The Inequitability of the Abbott Districts' Funding Law in New Jersey

© 2004 Frank Badessa

RETURN
edited 8/21/11

Background

In December 1997 petitioners filed an action in the Superior Court, Cumberland County, seeking a determination that the Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act of 1996 (CEIFA), was unconstitutional as applied to them. What were the concerns that the five individuals and seventeen school districts had when they filed this lawsuit against the New Jersey State Department of Education? This court case was to show the State that there were other school districts that were as much entitled to additional funding provided by the provisions of CEIFA as those districts that were deemed "Abbott Districts"

The Abbott District came about in the Abbott v. Burke Decision on May 14, 1997. What this court decision did was to give additional state funding to poor urban districts so that their per-pupil expenditures became equivalent to the average per-pupil expenditures of the wealthy suburban districts. A major determining factor in the classification of Abbott districts was the "District Factor Groups" (DFG). DFG classifications are based on US Census data and are revised every 10 years. The Department Of Education uses DFG data to analyze the relationship between student achievement and the socioeconomic status of the communities in which they reside. (New Jersey Department of Education, 2004). { See Statistical Information}

As School Business Administrator for the Commercial Township School District, I was called to testify in the Bacon case, since we were one of the seventeen school districts that were involved in the lawsuit. Although I was not involved from the on set of the lawsuit, I did have to gather information that would be used to prove our case against the state. All financial data related to budget expenditures in addition to the cost per pupil would prove critical in its relationship to pupil test scores. There were other factors related to the budget that were also examined such as expenditure classification and conformity with state law. This was looked at from the view point of how the district spent not only local monies but also state and federal dollars as well. Social economic, district factor groups, unemployment rate, occupational statues, and test scores, were also considered. The main object was to prove that there were other districts in the state as poor as the Abbott Districts, but do not receive the same percentage of state aid.

Ethical Problem

The ethical problem is that the funding law in New Jersey regarding the Abbott Districts is not equitable among all the districts in the state. Many other school districts have proven they meet the same criteria and face the same educational needs as the Abbott Districts but do not receive the same Abbott funding.

Objective (Desired Outcome)

The objective is to establish a state funding formula which would be equitable among all the school districts in the state. By changing the present criteria for the state's school funding formula to include rural districts the tax burden and the expenditure cost per pupil would be more evenly distributed and equitable among all the districts in the state. This would provide an equal education to all students regardless of whether they come from a rural or urban district as defined by the State of New Jersey.

Review of Literature

Collection of the data showed that improvement of test scores was an item at the top of the list. Some aspects that the review of literature should was that pupils in the state's 30 lowest-income school districts continue to perform far worse than school pupils in New Jersey, despite more than $3 billion in state aid each year (Asbury Park Press 3/4/04). It was found that it wasn't until 2002 that the state kept track of how well the billions it was investing were spent, or even if students benefited educationally from the extra money. It was determined that nearly 60 percent of 11^th graders in Abbott high schools, 5821 students failed at least one section of the state's basic skills test in 2002 (Asbury Park Press 6/1/03).

An in depth look at two Abbott Districts, Keansburg, located in Monmouth County, and Newark, located in Essex County showed that the general education students taking the ESPA and GEPA test from the years 1999 through 2002 were failed to be proficient according to the state's standards (www.educatenj.com), Testimony to the State BOE 5-03 regarding "Thorough and Efficient" with special focus on the Abbott districts.

In contrast it was found that in Union City 80 percent of its fourth graders passed the state's language arts test and 65 percent passed the math, up from fewer than half passing each section in 1999. Almost 90 percent of eight graders passed in language arts and 71 percent in math, also sizable improvements from three years ago. Although this important issue was not part of this study it leaves questions open for further investigation.

In conducting telephone interviews with various superintendents of the Bacon districts it was determined that parity among all districts was a concern. Along with this issue was the concern of higher tax rates among the Non Abbott districts. Abbott districts should have budgets equal to the average of all school districts. The emphasis should be on finding ways to educate the kids, hire and train good teachers and be accountable, not spending a king's ransom (Courier Post 3/31/03).

Today, statewide spending for K-12 education in New Jersey averages about $12,000/per child/per year. Spending in Abbott districts exceeds $15,000/ per child and some districts (Asbury Park, Camden) is a high as $17,000 to $18,000 per child. In contrast suburban spending is about $10,000 to $11,000 per child. New Jersey spends more on K-12 public education than any state in the country, by far. In fact, spending in our urban districts is twice the national average (of all schools) and is 30-40% more than New Jersey suburban district spending (www.nje3.org/articles/battlefield.html).

Another concern of the Bacon districts was whole school reform. A study found that in order to affect significant improvements in student academic achievement, supplemental programs must be implemented as part of the whole school reform. These programs included half-day preschool, full-day kindergarten and reduced class size in grades 1-3 (www.nj.gov/njded/abbotts/archives/abbottstudy.htm). The major concerns the Bacon districts had, were building space, staff (teachers and aids), supplies and of course funds to meet the mandate. Abbott districts have building paid by the state at 100% and their staff and supplies were determined on a zero based budget and need. This leaves the Bacon and other districts to fend for themselves via the taxpayer.

The Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act is relatively simple. The law provides for 100 percent state funding of eligible school construction costs in the Abbott districts. School construction projects in non-Abbott districts will be funded at their state aid percentage multiplied by 1.15, or a minimum of 40 percent, whichever is greater. So why are the suburbs and rural districts paying for their own schools and paying for urban school as well? Aren't there some business and residents who can pay real estate taxes in cities (www.stopthedebt.com)? In Vineland, Cumberland County the tax rate has not increased in over ten years due to the Abbott funding, is this parity among all New Jersey schools? (Personal Interview).

