School Funding Formula Goes For Its Day In Court

The State of New Jersey is filing papers with the Supreme Court to remove so-called "Abbott" status from the state's 31 poorest school districts. The Abbott v. Burke decision is one of the bigger drivers of our highest-in-the-nation property taxes.

in the Abbott case, the NJ Supreme Court ruled children in the 31 poorest school districts were not receiving an adequate education. Therefore, per-pupil spending in those districts must equal per-pupil spending in the state's wealthiest districts. Because you know, 1) it's the court's Constitutional duty to appropriate money and 2) spending more equals better results.

We are left with a situation such as Camden, where per-pupil spending is approaching $20,000 per student, but the real graduation rate (those graduating high school without the benefit of a special exam) stands at about 15%.

The local districts don't have enough revenue to spend $20k per child, so the state (i.e. other taxpayers) is forced to make up the difference plus fund their own schools. Remember, school funding accounts for a majority (and in many cases a super-duper majority) of your property tax bill.

"It is time to abandon this process and refocus, as the School Funding Reform Act does, on providing a thorough and efficient education for all New Jersey children through a unified funding formula," the state's legal brief says.

CIANJ has long-contended that spending in these districts should be at the state average and not at the top of the scale. It's time for the Supreme Court to abandon its bad decision, realize that more money has not produced the desired results, and give alternatives a chance.