For years, the Education Law Center has asserted that the central point of state aid in New
Jersey should be bringing school district spending up to Adequacy and maintaining it there, regardless of whether or not a district is willing to tax itself to sustain spending at Adequacy.
 |
David Sciarra of the
Education Law Center/NJEA:
If an underaided district pays high taxes and is
above Adequacy, give it no additional state aid.
If an overaided district pays low taxes and is
below Adequacy, let it keep its aid hoard.
|
Thus, the Education Law Center makes pronouncements like this:
"In debating state school aid in the upcoming budget, Governor Murphy and lawmakers must recognize that “adequate” funding lies at the heart of the SFRA. The centerpiece of the formula is each district’s “Adequacy Budget,” based on the cost of educating all students and the additional cost of programs for disadvantaged students – low-income (at-risk) students, limited English proficient pupils, and students with disabilities."
This dogma that Adequacy spending is all that matters is the basis of the Education Law Center's defenses of Adjustment Aid even forJersey City, whose taxes are at only 30% of Local Fair Share and whose $175 million in Adjustment Aid for 2018-19 deprives other districts of state aid they desperately need.
At times the Education Law Center says that SFRA's own prescriptions of aid for above-Adequacy districts should be ignored and new aid should go exclusively to districts who are below Adequacy.
For instance, this recent Philadelphia Inquirer story on state aid discontent has an example:
At times the Education Law Center says that SFRA's own prescriptions of aid for above-Adequacy districts should be ignored and new aid should go exclusively to districts who are below Adequacy.
For instance, this recent Philadelphia Inquirer story on state aid discontent has an example:
David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center, which argued the Abbott v. Burke cases that laid the groundwork for the state’s school-funding formula, said districts like Chesterfield have “valid complaints” about their state aid. The problem is the state’s chronic underfunding of schools, he said: “It’s not like [Murphy]’s targeting these districts somehow for particular treatment.”
If lawmakers add money to Murphy’s budget, Sciarra said, they should direct it to districts that are spending less than their “adequacy” budgets — the formula’s calculation of what each district must spend to give its students a “thorough and efficient” education. [my emphasis]
Yes, Adequacy is a Goal, but Tax Equity Matters Too
There is a lot of overlap between giving new state aid to under-Adequacy districts and underaided districts, since the most severely underaided districts are usually (but not always) severely under Adequacy, but the rankings of most underaided and most under Adequacy are not the same since spending relative to Adequacy depends on local tax effort and not only state aid.
Source for all data, Dr. Ken Greene's Fairness Index, 2017-18. I used Ken Greene's table because he got more data on Adequacy and "Spending as Defined" than I did.
There are really four types of underaided districts:
All of the following underaided districts are actually above Adequacy, despite being underaided.
David Sciarra writes their needs off. If homeowners in these towns groan under school tax rates over 2.0 but the districts are above Adequacy, Sciarra seems to oppose them getting new state aid.
Calculating New State Aid on Adequacy Deficits Would Create Distortions and Injustice
David Sciarra hasn't called for new state aid to be calculated based on districts' deficits against Adequacy, but it's a logical corollary to his calls for no overaided/under-Adequacy district to lose aid (eg Jersey City) and that no underaided/over-Adequacy gain aid.
If new aid were calculated based on Adequacy deficits, it would create distortions by giving more state aid to undertaxers than to overtaxers, even if their state aid deficits are equal.
For instance, Newark (DFG A) is underaided by -$2,852 per student. Newark's school taxes are only 70% of Local Fair Share (-$52 million), so Newark's Adequacy deficit is larger than its state aid deficit, or -$3,653 per student.
Paulsboro (DFG A) is underaided by -$3,186 per student, but Paulsboro taxes at 120% of Local Fair Share (+$949,477), so Paulsboro's Adequacy deficit is smaller than its state aid deficit, -$1,920 per student.
If state aid were determined based on a district's Adequacy deficit, Paulsboro would be punished for paying higher taxes.
There is a tendency of Abbott districts to pay significantly less than their Local Fair Shares. In 2017-18 the median Abbott only paid 58% of Local Fair Share, whereas the median district in New Jersey paid 96% of Local Fair Share.
So a proposal to calculate state aid based on spending relative to Adequacy (which Sciarra hasn't explicitly made) would produce large skews in state aid towards the Abbotts.
State Aid is State Aid: The State's Duty Should be to Treat All Districts Equally, According to Need and Local Tax Capacity
My core belief is that state aid equality is an end in and of itself, so all districts need to be treated equally by the state, regardless of what their own taxpayers want to do.
If the Boards of Education of certain districts want to have lower taxes and do not want their schools to have the same resources as schools do in other districts, then it is not the state's obligation to make up funding gaps that exist due to the taxpayer's own reluctance to pay their local fair share.
If a Board of Education is extremely anti-tax, like Jersey City's is, then the Department of Education should have the power to compel a tax levy increase, like the Department of the Treasury compelled Jersey City to finally conduct a reval in 2017.
It's one thing to deny more state aid to wealthy suburbs who are technically underaided but whose tax rates are relatively low, but it is savagely indifferent to struggling taxpayers to deny relief to underaided towns who happen to be above Adequacy only because of high local tax effort.
