Saturday, March 21, 2026

2026-27 State Aid

New Jersey's anticipation of only modest income tax growth in FY2027 is producing a disappointing state aid distribution that will leave many districts frustrated and angry and causes the second year in a row when New Jersey cannot fully fund the School Funding Reform Act.



I do not blame Governor Mikie Sherrill for this at all.  It is a fiscal reality any governor would have to deal with.  I support Mikie Sherrill in continuing the 3% limits on state aid losses that Phil Murphy implemented in 2025-26, although I do wish there were an acknowledgement that those floors on losses necessitate ceilings on gains, and begin to re-create the state aid inequalities that plagued New Jersey in the 2000s-2010s.

Where I do fault the DOE, governor, and legislature is that they set their ceilings as a percentage of the prebudget year's state aid, and not a dollars-per-student amount.  

My analysis of state aid data is below, but, as usual, I've put all the data online.  As always, the original source for the data is the DOE, but the analysis of deficits, deficits per student, and Local Fair Share disparities is by me.   

Also, I am writing solely on my own behalf. Most readers do not know who I am, but if you do know, nothing I say represents any organization I'm affiliated with.

2026-27 State Aid Disparities

For 2026-27, there will be

  • 290 districts with a total deficit of $325 million. This is actually slightly less than 2025-26, when the total deficit was $382 million.
  • 157 districts who are getting their exact SFRA aid target (with the multi-year averaging of LFS and special ed reform factored in)
  • 142 districts who are overaided, with a total surplus of $277 million.

The most underaided districts are several small districts.  I admit I do not know the reason these districts have gotten so off-formula and determining that would take a district-by-district analysis that I do not have the time for.


Hackensack has the largest deficit in dollars-per-student of any district with more than 1,000 students, $14.6 million, or -$2,743 per student.  This is related to Hackensack's severe budget deficit

Trenton has the largest deficit in total dollars, $40.3 million, or $2,289 per student.





32% of total excess aid is going to Jersey City, which is the most overaided district in total dollars is Jersey City in total dollars and dollars-per-student, at $73 million or $2,570 per student.


Local Fair Share Disparities

2026-27's Local Fair Share formula is

(Equalized Valuation x 0.13677750 + Aggregate Income x 0.055930804)/2

which is a slight decrease from 2025-26's

(Equalized Valuation x 0.014949314 + Aggregate Income x 0.059963161)/2

The decrease is due to the increases in NJ's Equalized Valuation and Aggregate Income.  It means there's a slightly lower expected rate, but an increase in total expected local payment.  In 2025-26, Equalization Aid eligible districts were expected to pay $8.9 billion in local taxes, but in 2026-27 that rises to $9.8 billion.

There are 278 districts who are eligible for Equalization Aid, which is down two from 2025-26, when 280 districts were eligible, and a recent peak in 2022-23 when 311 districts were eligible, and the commencement of SFRA when two-thirds of districts were eligible.



The median Local Fair Share of Equalization Aid-eligible districts is 1.44%.  The weighted average is 1.37%.  

The lowest Local Fair Share is 0.99% for Ocean Gate and the highest is 1.89% for Hampton Boro.

The districts with the highest Local Fair Shares are, as usual, concentrated in Camden County:


HUNTERDONHAMPTON BORO1.89%
CAMDENMERCHANTVILLE BORO1.85%
CAMDENLAUREL SPRINGS BORO1.83%
CAMDENWOODLYNNE BORO1.80%
CAMDENCLEMENTON BORO1.78%
CUMBERLANDBRIDGETON CITY1.76%
SALEMPITTSGROVE TWP1.76%
GLOUCESTERCLEARVIEW REGIONAL1.75%
CAMDENEASTERN CAMDEN COUNTY REG1.74%
GLOUCESTERPITMAN BORO1.73%
SOMERSETHILLSBOROUGH TWP (MILLSTONE)1.72%
CAMDENLINDENWOLD BORO1.72%
CAMDENSTRATFORD BORO1.72%
CUMBERLANDDEERFIELD TWP1.72%
GLOUCESTEREAST GREENWICH TWP1.71%
CAMDENCOLLINGSWOOD BORO1.70%
CAMDENMOUNT EPHRAIM BORO1.68%
MIDDLESEXHIGHLAND PARK BORO1.67%
GLOUCESTERKINGSWAY REGIONAL1.67%
CAMDENOAKLYN BORO1.67%
State Median1.44%





-----

See Also:


Tuesday, March 10, 2026

Quick Look at FY2027 Education Spending

[I'm writing solely on my own behalf]


On March 10th, new Governor Mikie Sherrill announced her proposal for the FY2027 budget, including information on state education spending.

