New ruling might thaw aid freeze to some Abbott districts Tuesday, May 23, 2006 • BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG • Star-Ledger Staff The state must make sure its freeze on public school aid does not leave its poorest districts without the money to run new schools scheduled to open this fall, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday. Earlier this month the justices ruled that the state can hold aid to the 31 "special needs" districts flat in this especially tight budget year, although it gave the districts the right to appeal their aid amounts. Yesterday's order clarifies that the state must ensure there is enough money to operate new schools in those districts. Whether that will mean additional aid to any of the districts won't be known until any budget appeals are decided, according to lawyers involved in the case. The justices established an expedited timetable for hearing those appeals. Unlike its May 9 ruling, which was unanimous, the court split 5-2 on yesterday's order. The majority said it was holding the state to promises made by Attorney General Zulima Farber when the case was argued earlier this month. The dissenting justices, Jaynee LaVecchia and Roberto Rivera-Soto, said the state's obligation to provide additional funding should be triggered only if it is "essential" because the districts have no other money they can reallocate to the new schools. Richard Shapiro, a lawyer for 16 of the Abbott districts, said the ruling means "we won't have empty buildings in the 2006-2007 school year" because of lack of funding to staff new and renovated classrooms. "The clear message from the court is that it wants those facilities open and available to students," Shapiro said. David Sciarra, director of the Education Law Center, which represents schoolchildren in all 31 of the needy districts, added, "The bottom line of this is the court is making it clear the money for new schools has to come from additional resources, not cuts." Not all of that money must come from state coffers, however. The justices ordered that money from increased tax levies in eight of the districts -- as ordered by acting Education Commissioner Lucille Davy -- be used to open new and renovated schools. While six districts complied and raised taxes, Perth Amboy and Asbury Park did not. "I don't know how the commissioner is going to raise taxes in those districts," Shapiro said. He added he is "still in the dark" about the justices' reasons for ruling the commissioner has such power, or how far it extends. Sciarra said the order also makes clear that any appeals filed by the Abbott districts of their state aid amounts must be heard on "an expedited schedule." "That's important because districts need to know these appeals are not going to drag on," Sciarra said. Shapiro added, "We're going to have to see how this evolves over time -- how many appeals are filed and what the results are. All we have now is a process in place." The case is the latest offshoot of a 25-year-old lawsuit, Abbott vs. Burke, in which the justices have repeatedly ordered the state to increase aid to the poorest school districts. Robert Schwaneberg covers legal issues. He can be reached at rschwaneberg@starledger.com or (609) 989-0324. © 2006 The Star-Ledger. Used by NJ.com with permission.