Your Turn

Guest Column
Gerald H. Woehr
Herb Marinari
Complicated funding questions need serious attention

A recent series of articles in a local newspaper attempted to explain factors in the quality and cost of New Jersey public schools. A focus on the Plumsted school district implied that there are better methods of cost containment, ways to improve services to students and unused systems to improve academic achievement. As a school district that provides a high quality of education to our students, has high academic achievement levels and which has one of the lowest costs per student, the article missed key facts.

Decisions made on what level of educational service should be provided to students (as examples — class size, which special education programs for individual students, what extracurricular sports, music or academic programs are available, and what courses to offer) are directed by two powerful forces.

First, state and federal laws, regulations and procedures dictate much of what has to happen. The federal government has mandated a high level of services for students who require special education services through the Individuals with Disabil-ities Education Act (IDEA).

This is an honorable intention; to require that the specific educational services for each of the 272 students in Plumsted Township meets each person’s unique needs. These services (private school tuition, one-on-one assistants, special technology equipment, specially trained teachers, guidance and counseling services) cost a great deal. Congress, when establishing this program, recognized this additional financial burden and promised to pay 40 percent of the cost. They have, although, never appropriated more than 15 percent of the actual costs nationally; resulting in higher local property taxes for this federal regulation.

Last year Congress passed the "No Child Left Behind Act"; again an admirable program whose goal is to ensure that every child achieves high standards of learning. Extensive studies have shown that for some children to reach this level though, additional funds for activities to help these individual children would be necessary. Instead, federal funding for this is lacking, resulting in higher local property taxes for this federal regulation.

On the state level, education standards have been upgraded considerably. An admirable goal; to have all of our students at high levels of difficult courses and concepts, but again, with limited state funding, higher local property taxes are required for this state regulation.

Secondly, programs and services beyond state and federal mandates are requested by parents, communities and employers. Who among us does not want our children involved in a band, on a sports team, in a school play, or working in a community service program? Although not required by law, these programs and activities are a true investment in our children’s future.

Regarding the cost of education, in Plumsted we strive very hard to get the most value of every dollar spent. Despite being in the lower middle/middle income-property value school districts in New Jersey, our academic achievement levels are much higher than similar type districts on nationally normed "Terra Nova" achievement tests and the college ACT and SAT exams.

We passed state standards for all areas for all grade levels on the state fourth, eighth and 11th grade tests, and again do better than similar type school districts in New Jersey.

We did this while having one of the lowest per pupil expenditures for similar type districts. In fact, we were the lowest in administrative costs, teacher costs, ma­terial costs; and second lowest in total cost for 2002-03 for all 47 similar type dis­tricts. What this means is local taxpayers receive great value for their tax dollar — low cost/high achievement. In fact, we believe we should be a state model; with excellent educational opportunity and achievement, at the lowest possible cost.

Yet, in Plumsted we were forced to re­quest an 18-cent tax increase for 2003-04 to maintain our high standards of educa­tional excellence. Why? Because, for the second year in a row, there was no ac­knowledgement of the total increased cost for new students in the state funding for­mula. Our state aid was based on the legally required CEIFA (Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act) for 2001-02. Then in 2002-03 we were informed, despite our having an en­rollment increase, we would receive no more state dollars. Worse yet, for 2003-04 we were told that again, despite another projected enrollment increase, we would not receive an appropriate increase in state aid for these additional students.

Although we did receive "some" addi­tional state aid for our new students, the state would only pay approximately $1,000 for each new student. (In actuality, it is only $500 per student since, while they added state aid, they dropped all aid to our district for distance learning tech­nology, and for an academic achievement award our district earned). Therefore, at our cost of $8,000 per student, state aid covers only $500 for each of the 173 new students. Local taxpayers must pay the $7,500 per student ($1.2 million or 173 x $7,500) more, while some school districts with a declining enrollment for either one or two years have had increased state aid per student from the state. We have still not received a satisfactory answer on why declining enrollment districts win, and in­creasing enrollment districts lose.

In Plumsted, we search out grants (for 2002-03: Department of Justice $293,360 Iris Technology grant, $25,000 Learn and Serve Grant, $901,680 Federal Impact Aid), find ways to reduce costs (such as through better coordination of special ed­ucation services) and still maintain an academically excellent school district.

We are finding this harder and harder to do with increased federal and state re­quirements, more parent and employer re­quests for quality programs and inade­quate state and federal funding. We should not be asking for these large property tax increases to provide a quality education for our children. If the legally required CEIFA formula had been used for state aid for 2002-03 and 2003-04, Plumsted residents would have seen a tax decrease each year.

It is time for all of us, federal and state administrators and legislators, parents, community members, employers and edu­cators, to recognize the true cost of what we want from our public schools. Then we must find reasonable ways to fund them. A state constitutional convention is just one excellent idea to find a balance be­tween what we want for our children, how much that will cost and where those funds should come from.

We must be careful that our special needs students do receive the programs and services they need to succeed. We must allow for students who have talents and skills, dramatic, musical or athletic, to grow and enrich their and our lives. We must teach all of our children in all aca­demic areas so they can be productive, successful and contributing members of our society.

Good and honorable people can dis­agree on particular solutions, but until we reach a consensus on these key questions, we will continue to denigrate public edu­cation, fight with each other over limited resources and in the end, have our chil­dren lose. We need to focus on the possi­ble; and what is right for our future, by do­ing right for our students. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, "Some men see things as they are and ask who. I dream things that aren’t and ask why not?" We can together find answers.

Gerald H. Woehr is the superintendent of schools of the Plumsted school district and Herb Marinari is the president of the Plumsted Board of Education.