We don't have district-by-district "state aid" totals yet, but remember, the "state aid" that superintendents and education-watchers talk about is really just K-12 formula aid, and that is barely half of the state's total education spending, and the state makes multibillion payments on behalf of public education in the form of TPAF payments, Social Security, post-retirement healthcare, Pension Obligation Bonds, and then other streams of aid that do go to districts but are not considered formula aid, such as Debt Servicing Aid, PreK, and Extraordinary Aid

Putting all of NJ's spending together, K-12 formula aid is $12.4 billion, or 55%, of $22.5 billion in state PreK-12 education spending.  The formula aid increase from FY2026 is $372 million, or 3%, but it's undetermined that new aid plus redistributed aid will be enough to establish a 100% state aid floor for all districts since the underaided districts had a $382 million deficit in 2025-26.  



Something that was announced in the Budget in Brief is that Sherrill is continuing Phil Murphy's FY2026 institution of stabilizing factors in state aid.

 In a continued effort to enhance predictability and reduce volatility for school districts, this budget maintains a three percent cap on losses and a six percent cap on gains, calculates special education aid based on actual enrollment, and utilizes the multi-year average for property wealth and income measures. These guardrails provide funding stability while the State undertakes the important, long-term work of modernizing the current formula to better reflect today’s educational needs and ensure a fair, sustainable approach to school funding in the coming years.  

I don't have confirmation yet, but I expect the relatively small increase in formula aid will mean an increase in expected Local Fair Share and a further decrease in how many districts are eligible for Equalization Aid. 


Here's the same information in table form:

FY2027
Formula Aid$12,427.5
PreK$1,384.6
Extraordinary Aid$420.0
School Building Aid$10.2
Debt Service Aid$193.5
Other Aid$180.9
TPAF$3,365.2
Post-Retirement Medical$1,763.9
Debt Service on POBs$268.8
Teachers' Social Security$999.1
School Construction Debt Service$589.3
Additional Lottery Money (for TPAF)$891.8
Grand Total School Aid$22,494.8


And here are year-to-year changes.  


The underlying reason for the relatively modest increase in K-12 formula aid is that NJ's income tax is expected to see only a modest increase in FY2027.




I've already made my annual OPRA request for state aid targets, Local Fair Share, Adequacy Budget etc.  I'll post information as soon as I can, but it'll take at least a week.





Thursday, November 13, 2025

Update on Equalized Valuations, 2026

 This is just my annual post on changes in Equalized Valuation.

As usual,  Equalized Valuation is half of the calculation of Local Fair Share.

The 25-26 formula is:

For 2025-26, the Local Fair Share formula is

(Equalized Valuation x 0.014949314 + Aggregate Income x 0.059963161)/2


Jersey City gained $9.2 billion. That'll be enough to cement its loss of Equalization Aid, although it should still retain the excess aid that Phil Murphy allowed it and other overaided districts to have in 2025-26.


And here are five year gains for counties





Thursday, March 20, 2025

2025-26 New Jersey State Aid

The opinions herein belong solely to the author and not to any group or other individual. He writes this solely as a private citizen.


On February 27th the New Jersey Department of Education released state aid amounts for each school district in the state. 

Here are some highlights:

  • Overaiding and Underaiding are back.  The overaided districts have a surplus of
    $395,912,037 and the underaided districts have a deficit of -$382,529,105.

  • New Jersey's finances were tighter than in the last few years, so the total K-12 formula aid increase was only $386 million, as opposed to as much as $900 million, as in 2023-24 and 2024-25.  The small increase in Equalization Aid caused Local Fair Share to jump from 1.29% to 1.49%.

