Education Law Center demands State ignore highest-poverty districts, worst-aided districts, give money to their plaintiffs.

David Sciarra of the firm Sciarra & Tractenberg, LLP, better known as the Education Law Center, is demanding the state give his plaintiffs, Bacon et al, money.

Seriously.  The Education Law Center is at it again on behalf of the Bacon districts.

(more background on Bacon is here)

The Bacon districts are sixteen mostly poor, but not consistently poor, districts mostly in southern New Jersey that are demanding the same state aid "remedies" provided to the Abbott districts.

ELC?  Social justice organization or law firm?  

The problem with the Bacon case is that these districts are too disparate economically.  They mostly aren't among New Jersey's most underaided nor among the state's poorest.  In an ideal world they would get more money but given New Jersey's budgetary realities I don't see why these districts should be prioritized.

Here are some financial bits of information about the Bacon districts:

Bacon District	FRL Eligibility	Local Fair Share	Local Tax Levy	Percentage of Local Fair Share Paid	Local Fair Share Per Student
Lakewood	92%	$96,735,200	$84,693,837	88%	$15,887
Commercial	79%	$3,541,907	$1,767,443	50%	$5,983
Egg Harbor City	77%	$2,362,322	$2,523,087	107%	$4,734
Fairfield	73%	$3,078,470	$754,016	24%	$4,629
Woodbine	57%	$1,984,654	$1,444,527	73%	$8,555
Lawrence	56%	$3,365,882	$2,157,571	64%	$6,786
Clayton	51%	$8,035,430	$7,711,155	96%	$5,948
Lakehurst	50%	$2,434,311	$1,088,776	45%	$6,147
Upper Deerfield	50%	$6,630,077	$6,513,969	98%	$7,302
Quinton	46%	$2,848,104	$2,307,609	81%	$8,232
Ocean Township	43%	$15,952,768	$10,143,436	64%	$29,488
Little Egg Harbor	43%	$15,957,145	$11,023,550	69%	$8,980
Maurice River	41%	$4,232,055	$2,702,847	64%	$9,160
Hammonton Township	38%	$20,385,878	$16,506,429	81%	$5,578
Buena Regional	35%	$13,216,890	$12,540,075	95%	$6,880
Wallington	30%	14,218,916	14,078,890	99%	$11,541

Three of the Bacon districts (Wallington, Buena, and Hammonton) are below the 40% FRL-eligibility threshold that is supposed to qualify a district for universal Pre-K.

Two or three of the Bacon districts (definitely Wallington and Ocean Township, arguably Lakewood) are actually above average in financial resources based on Local Fair Share per student.  Lakewood is very unusual demographically though so I will concede that its real financial resources are below what SFRA indicates for it.

Six of the Bacon districts (Maurice River, Little Egg Harbor, Ocean Township, Lakehurst, Lawrence, Woodbine, Fairfield, and Commericial) pay significantly below the state's average tax effort as measured by taxes as a percentage of Local Fair Share.

Three of the Bacon districts are actually overaided (Ocean Township, Woodbine, Lakehurst)

Bacon Districts
OCEAN TWP (Ocean County)	$6,203
WOODBINE BORO	$4,680
LAKEHURST BORO	$215
BUENA REGIONAL	-$606
COMMERCIAL TWP	-$637
QUINTON TWP	-$702
MAURICE RIVER TWP	-$1,120
FAIRFIELD TWP	-$1,785
EGG HARBOR CITY	-$2,453
UPPER DEERFIELD TWP	-$2,454
LAKEWOOD TWP	-$2,558
LAWRENCE TWP	-$2,618
LITTLE EGG HARBOR TWP	-$3,941
WALLINGTON BORO	-$4,326
CLAYTON BORO	-$5,027
HAMMONTON TOWN	-$5,200
Average	-$1,396

So I'm not seeing what the Bacons have in common with each other.

This is what I think would be fair:

1.  Hammonton, Clayton, and Wallington should get relief for K-12 aid along with every other district that has more than a $4000 per student state aid deficit.  

There are at least forty districts who are this underaided, three of which are Abbotts.

