Showing posts with label Adequacy spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adequacy spending. Show all posts

Sunday, March 31, 2019

2020 Education Adequacy Report Drives Big Changes to NJ State Aid


An important development in New Jersey state aid that hasn't gotten any media attention so far is the release of the Department of Education's "2020 Education Adequacy Report."

The composition of a triennial Education Adequacy Report is a requirement from the 2009 Abbott XX decision, in which the Supreme Court deemed the School Funding Reform Act to be constitutional.

The Education Adequacy Report does not acknowledge the underfunded, off-formula reality of SFRA, but instead writes as if SFRA were a fully-funded, operating state aid law that actually delivered 100% of every district's state aid.  The Education Adequacy Report also evaluates SFRA in isolation from the rest of the NJ budget and NJ's other education spending and fiscal policies (eg, TPAF, the tax cap, health benefits, construction debt service, charter schools).

While SFRA has several points of controversy, the Education Adequacy Report is very narrowly focused on only seven state aid issues.

  1. The Base Cost Per Pupil for K-12 students
  2. The Preschool Per Pupil Aid Amount
  3. The extra weights for at-risk students and vo-tech students.
  4. The cost coefficients for Security Aid and Transportation Aid.
  5. The state average classification rate for students getting Special Education.
  6. The excess cost for Special Education pupils.
  7. Extraordinary Special Education thresholds.
Despite New Jersey's aid distribution being wildly off-formula anyway, the Education Adequacy Report is important because by increasing New Jersey's statewide Adequacy Budget, it determines the size of the total deficit for underaided districts, the surplus for overaided districts, and even where a district falls if it is on the cusp of being overaided or underaided.

By determining the shape of the statewide deficit and the weights used for at-risk students, Education Adequacy Report determines how deep underfunding is for districts with more at-risk students versus districts whose students are more solidly middle class.

Increases to the Statewide Adequacy Budget (And Deficit)

The most important change from the 2020 Education Adequacy Report is the $566 per pupil increase to the Base Per Pupil amount, a 5% increase.

That $566 per student increase, which is inflated downstream in the SFRA formulas by the extra weighting for at-risk students, produced a massive increase in the statewide Adequacy Budget by $1.3 billion, from $23.3 billion in 2018-19 to $24.7 billion in 2019-20, a 5.6% increase.

This Adequacy Budget increase has occurred despite New Jersey having slight K-12 enrollment loss, from 1,342,749 students in 2016-17 to 1,345,127 in 2018-19 down to a projected 1,341,450 for 2019-20.

It is because of the large increase in NJ's Adequacy Budget that New Jersey's state aid deficit grew from $1.75 billion to $1.8 billion in 2019-20 despite the addition of $206 million in new aid (+2.43%) and $90 million in redistributed aid.

The Local Fair Share Formula Increases (Yet Again)

The calculation of the Local Fair Share multipliers is one of the most opaque parts of SFRA, but the multipliers depend on the gap between available Equalization Aid and NJ's statewide Adequacy Budget and are tweaked annually.

However, in years that an Education Adequacy Report comes out the multipliers show a large change because of how the EAR itself drives increases to the statewide Adequacy Budget.

The Local Fair Share weights are governed by this section of SFRA:
the property value rate shall be determined such that Equalization Aid equals the Statewide available Equalization Aid for all districts determined according to this act had each school district's local share equaled the product of the property value rate and the district's Equalized Valuation ... 
the income rate shall be determined such that Equalization Aid equals the Statewide available Equalization Aid for all districts determined according to this act had each school district's local share equaled the product of the income rate and the district's income.
(See pages 14 and 15 of SFRA.

The above section underscores a rarely-made, but correct, point about SFRA which is that the usual description of Equalization Aid, which is Equalization Aid = Adequacy Budget - Local Fair Share is not true in a practical sense.

What is correct in a practical sense is something like this:

Local Fair Share = Adequacy Budget - Available Equalization Aid

As the gap between New Jersey's statewide Adequacy Budget and Available Equalization Aid grows, so must the Local Fair Share.

Hence, we have increases to the Local Fair Share multipliers as I will demonstrate below.

