School formula policy warrants open debate

PACKET EDITORIAL, July 17

   For several years now, the state Department of Education has been kicking around a wide array of new ideas and concepts — each calling for a new and different formula — for distributing state aid to local school districts.
   With state school aid now totaling some $8 billion a year, these ideas and concepts — not to mention the potential impact of the formulas — are of intense interest to educators and boards of education all across New Jersey, as well as local property taxpayers who generally foot the bill for whatever the state doesn’t.
   But the Department of Education has chosen not to share its deliberations with the public. As state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy explained, "Because the task of developing a new statewide school funding formula involves extremely complex and specialized issues, it is imperative that those involved in the initial phase of considering different options be free to suggest any novel, innovative or possible controversial concept."
   The commissioner concluded, "To have these ideas vetted in the public arena prior to a final determination would detrimentally interfere with DOE’s decision-making abilities."
   The Newark-based Education Law Center, which has challenged numerous state school-funding formulas in the courts over the past 30 years, believes these ideas should be vetted in the public arena. When it asked the Department of Education to release information about its deliberations, what it got was a 12-page memo that described how implementing various potential formulas would affect state school aid in general — but blacked out how those formulas would affect local property taxes.
   The Education Law Center sued. It won in Superior Court, and that ruling was upheld without a hearing at the appellate level. But the state Supreme Court has ordered the appellate court to hold a hearing to consider the state’s argument for keeping the documents secret. And the high court has agreed to let the Department of Education keep the memo’s contents to itself until the matter is resolved.
   We can understand Commissioner Davy’s concerns. State officials shouldn’t be dissuaded by fear of public criticism or controversy from kicking around lots of different concepts and ideas, on school funding or any other complex issues, in the privacy of their offices. Some brilliant thoughts can come out of such brainstorming exercises — and so can some incredibly stupid ones. It would be unfortunate if the brilliant ones never got the vetting they deserve because of fear that the stupid ones will grab all the headlines.
   And that would almost surely happen here. If the courts ultimately order the Department of Education to release the full memo, numbers and all, you can be sure that all the attention will go straight to the bottom line: who wins and who loses. And any public discussion of the relative fairness — or even brilliance — of any of the formulas will be drowned out by the screams of protest from those adversely affected.
   When all is said and done, however, public discussion of public policy is what democracy is all about. Yes, it can discourage people from putting forth novel or creative ideas. Yes, it can "detrimentally interfere" with a government agency’s decision-making abilities. Yes, the loudest voices can sometimes drown out the more reasonable ones. That’s sometimes the price we pay for our open system of government.
   As Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg wrote in her order calling for the state to disclose its deliberations, "Any privileged information appearing on these documents is outweighed by the public interest in its disclosure." We agree — and we trust the higher courts will ultimately uphold this sensible decision.