By: Cara Latham
Two local administrators criticized the Report on the Cost of Education released last week by the state Department of Education, saying the report was biased and used figures that were outdated.
The state DOE released the report and hoped to gather public input during three public hearings held in separate locations Monday, as it begins the process to develop a new school funding formula.
However, local school administrators say that the report, which was not conducted by an independent agency, was flawed in that it used figures that were old and based on hypothetical situations.
Jon Zlock, a spokesman for the state Department of Education, said that the hearings held on Monday are preliminary work the state is doing to try to create a new school funding formula and gather "as much public information as we can."
"We want to keep working on the school funding formula so we can have something comprehensive as soon as possible," he said, adding that the state has been working for "the greater part of this year" to develop the new formula.
"It’s been discussed statewide for months now that we have to take a look at funding for a formula that’s long overdue," Mr. Zlock said.
According to the Report of the Cost of Education released last week (Dec. 12), the state looked at two nationally recognized study approaches the Successful School District approach and the Professional Judgment Panel approach to examine current school funding figures in New Jersey, and determined that the best solution for New Jersey was to use the PJP approach.
Then it determined that the statewide spending median for K-8 districts is $7,367 per student, while the spending median for K-12 districts is $8,496 per student.
The report shows that the Florence Township School District spends $7,858 per student, based on the Successful School District approach.
Florence Township Superintendent Louis Talarico said in an e-mail this week that "the issues involved in a school funding formula are complex, contentious and implicate fundamental constitutional principles and rights protecting our children."
But the report is incomplete, with major issues like preschool that are still not addressed, he said.
"Moreover, this study was done four years ago, and does not reflect changes in educational programs and reforms since 2002-2003 that impact education costs," like NCLB requirements, new Abbott mandates and other changes, Dr. Talarico said. "Additionally, this report is based on costs derived from hypothetical model districts designed by the NJDOE, and not on any real New Jersey students, schools or districts."
Another flaw is that the study was not independently done, but entirely controlled by the state Department of Education, with professional panels of educators only assembled once to comment on the DOE district models, and not to make judgments about necessary resources and costs, he said.
Dr. Talarico said a new or revised study should be independently done in an "open and transparent manner."
"There also must be sufficient time to allow for meaningful stakeholder and public review, analysis and comment," he added.
Northern Burlington County Regional School District Superintendent James Sarruda, who attended one of the public hearings on Monday, said that he heard one recurring recommendation, which was for the state to postpone the adoption of a new formula because "the data that was used to justify the changes is old data and inaccurate data," and that the state does not address any of the mandates and costs that surround the Abbot districts and Abbot preschools.
Further, the study was done four years ago and doesn’t reflect any changes that have happened in those four years, he said.
"So much of this rests with the burden of taxes on taxpayers," he said. "To rush into a new formula…that was compiled by a group that was not independent seems to be putting forth a lot of data that’s in question," he said.
Dr. Sarruda said that he didn’t see a problem with how the current school funding formula worked for the district, but that the problem was with the lack of state funding for the past five years.
"My sense is that they’re putting together a formula that they can afford, not necessarily one that’s good for education and good for kids," he said. "The existing formula would’ve worked for Northern Burlington, but they cut us short in the last five years about $4 million. They didn’t fund the formula the way the law provided, so we lost a lot of money, lost a lot of state aid."
Further, "I will never really know how bad this (current) formula was because it was never really funded," he added.
Even though the Report on the Cost of Education gives a lot of examples, Dr. Sarruda said it doesn’t tell any district what kind of state aid it is going to be getting, and there aren’t many examples for regional school districts.
The state will probably be more concerned with figuring out the type of financial aid total that is going to work well for New Jersey, and not about individual programs, like the honors program and agriculture programs at Northern Burlington County Regional schools, he said.
Dr. Sarruda said that talk of a new funding formula brings back the frustration that he has experienced with flat state aid, but hopes that the state will fund whatever new formula is created.
"I think the real bottom line issue is we’re all looking for ways to take the pressure off local property taxes," he said.
In addition, Dr. Sarruda said he liked some of the other previous recommendations, like having the school board elections in November, rather than in April, and the suggestion that would allow school district budgets to be passed without public vote if those budgets are on or below the state cap.
"I think conceptually there’s some things that make sense, but I do believe the bottom line for them is to find something they can afford, not necessarily something that’s going to work for kids," he said. He added that he would wait to see how the state aid is going to come out and how it’s going to have an impact on the region’s schools.
Now, after the hearing, Dr. Sarruda said the task is for the DOE commissioner to go back and learn from the hearing, look at the inherent flaws that are in the report, and address them before coming up with any formula.
"On the positive side, here’s the commissioner saying, ‘We’ve tried to do this…Now we’re here for your input,’" Dr. Sarruda said. The right thing for the state DOE to do would be to "take that input and restructure and rethink it."

