GARDEN STATE COALITION OF SCHOOLS

Assembly Budget  Committee Hearing   

January 3, 2008

            Good morning Chairman Greenwald,  and members of the committee.  I am Daniel Fishbein, President of the Garden State Coalition of Schools and Superintendent of the Glen Ridge Public Schools.  With me today is Elisabeth Ginsburg, Contributing Writer for the Garden State Coalition and President of the Glen Ridge Board of Education.  Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

            Instead of lengthy testimony, we have prepared a list of talking points that summarize our comments and concerns on the proposed school funding legislation.  While we believe the spirit of the legislation is positive, we have serious concerns about many individual aspects.  We have outlined those concerns below.

PROPOSED SCHOOL FUNDING LEGISLATION: A RISKY VOTE

MAJOR AREAS OF CONCERN:

• THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THE PROPOSAL: In fact, except for the NJEA, almost every major education organization in the state has major concerns about the proposal. Municipalities, as well as school districts, from high and low wealth areas continue out about certain aid issues, such as the giveback provision.

• THERE IS NO BROAD FOUNDATION OF PUBLIC & LEGISLATIVE ''UNDERSTANDING' OF THE BILL'S IMPACT

·         There is not enough finalized information available to the public—According to school funding expert, Professor Ernest Reock of Rutgers, “the legislative bill intended to implement the DOE proposal has not been examined, and a full understanding of the proposed formula may not be possible until detailed calculations for individual school districts are available.”           

·         There has not been any time set aside for proper analysis

·         There is no sense of agreement on several major policy areas, including:

1.        Categorical Aid for Special Education

2.        Local Fair Share

3.        Adequacy budget structure and consequences

4. “Hold Harmless” provision: According to Professor Reock, “While the release of the proposal was accompanied by assurances that Adjustment Aid would probably continue for at least three years, the use of the “hold harmless” approach in such a magnitude will be a source of concern for many districts where the other formulas in the proposal generate far less than they are currently receiving.” 

5. Poor, at risk and, LEP students who live in the 120 districts deemed too wealthy to receive basic education aid are penalized.  This violates “the wealth follows the child” concept upon which the proposed formula is based.

• THE ADEQUACY BUDGET IS A KEY TO A NUMBER OF CONSEQUENCES, YET THERE IS WIDESPREAD DISAGREEMENT ON THE ADEQUACY BUDGET DESIGN; ITS BOUNDARIES ARE FINITE & IMMEDIATE.

• THE ADEQUACY BUDGET HAS IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES FOR DISTRICTS SPENDING EVEN $1 OVER ADEQUACY;
• THE FASTRACK PROCESS HAS UNDERMINED PUBLIC DEBATE AND SETS UP A 'QEA'-LIKE RESULT
• FEDERAL FUNDING IS NOT VISIBLE THROUGHOUT THE BILL OR AID OR SPENDING INFORMATION–

·         What is the Federal funding (Title 1 and IDEA) distribution and per-pupil spending per district?  This breakdown is needed in order to get a full sense of districts’ education spending.