TRENTON — Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling means the state’s 31 poorest districts get to share $500 million in additional state aid. But it also means some 550 districts will go without. "Once again, districts like Woodbridge and Piscataway have been left out in the cold," said John Crowe, the superintendent in Woodbridge. He said it is "disheartening to think...
TRENTON — Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling means the state’s 31 poorest districts get to share $500 million in additional state aid.
But it also means some 550 districts will go without.
"Once again, districts like Woodbridge and Piscataway have been left out in the cold," said John Crowe, the superintendent in Woodbridge. He said it is "disheartening to think a student who is born into poverty in Woodbridge somehow requires less assistance than a student born into poverty in another district."
Crowe, along with other suburban superintendents, said Tuesday’s ruling short-changed their district despite the fact they, too, may educate at-risk children.
"It is one of those decisions that is not purely logical," said Earl Kim, superintendent of the Montgomery School District in Somerset County. "It’s OK to violate the constitutional right to a thorough and efficient education for some students, meaning the districts like ours or other suburban districts, but not violate the rights of others."
In its latest ruling in the decades-long Abbott v. Burke case, the state’s highest court ordered that more money go to poor school districts next year under the state School Funding Reform Act but failed to increase funding for all districts statewide.
Full funding would have cost $1.7 billion, with 71.3 percent of the money going to non-Abbott districts, according to a budget analysis by the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services.
The 3-2 ruling came as something of a surprise to some experts, who noted that the court in 2009 ordered that money should go to poor students regardless of where they live, and seemingly did away with the designation of "Abbott districts."
"It seems like a peculiar twist," said Bruce Baker, an associate professor at the Rutgers Graduate School of Education, and an expert on school finance.
David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center, the Newark-based school advocacy group that brought the legal challenge, said he had argued "vigorously" that more funding should have been ordered for at-risk students statewide.
After the court ruled otherwise, however, he said the governor and Legislature "still have a responsibility and duty under the law to ensure a thorough and efficient education for all children."
"We understand (school districts’) disappointment that the court did not extend the full-funding directive across the state. We’re ready to work with the governor and legislature to make sure the formula is fully funded for all school children, as it was designed," he said.
Clearly, some districts were happy with Tuesday’s ruling, however.
Though saying all students are deserving of state aid, Irvington Superintendent Ethel Hasty said she is excited the court will return money to the 31 Abbott districts, including hers.
Hasty said poor students in suburban districts have access to higher quality services than poor students in urban school systems.
"Although money is not a panacea, our children have certain needs," Hasty said. "What’s fair is money going back to the Abbott districts."
Several districts called on the governor and Legislature to rework school funding.
Edison Superintendent Richard O’Malley said he was not expecting any additional aid, but noted his district educates at-risk students who are also deserving of additional state aid.
He said he expects the governor and Legislature to work together on a "fair and sustainable" school funding system.
At least one legislator, Senate President Stephen Sweeney, said he plans to try.
Sweeney (D-Gloucester) said his primary goal will be increasing funding for 205 districts that spend below "adequacy," the amount that the state considers necessary to deliver a thorough and efficient education.
"All 205 should be brought up," Sweeney said. "There is a $913 million windfall that we’ve seen and, looking within the budget, for the remainder to get a billion to fund all schools."
By Jeanette Rundquist and Jessica Calefati/The Star-Ledger