeal the state's funding decisions.
"We're pleased that the court has taken that step," said David Sciarra, director of the
Richard Shapiro, a lawyer for 16 of the districts, said, "In structure, it's no different from what has oc curred in the past. The baseline is different but the appeals process is preserved."
The ruling was the latest in a 25-year-old lawsuit, Abbott vs. Burke, in which the justices have repeatedly ordered state officials to increase aid to the poorest schools, which have come to be known as the "Abbott districts."
Sciarra said, "What's important now is that the (education) department work cooperatively with the districts to finalize school budgets and meet the children's needs, even if more funds are needed."
But Davy told lawmakers she is confident that the poorest districts can provide a quality education without additional state aid.
"I firmly believe there are places in all these budgets where people can tighten their belts, just as we have done, and find ways to save money," Davy told the Assembly Budget Committee.
Davy said her department is working on a new funding formula that would set a base cost of providing the "thorough and efficient" public education the state constitution requires, then apportion state aid to every community based on how much help it needs to provide that level of education.
Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike pressed for such an approach, saying growing state payments to the Abbott districts were sparking resentment in hundreds of other communities where state school aid has been flat for years.
"It's time to start talking about
"It's divisive within communities and it's divisive within neighborhoods," Greenwald said.
Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole (R-Essex) said hearing Republicans and Democrats "speaking with one voice" means the school funding formula is likely to be changed.
"It's the biggest social experiment ever conducted in this coun try, and it has been a failure," O'Toole said. "We have to come to the conclusion the Abbott funding experiment has failed; it has failed the children and it has failed the taxpayers."
Robert Schwaneberg covers legal issues. He may be reached at rschwaneberg@starledger.com or (609) 989-0324. Dunstan McNichol covers state government. He may be reached at (609) 989-0341 or dmcnichol@starledger.com.
IMPACT: Decision affects
Court upholds aid freeze to 31 districts
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/10/06
BY GREGORY J. VOLPE
In an order released Tuesday, the court unanimously upheld Corzine's budget proposal that freezes state aid for 2006-07 at this year's figure — $4.25 billion — to the 31 districts covered by the Abbott v. Burke school-funding-equity case. The court also sided with Corzine's call to raise local levies in eight Abbott districts with property tax rates less than half the state average.
In the Abbotts' favor, the court gave them the right to appeal for more money and ordered the state to conduct audits and program evaluations.
Richard Shapiro, a lawyer who represented several districts, said it was important that the court preserved districts' rights.
"I see it as still afford-ing the opportunity . . . to get needed funding if they can make that showing," Shapiro said. "I think it's important to preserve the districts' right to do that."
Long Branch Schools Superintendent Joseph M. Ferraina said the decision doesn't really affect his district because it hadn't asked for additional aid.
"One of the most important impacts the Abbott funding has had on districts is it has drastically improved the performance of children," Ferraina said. "I think the Supreme Court was looking to give the state a little breather. I think things work out the best possible way through the district and the state Department of Education without involving the courts."
Asbury Park Board of Education President Robert DiSanto said the district is continuing its court fight to get the funding it needs in a case with other districts filed after the state asked the board to raise the tax levy. The board did not.
DiSanto said Shapiro will speak to the board and the public at Thursday's regular 7 p.m. meeting.
In Keansburg, Robert S. Finger, business administrator and board secretary, described the state Supreme Court decision in one word: Shameful.
Finger said his district — whose total budget was slated to grow to $44.32 million in the 2006-07 school year — may consider cutting programs or dropping its emergency surplus from $650,000 to about $100,000 to operate under the proposed "flat-funding" cuts.
"We may have to bring it (the surplus) down to under $100,000 and that's dangerous," Finger said. "We're using our money, that we in theory are required to keep for emergencies."
Finger also took exception to the phrase "flat funding."
He said the term doesn't apply because Abbott districts won't be getting their 2005-06 levels of state funding in the 2006-07 year. They could be receiving the 2005-06 funding, minus money the state removed midyear for early childhood education costs and other items.
In Keansburg, that money adds up, Finger said.
"We lost a little over a million dollars (through the midyear adjustments)," he said. "We're not flat funded. And that point was raised to the Supreme Court. They chose to overlook that."
New funding formula
Corzine, who attended last week's Supreme Court hearing, has pledged more accountability and a new funding system for public education.