  • Like previous governors, the Murphy administration unilaterally changed SFRA's funding mechanisms without waiting for the NJ Legislature to make the changes.  

The Whole Enchilada of NJ Education Spending ($22.2 billion!)

When superintendents, legislators, education activists, the Boards of Education talk about "state aid," they almost always mean what's only just K-12 formula aid, aka "opex aid."  IE, state money going directly to districts that they control and can spend on various educational operations.  

K-12 formula aid is critically important, but it's actually only 54% ($12 billion) of New Jersey's $22.2 billion all-in education  spending.  As you see below, the State of New Jersey spends $22.2 billion on other items that are essential to public education, from the Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund, teachers Social Security, post-retirement medical, and multiple forms of debt servicing ($6.5 billion).  New Jersey school districts also receive large amounts in Extraordinary Aid and PreK aid ($1.7 billion), although those are semantically not defined as "formula aid." 

Other state aid sources, like Extraordinary Aid and Debt Servicing Aid, are funded below statutory targets, but writing about that would be a separate blog post.






In a huge contrast to the Christie-era, when debt-related education spending got the largest increases, K-12 formula aid has gotten the biggest increases under Murphy, with the $386 million net gain making up 85% of new education spending.

The $386 million increase is the smallest increase since 2017-18 (excluding Covid) and many districts are losing state aid, but at least it's better than the cuts municipal governments are seeing.

Note: this is the fifth straight year that NJ has made the full actuarially recommended contribution to TPAF.  (Post-Retirement Medical is PAYGO)


The 2025-26 Formula Aid Distribution

The total K-12 formula aid increase was $387 million, but 144 districts lost $67 million in state aid and seven vo-techs had no change.  Because of that limited redistribution, the 391 aid-gaining districts gained $454 million in state aid.  (see my 2025-26 State Aid spreadsheet for more detailed information)

The $386 million net increase (+3%) is the smallest increase since the middle-Christie years, which is because NJ's income taxes are only expected to increase by $845 million.  (See page 53 of the Budget in Brief)

As happens every year, half of the aid gain (+$227 million) was concentrated in only a handful of districts.  For 2025-26, only ELEVEN districts, Newark, Paterson, Trenton, Camden, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, Plainfield, Irvington, East Orange, Vineland, and Orange, will get half the new money.  

Note, those eleven districts educate 208,984 K-12 students, which is 16% of NJ's total of 1,318,781 K-12 students.

State Aid Disparities

2024-25 was the first year in the history of NJ state aid where all districts were at least 100% funded, but New Jersey fiscally could not sustain that for 2025-26.



The reemergence of state aid deficits is due to the state's fiscal difficulties, which hinder our ability to increase K-12 formula aid at the same rate as inflation.   Deficits are also fiscally due to a preference to cap aid losses at -3% of the prebudget year's state aid. Hence, state aid deficits (and surpluses) are back. 

For 2025-26, there will be

  • 191 overaided districts, with a total excess of $395,912,037 (not counting Choice Aid and Military Impact Aid).
  • 114 districts who are funded at exactly 100%.
  • 282 underaided districts with a total deficit of -$382,529,105.

The largest state aid surplus is Jersey City's, with $77.7 million, or $2,704 per student.  Elizabeth has the second largest surplus in total dollars, with $28 million.  

These amounts are nothing compared to Asbury Park's surpluses, which were over $11,000 per student, but they are quite large.

The largest deficit in total dollars is Newark, with $37 million, or -$652 per student. The largest deficit in dollars per student is Netcong, with -$4,147 per student, or $1.3 million total for 308 students.

If NJ did not use a 3% maximum aid loss*, another $395.9 million would be available for underaided districts and the 100% funding floor would be intact for another year, but that would have caused pain for aid-losing districts, so the Murphy administration heeded the appeals of overaided districts, legislators like Sen. Vin Gopal, and outside groups like the New Jersey School Boards Association, and preserved more of their state aid.  Although a more subtle and better process would have been one that allowed larger cuts for districts with low tax rates.