District	Aid Deficit per Pupil	Amount of Deficit	Amount to Bring district up to a $4000 per student aid deficit
MANCHESTER REGIONAL	-$10,737	-$10,254,058	-$6,454,046
BOUND BROOK	-$9,780	-$16,538,543	-$9,340,480
EAST NEWARK	-$8,906	-$3,606,961	-$1,339,338
FAIRVIEW BORO	-$8,746	-$15,750,845	-$6,236,244
FREEHOLD BORO	-$8,113	-$13,434,607	-$6,675,399
GUTTENBERG TOWN	-$6,341	-$8,154,474	-$2,413,571
MANVILLE BORO	-$6,211	-$8,980,439	-$3,057,813
LODI	-$6,179	-$21,192,598	-$7,476,149
NORTH PLAINFIELD	-$6,021	-$20,373,672	-$6,550,061
HALEDON BORO	-$6,001	-$5,983,279	-$2,045,022
ELMWOOD PARK	-$5,985	-$15,852,989	-$5,077,630
WOODLYNNE	-$5,982	-$3,385,931	-$822,530
PROSPECT PARK	-$5,896	-$4,917,551	-$1,664,688
LINDENWALD	-$5,885	-$15,385,916	-$4,776,590
RIDGEFIELD PARK (Bergen)	-$5,706	-$11,714,006	-$4,044,926
DOVER TOWN	-$5,484	-$15,158,394	-$4,636,016
BAYONNE	-$5,459	-$50,572,558	-$14,412,002
DUNELLEN	-$5,429	-$6,319,775	-$1,671,930
WHARTON	-$5,385	-$4,308,142	-$1,066,450
KEARNY TOWN	-$5,282	-$30,799,839	-$7,579,184
HI NELLA	-$5,263	-$636,815	-$89,673
HAMMONTON (B_	-$5,200	-$14,331,706	-$4,386,000
BELLEVILLE	-$5,162	-$24,868,905	-$5,507,880
CLAYTON (B)	-$5,027	-$6,811,858	-$1,387,477
NORTH BRUNSWICK	-$4,755	-$30,031,672	-$4,652,310
JAMESBURG	-$4,752	-$4,457,574	-$564,752
RED BANK BORO	-$4,665	-$6,494,224	-$938,315
CARTERET	-$4,591	-$16,807,010	-$2,233,980
HACKENSACK CITY	-$4,574	-$24,478,363	-$3,414,726
BLOOMFIELD	-$4,545	-$28,998,675	-$3,393,170
ATLANTIC CITY	-$4,526	-$31,596,134	-$3,838,222
LAUREL SPRINGS BORO	-$4,519	-$1,522,957	-$107,433
RIVERSIDE TOWNSHIP	-$4,475	-$5,634,399	-$712,500
NEWFIELD BORO	-$4,423	-$1,061,636	-$85,446
LITTLE FERRY BORO	-$4,414	-$5,743,020	-$411,930
CLIFTON	-$4,374	-$48,912,145	-$4,198,150
WALLINGTON BORO (B)	-$4,326	-$5,944,356	-$401,632
NETCONG BORO	-$4,258	-$1,217,849	-$73,014
CHESTERFIELD TOWNSHIP	-$4,246	-$3,281,982	-$182,778
PLAINFIELD CITY (A)	-$4,106	-$38,302,162	-$914,250
NEWTON TOWN	-$4,101	-$4,535,355	-$156,752
KINGSWAY REGIONAL	-$4,086	-$9,793,224	-$215,774
STERLING HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT	-$4,077	-$3,376,135	-$71,225
SOUTH RIVER BORO	-$4,069	-$9,420,236	-$164,565
WOODBRIDGE TOWNSHIP	-$4,061	-$54,742,677	-$838,567
PENN'S GROVE	-$4,059	-$8,573,210	-$138,768
NEW BRUNSWICK (A)	-$4,056	-$37,822,463	-$496,496
HILLSIDE	-$4,036	-$12,071,649	-$112,356
BRIDGETON CITY (A)	-$4,033	-$22,368,608	-$186,285
ROSELLE BORO	-$4,012	-$6,625,586	-$32,304

Bringing all of these districts up to a $4,000 per student deficit would mean that they are still treated unfairly, but it would only cost $137 million, an amount which should be findable.

2.  Lakewood, Commercial, Egg Harbor City, and Fairfield should get Pre-K funding along with every other district that has more than 70% FRL-eligibility.

