Post by adefonzo on May 7, 2009 12:53:23 GMT -5
It's articles such as this one that make we want to pound my head against a wall. It's amazing how absolutely stupid the justices of the New Jersey Supreme Court appear to be.
Aid for poor districts put to test
High court hears arguments on school funding
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
BY KRISTEN ALLOWAY
Star-Ledger Staff
In a hearing that featured some pointed questioning, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on whether it should end the long-running Abbott vs. Burke school funding case that has sent billions of dollars to the state's poorest communities over the past three decades.
Attorney General Anne Milgram argued a new funding formula approved last year by lawmakers at the behest of Gov. Jon Corzine should replace decades of court oversight. In a series of decisions, the court ordered poor districts -- the so-called Abbott districts, such as Newark, Paterson and Camden -- be funded on par with the state's wealthiest. The new system distributes school aid based on enrollment, with a bonus for the number of students who are poor, handicapped or otherwise more expensive to serve.
The formula -- which this year distributed about $8 billion -- provides money based on "children's needs, not children's zip codes," Milgram said.
The attorney representing the 300,000 children in the Abbott districts told the court those communities continue to suffer hardships and have already faced budget cuts this year, the first year the new formula was implemented.
"The extreme poverty, racial isolation ... those conditions have not changed and in some cases are worse," David Sciarra of the Education Law Center in Newark said of the Abbott communities.
During the nearly two-hour hearing in Trenton, the justices fired pointed questions at both sides, with the recession and state's own budget problems a factor in the debate.
"The governmental purse is not inexhaustible," Justice Barry Albin said to Sciarra at one point in the hearing. "What do we do?"
Last fall, the Supreme Court ordered fact-finding hearings before a "special master" on whether the new formula is constitutional. The special master, Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, recently found the law "a thoughtful ... attempt to assist at-risk children throughout the state."
But Doyne ordered that supplemental funding -- extra money that has been court-ordered over many years to pay for programs such as nutrition services and dropout prevention in the Abbott schools -- be continued for at least three years. That way, he wrote, the state can see how the formula works in practice and ensure the Abbott districts are not short-changed.
The state is asking that the supplemental funding be eliminated, and the justices quizzed Milgram on why the extra funding protection shouldn't stay in place.
"Why is it not a good idea to implement that belt-and-suspenders approach?" Justice Jaynee LaVecchia asked.
Milgram said the new formula is "equitable because it treats every at-risk student the same." She also told the court that giving districts the chance to ask for additional money, beyond the formula, "eliminates incentives for fiscal discipline."
The justices also expressed concern about how the formula would work and budget cuts some of the Abbott districts have already faced.
"How can we be confident we aren't underfunding ... districts with high concentrations of at-risk children?" Justice Helen Hoens asked.
Milgram suggested that the court could order the state to fully fund the spending formula for the Abbott districts, if it was concerned about how the method would work in practice. Because of budget woes, the formula is underfunded by about $300 million in the budget proposed for next year.
"This funding formula has additional money for at-risk children," Milgram said. "At every turn ... the state made decisions to add additional resources."
Sciarra argued that the Abbott districts are working to be efficient, but that rising fixed costs, such as salaries and benefits, meant they had to make difficult budget cuts this year and would continue to in the future.
"Those are teachers, social workers, parent liaisons," Sciarra said of spending items that were slashed. "The superintendents made it clear there are efficiencies to be made, they testified they were doing that."
"What's so bad about that?" Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto asked. "What's bad about imposing a level of fiscal responsibility?"
"They are doing everything they can to be fiscally responsible" already, Sciarra said.
Kristen Alloway may be reached at kalloway@starledger.com.
Aid for poor districts put to test
High court hears arguments on school funding
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
BY KRISTEN ALLOWAY
Star-Ledger Staff
In a hearing that featured some pointed questioning, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on whether it should end the long-running Abbott vs. Burke school funding case that has sent billions of dollars to the state's poorest communities over the past three decades.
Attorney General Anne Milgram argued a new funding formula approved last year by lawmakers at the behest of Gov. Jon Corzine should replace decades of court oversight. In a series of decisions, the court ordered poor districts -- the so-called Abbott districts, such as Newark, Paterson and Camden -- be funded on par with the state's wealthiest. The new system distributes school aid based on enrollment, with a bonus for the number of students who are poor, handicapped or otherwise more expensive to serve.
The formula -- which this year distributed about $8 billion -- provides money based on "children's needs, not children's zip codes," Milgram said.
The attorney representing the 300,000 children in the Abbott districts told the court those communities continue to suffer hardships and have already faced budget cuts this year, the first year the new formula was implemented.
"The extreme poverty, racial isolation ... those conditions have not changed and in some cases are worse," David Sciarra of the Education Law Center in Newark said of the Abbott communities.
During the nearly two-hour hearing in Trenton, the justices fired pointed questions at both sides, with the recession and state's own budget problems a factor in the debate.
"The governmental purse is not inexhaustible," Justice Barry Albin said to Sciarra at one point in the hearing. "What do we do?"
Last fall, the Supreme Court ordered fact-finding hearings before a "special master" on whether the new formula is constitutional. The special master, Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, recently found the law "a thoughtful ... attempt to assist at-risk children throughout the state."
But Doyne ordered that supplemental funding -- extra money that has been court-ordered over many years to pay for programs such as nutrition services and dropout prevention in the Abbott schools -- be continued for at least three years. That way, he wrote, the state can see how the formula works in practice and ensure the Abbott districts are not short-changed.
The state is asking that the supplemental funding be eliminated, and the justices quizzed Milgram on why the extra funding protection shouldn't stay in place.
"Why is it not a good idea to implement that belt-and-suspenders approach?" Justice Jaynee LaVecchia asked.
Milgram said the new formula is "equitable because it treats every at-risk student the same." She also told the court that giving districts the chance to ask for additional money, beyond the formula, "eliminates incentives for fiscal discipline."
The justices also expressed concern about how the formula would work and budget cuts some of the Abbott districts have already faced.
"How can we be confident we aren't underfunding ... districts with high concentrations of at-risk children?" Justice Helen Hoens asked.
Milgram suggested that the court could order the state to fully fund the spending formula for the Abbott districts, if it was concerned about how the method would work in practice. Because of budget woes, the formula is underfunded by about $300 million in the budget proposed for next year.
"This funding formula has additional money for at-risk children," Milgram said. "At every turn ... the state made decisions to add additional resources."
Sciarra argued that the Abbott districts are working to be efficient, but that rising fixed costs, such as salaries and benefits, meant they had to make difficult budget cuts this year and would continue to in the future.
"Those are teachers, social workers, parent liaisons," Sciarra said of spending items that were slashed. "The superintendents made it clear there are efficiencies to be made, they testified they were doing that."
"What's so bad about that?" Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto asked. "What's bad about imposing a level of fiscal responsibility?"
"They are doing everything they can to be fiscally responsible" already, Sciarra said.
Kristen Alloway may be reached at kalloway@starledger.com.