*Aid losing districts would argue that their aid losses were greater than 3%, since the 3% maximum was cut from the original 2024-25 state aid proposal, and so did not include the $45 million in Stabilization Aid that was restored late in the FY2025 budget cycle)

Local Fair Share Increase and Local Fair Share Disparities 

From 2024-25 to 2025-26, NJ's statewide Adequacy Budget jumped from $27,153,664,048 to $29,912,221,002, which is +$2.75 billion or +10%.  Since NJ only could put in another +$386 million (+3%) into K-12 formula aid, Local Fair Share soared.  

The reason for such a huge jump in the statewide Adequacy Budget is not enrollment growth, which is estimated to be only +4,000, but rapid inflation itself, plus a technical problem with the 2023 Education Adequacy Report in that it had stopped tracking inflation in mid-2021 (see page 14), before inflation accelerated.  The 2026 Education Adequacy Report did include that rapid period of inflation, and hence made a bigger increase in the statewide Adequacy budget than current inflation.

Local Fair Share inequality comes from New Jersey's highly unusual method of calculating a district's local share.  Whereas in most states, the equivalent of Local Fair Share is based solely on tax base, in New Jersey it is a hybrid of Equalized Valuation and Aggregate Income, where each Equalized Valuation and Aggregate Income each comprises 50% of the weight.  

This is an illustration of a rarely made point that, on a statewide basis, Local Fair Share depends on the amount of Equalization Aid available, so the real statewide formula is:

(Statewide) Adequacy Budget - (Available) Equalization Aid =  Local Fair Share

The formula for Equalization Aid you often see:

Adequacy Budget - Local Fair Share = Equalization Aid

is only true for individual districts, after the Local Fair Share multipliers have already been determined.

To further expound on how insufficient Equalization Aid raises Local Fair Share, this is the provision of SFRA which governs Local Fair Share:

In the event that these [LFS] rates, when used in accordance with the provisions of this section and assuming that each district's general fund levy is equal to its local share, do not result in equalization aid for all districts equal to the Statewide available equalization aid, the commissioner shall adjust these rates appropriately, giving equal weight to each.   (see pages 14-16)

It is the 2025-26 increase in Local Fair Share that accounts for the much larger number of districts who lost state aid.  

For 2025-26, the Local Fair Share formula is

(Equalized Valuation x 0.014949314 + Aggregate Income x 0.059963161)/2 

which is an increase from 2024-25's 

(Equalized Valuation x 0.012707978 + Aggregate Income x 0.050601493) / 2

Hence, New Jersey's average Local Fair Share ROSE again, after four years of decline.  For 2025-26, the median Equalization Aid-eligible district will pay a LFS that is a 1.58% tax rate, with 1.49% as the weighted average and 1.58% as the unweighted average.


Includes the 14 Vo-Techs who are eligible for Equalization Aid, but not their LFS tax rates, since LFS tax rates do not exist for vo-techs


As usual, there is a stark bias against the Philly suburbs and rural areas, however, this is the first time I've seen Hunterdon districts with the highest expected tax rates.




Conclusion:

The 2025-26 state aid distribution should remind state aid activists that changing the state aid formulas like for special education or multiyear averaging of Local Fair Share do nothing if the state's overall budget picture is difficult and/or the governor has other budget priorities.  NJ's expected income tax growth in FY2026 is simply not as robust as it was for the previous few years, but Adequacy Budget soared, hence Local Fair Share soared with it, and the 2025-26 state aid distribution comes as a disappointment or shock to many.

Thus, while the Murphy administration did use multi-year averaging for Local Fair Share, it did not have a large impact in stabilizing state aid compared to the 3% aid-loss floor.  

The 10% increase in the Adequacy Budget also did not mean 10% more school aid.  The effect of raising the Adequacy Budget was to raise Local Fair Shares and cut Equalization Aid for even more districts.


In many ways, the most honest ways to demand higher state education aid are

1) call to raise income taxes.  (this has been happening gradually since NJ's income tax brackets are not indexed to inflation.)
2) call to cut spending on other state services paid for by the Property Tax Relief Fund, eg, municipal aid and tax rebates.  (this has also been occurring very gradually, as non-education spending has not seen the increases education spending has received).

Both have drawbacks, but they, along with natural revenue growth, are what would definitely increase and stabilize state aid for NJ's school districts.  

