Court eyes Abbott funds

TRENTON | State Attorney General Anne Milgram on Tuesday defended the year-old school funding formula that ends extra funding for the poorest school districts, including Phillipsburg.

The formula is "based on children's needs, not children's ZIP codes," she told five of the seven New Jersey Supreme Court justices.

The court heard arguments aiming to settle the long-running Abbott v. Burke case that required extra funding for those 31 districts to bring them in line with wealthier districts.

State officials want to get rid of the Abbott designation for the poorest districts and fund all school districts in the same manner. Funding would be based on enrollment with extra money for poor students and those with special needs and limited English skills.

Advocates for the Abbott districts believe removal of court oversight would result in years of devastating cuts to districts serving some of the state's neediest students.

Representing the state's poorest school districts in court, David Sciarra of the Education Law Center in Newark, argued that the shrinking pots of money have already harmed the special districts in the first year of the formula's implementation.

The Millville School District, for example, was forced to eliminate social workers, parent liaisons, security personnel and a kindergarten teacher during the first year of the School Funding Reform Act. Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed the act, known as SFRA, into law in January 2008.

Sciarra said additional school districts went before a court-appointed "special master," put in place to review both sides of the case and make a recommendation to the Supreme Court, and told of similar reductions.

"We had district witnesses -- Vineland, Millville, Phillipsburg, East Orange, Newark -- who testified undisputed that in the first year of SFRA, a number of them had to make cuts," he said. "These are social workers, parent liaisons, teachers . They testified that before they made those cuts they did everything they could in order to find efficiencies."

Budgets tightening up

Sciarra said he expected cuts to programs mandated for Abbott districts to continue under the new formula. He said the Abbott districts, located in areas with little ability to raise money through property taxes, now are trying to "tighten their belts" and do everything possible to avoid more serious cuts under the new formula in the future.

"Is that so bad?" asked Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto. "What's so bad about proposing a level of fiscal responsibility just like I'm sure you have to do it in your house? I'm not sure I understand what's so horrendous about what you just set forth."

Sciarra said, "There is no evidence that there is not an ongoing process of fiscal discipline already going on in the Abbott districts."

The state's argument that all districts should be funded the same is based on the premise that many at-risk children are outside of the Abbott districts and deserve equal resources. Out of 375,000 students deemed "at-risk," 51 percent are in Abbott districts, while 49 percent are not, Milgram said. Meanwhile, Abbott districts with 23 percent of state students receive 55 percent of school aid.

P'burg state aid flat

The new school funding formula increased aid last year to schools with a growing population or those that are not yet spending the amount the state determines "adequate" for providing a thorough education. The state, however, capped the aid increases at 20 percent in 2008-09 and at 5 percent for 2009-10.

Many Abbott districts, considered to be spending enough, received flat funding. Phillipsburg was among those, with assistance in the proposed budget holding at last year's level of about $37.9 million.

The "special master," state Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, found that the funding formula was an equitable approach to providing resources to New Jersey schools. He added, however, that supplemental funding should continue for three years to help Abbott districts acclimate to the new formula.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, the state's former attorney general, and Justice Virginia A. Long recused themselves from the hearing. They do not have to announce the reason for recusal.