At this time, when residents of Edison are starting to focus on the school budget that will be put up for a vote onApril 15, it is worth noting a case that the State of New Jersey has begun arguing before the state Supreme Court. There is a not inconsiderable link to the $195 million in expenditures that Edison residents will be asked to approved to operate their schools durng 2008-09.
As it turns out, the state will increase its allocation to the Edison Public Schools this year by $3 million, accounting in total for just under 10 percent of the district’s revenues. And what does this have to do with the case in the Supreme Court? Just this: The state government is seeking permission from the court to back off a bit on its commitment to pay for eduction in the 31 school districts that the Supreme Court’s found fiscally distressed in conjunction with its Abbott decision. Less money for the Abbotts would mean more money for the Edisons- and the East Brunswicks, and theWestfields, and other school systems that do not contain an overwhelming portion of poor children.
The state allocates about 42 percent of the money that New Jersey public school spend annually. So, how can it be that Edison derives less than 10 percent of its revenues from the state? It’s because the 42 percent figure means little to Edison and many of the other 600 districts in the state that are not Abbotts.
Once upon a time inAmerica, local taxpayers everywhere provided the bulk of funds for their local school systems. During the last generation, though, in states across the country the state and local portions have become almost the same. (The federal government’s share- less than 2 percent in Edison- is too small to matter.) But the evening out of the state local contributions has meant less in New Jersey than it has in many other states.
Taxpayers in Edison and in many other New Jersey towns pay disproportionately- mostly from income taxes- to educate children in Newark, Jersey City, Trenton, Paterson, and 27 other places. Thus, taxpayers in such districts as Edison are stretched to what they consider the breaking point in their property taxes to compensate for the lack of what they receive back from the state. The case playing its way out in the state Supreme Court should be of great interest to people in Edison. If the Corzine admnistration loses, it will almost surely mean that Edison will not be able to count, as anticipated under the governor’s plan, on increasing allocations from the state in coming years. It could make for interesting days ahead.
Gene Maeroff
Edison