"Our focus will be to get resources to the children," Corzine said in a prepared statement. "We must meet their needs and prepare them for the challenges they face after graduation. Only when that goal is met, and not a moment sooner, will we have achieved a victory."
The Supreme Court ordered the state to complete audits of the
"The court has made a very strong statement about state accountability for performance to these children," Sciarra said.
The order was released the day Abbott funding dominated an Assembly Budget Committee hearing.
Corzine's stance with the Abbott districts has brought praise from political opponents.
"This is a positive initial first step . . . toward an inevitable, but necessary, Abbott reform and change of the school funding formula," said Sen. Joseph M. Kyrillos Jr., R-Monmouth.
Senate Education Committee chairwoman Shirley Turner, D-Mercer, said districts, rich and poor, need to adjust spending, given the state's fiscal problems.
Other school district officials around the state painted dire pictures.
"I'm shocked and disappointed," said Philip Freeman, the
Mary Stansky,
"Unfortunately, after measurable progress, the rug has been pulled out from under us and we will not be able to meet (state) mandates," Stansky said. "Subsequent years will prove to be quite dismal for our schools and our students."
Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said districts can make cuts without affecting education.
Staff writers Larry Hanover, Jonathan Tamari,
Superintendents take heat on 'obscene' compensation
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
BY DUNSTAN McNICHOL
Star-Ledger Staff
Lawmakers and the acting state education commissioner yesterday sharply criticized the perks and salaries given to superintendents in
"It's an obscene amount of money. No wonder people are in re volt," Assemblyman Gary Schaer (D-Passaic) said during a conten tious four-hour budget hearing yesterday. "Frankly, I don't understand why they haven't already burned down the Bastille."
"We're honestly reaching a breaking point," added Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester).
Assemblyman Lou Greenwald (D-Camden), the committee chairman, opened yesterday's hearing on the Department of Education's budget by reading through the provisions of contracts that state officials have negotiated with superintendents in three school districts operated by the state --
He cited a $10,000 deposit into one superintendent's post-retirement annuity account; pledges to pay up to $175 per day for 493.5 ac crued sick days; and a $1,000-per-month housing allowance on top of a salary scheduled to rise from $212,000 to $222,000 over two years.
Later, Republicans took aim at a trip to
According to receipts from that trip, Epps stayed in a five-star hotel, rode a limousine from the airport and had an $80 steak at a restaurant called Rules that has its own estate, where it raises the game hens it serves.
"Our frustration level is at an all-time high," Greenwald told act ing state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy as the hearing wrapped up. "We need answers. We're seeking them. We're demanding them."
Epps, reached at his
"In fact, it's probably less than superintendents make across the country," he said. "There are districts that are a lot smaller than mine that make a lot more than me."
Davy, however, told lawmakers she shared their concerns about the level of some school officials' compensation.
"I think some of these clauses go well beyond what is reasonable, particularly in light of our fiscal problems," she said.
Dunstan McNichol covers state government issues. He may be reached at (609) 989-0341 or dmcnichol@starledger.com.
School budgets might be taken off the ballot
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/10/06
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr., D-Camden, is expected to announce support for school election changes today, and a Senate committee is slated to consider them on Thursday. Gov. Corzine on Tuesday expressed interest in moving school elections toNovember.
"Given the consistently low turnout in school elections, we need to be looking at ways to encourage voter participation, and this idea is worthy of consideration and debate," Corzine spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said.
The movement comes after a mere 15.7 percent of registered voters cast ballots in last month's school elections. Voters approved 53 percent of local school budgets, the lowest approval rate since 1994.
Roberts will announce his plan as part of a proposal to promote shared services and regionalization by municipalities and school districts, spokesman Joe Donnelly said.
"He supports changing
Sen. Shirley Turner, D-Mercer, chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, said this year's school elections prompted her to finally schedule a hearing on a proposal that has been floating around for years.
"We need to provide a greater opportunity to participate in the process," said Turner, who said she also wouldn't oppose moving school elections to the June primary election.
School budgets generally constitute most local government spending, which is funded via property taxes. They're also the only major spending plans subject to direct approval by voters.
Turner said her bill would subject school budgets to voter approval only if the proposed spending plans exceed state mandated caps that limit school spending increases to 2.5 percent or the inflation rate, whichever is greater.
