CHESILHURST — Gov. Chris Christie began pulling back the curtain on next month’s budget proposal Monday, saying he will push for changes in the state’s school funding formula. Christie also revealed he is seeking to boost property tax relief, which he drastically cut last year to close a nearly $11 billion budget gap. The school funding formula, which controls...
CHESILHURST — Gov. Chris Christie began pulling back the curtain on next month’s budget proposal Monday, saying he will push for changes in the state’s school funding formula.
Christie also revealed he is seeking to boost property tax relief, which he drastically cut last year to close a nearly $11 billion budget gap.
The school funding formula, which controls how state money for public schools is distributed, is at the center of a legal battle between Christie and public school advocates who say it’s needed to help the poorest districts and neediest students. On Monday, Christie said it only throws money at a broken education system.
"We’re working on the state’s school funding formula," Christie told a town hall audience in Chesilhurst. "We’re going to come out with something that is going to be a little different in our budget this year."
The governor is scheduled to unveil his budget proposal on Feb. 22. State aid to local schools is the state’s costliest expenditure, accounting for $10.3 billion of this year’s $29.4 billion budget. Christie’s office would not elaborate on possible changes to the school formula.
"The state’s funding formula has been rigged so nearly 60 percent of all the state aid goes to 31 school districts," Christie said. "It’s crazy."
But the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s largest teacher’s union, said Christie has only made the problem worse by not providing the aid called for under the formula. Facing a budget crunch, Christie cut about $1 billion in school funding.
"To call it a failed experiment is hardly appropriate," said NJEA spokesman Steve Wollmer. "If it’s a failed experiment, he need look no further than the nearest mirror to find who violated it."
By changing the funding formula and simultaneously proposing an $825 million voucher program, Wollmer said Christie is funding private schools by cutting the public ones.
Christie Monday also said he wants to beef up property tax rebates, a year after slicing them by $848 million and replacing rebate checks with property tax credits.
The first credit under the budget passed last June takes effect in the spring, and Christie said he wants to boost this relief in the upcoming budget year.
"We’re looking for a way to increase the amount we give each quarter," Christie said. "When this year’s budget coming up we’re going to see if we can expand the program further to try to give people some relief."
While lawmakers may welcome extra dollars for property tax relief, changing the school funding formula could be difficult.
Democrats Monday expressed concern the new formula would cut funding for urban districts. "Money doesn’t always equate to educational opportunity. But it doesn’t hurt," said Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex).
The original Supreme Court decision Abbott vs. Burke in 1985 forced the state to funnel more money to 31 poor districts to ensure children had access to a "thorough and efficient system of free public schools" as required by the state constitution.
Lawmakers have struggled to set formulas that could withstand a legal challenge. The court did sign off on former Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine’s formula in 2009, signaling a big shift that allowed the state to distribute aid based on enrollment, with extra going to communities with more needy children. In the current fight, school advocates are arguing that Christie’s funding cuts are unconstitutional. The court appointed an independent reviewer to hold hearings on the issue before justices make a decision.
Earl Kim, school superintendent in Montgomery Township, said the Corzine administration went through a rigorous process to ensure its funding formula would pass muster. “To put together a formula in such short order would be imprudent,” he said.
By Ginger Gibson and Chris Megerian/Statehouse Bureau