State mandates not effective
By:Stan Dunn
In September we will begin developing the 2001-2002 budget. Next April, we will ask the township to vote on the plan that we will be developing over the coming year.
As the process unfolds, we will keep you informed in this column, our Web site and at our board meetings. In the meantime, here are a few things to think about.
In some of the materials distributed for the 2000-2001 budget, we indicated that roughly 83 percent of our funding comes from property taxes.
This high percentage was due to a loss of state aid, an increase in the number of students and expansion of state mandates without additional funds. As a result, homeowners bear the burden of school financing. This makes it difficult for some to live in Hillsborough.
We have to look at other ways of funding our schools, instead of always increasing the burden on local property taxes. The board and administration are always looking for federal grants, state grants and corporate support to offset a portion of the property tax increase.
We have from time to time heard some say that the formula for school funding in New Jersey should be changed. Basing funding on local property taxes and community income places an undue burden on communities such as Hillsborough with little to no industry. Low-income communities are hurt as well, since they may never be able to raise enough funds to improve their schools.
Is changing the state funding formula the answer? We haven’t yet faced this question in Trenton. In 1978, a California state Supreme Court decision put this question to the voters in California. Proposition 13 became national news when control of property taxes was removed from school districts and assigned to the state.
Before Proposition 13, school districts in California raised more than half their revenue from property taxes. After Proposition 13, California went from a system where each district determined its own revenue to one where the state decided each district’s revenue.
The findings of a study of the effects of Proposition 13 are given in a recently published report titled “For Better or For Worse? School Finance Reform in California.” There were four findings in the report.
First, state finance led to a decline in average spending per pupil. The authors show that Proposition 13 affected school finance reform in ways that could not have been foreseen at the time.
By limiting property taxes, Proposition 13 eventually led to per-pupil spending reductions. As a result, school districts hired fewer teachers, which led to an increased student-teacher ratio.
Second, state finance has not equalized educational quality across districts. School finance reform focused on revenue distribution although the real goal was to equalize educational opportunity.
If equal opportunity had been achieved, residents would not pay premiums for houses in desirable school districts. There is still a disparity in housing prices in places like Los Angeles and Orange County, Calif.
Third, parent reaction to the perceived decline in school quality has been moderate. Some parents have enrolled their children in private school and some have donated time and money to their local schools.
Both reactions were strongest among higher income families. There was no increase in the lower 60 percent of the income distribution.
Fourth, California state financing has not directed more revenue to poor families. The court decision that led to Proposition 13 set parameters for public school finance still gave the state freedom to determine revenue allocation.
The “For Better or For Worse” report concludes that state finance in California did not improve on local finance.
One of the benefits of local control may be higher student achievement. The report clearly shows that before Proposition 13 in 1978, California students were at or above national norms.
Since the 1980s they have fallen behind the rest of the country. The authors find that California’s students have lagged behind the rest of the nation on standardized tests.
The final conclusion of the “For Better or For Worse” report is that California should reintroduce a system of local finance consistent with the court ruling.
The authors propose a system of local governance by school boards but with a state-guaranteed tax base that is the same for each district.
We agree with the authors of “For Better or for Worse” that significant reform of school funding will not be easy. A state-run system provides equity; a local run system provides flexibility and accountability.
There are important lessons for us to learn from the results of Proposition 13 in California.
The challenge for the Board of Education this year will be to maintain the quality of the educational program we deliver and to be fiscally responsible.
The Board of Education is grateful for the community support for the 2000-2001 budget. Supporting your local school budget is saying yes to the schools and saying yes to the community we live in. Supporting the school budget is buying a stake in the community.
Stan Dunn is a member of the Board of Education’s Communications Committee. Also contributing to this article were board members Blair Meiser, Bob Gulick and Lou Possemato. You may contact the Board of Education at [email protected].