Eliminating voter approval of budgets should mollify school officials who oppose moving the April elections to November, Turner said.
Press of Atlantic City5-9-06 ‘Unanimous court rules poorest school districts must trim budgets’
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer
Published: Tuesday, May 9, 2006
Updated: Tuesday, May 9, 2006
The ruling marks the third time in the past five years that the court has let the state off the hook of part of its court-imposed obligation to do more for the schools. In each case, the court granted a reprieve because of a tight state budget.
This time, some educators and advocates say, keeping state aid the same as what was received this school year could hurt more than ever.
David Sciarri, executive director of the
"The rug has been pulled out from under us,"
The
Newark Superintendent Marion Bolden said she will have to cut $60 million from a nearly $1 billion budget. She said the cuts are likely to affect after-school programs, tutoring and probably class size.
Education advocates say all the schools could have to make similar cuts because some costs - including fuel and contracts with teachers - are rising, even if the total amount to spend is not.
The poor districts' reworked budgets must be submitted by May 31, the court ordered. A handful of the districts have already submitted spending plans assuming they would not get more from the state.
Except for the three flat-funding decisions, the court repeatedly has ordered
About $4.24 billion of Gov. Jon S. Corzine's proposed $30.9 billion state budget would go to the 31 so-called Abbott districts. The state money helps the poor schools spend more per student than most of the state's wealthiest districts. Separately, the state is paying the full cost to upgrade and replace school buildings in those communities.
"We have a great deal of work ahead of us to ensure that all children across New Jersey receive a thorough and efficient education, and that public, local and school officials are accountable for the public funds they receive," Gov. Jon S. Corzine said after the ruling. "Our focus will be to get resources to the children."
The one-year reprieve for the state has some strings attached.
For instance, the state will have to help the underprivileged districts rework their budgets to accommodate the spending restraints. The state must also give schools a chance to appeal if the districts believe they cannot make cuts without hurting students' education. The state had argued against allowing such appeals.
In arguments before the court last week, Attorney General Zulima Farber said the state needed to evaluate whether the extra help in the Abbott districts was working. She said audits were under way to look at both the financial books and the educational programs of all the schools.
The court said those audits must be complete in time for the schools to use the information as they formulate their budget requests for the 2007-08 school year.
Also, the Abbott districts have long complained that the state Education Department frequently changes its rules regarding budget requests. The court said that whatever rules the state sets this year will have to remain in place for two years.
N.J.'s tight rein on neediest schools is upheld
While justices allowed the hold-the-line budgetary restraint, districts may appeal threats to programs.
Inquirer Staff Writers
The court said it would allow the state to fund the 31 so-called Abbott districts at current levels while it completed audits to determine whether and how the schools could be run more efficiently.
The freeze would be allowed only for the coming budget year, and the districts are still able to appeal any state funding decision that they believe would threaten "demonstrably needed" educational programs.
State officials went before the justices last week to argue that the Abbott districts were asking for too much money, especially with the state facing a budget shortfall of more than $4 billion. Corzine has said he wants to make sure that the court-mandated state assistance is being used wisely before handing out any more. Ultimately, he said, he wants to base aid on students' needs, not a district's wealth.
Several state officials called yesterday's opinion a step in the right direction.
Attorney General Zulima Farber, who in a rare move argued the state's case before the high court, said it was "an important decision that will help us to ensure that funding is spent wisely and our children receive the education they deserve."
State Sen. Shirley Turner (D., Mercer), chair of the Senate Education Committee, said the ruling reinforced "that the state should spend what is necessary to provide a quality, thorough education but also live within our means."
"In today's climate of revenue shortfalls and rising fixed costs, it's crucial that all
David Sciarra, executive director of the nonprofit
"The court is giving us a safety valve to make sure the rights of the students are protected," Sciarra said.
He said the next issue to watch was how the districts and Department of Education collaborated to make the limited aid cover necessary programs.
"The department has got to make sure that needed programs are kept even if additional money is required," he said.
School officials in
"We're feeling pretty gloomy, quite frankly," district spokeswoman Lynda Lathrop said. "We just don't feel as though this is an atmosphere where people are going to feel like programs are important enough to be kept."
Superintendent Mary T. Stansky said the district was being unfairly punished.
"After years of showing improvement and demonstrating fiscally sound decisions and meeting all mandates in a timely fashion,
The Supreme Court's landmark Abbott v. Burke rulings require the state to provide the needy, mostly urban districts with extra assistance to help level the playing field with wealthier, suburban districts.