Toulmin's Model

Claim: The funding formula in New Jersey is biased and not equitable among all the districts in the state. School districts do not have parity with respect to funding. The current funding formula provides additional aid for some districts while others are left to struggle and over burden the taxpayer. Students in need are left to either do without or have an abbreviated form of instruction. {See Costs & Benefits Comparisons}

Evidence: A major determining factor in the classification of Abbott districts was the "District Factor Groups" (DFG). The Department of Education uses DFG data to analyze the relationship between student achievement and the socioeconomic status of the communities in which they reside.

Social economic factors of districts also played an important part in the designation of being an Abbott, yet districts as poor or poorer were left out of the equation because of being classified either as urban or rural. School districts are still required to provide a "Through and Efficient" education even without the additional funding. Instructional programs may be altered or not provided at all do to the lack of staff or building space. Information was provided by the "Bacon Case" reviewed.

Warrant: School districts in court cases like the "Bacon Case" have proved in court that they also require additional funding based on low test scores, large class sizes, low social economic groups, and in need of both additional staff and building space. Additional state funding was given to poor urban districts so that their per-pupil expenditures became equivalent to the average per-pupil expenditures of the wealthy suburban districts.

Backing: The data gathered showed that except for the classification of just being rural the other districts were maybe even in more need of additional funding.

Rebuttal: The state has not been able to provide information that the billions of dollars in additional funding given to the Abbott Districts has improved standardized test scores. In fact, evidence has showed that there are still Abbott Districts failing the state standard testing requirements.

Cue, Concern, Control

Cue: What is the indicator of the problem?

(Change in indicator): What change in the indicator has occurred that makes it appropriate to intervene now? In 1997 the Abbott decision gave additional funding to the poor urban districts based on per pupil expenditures. All financial data related to the budget expenditures in addition to the cost per pupil is critical in its relationship to pupil test scores.

(Significance of change in indicator): Is the change significant? Districts are still responsible for providing a "through and efficient education for all students. This additional state funding has put an increased tax burden on the tax payers of the other districts which are also in need of additional funding.

Concern: Why is this a concern? In a court case districts have proved that they also have low test scores, large class sizes, low social economic groups and are in need of both additional staff and building space.

(Interests): The interest here is that taxpayers have been overburdened because funds have been diverted to Abbott Districts.

(Interests): Abbott funding has provided school districts with new school buildings funded at 100%.

(Interests): Abbott funding has provided new programs, additional staff and has reduced the tax burden of the Abbott Districts.

(Interests): It has not yet been proven that the additional funding has improved test scores.

(Obligations): Who is responsible? It is the responsibility of the state to see that all taxpayers are treated equally and fair. Abbott Districts have not had tax increases at least over the last five years.

(Obligations): I believe that all taxpayers should be aware of what the Abbott funding has done to their tax dollars. They have helped pay for the education of children in the Abbott Districts over and above the norm.

(Liabilities): What is the cost if the funding law is not changed? Taxpayers across the state will continue to be taxed unjustly and without their knowledge.

Control: (Intervention) Change will only take place if the funding law is revised. At the present Abbott school districts are discouraged from increasing taxes because for every dollar they increase their taxes they lose a dollar of state aid.

(Intervention): This would be the only way to balance the expenditure costs per pupil which is not equal or even in proportion among the districts in the state. New criteria must be established in the funding law.

(Intervention): Politics needs to be removed from the funding law and replaced with financial and educational advisors in order to achieve a balanced funding law.

References

Abbott Reform: Is It About Civil Rights, or Funding? (http://www.nje3.org).

Barnett, W. Ph.D. (2001). Getting Preschooling right in New Jersey (Position Paper ) Camden, NJ: Rutgers University. Center for Early Education Research.

Burney, M. (2003, March 26). State appeals for flexibility in Abbott schools. Philadelphia Inquirer.

Clabaugh and Rozycki. (2003). Analyzing Controversy 2^nd Edition Oreland, PA. New Foundations Press.

Hayslett, C. (2004, July 5). In Carteret, cash outweighs stigma as Abbott district. Star Ledger.

Indepth Look at Two Abbott Districts. (http://www.educatenj.com).

Ingle, B. (2003, March 31). Someone save us from the Abbott Districts. Courier Post.

Key Elements of The Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act. (http://www.stopthedebt.com)

Method, J (2004, March 4) Abbott districts' test scores lagging. Asbury Park Press.

Method, J. (2003, June 1). Billions for poorest schools, but little tangible progress. Asbury Park Press.

Mooney, J. (2003, June 16). Rise in test scores leads to a debate. Star Ledger.

National Research Council. (1999). Testing, teaching and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

New Jersey Department of Education. (2004). A Study of Supplemental Programs and Recommendations for the Abbott Districts. Trenton, NJ.

New Jersey Department of Education. (2004). District Factor Grouping Trenton, NJ: Public Information Office.

New Jersey Department of Education. (2004). Improving the Quality of Literacy Education in New Jersey's Middle Grades. Report of the NJ Task Force on Middle Grade Literacy Education. Trenton, NJ.

Rutgers University, School of Law (2002, September 23).-- Camden , State of New Jersey, Office of Administrative Law, Initial Decision.

Whole School Reform In Abbott Districts. (http://www.nj.gov)

TO TOP