Education Law Center: $1B in school aid cuts violates constitutional obligations
Gov. Chris Christie' deep cuts to public school funding are going before the state Supreme Court. TRENTON — Education advocates and state lawyers faced off before the New Jersey Supreme Court today, arguing whether Gov. Chris Christie's cuts to education spending were unconstitutional.
The Education Law Center said the loss of about $1 billion in aid to schools violates the state's constitutional obligations. It wants the court to force the state to fully fund the school funding formula in the upcoming budget year.
The state countered by saying cuts to education spending were unavoidable because of the economic recession. It also said there's no constitutional inequity in school funding, leaving the court no role in saying how the state should spend taxpayer money.
It's unclear when the Supreme Court will issue a decision on the matter. Some justices floated the idea of appointing a special master to review the impact of funding cuts before the court makes a decision, a move that would significantly lengthen the case.
Today's oral arguments were the latest fight over Abbott v. Burke, the landmark school funding decision in 1985. The courtroom was packed with reporters, lawyers and advocates. Attorney General Paula Dow and two of her top deputies sat in the front row watching the arguments.
Justices questioned whether declining tax revenues should allow the state to make funding cuts.
"Is this court not to take into account the present economic realities?" Associate Justice Barry Albin said. "Should that not be a factor?"
David Sciarra, executive director of the Newark-based Education Law Center, said he wants "no more than what the state committed to do."
"This court has always directed the state to do what it's constitutional obligations are," he said.
Assistant Attorney General Nancy Kaplen said the state simply can't afford to fully fund the formula, which was created by former Gov. Jon Corzine's administration and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2009.
"It's no longer a flush time," she said. "We can no longer afford this flush formula."
Kaplen said the state cut education spending in an equitable way, without penalizing poor or rich districts.
"The gross disparities that caused the court to intervene in the past do not exist," she said. "There is not the vast disparity in education funding between wealthy districts and the Abbott district."
Albin said students in poor districts have greater needs, requiring more funding.
"There are kinds who are malnourished," he said. "There are kids who live in decrepit apartments."