New Jersey supreme court again considers school funding scheme
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the New Jersey Supreme Court has heard arguments in the litigation over whether the state’s new method of doling out support to public schools should be upheld. Robert Gilson, of the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, argued the new funding plan was thorough, efficient and equitable, and should be considered constitutional on its face, allowing the state to throw off decades of education mandates from prior supreme court cases. Urban school districts, represented by David Sciarra of the Education Law Center, said the new plan sought to replace past court decisions and proven educational mandates with a system whose educational impacts were still unknown. Justices questioned why the state went directly to the top court, and some of their questions raised the possibility that the case could be remanded to a lower court for fact-finding. But they also appeared skeptical toward the urban districts’ claim that the $7.8 billion formula could force cutbacks in needed programs. Mr. Sciarra could not point to any concrete examples of cuts since the formula went into effect. “That's a problem,” said Justice Barry Albin.
The hearing put school funding, one of the most divisive issues in New Jersey, back in the supreme court's hands. By taking the unusual step of bringing its own school-funding plan to court, the state is essentially trying to reset the debate. The state is hoping to end court mandates that required enhanced spending in 31 historically poor, mostly urban districts. Critics have said the focus on those districts left other needy areas, the suburbs, and even wealthy communities without enough money and increased the burdens on local taxpayers. The new formula would treat all districts the same, the administration argues. However, the justices questioned why they should turn away from years of court rulings meant to help those districts without first seeing factual arguments on the formula. “Are you saying, ‘Just forget what's gone on for the last 25 years?’ ” Justice Albin asked. He later added, “This court, as much as we'd like to take your word, normally we'd have to refer to some kind of fact-finding.”
Mr. Gilson asserted the new law, created with the help of expert studies and approved after legislative hearings, includes $7.8 billion in broad-based support for all districts and $544 million for preschool programs, enough to meet old requirements. Mr. Sciarra responded that educationally sound mandates, such as after-school programs, tutoring, and health and social-service staffing, were not required by the new law, and districts would lose the right to appeal for more funding if state aid came up short. “The state presents no evidence that the circumstances in the Abbott districts have changed,” since the court-imposed standards took hold in those schools, he argued. Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto questioned why those mandates were needed, if the state provided the same funding as in the past. “Why should it be the responsibility of this court to ensure that school districts are doing their jobs?” he asked. Mr. Sciarra said the state could implement the new formula for the rest of the state, but the protections for the 31 Abbott districts should remain in place.
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/23/08, By Jonathan Tamari
[Editor’s Note: Background to school finance litigation in New Jersey is available starting at the link below to information on a lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s plan to borrow $3.9 billion to build dozens of new schools around the state. That plan also arose from the Abbott v. Burke finance adequacy case.]
NSBA School Law pages on construction funding suit