School aid fight well worth fighting | Editorial – Asbury Park Press

Asbury Park Press Published 5:00 a.m. ET March 2, 2020

When the new state school aid formula took effect two years ago, many of its critics were accused of overstating the devastating impact it would have on many districts over the next five years.

Guess what? They weren’t exaggerating.

The latest evidence are the new school aid figures that were released Thursday. Once again, Monmouth and Ocean county school districts were pummeled.

More: NJ school aid: Over half of Monmouth, Ocean school districts cut; see what yours gets

More than two of every three districts in Ocean County stand to lose aid, and nearly half of the districts in Monmouth County. Statewide, on the other hand, more than 370 districts will see increases if Gov. Murphy’s proposed budget is approved, while fewer than 200 will lose aid. Overall, state school funding will increase by about 2%.

We’ve wondered aloud previously whether in developing the school aid reforms, the majority Democrats in Trenton had their thumbs on the scale. That suspicion has been driven mostly by two things: The Murphy administration’s refusal to release detailed information about how the new figures were calculated, forcing Toms River and other suburban districts to go to court to force its release, and a cursory glance at how urban, Democratic-controlled counties fared relative to Ocean and Monmouth counties.

While 19 of 29 Ocean County districts are again being asked to absorb aid cuts, including 22.2% in Seaside Heights, 17.1% in Ocean Township, 13.3% in Brick, 12% in Plumsted, 8.4% in Toms River and 7.4% in Jackson, counties controlled by Democrats will fare far better.

None of the 24 school districts in Essex County face the loss of aid, and 14 of 24 will receive more than 10% increases. In Camden County, only seven of 38 districts stand to lose aid. Just three will lose more than 5%, while five will see increases of 15% or more. In Hudson County, only three of 13 districts will lose aid.

More: State must fully fund special education, increase transitional aid | Gopal, Houghtaling, Downey

In Middlesex County, only four of 24 districts are scheduled to lose aid. Fourteen are in line for increases of 10% or more, including North Brunswick (26.6%), Woodbridge (24%) and Edison (18.9). In Gloucester County, home to Senate President Steve Sweeney, the main sponsor of the school aid reform bill, 11 of 28 districts will lose aid, but only two will lose more than 5%. Five districts will receive increases of more than 15%.

The rationale behind the school aid reform was to restore funding fairness to New Jersey school districts. It sought to compensate for the inequities arising from districts’ shrinking or growing enrollments over the years. Because the formula previously had failed to adequately take changing enrollment into account, some districts with declining school populations received more than their fair share, while others with growing enrollments received less. So now the state is making districts that may have been overfunded in the past — through no fault of their own — pay a severe price.

More: NJ school aid formula robs Peter to pay Paul | Kummings/Harris

But is enrollment growth or decline really the main factor in the revised distribution of school aid? Are all the districts receiving aid increases in Democratic counties growing? Is there another explanation?

Until districts can see for themselves how the state arrived at the revised aid figures, there is no way to tell.

In the meantime, the reforms will continue to produce devastating consequences for dozens of school districts for another three years unless a coalition of districts that is challenging the revised formula prevails in appellate court.

In hindsight, Sweeney apparently recognized the dire consequences of his bill on many school districts and sponsored a bill that would enable qualifying districts to exceed the state-mandated 2% percent property tax cap without having to seek voter approval. The bill passed the Senate and Assembly but was vetoed by Murphy, who argued that it would be unfair to taxpayers. What could be more ironic?

More: Murphy’s $50 million extra school aid plan may be too late for Shore districts

Murphy, who reiterated during his budget address last week that his chief mission as governor is to improve the lives of the middle class, again demonstrated his disregard for it with a spending plan that is 5 percent higher than a year ago — and 18 percent higher than when he was sworn as governor just over two years ago.

He apparently believes spending caps are fine for local government, but not for state government.

If residents in districts that are being shorted are angry at the latest school aid losses and the impact it will have on their children’s education, they should be. They should demand an immediate freeze on the proposed cuts by the governor and Legislature, and prompt action by the appellate court, to prevent the further dismantling of vulnerable school districts.

Read or Share this story: https://www.app.com/story/opinion/editorials/2020/03/02/school-aid-formula-nj-lawsuit/4893308002/