Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
BY STEVE ADUBATO
COMMENTARY
Once again, a judge has stepped in and dramatically changed the fiscal landscape in the state of New Jersey. Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne was appointed as a “special master” by the New Jersey Supreme Court to offer his analysis of last year’s nearly $1 billion reduction in state aid to local schools—particularly in the state’s most needy districts.
Judge Doyne made it crystal clear that the $820 million school aid cut proposed by Governor Chris Christie and approved by the Democratic Legislature last June severely hurt, in fact crippled, the state’s ability to meet its constitutional mandate to provide a “thorough and efficient” education to all public school children.
According to Judge Doyne: “The difficulty in addressing New Jersey’s fiscal crisis and its constitutionally mandated obligation to educate our children requires an exquisite balance not easily attained…Despite the state’s best efforts, the reductions fell more heavily upon our high risk districts and the children educated within those districts.”
What Judge Doyne is saying—whose opinion matters greatly as the state Supreme Court must now take up this issue—is that it doesn’t really matter what the state’s fiscal situation is when it comes to providing what he perceives (as well as what state law apparently dictates) is an appropriate level of state funding to public schools. While the Supreme Court will ultimately decide this issue, this is a powerful and scary concept. As someone who was educated in the Newark Public Schools, but ultimately transferred to a parochial school in the 1970s (because I felt I had virtually no chance of achieving a “thorough and efficient” education in the public schools) I appreciate and understand our need to help every urban child get the education they deserve—be it mandated in the constitution or not.
However, as the Supreme Court considers this complex and controversial issue, it boggles my mind to think that if the state is virtually broke with less and less revenue coming in, that this dire circumstance would be irrelevant to how a group of judges will decide this question. Judge Doyne’s opinion will have a great impact on the Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling, but what must also be considered as this case moves forward is that you cannot have a serious discussion about providing more state money to urban schools without considering two major questions.
First, how much difference does money make when it comes to providing a quality education for a child in a so-called “Abbott” school district? Second, assuming money is a major factor and the court does say more must be spent in struggling school districts, where is that money supposed to come from? I know this is not the responsibility or the purview of the Supreme Court, but to ignore that question is lunacy. Even if we reinstate the so-called “Millionaire’s Tax” (which I support) it wouldn’t bring in nearly enough money to fund urban schools to the degree the court is likely to conclude or that Judge Doyne argues.
Are we saying that income taxes should be raised on everyone regardless of what they earn in order to provide more state money to public schools? That’s a possibility. But, how can you do that while more and more middle and working class New Jerseyans are either struggling to hold on to their jobs as well as their homes, or, have no job at all and are hanging on by a thread. Last time I checked, the old adage “you can’t get blood from a stone” is still true.
The other option is to cut state services and programs even more, outside of the field of education. We are talking closing state parks, shutting down the DMV on additional days, and that’s just the beginning. If the Supreme Court ultimately decides that in order to fund urban schools to the degree they feel is necessary based on a constitutional mandate, we may have to bankrupt the state and gut virtually every other important state initiative, then we have to ask ourselves; “Is that what we really want?”
Simply put, in theory—in the abstract—in a utopian society, it would be great to provide more state money to urban schools. But, that is not the world we are living in. It would be even better if judges took a closer look at how effective those dollars have been spent over the past 40 years. What were the results? Has student performance improved as more money has been spent? And is the answer simply sending even more money to school districts while so many education reform initiatives can’t even get to first base?
Finally, does money matter when it comes to education? Of course. But I suspect not nearly to the degree that Judge Doyne and other justices believe. And, even if it did, like I said, where the heck are we going to get that money? The Supreme Court won’t tackle that one, but hopefully our so-called “leaders” in the Statehouse will. If not, there is a constitutional and governmental stalemate about to take place, the likes of which New Jersey has never seen. What do you think? Write to me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text22568 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //-->\n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Steve Adubato, Ph.D. is a commentator, lecturer and former state legislator. Dr. Adubato is also an Emmy Award-winning television anchor and syndicated columnist. He can be reached by fax at (973) 509-1659 or by clicking here.
ALSO BY STEVE ADUBATO
Rutgers professor Alan Rosenthal teaches fairness and compromise
Chris Christie tells the truth to America and that’s why many see him as presidential material
Laying off New Jersey toll collectors has a down side
Gov. Christie is finding a way to reach across the aisle
Gov. Christie was voice of reason on ‘60 Minutes'
Newark police don't care for their own like Atlantic City
How can state fund New Jersey's horse racing industry when cops, firemen and teachers are being cut?
How will election impact New Jersey's political landscape?
Cary Edwards would have been a great governor
Playing politics with transportation projects is dangerous for New Jersey
Chris Christie could be rising star Republicans need
Steve Adubato: No time for blame game while N.J. public school children continue to suffer
Steve Adubato: Corzine/Katz e-mail saga tarnished a good man's reputation
Steve Adubato: What do we have to lose by Christie taking over Atlantic City?
Steve Adubato: Our elected officials are on the right track with N.J. property tax cap
Steve Adubato: ‘Shared sacrifice' puts ‘Millionaire's Tax' back in play by N.J. Democrats
Steve Adubato: I'm not convinced the Tea Party wants to win at all
Steve Adubato: Schundler serves at the pleasure — or displeasure — of the governor
Steve Adubato: Battle over N.J. ‘millionaire's tax' will lead to government shutdown
Steve Adubato: N.J. student walk out is a disgrace
Steve Adubato: Bob Franks a class act in N.J. politics
Christie's civics lesson at Montclair High School
More here
2. The high wealth surcharge, if applied for one more year (FY11), would net in excess of 788MM. More likely in the range of $1B.
3. Eliminate the $200K in new tax expenditures awarded corporations (from which I presume the OSA monies derive) for FY12.
4. Raise the gas tax.
Together, this unbudgeted surplus (now a pension bargaining chip) and foregone revenues could easily have solved the problem along with others (e.g., rebates, hospitals for severely disabled adults). Instead we "manufactured a crisis" which we hope that history will reveal.
Going forward, the rise in State GDP will increase future revenues without increasing tax rates or even extending the surcharge for another year. I would, however. argue for making the surcharge permanent and decreasing the reliance on the regressive property tax. The GIT revenue increases in ensuing years could be used to fund the school formula as intended.
Dr. Adubato may argue that money doesn't matter, but I suspect that Judge Doyne did a more thorough consideration of the facts than Dr. Adubato. I give the nod, respectfully, to the impartial judge over the commentator. I imagine that the State presented its best case as well before the judge rendered his decision.
On a related note, one may ask how we ended up with surplus funds being generated in a "tight budget" for FY11. If one looks at last year's budget proposal, one will see that the treasurer made a very conservative estimate on GIT revenues. While most pundits predicted 3% GDP growth in NJ and concomitant revenue growth, the Treasurer's office projected a decline in GIT revenues. I could be wrong, but I believe they projected a 3% decrease or thereabouts. Some with experience in budgeting might argue that this was a standard technique to generate surplus.
I offer this in the interest of conversation. as a citizen who would like to hear from people with a better knowledge of the facts.