SFRAs Return - A Bold Step Back in NJ School Funding

The Education Funding Report released February 23, 2012 by Christopher Cerf, Interim Commissioner of Education detailed the Christie Administrations plan to return to the former calculations prepared under SFRA (School Funding Reform Act) at its inception by a panel of committee members known as the PJP or Professional Judgement Panel in 2008.  Most notably is the firm language of the 83 page report which time and again focuses on the need for reform in funding levels and accountability of those funds in order to address the achievement gap.

Likewise the report focuses on equality of fund distribution to all districts not just low wealth districts albeit the report concedes the low wealth districts must be maintained under higher levels of funding.  Moreover it challenges the legislature to act in the best interest of the taxpayer when promulgating laws around final funding thus avoiding add ons or inflated weights to segments of the formula's calculations such as At-Risk (47% - 57% vs. the original PJPs 42% - 46%) and LEP (Limited English Proficient) (50% vs. the original PJPs 47%) calculations.  These percentages are added to the existing formulas base representative of the "Model District":

• Elementary School (400 students)      - $  9,649 per student funding
• Middle School        (600 students)      - $10,035 per student funding or 1.04% of ES
• High School            (1,640 students)   - $11,289 per student funding or 1.17% of ES

In the same vein the report recognizes the effect of additional dollars associated with special needs students through Categorical aid and Extra Ordinary aid, thus providing a measure of classification rates at 14.69% and 1.897% for special education and speech only respectively.


Another challenge to the status quo is the elimination of Equalization Aid for districts funding at or above Adequacy relative to their ability to deliver a thorough and efficient education.  This discharges the department's burden to maintain districts in a so called 'hold harmless' funding cycle regardless of their actual enrollments or ability to raise local tax levy.  The adjustments; however, are to be phased in over a five year period as not to cause a sudden or violent disruption in the revenue streams of various districts related to state aid.

The report goes on to detail aspects of the educational reforms associated with continued aid such as accountability, attendance, performance and innovation along with the departments restructuring plans to better assist districts in the field with guidance, implementation and resources.

Perhaps the hardest hitting measure for low wealth districts is the move from the traditional October 15th counts capturing one day's enrollment for funding calculations to a broader year round average or (ADA) average daily attendance.  Many critics cite the automatic disadvantage for low wealth districts that typically have lower attendance; however, based on the aforementioned and the At-Risk absenteeism graph in the report; it is clear apparent that the Christie Administration not only recognizes the disparity in attendance of At-Risk in low wealth compared to high wealth districts, it expects the low wealth districts to reverse this trend in order to attain full funding.

Lastly, a strong segment of the report calls into question the accuracy and validity of measuring At-Risk student populations through the National Free and Reduced lunch program 'low income reporting,' as it has been reported that as much as 37% of the enrollments in the program are fraudulant.  The Department's report focuses on a high error rate in the At-Risk formula due to fraud. This fact exacerbates the disparity between high wealth districts tax dollars paid in state income tax vs. the return of state aid for funding its public schools obligation. In short, a larger portion of the overall school aid funding pie is served to low wealth districts in part as a result of inflated At-Risk counts.