Percentage FRL-eligible	Percentage FRL-eligible	Percentage FRL-eligible	Percentage FRL-eligible
Camden City*	95%	Prospect Park	85%
Union City*	95%	Fairfield Twnp	83%
Seaside Heights Boro	94%	Commercial Township (B)	81%
Woodlynne Boro	93%	Harrison*	81%
Asbury Park City*	93%	Egg Harbor City	79%
Bridgeton City*	93%	Long Branch*	79%
Passaic City*	91%	Guttenberg	78%
Paterson*	90%	Fairview	77%
Trenton*	89%	Freehold Boro	77%
Atlantic City	89%	Lindenwold	76%
Red Bank Boro	89%	East Orange*	76%
Salem City*	89%	Paulsboro	75%
Plainfield*	88%	Irvington*	74%
East Newark	88%	Lawnside	74%
New Brunswick*	88%	Keansburg	73%
Lakewood (B)	86%	Bound Brook	73%
Orange*	86%	Haledon	72%
Pleasantville*	85%	Garfield	71%
Perth Amboy*	85%	Jersey City	71%
Elizabeth City*	85%	Vineland	70%
Wildwood City	85%

Half of these districts are Abbotts and thus already get universal Pre-K.  There are only four Bacons on this list! (Lakewood, Fairfield Township, Commercial Township, and Egg Harbor City) The non-Abbott/non-Bacons that are just as entitled to help are Seaside Heights, Woodlynne, Atlantic City, Red Bank Boro, East Newark, Wildwood City, Prospect Park, Guttenberg Fairview, Freehold Boro, Lindenwold, Paulsboro, Lawnside, Bound Brook, and Haledon.  

David Sciarra said of the Bacons "There hasn't been one new preschool class opened in these districts. These kids have waited long enough."

Umm, why should kids in Hammonton get "free" Pre-K when kids in Red Bank Boro, East Newark, Freehold Boro don't?

3.  Lakewood is a unique case.

SFRA does not give an accurate Local Fair Share for Lakewood and special K-12 relief is justified. Since Lakewood's expenses for Transportation are so high the relief can take the form as an amendment to the formula for Transportation Aid so that districts with very high costs for private school transportation get some extra assistance.  

Lakewood's governance is also dysfunctional.  Some reforms are necessary. 

The Education Law Center should have to explain why it is taking this case.  The Bacon districts do not seem to me to merit the kind of special relief that the Abbott districts qualified for in 1990.  The Education Law Center should also explain where it thinks the money to Abbottize the Bacons should come from.

Clifton Board of Education Demands Equitable Aid Distribution.

The Clifton Board of Education is stepping up its campaign for an equitable and rational distribution of state aid.

Every district in New Jersey probably thinks it deserves more state aid than it is getting, but Clifton actually is among New Jersey's most underaided districts.

Clifton (DFG CD) should receive about $6700 per student from the state for K-12 education, but only gets $2300 a student from the State of New Jersey for K-12. Its $4,400 per student deficit is one of the forty largest deficits in New Jersey. In percentage terms, Clifton only receives 35% of its uncapped aid, which is the 23rd worst in New Jersey.

Clifton, whose students are 56%​ FRL-eligible and 5% ELL, only spends $11,837 per student, which is more than $3,000 a student below the state's average even though Clifton's needs are higher than average.* In every single spending category Clifton is among the lowest spending districts in its size peer group. For textbook purchases and maintenance of facilities, Clifton was in last place in its peer group.

Clifton receives $0 in state money for Pre-K, although it is receiving (for the first time this year), $3 million in federal money for Pre-K (committed for the next four years). Clifton, a district of over 11,000 students, probably has almost as many 3 and 4 year olds who are FRL-eligible as Hoboken has FRL-eligible students across K-12 and yet Hoboken receives $10.6 million in state money for "free" Pre-K whereas Clifton receives nothing.

Clifton, unlike many other districts that demand more money from the state, already pays above-average school taxes. The average district in New Jersey pays only 80% of its Local Fair Share, but Clifton pays 90% of its Local Fair Share.  Clifton's 2015-6 Local Tax Levy will be $125,842,752, a figure higher than Newark's or Jersey City's even though Newark and Jersey City have much larger tax bases.

What makes Clifton unique among NJ's severely underaided districts is that it is fighting hard for fairness and demanding to know how some districts get more than SFRA recommends while many more get less.

