Charter School Funding and the Achievement of a Thorough and Efficient Education Presenters: Morton Marks, SBA, QPA, Technology Coordinator, Hoboken Charter School Nicholas Puzo, SBA, QPA, CPA, The Ethical Community Charter School & University Academy Charter School

CHAPTER 23A, FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY, EFFICIENCY AND BUDGETING   6A:23A-1.1 Purpose and Scope (a) The purpose of this chapter is to assure the financial accountability of district boards of education through enhanced State monitoring, oversight, and authority, and to ensure each district board of education adopts an annual budget that provides adequate resources to meet the State Constitution’s mandate for a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for all children. This chapter sets forth the roles of the Commissioner of Education and the executive county superintendent in overseeing district board of education budgeting and expenditures. The chapter also establishes mechanisms to ensure the efficient expenditure of budgeted funds in a manner consistent with a school district’s approved annual budget.

https://www.hvrsd.org/apps/pages/BOEAbout Hopewell Valley Regional Board of Education The Hopewell Valley Regional Board of Education is a nine-member body elected by the residents of Hopewell Township, Hopewell Borough and Pennington Borough. Seats are apportioned by population. Hopewell Township has seven representatives; each borough is represented by one seat. All members serve three-year terms. In the event of a resignation, the Board appoints a replacement who serves until the next Board election when voters choose a representative to fill the unexpired term.    The Board of Education exists for the purpose of providing a thorough and efficient system of free public education in grades Pre-Kindergarten through twelve in the Hopewell Valley Regional School District. The Hopewell Valley Regional School District is comprised of all the area within the municipal boundaries of the Borough of Pennington, Hopewell Borough, and Hopewell Township.

Pennsylvania’s “Thorough and Efficient” Education System http://www.senatorfolmer.com/2013/04/11/pennsylvanias-thorough-and-efficient-education-system/ Pennsylvania’s “Thorough and Efficient” Education System BY SENATOR MIKE FOLMER Article III, Section 14 of Pennsylvania’s Constitution, “Public School System” requires that:  “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.”

http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/litigation/mcduffy_hancock.html Historical Background In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the U.S. Constitution does not provide a right to equal educational opportunity based on students' relative wealth or poverty. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). Since that decision, all cases challenging the equity or adequacy of public school finance have proceeded under state constitutions. Massachusetts and about thirty other states either have litigated or are currently in litigation over school finance and educational equity and adequacy.

http://www.edlawcenter.org/states/massachusetts.html In 1993, in McDuffy v. Secretary of Educ., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the constitution’s education clause imposes a duty on the Commonwealth to ensure the education of all children and declared that the funding system violated that duty. In response, the State adopted a new school funding system that improved equity and opportunity.

http://www.edlawcenter.org/states/kentucky.html   In 1989, in Rose v. Council for Better Education, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the General Assembly did not satisfy the constitutional requirement to provide an efficient system of common schools throughout the State. To meet the constitutional requirement, the Court explained, the education system must be adequately funded, ensure equality, and be designed to provide every child with seven delineated capacities.

https://www.njsba.org/news-publications/school-leader/septemberoctober-2014-volume-45-2/thorough-and-efficient-the-evolution-of-public-education/ The phrase most frequently cited in reference to public education in the Garden State is “thorough and efficient.” That wording comes from the 1875 state constitutional amendment that required the state to provide “maintenance and support” for a system of free public schools for New Jersey’s . Before that amendment was passed, the story of public education in New Jersey involved patchy efforts to provide free schools – it was common for schools, even “public schools,” to charge parents tuition. A few municipalities did provide for free schools but the practice wasn’t uniform. Similarly, while New Jersey is now a national leader in quality public education, that wasn’t always the case.

Thorough and Efficient In 1871, the Legislature passed an act making all of the public schools in New Jersey entirely free for attending students. New Jersey became the last state in the nation to abolish rate bills and tuition payments. That foreshadowed the constitutional amendment a few years later, requiring a “thorough and efficient” system of public education.

Funding State Aid to Schools In 1947, the state – after years of debate – abandoned the railroad tax as the tax dedicated for school purposes. That income went into the general treasury as part of the total amount distributed by the state for local education. The funding of state aid to education continued to be a source of debate, contention and legislation. In 1954, a law was passed that called for funding by local property taxes, augmented by state and federal aid. Between the end of World War II and the early 1970’s, the population of schoolchildren in New Jersey rose dramatically, and the need for school facilities and teachers grew. By the early 1970s, state aid to schools stood at 28 percent of the total, which set the stage for another reorganization of education financing. After the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the funding mechanism for public schools was unconstitutional because it relied too heavily on property taxes, a new funding law was enacted in 1975. That law led to the 1976 enactment of the New Jersey Gross Income Tax for the purpose of funding the new law. A series of decisions by the state Supreme Court, the Abbott v. Burke decisions, found that the 1975 law was unconstitutional for 28 poor urban districts. As a result, a funding formula has been adopted that ensures that the most disadvantaged districts in the state can spend at the same rate as the most affluent districts. In addition, new programs in the schools promote early childhood education and new school facilities. While school funding perennially dominates the education landscape, New Jersey has, over the past 30 years or so, enacted a series of initiatives that have helped drive student achievement.

School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) In 2008, with Court approval, the NJ legislature enacted the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) statewide, effectively replacing the Abbott remedies. The SFRA is a “weighted student formula” delivering state and local funding driven by a “base cost,” or the per pupil amount necessary to support the core curriculum program for every student regardless of need. The formula provides extra funding to support programs for at-risk students, limited English proficient students, and students with disabilities.

FY 2017-18 STATE CHARTER SCHOOL AID Projected Enrollment Count (SHORT EDIT)

OUTLINE I Introduction T&E II SFRA, Charters , and BOE’s A Similar Categories B Distinctions III Key Distinctions A Tax Status-Government Agency vs Non Profit [501 (c) 3] B 90% Funding C Limitation of Students D Funding Categories (Adjustment Aid) vs Charters new HH -Education Adequacy Aid -Choice Aid -Under Adequacy Aid -Sup Enrollment Growth -PARCC Readiness -Additional Adj Aid E Facilities, Bonds, and State reimbursements IV Conclusions/Q&A A Basic Status still holds B Hold Harmless 2 for Charters helps to Equalize C State still cannot resolve the differences nor Define T&E