|
P.O. Box 909 ● Trenton, NJ 08605-0909 ● Phone: 609.695.7600 ● Fax: 609.695.0413 ● Web: www.njsba.org/PI |
NEWS RELEASE CONTACT: Frank Belluscio (fbelluscio@njsba.org) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NJSBA: Direct Any Newly Discovered Revenue to Schools Text of NJSBA’s March 28 Budget Testimony COLLINGSWOOD, March 28, 2006—If any additional state funds are available when revised revenue figures are determined after April 15, lawmakers should consider directing the increase to public education funding—particularly for special education, a New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA) official testified before a legislative panel here today. Such a move would not only alleviate some of difficulties being experienced in local school districts, but it would also serve as local property-tax relief, Michael A. Vrancik, Director of Governmental Relations for NJSBA, said in testimony submitted today to the Assembly Budget Committee. “2006-07 will mark the fifth consecutive year that the state has either flat funded, or provided negligible increases in, aid to education. In fact, this year more than one-quarter of New Jersey’s school districts will experience actual decreases in state dollars,” Vrancik said in his testimony. “At the same time, school districts must serve an increasing number of students statewide and pay sharply escalating prices for necessities—such as motor fuels, utilities and insurance coverage—the costs of which are outside their control. “In this climate of flat state funding, schools are preparing budgets that will bring increases in property taxes, cuts in programs—or often a combination of both,” he added. Vrancik also noted that school boards have been directing a greater share of limited local resources into the classroom. “In New Jersey, 8.3% of each dollar spent on education goes toward administration (and that includes front office clerks and secretaries). That level puts New Jersey 22nd in the nation in terms of the ratio of funding spent on school administration,” Vrancik said, citing figures from the federal and state departments of education. “In fact, since 1989-90, the number of administrators employed in our schools has decreased by 0.14%, while the numbers of students and teachers have grown by 29% and 33%, respectively.” Vrancik also noted that the burden on property taxpayers is exacerbated by the failure of the federal and state governments to adequately fund mandated special-education services. For example, when Congress passed the first special-education laws in 1975, it committed the federal government to covering 40% of special education costs—although it has never gone above 18%. Greater property tax relief could also be achieved if the state fully funded extraordinary costs of special education, such as those incurred when a court orders a child to be placed in an out-of-district facility (such tuition costs can range from $50,000 to as much as $200,000 per child). “I know that you share our belief that educating our children is the state’s highest priority,” Vrancik said in his testimony to the Budget Committee. “Like it or not, the State of New Jersey’s financial picture—and, in particular, state aid to public education—is a major part of the dynamic that determines what a community spends on its schools and the amount of money it must raise in property taxes.” ********
The New Jersey School Boards Association, a federation of district boards of education, advocates the interests of school districts, trains local school board members, and provides resources for the advancement of public education. ###
|