-----
See Also:
Manchester Regional,
There is a lot of overlap between giving new state aid to under-Adequacy districts and underaided districts, since the most severely underaided districts are usually (but not always) severely under Adequacy, but the rankings of most underaided and most under Adequacy are not the same since spending relative to Adequacy depends on local tax effort and not only state aid.
Please notice than Manchester Regional is not among the bottom twenty for its Adequacy deficit. In fact, Manchester Regional is ABOVE Adequacy.
Source for all data, Dr. Ken Greene's Fairness Index, 2017-18. I used Ken Greene's table because he got more data on Adequacy and "Spending as Defined" than I did.
There are really four types of underaided districts:
- Low-taxing, under-Adequacy: Underaided districts whose taxes are below Local Fair Share and who are below Adequacy: (there are 78 districts in these categories)
- High-taxing, under-Adequacy: Underaided districts whose taxes are above Local Fair Share and who are still below Adequacy. (there are also 78 districts in these categories)
- High-taxing, over-Adequacy: Underaided districts whose taxes are above Local Fair Share and who are above Adequacy. (there are 91 districts in these categories)
- Low-taxing, over-Adequacy: Underaided districts whose taxes are below Local Fair Share, but whose tax bases are so strong that that is enough to lift spending above Adequacy. (there 123 districts are in these categories)
It's defensible to deny additional state aid to underaided districts in Type 4, ie, who are above Adequacy but who have taxes below Local Fair Share, because they are affluent towns like Princeton (58% of Local Fair Share) and Millburn (48% of LFS) or property-rich towns like Secaucus (68% of LFS) or Paramus (78%). Spring Lake Boro actually only pays 18% of Local Fair Share and its school is at 212% of Adequacy!
If these high-tax base districts were denied additional state aid, it would save New Jersey $116 million in obligation based on the 2017-18 deficits.
HOWEVER, David Sciarra's dogma that only under-Adequacy districts gain new state aid would disqualify many middle-income, even lower-income towns from receiving more state aid whose taxes are above Local Fair Share and whose taxpayers are paying undue burdens.
 |
Spring Lake, New Jersey is underaided by -$96,884
but getting Spring Lake to 100% of its state aid is
should not be a priority.
|
If these high-tax base districts were denied additional state aid, it would save New Jersey $116 million in obligation based on the 2017-18 deficits.
HOWEVER, David Sciarra's dogma that only under-Adequacy districts gain new state aid would disqualify many middle-income, even lower-income towns from receiving more state aid whose taxes are above Local Fair Share and whose taxpayers are paying undue burdens.
All of the following underaided districts are actually above Adequacy, despite being underaided.
David Sciarra writes their needs off. If homeowners in these towns groan under school tax rates over 2.0 but the districts are above Adequacy, Sciarra seems to oppose them getting new state aid.
 |
| Due to Brutal Taxes, Manchester Regional is (Barely) Above Adequacy: Taken Literally, David Sciarra of the Education Law Center Would Not Allow it to Gain Additional State Aid |
Calculating New State Aid on Adequacy Deficits Would Create Distortions and Injustice
David Sciarra hasn't called for new state aid to be calculated based on districts' deficits against Adequacy, but it's a logical corollary to his calls for no overaided/under-Adequacy district to lose aid (eg Jersey City) and that no underaided/over-Adequacy gain aid.
If new aid were calculated based on Adequacy deficits, it would create distortions by giving more state aid to undertaxers than to overtaxers, even if their state aid deficits are equal.
For instance, Newark (DFG A) is underaided by -$2,852 per student. Newark's school taxes are only 70% of Local Fair Share (-$52 million), so Newark's Adequacy deficit is larger than its state aid deficit, or -$3,653 per student.
Paulsboro (DFG A) is underaided by -$3,186 per student, but Paulsboro taxes at 120% of Local Fair Share (+$949,477), so Paulsboro's Adequacy deficit is smaller than its state aid deficit, -$1,920 per student.
If state aid were determined based on a district's Adequacy deficit, Paulsboro would be punished for paying higher taxes.
There is a tendency of Abbott districts to pay significantly less than their Local Fair Shares. In 2017-18 the median Abbott only paid 58% of Local Fair Share, whereas the median district in New Jersey paid 96% of Local Fair Share.
So a proposal to calculate state aid based on spending relative to Adequacy (which Sciarra hasn't explicitly made) would produce large skews in state aid towards the Abbotts.
State Aid is State Aid: The State's Duty Should be to Treat All Districts Equally, According to Need and Local Tax Capacity
My core belief is that state aid equality is an end in and of itself, so all districts need to be treated equally by the state, regardless of what their own taxpayers want to do.
If the Boards of Education of certain districts want to have lower taxes and do not want their schools to have the same resources as schools do in other districts, then it is not the state's obligation to make up funding gaps that exist due to the taxpayer's own reluctance to pay their local fair share.
If a Board of Education is extremely anti-tax, like Jersey City's is, then the Department of Education should have the power to compel a tax levy increase, like the Department of the Treasury compelled Jersey City to finally conduct a reval in 2017.
It's one thing to deny more state aid to wealthy suburbs who are technically underaided but whose tax rates are relatively low, but it is savagely indifferent to struggling taxpayers to deny relief to underaided towns who happen to be above Adequacy only because of high local tax effort.
-----
See Also:
Manchester Regional,
No comments:
Post a Comment