-----

See Also:













Friday, November 15, 2024

Update on Taxpayer Guide to Education Spending

I'm glad that NJSpotlight has covered the release of the new Taxpayer Guide to District Spending, but I wish it had done a better job of explaining the difference between Budgetary Cost Per Pupil and Total Spending Per Pupil. 

Budgetary Cost Per Pupil includes all the spending a district has under its direct control.

The NJDOE does helpfully explain this in its introduction:  

The Budgetary Per Pupil Costs Indicators (1 through 15) have historically excluded certain expenditures, some of which are funded by entities other than the school district and/or taxpayers. The Budgetary Cost measures are considered to be more comparable across districts for local budgetary considerations because they generally measure annual recurring costs incurred for students educated within district schools, using local taxes and state aid. In contrast, “Total Spending” includes the omitted categories to represent all costs. These categories include transportation, special revenues (including federal funding), pension and benefits paid by the state, facilities (including debt service), equipment, total food services, judgments against the school district, and tuition/costs for students sent out of district (except payments to Charter schools). Consistent with the decision to include tuition payments for students sent out of district for preschool, special education, or other programs, the number of students sent out of district is added to the district’s enrollment denominator for the calculation of Total Spending Per Pupil.

In addition to the all-inclusive total spending measure, the Budgetary Per Pupil Cost Indicators continue to be included to allow districts to review and compare various components of a school district's annual budget data with other districts in the state. The Budgetary Per Pupil Cost and its subcomponents match the amounts districts publish in their User-Friendly Budgets prior to the school election. Unless otherwise noted in the indicator descriptions, districts are ranked from lowest to highest costs. Districts that did not report any values (N.R.) and those that moved from a different enrollment group (N.A.) are excluded from the rankings.

Total Spending Per Pupil is the more inclusive measure and includes payments the state makes on behalf of districts:

Total Spending Per Pupil was first developed in 2010-11 to provide a more comprehensive representation of school district expenditures, since the budgetary per pupil measures excluded some significant cost categories. This variable also uses a larger enrollment number, including all students for which the district is financially responsible. The Total Spending measure adds the following items to the costs already included in the Budgetary Cost (Indicator 1): 1) state payments on behalf of districts for pension, social security, and post-retirement medical; 2) transportation costs (including students transported to nonpublic and charter schools); 3) judgments against the school district; 4) all food service expenditures (including those funded by school lunch fees); 5) capital outlay budgeted in the general fund (facilities and equipment); 6) special revenues supported by local, state, and federal revenues (i.e. preschool, IDEA, Title I); 7) tuition payments by the district to other private and public school districts for the provision of regular, special, and preschool education services (charter school students and their associated costs are only included in the charter school in which they are being educated). 8) debt service for school debt; and 9) an estimate of the district’s share of the debt service the state is paying for school construction bonds issued for school construction grants and School Development Authority projects.

I disagree with this commentary by Colleen O'Dea, "A better measure for comparing district spending is the report’s 'budgetary cost per pupil,' which excludes those extraordinary costs, officials said."

Total Spending Per Pupil and Budgetary Cost Per Pupil are equally valid.  Total Spending Per Pupil reveals what New Jersey is really spending on education and is what you should use for discussions of the total New Jersey budget and in interstate comparisons.  Since TPAF, Social Security, debt servicing, and post-retirement healthcare are essential education spending, they should be included in our measurements of education spending.  Budgetary Cost Per Pupil reveals what districts are spending.

Since NJ school districts are funded by taxpayers, in their local, state, and even federal capacities, the Total Spending Per Pupil is appropriate and necessary.



Monday, October 28, 2024

Changes in Equalized Valuation for 2025-26

It's time for my annual look at changes in Equalized Valuation across New Jersey to get a partial estimate of changes in Equalization Aid for 2025-26 and to get a one-year snapshot data point on changes in NJ's real estate market and overall geography of wealth.  

any questions, please contact stateaidguy@gmail.com

As mentioned in previous posts about this subject, Equalized Valuation is the market value of all the taxable property in a town.  It is determined by a comparison of official assessments of properties to their sales prices.  It is used to apportion county taxes, to apportion taxes within most regional school districts, and is half of the determination of Local Fair Share, which in turn is part of the calculation of Equalization Aid.  

