|
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 Comments on Special Session Reports TRENTON, November 15, 2006 - The executive director of the New Jersey School Boards Association responded enthusiastically to some of the recommendations made today by the four special session Joint Legislative Committees—but urged caution on others. Edwina M. Lee, NJSBA’s executive director, provided the following comments: School funding: “We have long supported the concept of the state revenues being tapped to offset the cost to property taxpayers,” said Lee. “Currently, New Jersey state government pays an average of 38 percent of the cost of public schools, where other states pay half, on average. This has put a tremendous burden on property taxes to pay for schools—which is the very heart of the property-tax problem here in New Jersey. "We also applaud state support for full-day Kindergarten in non-Abbott districts. The academic value of full-day Kindergarten is proven by research. Yet middle-income districts have found it difficult to create such programs, because full-day Kindergarten was never factored into the state aid system for non-Abbott districts. "NJSBA supports reasonable caps on spending, but we oppose the establishment of a ‘hard cap’ on budgets that provide no adjustments for costs that are out of a district’s control, such as state and federally required special education.” November school elections: “Moving school board member elections really has nothing to do with the property-tax issue. We agree with the concept of eliminating elections for school budgets that are under the state-imposed spending cap. But moving school board member elections to November puts those candidates in a partisan environment. The state currently allows non-partisan municipal officials to run for office in the spring. The same logic should apply to board members, who serve on a non-partisan basis.” ‘Super’ county superintendents: “’Super’ county superintendents could actually cost communities money. By taking over procurement and, perhaps, negotiations, the concept could undermine cost savings that local boards have already achieved,” said Lee. “The committee’s cost-saving objectives could be achieved better through incentives that promote shared services. We are also wary about placing sweeping powers in the hands of a political appointee who is not beholden in any way to local voters. Ultimately, it would strip communities of their very right to decide what’s best to meet their local education goals.” Benefits reform: “We strongly support the legislators’ recommendation to allow school boards in the State Health Benefits Plan to negotiate terms of the benefits,” said Lee. “The practice is common in the private sector, and saves money. But local school boards in the SHBP are prevented from negotiating such cost savings. The committee’s recommendations are on the mark, and can have a direct, positive impact on property tax relief.” ********
|