Clifton's BOE, like many BOEs statewide, knew that SFRA was underfunded but assumed its underfunding was prorated with the state's abilities. When Clifton found out that the percentage of aid received by different districts in NJ was wildly uneven, with 200 districts get over 100% of their uncapped aid while over 100 get not even 50% of their uncapped aid, it passed a resolution condemning this at its June meeting and demanding an explanation from the State Department of Education.

WHEREAS, of the 576 of the school districts scheduled to receive funding, 310 of the school districts in the State of New Jersey are scheduled to receive less than 85% of the amount apportioned by the New Jersey Department of Education’s funding formula, 266 districts are scheduled to receive greater than 85% and of the 266 districts 195 are scheduled to receive in excess of 100% of the formula...

WHEREAS the Clifton School District ranks 522nd in terms of the percentage of state aid it is scheduled to receive and ranked 21st in the amount of school aid to be provided by the state of New Jersey in accordance to the Uncapped Funding Formula yet ranks 29th in the amount the district is actually scheduled to receive; and

 WHEREAS, by several statistical measures sourced from the State of New Jersey it is evident that the Clifton School District receives an unequitable and underfunded amount of school funding by the State of New Jersey.

Again, many BOEs ask for more money, but referring to the wide and unfair variation in the percentage of uncapped aid received is unusual.

The State responded to Clifton a few months later. The State, responding through Passaic County Superintendent of Schools Robert Davis, responded that Clifton's aid had grown since SFRA more rapidly than its student population and therefore Clifton should be glad since it wasn't doing as badly as it was before.

Our review of the Clifton school district’s history shows the district’s state aid allocations increased dramatically under SFRA. According to the data, Clifton is currently receiving about $7 million (37%) more in state aid than it received prior to the implementation of SFRA. Meanwhile, enrollment increased by only 3% (350 students) This represents a tenfold increase in funding growth relative to enrollment growth since FY2008. ..

In other words, "Be Glad Clifton, for you are less victimized than you were before."

(Clifton only got more money in SFRA's first year.)

The County Superintendent explained Clifton's underaiding and the overaiding of other districts by referring to SFRA's aid caps and provision of Adjustment Aid.

As you know, the SFRA included provisions to phase-in districts to full funding under the new formula. The statutory phase-in limits aid increases for districts to 10% or 20% of prior year aid and holds districts harmless at FY2009 State aid levels through Adjustment Aid.

This is an important point because it underscores how SFRA was only intended as a method of distributing new state aid and was intentionally not a redistribution of the existing aid package. Without billions in new money to pour into education, "SFRA does not breathe" and the old, unfair aid package is preserved.

To explain how the caps and Adjustment Aid work and how this traps Clifton, let's compare a hypothetical overaided district with an underaided district (like Clifton).

SFRA recognizes that the first district needs more state aid.  It recognizes that the second district economically and demographically needs less.

Here's the catch for the underaided district:

SFRA was supposed to be phased in over a few years and the underaided District's aid increase is capped at 10% or 20% of what it got the year before.  Therefore under a best-case scenario (which didn't happen in reality), a district that only gets 50% of its uncapped aid would have to wait four years to get its full uncapped aid.

For the overaided district, which could be Marlboro or Jersey City or Asbury Park SFRA "holds harmless" the district 102% of what it got in the year prior to SFRA's adoption. 

Under SFRA, this overaided district would automatically get whatever is recommended from Equalization Aid, Security Aid, Transportation Aid, and Special Ed Aid BUT with Adjustment Aid coming in to make up the gap between the formula aids and what the district got before.  

A district like this would be flat-funded until its recommended formula aid exceeds what it got pre-SFRA, but if the district became wealthier its Equalization Aid would drop so much that it might be flat-funded indefinitely.  

Adjustment Aid has no statutory sunset but it was supposed to be temporary.  The idea behind SFRA and Adjustment Aid was that as NJ put more money into education, underaided districts like Clifton would catch up with overaided districts and Adjustment Aid for overaided districts would slowly be converted into formula aid.  

Updated May 2016.
Source, Pew Fiscal 50 http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data-visualizations/2014/fiscal-50#ind0

SFRA was signed at NJ's revenue peak.  Since 2008 we have had a financial crisis, the Great Recession, a Pension Crisis, the collapse of Atlantic City and a governor who doesn't understand state aid in the first place or care about progressivity.  Thus, SFRA is ignored and should be considered Utopian Fantasy and not a real, operating law.

