|
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 Rutgers: New Jersey's School-Funding 'Freeze' Led to Property Tax Increases TRENTON, January 19, 2007—Chronic flat funding of public schools has contributed significantly to New Jersey's high property taxes, according to a recent report by the Rutgers-Newark Institute on Education Law and Policy. By last year (2005-2006), under-funding of state aid had reached an annual level of $846 million—with middle-income districts bearing $508 million of the shortfall and poor non-Abbott districts $170 million, according to the report. If the entire amount had been applied to property tax reduction, it would have enabled the poor non-Abbott districts to reduce their local tax levy by 20.2 percent. In the middle-income districts, the local levy would have dropped 8.9 percent. "This report confirms our position all along: New Jersey's high property taxes are a factor of the state's consistent under-funding of public education," said Edwina M. Lee, executive director of the New Jersey School Boards Association. "This is a crucial element to bear in mind during this time when many state Legislators are characterizing local government spending as the cause of high property taxes." National Education Association statistics show the New Jersey state government funds just over 38 percent of the total cost of public education—as compared to the average state, which pays 50 percent. This lack of funding from the state forces property taxpayers to pay for the larger share of the cost of their public schools, according to Lee. For the past four years, the New Jersey Legislature has provided little or no increase in state aid for public schools, regardless of changes in enrollment, cost or need. In the report, "Estimated Financial Impact of the 'Freeze' of State Aid on New Jersey School Districts, 2002-03 to 2005-06," Dr. Ernest C. Reock, Jr., the retired director of the Rutgers Center for Government Services, demonstrates the impact of the freeze on most of the state's school districts. "Beginning in 2002-03, constricted state fiscal resources were cited to justify 'freezing' most parts of [the state's school-funding formula] at their 2001-02 level, and this has continued through 2006-07," said the report. "In sum, the financial impact of the state aid 'freeze' on some school districts, particularly Other Poor Districts, has been substantial."
|