But the funding formula, which allows the Abbotts to spend as much as the richest districts, has come under increasing scrutiny.
Suburban districts have complained that while funding for Abbott districts has continued to climb, their state aid has remained flat for five years. Rising property taxes - the main source of funding for regular districts - have only added to the outrage over Abbotts. That anger seemed to bubble over last month when voters defeated nearly half the school budgets statewide - the highest failure rate in more than a decade.
Many, including Corzine, have begun publicly questioning whether the extra assistance has achieved the desired results.
His spending plan for the budget year that starts July 1 earmarks $4.25 billion for the Abbotts - slightly more than the current level but $500 million less than the districts collectively requested.
Some asked for especially lofty increases.
It is one of four Abbott districts, along with
The court gave the state until November to complete those audits and about a year - until fiscal 2008 - to complete financial and programmatic reviews of the rest of the districts. The state also has promised to help the Abbott districts trim any waste.
Abbott Districts in
Nine of the state's 31 Abbott school districts are in
Contact staff writer Jennifer Moroz at 609-989-8990 or jmoroz@phillynews.com.
May 10, 2006
Court Allows Corzine to Freeze Aid to Poor School Districts
By RICHARD G. JONES and DAVID W. CHEN
TRENTON, May 9 — Handing Gov. Jon S. Corzine an important budget victory, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to allow financing for the state's poorest school districts to be frozen at last year's levels.
The court accepted the governor's contention that the
The ruling was the third the court has made in the last five years granting permission to cap new spending on the poorest districts. It represented a modest step back from a landmark series of court decisions known as Abbott v. Burke, which required
Mr. Corzine argued that because of a $4 billion deficit, those districts should forego $160 million in additional aid.
The request, fraught with the risk of eroding some of Mr. Corzine's liberal and progressive base, highlighted the governor's desire to cut or hold the line on spending in his $30.9 billion budget proposal.
In their unanimous seven-page ruling, the justices gave the districts a May 31 deadline "to resubmit their 2006-07 budgets consistent with the revenue sources" that take into account the spending freeze.
On two other occasions in recent years — in 2002 and 2003 — the court also agreed to freeze spending at the previous year's level because of budgetary concerns.
The court's ruling on Tuesday, however, differed from those earlier decisions by addressing Mr. Corzine's concerns about waste and mismanagement. The court ordered audits of four districts —
In a statement, Mr. Corzine acknowledged the significance of the audit requirement as a way to increase the accountability of the school districts but did not frame the court's ruling as a victory.
"Our focus will be to get resources to the children," he said. "We must meet their needs and prepare them for the challenges they face upon graduation. Only when that goal is met, and not a moment sooner, will we have achieved a victory."
Richard E. Shapiro, a lawyer for several of the Abbott districts, said that the court's ruling preserved the essence of the Abbott decisions and praised a provision in this latest decision that allowed districts the right to appeal a budget decision.
The Corzine administration had argued against giving the districts the right to appeal their financing levels.
"The kind of basic drift of the court's order has been no different from the past," Mr. Shapiro said.
He conceded that the ruling put the onus on districts that appeal the spending freeze to prove that, as the court put it, "an identified demonstrably needed program, position or service will be substantially impaired due to insufficient funding."
But he said the requirement is "no different than what the district's burden has been in the past. It affords opportunity for districts to show the need for additional funding and services and positions that are demonstrably needed by the children. It protects those programs. And in that regard, we're very pleased that the districts will have a right to demonstrate those needs."
Peter G. Verniero, former attorney general and state Supreme Court justice, said the court's decision might bring short-term budget relief but questioned whether it could be sustained.
"The governor will consider this a big victory in the context of this year's budget, but when you look at the long term and the fine print of the court's order, it may not turn out to be so big a victory," he said.
David G. Sciarra, who represents the Abbott schoolchildren, said the ruling underscored the importance of collaboration between the state's Education Department and the districts.
"It is critical for the department and districts to work cooperatively and finalize school budgets that meet the children's needs, even where more funds are necessary," Mr. Sciarra said in a statement. "The court is also holding state officials accountable for performance. The department now must ensure Abbott funds are effectively used, the Abbott programs are evaluated and Abbott reforms are stabilized."
