Please allow me to take this opportunity to share some information on the numerous items of consideration that lead to the development of the annual school budget.  This is part one of a two-part document, the second of which will share specific data about the 2001-2002 school budget.  That budget has been submitted to the Morris County Superintendent of Schools for approval. 

As I developed this note, I realized that it might be appropriate to share some data from past school districts where I have worked. This will allow for some comparison.  In actuality, one of the major factors in development of the school budget and the resultant local tax levy, has little to do with the schools and more to do with the community. 

The State of New Jersey utilizes a system called District Factor Grouping (DFG) in its analysis of the socioeconomic well being of a town.  Traditionally, the DFG system ranked localities on the basis of an A to J rating.  Towns listed with a DFG of "J" were the wealthiest in the state.  Those rated with an "A" were towns which had the least amount of wealth.  Each group of localities in between, from "B" to "I" had increasing factors of socioeconomic well being such as tax base and high average income of citizens.   (Webmaster Note) 

Although the rating system has since been adjusted, it is recognizable to those who have dealt with it over the years.  The ratings are important because they essentially govern a significant portion of the amount of state aid given to a school district.  When I was superintendent of Sussex-Wantage, the DFG of the district was "B".  Annually, approximately fifty percent of that district's school budget revenues included state aid money.  In Long Hill Township, the DFG is "I" and less than ten percent of the budget revenues are made up of state money.  Thus the socioeconomic status of the locality seriously impact the local tax levy.

Whereas state aid is perhaps the most significant influence on a school budget, it is also important to realize that our state government has mandated numerous programs, many of which were not part of the public school programs of past generations.  Couple this with local considerations and the reasons for a school levy which some see as high, becomes more understandable.

Please note the following items that are listed for your review.

• Each district must now include Core Curriculum Standards set by the state, in its offerings.  State testing, which now is mandated in grades four and eight, is based on these standards.
• The district must offer programs for disaffected students including counseling and, if necessary, alternative programs.
• The district must offer a comprehensive program for special education students, a requirement that is certainly understandable, but now those mandates dictate specific models which, if not adhered to, leave the district open to litigation.
• The district utilizes programs of the State of New Jersey for health benefits for its employees.  The costs of these benefits continually rise, without consideration of the fact that school districts have budget caps.  Thus one arm of the state mandates cost containment, while another raises costs well beyond that limit of containment.
• Although the district receives aid for the following, resources for public schools are certainly diminished by the requirements of providing transportation, textbooks, nursing services and technology to private or parochial school children.  Our new budget will include nearly two hundred thousand dollars for such items.
• Given the new laws on charter schools, the national trend toward "school choice," and the reality of privatization of public schools, even districts with positive reputations must now compete in a market place that ultimately will result in an expansion of programs.  Even though this item means small cost increases to a place such as Long Hill, every dollar counts.
• Our district is growing.  The rate of growth in the last three years has been six, six and three percent and we are expecting a rate of 4.6% for next year.  When those rates are combined with inflation, which thankfully has been manageable during the past number of years, the district is automatically faced with the potential of eight or nine percent budget growth just to maintain the status quo.

In closing, I must report that the average cost per student for all school districts in the State of New Jersey during the 1999-2000 school year was $8,505.  The cost per student in Long Hill Township for that year was $8,121. (Source: Comparative Spending Guide, New Jersey Department of Education)  The Board of Education has pledged to continue its efforts at controlling the costs of educating the children of Long Hill Township in a manner that is appropriate to the well being of children and to the ability of its citizens to afford it.  Please make an effort to educate yourself to the specifics of the upcoming budget.

Thank you