Anyway, back in 2008-09, the Local Fair Share formula was:

= (Equalized Valuation x 0.0092690802)/2 + (Aggregate Income x 0.04546684)/2 = 

Which is just a complex way of saying:

0.46% of Equalized Valuation + 2.27% of Aggregate Income:

Statewide, that would equate to about a 1.15% tax rate.  In 2008-09, less than 184 (31%) of school districts were ineligible for Equalization Aid (1)

By 2018-19 the formula for Local Fair Share formula's multipliers had grown to:

0.69% of Equalized Valuation + 2.3% of Aggregate Income

However, now that the Education Adequacy Report has increased NJ's Adequacy target, the formula for Local Fair Share for 2019-20 has grown to:

= (Equalized Valuation x 0.014523812)/2 + (Aggregate Income x 0.049819447)/2 =

Which is:

0.73% of Equalized Valuation + 2.49% of Aggregate Income!

NJ's Local Fair Share target equates to a statewide 1.46% weighted average, or a 1.5% median!!

Thus, between 2018-19 to 2019-20 New Jersey's total Local Fair Share increased from $17.2 billion to $18.7 billion (+8.7%), even though if the Local Fair Share formula had been kept constant Local Fair Share would have only increased by 3-4% along with the growth of Equalized Valuation and Aggregate Income.

Now New Jersey has 272 districts who are ineligible for Equalization Aid, including many districts who are middle-class and/or diverse.  This is a huge problem because it means that SFRA recommends essentially the same amount of state aid for Lawrence Township as it does for Princeton, the same amount for state aid for Brick as it does Mantoloking; the same amount of state aid for South Orange-Maplewood as it does Millburn.

The increase in NJ's total Local Fair Share due to the increase in the LFS multipliers makes the increase in the statewide deficit smaller than it would be if SFRA didn't simultaneously demand more from local school districts, but again, it is still not a large enough increase to prevent an increase in the statewide deficit.  

PreK Costs Increase Too 

The Education Adequacy Report also makes inflationary adjustments to the cost of PreK, which also drives up large increases in New Jersey's appropriation for existing PreK programs and significantly reduces New Jersey's ability to expand PreK.

It is due to this cost increase that NJ's PreK appropriation for existing PreK is larger than the appropriation for new PreK spaces.

In his FY2020 Budget, Phil Murphy proposed a $68 million increase for PreK, but only $25 million of that is for new seats.  The rest of the amount, $43 million, is for existing programs, mostly in the Abbotts.

Conclusion:

New Jersey is not even close to fully or fairly funding SFRA, so the Education Adequacy Report isn't a fully-relevant document.  However, the inflationary increases in the report underscore how full funding of SFRA is a moving target that New Jersey may never catch no matter what it does, and certainly will not catch if Adjustment Aid is kept permanent.

Also, the constant increase in the Local Fair Share weights are responsible for SFRA evolving into a formula that deprives middle-income districts of Equalization Aid and increasingly fails to distinguish middle-class from truly rich.

------

See Also:



(1)  I do not have the exact number of ineligible districts in 2008-09, but in that year there were 184 districts who did not receive Equalization Aid.  Some districts not receiving Equalization Aid must have been underaided and thus would have been eligible for it, so the actual number of ineligible districts must be lower than 184, hence the preceding phrase, "less than."


Thursday, April 5, 2018

New State Aid Should Be Based on State Aid Deficits, Not Adequacy Deficits


For years, the Education Law Center has asserted that the central point of state aid in New
David Sciarra of the
Education Law Center:
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.
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.

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:

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.


20 Largest State Aid Deficits, 2017-1820 Largest Adequacy Deficits, 2017-18
Bayonne -$5,150Cliffside Park -$4,520
Woodlynne -$5,239Belleville -$4,521
North Plainfield-$5,338South River -$4,525
Lodi -$5,411Paterson-$3,342
Ridgefield Park Twp-$5,431Carteret Boro-$4,074
Elmwood Park-$5,578Hammonton -$3,653
Kearny -$5,634Bridgeton City-$3,537
Haledon -$5,676New Brunswick -$4,525
Prospect Park -$5,902Fairfield Twp-$4,589
Manville Boro-$6,110North Bergen Twp-$6,757
Guttenberg-$6,285Red Bank Boro-$5,761
Lindenwold-$6,331Plainfield-$5,844
Hi Nella-$6,481Union City-$5,936
Dover Town-$6,565Prospect Park-$5,993
East Newark-$6,960Bayonne City-$6,484
Manchester Reg-$7,015West New York-$6,757
Fairview Boro-$7,361Fairview Boro-$7,167
Freehold Boro-$7,675Dover Town-$7,897
Atlantic City -$8,184East Newark-$8,011
Bound Brook-$9,301Guttenberg-$8,152

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:
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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!
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.