First, the big picture is that New Jersey's total Equalized Valuation grew healthily, from $1,744,722,902,678 to $1,906,359,422,846, a 9.3% gain that is nearly the same percentage as from 2023 to 2024, and only slightly less than the record from 2022 to 2023, when we gained over 11%.


Second, let's look at annual changes for our twenty-one counties:


Year to year fluctuations are only data points, aka statistical noise.  A five year look yields a more meaningful picture.


Please notice that Atlantic County has been a large gainer.  This is a huge contrast to the early 2010s when Atlantic City's Equalized Valuation collapsed in the wake of the casino meltdown there, when the Equalized Valuation fell from $55 million in 2010 to only $31 billion in 2019.  However, Atlantic County's Equalized Valuation is still only $51 billion, which below what it was prior to the Great Recession and casino meltdown.

For Ocean County, it would be wrong to assume that it is all Lakewood, although Lakewood has reached $19.8 billion from $11.7 billion in 2020 (+69%).  Toms River is actually up dramatically too, from $16.3 billion in 2020 to $25.5 billion for 2025 (+56%).   

------

Jersey City Flatlines, Newark Soars

For all of my previous reports on changes in Equalized Valuation, the big takeaway was the extraordinary growth of Jersey City, which was so rapid that in 2019 I was sure that Jersey City would become ineligible for Equalization Aid in five years, which would have been 2024.

Well, I was right that Jersey City's tax base would increase, from a Local Fair Share of $414 million to to $615 million in 2024-25, but that was not sufficient to bring Jersey City's Equalization Aid to zero, although JC's Equalization Aid fall from $149 million in 2019-20 to $60 million in 2024-25.  

What I am more surprised by is that Jersey City's growth has leveled off and actually dipped, by $999 million.  In theory, that would qualify Jersey City for an additional $6.3 million in Equalization Aid.


By contrast, Newark's Equalized Valuation has soared recently, from $15 billion for 2020 to $28 billion for 2024.  Elizabeth and Paterson have had pretty strong growth lately.

------

Estimated ("Guesstimated"? )Implications for Equalization Aid

For Equalization Aid, recall that the formula for an individual school district is:

Adequacy Budget - Local Fair Share = Equalization Aid

And the 2024-25 formula for Local Fair Share is:

(Aggregate Income x 0.050601493  + Equalized Valuation x 0.012707978) / 2

I have no idea what the relevant Aggregate Income will be for the 2025-26 Local Fair Shares (does anybody know that?) and we do not know what Adequacy Budgets will be for 2025-26, but if Equalization Aid were solely calculated on Equalized Valuation we can guestimate changes in Equalization Aid for 2025-26 by applying growth (or loss) and plugging that into the 2024-25 formula.


DistrictEqualized Valuation, 2023Equalized Valuation, 2024Change in Equalized ValuationChange in Equalization Aid (from change in EV only)
NEWARK$22,710,007,385$28,414,031,530$5,704,024,145-$36,243,307
PATERSON$11,851,947,539$13,277,933,697$1,425,986,158-$9,060,700
ELIZABETH$13,382,797,043$15,044,621,888$1,661,824,845-$10,559,217
TRENTON$3,385,353,431$3,682,304,826$296,951,395-$1,886,826
CAMDEN$2,284,733,800$2,620,624,707$335,890,907-$2,134,247
PLAINFIELD$4,049,010,425$4,386,601,357$337,590,932-$2,145,049
UNION CITY$5,561,264,516$6,682,004,990$1,120,740,474-$7,121,173
PASSAIC$5,358,933,638$5,836,982,457$478,048,819-$3,037,517
PERTH AMBOY$4,423,414,951$4,772,616,612$349,201,661-$2,218,824
NEW BRUNSWICK$4,302,931,120$4,580,496,648$277,565,528-$1,763,648
EAST ORANGE$5,125,252,931$5,516,845,850$391,592,919-$2,488,177
IRVINGTON$3,524,558,975$4,288,256,844$763,697,869-$4,852,528
VINELAND$5,253,029,186$5,874,802,288$621,773,102-$3,950,739
BRIDGETON$701,489,262$771,072,132$69,582,870-$442,129

-----

See Also: