School funding debate at N.J. Supreme Court

Corzine administration attorneys sought Supreme Court approval yesterday for the state's new method of doling out support to New Jersey schools, but attorneys for urban districts said key elements of the old system should remain in place.

Robert Gilson, of the Attorney General's Office, argued that the new funding plan was thorough, efficient and equitable, and should be considered constitutional on its face, allowing the state to throw off decades of education mandates from prior Supreme Court cases.

Critics, led by the Newark-based Education Law Center, said the new plan sought to replace past court decisions and proven educational mandates with a system whose educational impacts were still unknown.

Justices questioned why the state went directly to the top court with its plan rather than building a record in lower courts. Some of their questions raised the possibility that the case could be remanded to another venue for fact-finding.

But the judges also appeared skeptical toward the urban districts' claim that the $7.8 billion formula could force cutbacks in needed programs. Their attorney, David Sciarra, could not point to any concrete examples of cuts since the formula went into effect.

Pressed for specific details on "what's really happened," Sciarra said, "we don't have a record of that."

"That's a problem," said Justice Barry Albin.

The justices reserved their decision for a later date.

The hearing put school funding, one of the most divisive issues in New Jersey, back in the Supreme Court's hands. By taking the unusual step of bringing its own school-funding plan to court, state attorneys were essentially trying to reset the debate.

"It's not just another step. This is a new chapter in school funding in New Jersey," Gilson said.

The state, arguing that its new formula more fairly distributes aid, is hoping to end court mandates that required enhanced spending in 31 historically poor, mostly urban districts. Critics have said the focus on those districts left other needy areas, the suburbs and even wealthy communities without enough money to pay for their schools, and increased the burdens on local taxpayers. The new formula would treat all districts the same, the administration argues.

But the justices questioned why they should turn away from years of court rulings meant to help those districts without first seeing factual arguments on the formula.

"Are you saying, 'Just forget what's gone on for the last 25 years?' " Albin asked. He later added, "This court, as much as we'd like to take your word, normally we'd have to refer to some kind of fact-finding."

Gilson said the new law was created with the help of expert studies and approved after legislative hearings. The plan includes $7.8 billion in broad-based support for all districts and $544 million for preschool programs, providing enough money to meet old requirements, he argued.

But Sciarra said the educationally sound mandates, such as after-school programs, tutoring, and health and social-service staffing, were not required by the new law, and he said districts would lose the right to appeal for more funding if they found state aid came up short.

"The state presents no evidence that the circumstances in the Abbott districts have changed," since the court-imposed standards took hold in those schools, Sciarra said.

Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto questioned why those mandates were needed, if the state provided the same amount of money as in the past.

"Why should it be the responsibility of this court to ensure that school districts are doing their jobs?" Rivera-Soto asked.

Sciarra said the state could implement the formula for the rest of the state, but that the protections for the 31 Abbott districts should remain in place.

Leaders from a number of those districts, including Camden, protested the new funding formula outside of Trenton's Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex.

Martha Wilson, a Camden School Board member, said the new formula had hurt the city.

"We have problems putting in teachers," Wilson said.

Two of the court's seven justices recused themselves from the case. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, Corzine's former attorney general, and Justice Virginia Long, did not participate.

Kathleen Witcher, a member of the education committee of the New Jersey NAACP and a retired teacher, compared yesterday's hearing to the Garden State version of

Brown v. Board of Education.

"We're fighting for equal education," Witcher said.