DistrictTaxes as a Percentage of LFSPercentage of State Aid ReceivedSpending Above AdequacyDistrictTaxes as a Percentage of LFSPercentage of State Aid ReceivedSpending Above Adequacy
Wayne Twp106%49%132%Kenilworth Boro120%82%112%
Parsippany-Troy Hills Twp113%56%125%Lenape Valley Regional130%94%121%
West Orange Town135%34%119%Black Horse Pike Reg113%93%104%
Cherry Hill Twp121%49%112%Union Twp105%92%144%
East Brunswick Twp117%82%115%Green Brook Twp101%53%113%
Northern Valley Reg118%53%153%Ewing Twp122%52%104%
Ramsey Boro107%53%147%Mansfield Twp116%77%128%
Freehold Twp116%92%132%Gateway Reg145%82%113%
Morris Hills Reg136%92%134%Green Twp121%98%121%
Pascack Valley Reg122%51%150%Northvale Boro127%50%127%
Rockaway Twp124%86%136%Harmony Twp107%81%141%
Fair Lawn Boro123%38%115%Willingboro Twp107%96%103%
Mount Olive Twp133%67%116%Franklin Twp107%86%145%
Westwood Reg102%58%125%Haddon Twp106%96%106%
Park Ridge Boro108%52%157%High Bridge Boro136%93%126%
Oakland Boro131%48%144%Milltown Boro113%60%110%
Scotch Plains-Fanwood Reg101%52%110%Berlin Twp117%98%111%
Glen Rock Boro108%49%122%South Hackensack Twp111%57%124%
Greater Egg Harbor Reg123%98%113%Mount Holly Twp126%93%107%
Waldwick Boro133%45%129%Galloway Twp113%82%102%
Midland Park Boro116%69%146%Highland Park Boro117%53%104%
River Dell Regional126%45%125%Hawthorne Boro111%39%103%
River Vale Twp107%45%138%Glassboro106%95%103%
Dumont Boro120%93%116%Boonton Town114%45%106%
Linden City146%47%105%Hasbrouck Heights Boro115%31%104%
South Orange-Maplewood105%54%105%Clinton Town125%45%120%
Cinnaminson Twp116%92%114%Bogota Boro133%64%104%
Red Bank Reg120%78%129%Winfield Twp170%98%127%
Saddle Brook Twp107%61%119%Barrington Boro117%77%106%
Matawan-Aberdeen Reg111%83%108%Oxford Twp132%86%112%
Franklin Twp103%71%103%Rocky Hill (Montgomery Twp)102%75%137%
Hillsdale Boro117%72%128%Mount Ephraim Boro119%86%105%
Carlstadt-East Rutherford106%55%151%Farmingdale Boro127%94%117%
Rutherford Boro101%93%112%Ocean Gate Boro127%98%116%
Pompton Lakes Boro135%57%115%National Park Boro142%87%109%
New Milford Boro114%58%112%Lopatcong Twp102%90%102%
Passaic Valley Reg117%51%116%Newton Town148%60%102%
Warren Hills Reg119%89%111%Manchester Reg213%54%101%
Emerson Boro111%47%119%Clementon Boro107%94%101%
Pennsville135%74%112%Northfield City102%94%101%
Butler Boro122%85%120%Somerdale Boro124%79%101%
Harrington Park Boro116%50%134%Branchville Boro (Frankford Twp)109%64%105%
South Plainfield Boro103%97%105%Newfield Boro129%67%101%
Metuchen Boro101%50%109%Magnolia Boro128%78%100%
Glen Ridge Boro101%45%110%

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,