Due to Chris Christie's indifference to progressive aid and the fact that the rest of the governing class also opposes letting any district lose aid, a district like Clifton is trapped at the old, unfair aid level that SFRA was supposed to end.

The basic problem with SFRA Remains:

How does an aid law written for continuously growing state revenue function when state revenue shrinks?  

How much longer can the state allow an aid distribution to persist which exacerbates inequalities and victimizes kids in towns like Clifton who are not rich enough to raise enough local revenue and not poor and/or aggressive enough to seize new state aid through a Supreme Court lawsuit?  

*not counting pensions and FICA.

Divergent Fates of New Jersey's Big Cities

For a 2017 Update, see this

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2016/10/2016-equalized-valuations-out.html

---

It's common knowledge that New Jersey's cities have had divergent fates in the last two decades. In this post I hope to quantify those divergent fates using changes in Equalized Valuation, both in absolute dollars and in each city's percentage of New Jersey's statewide Equalized Valuation.

Equalized Valuation is essentially the market value of all taxable real estate in a town. It is determined annually by the county tax assessor and is based on real estate sales.

Equalized Valuation is used to determine a town's share of county taxation and, for a town in a regional school district, that town's share of the school district's tax levy. Equalized Valuation is supposed to be used to determine how much Equalization Aid a school district gets but this provision of New Jersey's school aid law is not followed.

The source of this information is the Table of Equalized Values.  (It has been updated for FY 2016.)

I have put the data online.

Here goes:

Absolute Dollars

As a Percentage of Total State Equalized Valuation

Based on property wealth relative to the rest of the state, Camden, Trenton, Newark, Elizabeth, and Paterson have continued to struggle.  Trenton dropped from having 0.38% of Equalized Valuation to only having .19%. Camden dropped from 0.14%. Camden was extremely low to begin with and didn't have far to fall, but it dropped from 0.18% to 0.14%.  Newark had a bad 2015 and lost over $200 million and is now tied with Hoboken for the fourth highest Equalized Valuation in New Jersey,  Paterson and Elizabeth also continue to lose valuation in absolute and relative terms.

I don't mean to disregard any progress made or differences between those cities, but over the last two decades these cities have lost ground relative to other big cities in New Jersey and the state as a whole.

Hudson County has really triumphed, especially in the "recovery" from the recession.

Jersey City had 1.05% of EV in 1998, now it has 1.83%, or $21.6 billion.  If you factored in its $8 billion in "hidden" PILOTed property it would possess about $28-29 billion in Equalized Valuation, over 2.0% of New Jersey's total.

Jersey City and Newark were never really peers.  Their Equalized Valuations were approximately equal in 1998 but Jersey City's had 30,000 fewer residents.

Hoboken, the "Mile Square City," has 1.12% of New Jersey's Equalized Valuation. From 2013 to 2016 its Equalized Valuation rose from $9.6 billion to $13.3 billion, a $3.7 billion gain in only three years.  This gain alone is equal to all of Trenton's Equalized Valuation.

Hoboken now has New Jersey's fourth highest Equalized Valuation, after Jersey City, Toms River, and Edison.  Newark and Hoboken's Equalized Valuations are uncannily within $1 million of each other.

Atlantic City, at the opposite extreme, has collapsed.  In 2008 its Equalized Valuation was $22.2 billion.  Now it is only $8.4 billion.  Atlantic City's mayor predicts its valuation will stabilize at $7 billion but no one really knows.

Despite their increases in wealth, neither Jersey City nor Hoboken has lost education aid, although Hoboken's K-12 aid has been basically flat since 1996 and Jersey City's K-12 aid has been flat since 2006.  Counting Pre-K, the percentage of state aid going to both cities has actually increased in the last few years.

Conclusion:

The fact that wealth changes is obvious to absolutely everyone in New Jersey except for Chris Christie, the legislature, and the education Establishment like the Education Law Center and New Jersey School Boards Association, all of whom have recently opposed redistribution of state aid away from any district, no matter how overaided and lightly-taxed.

The frozen distribution of state aid is not sustainable.  There are forty districts in New Jersey that have aid deficits of at least $4,000 a student and 40,000 poor children in New Jersey who have no access to Pre-K.

The Pension Crisis makes it impossible to increase education funding and endangers the existing $8.6 billion aid stream.

At some point I pray that it penetrates the Establishment that redistribution is necessary.

---

See for an update for tax year 2017.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2016/10/2016-equalized-valuations-out.html