New Jersey Assemblyman Gary Schaer (D-Passaic) grilled the acting commissioner of the New Jersey Education Department at Monday’s Assembly Budget Committee, questioning her over what seemed to be a lack of funding for special education funding in Governor Phil Murphy’s proposed state budget for fiscal year 2024.

Schaer, a former chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, noted that while Governor Murphy’s proposed budget projects an expected increase of 9,000 students who will be eligible for nonpublic school auxiliary services aid in 2024, the amount allocated per pupil remains stagnant at last year’s levels, without reflecting the increased number of students.

“The budget book states that we have 1.4 million children of school age in the state and about 150,000 of them are in parochial and private schools,” Schaer noted.

“Of those 150,000 children, there are an expected 54,000 children in parochial and privates to be utilizing funds for special needs, Schaer continued.

“What I don’t understand is, if this past year [the amount of children in need of such funding was] at 45,000, then its a projection of 9,000 students, or about $8.6 million in additional funds that should be allocated,” Schaer said.

“I don’t understand how it works: If the budget formula requires that the students in parochial and privates gets $1,040 per student, then there seems to be a $9 million problem,” he added.

Speaking for acting commissioner Angelica Allen-McMillan, Acting Executive Director of the Office of School Finance Allen Dupree noted that one reason why less funds were allocated in the proposed budget was because millions of dollars had been returned in previous years.

“The amount of money that actually gets returned, that goes unspent year over year, for example, of the roughly 40 million that was appropriated in fiscal year 2022 – $11 million came back to the department [of Education] because it wasn’t spent,” Dupree said.

But Schaer was having none of that, firing back that the reason the money was being returned was simply because it was not nearly enough for all the students that need the services, so school districts – unable to provide the necessary services – are being forced to return all the funds.

“The state formula requires $1,040 per student to receive these special services. Based upon these numbers, you’re reducing the effective amount going to each student by half – that makes it absolutely impossible to run the program, Schaer pointed out.

“The program, from what I understand, requires in most cases for students to receive certain special needs programs that are usually answered in two sessions, perhaps rarely, three. We’re not providing enough for one,” Schaer continued.

“And one of the reasons why I’ve been told that many students do not take these services is because they’re told that, at best, they’ll have one session a week – which frankly is of no value to anyone.”

Fewer funds available for children means less money available to hire teachers, which results in larger class sizes and/or less time per student.

“Your numbers clearly state that we are $9 million short,” Schaer went on.

I don’t know how you come up with a budget and suggest that we’re going to have further conversations with [the] Treasury [Department] about it! Those conversations should have happened before, sir. Not now! There’s a $9 million problem,” He said.

“I’d like to know where the money is,” Schaer continued, adding “I want my money!”

Dupree then tried making the case that the programs are not being funded because of money that was returned, interjecting to say thst “we are talking about situation where $11 million went unspent last year,” which prompted Schaer to once again explain why the money was returned.

“It went unspent because in many cases it was not worthwhile for the district to give the allocation because at best the child would get one session a week. There was simply not enough money for them to get those two sessions,” Schaer explained.

At that point, Allen-McMillan noted that Assemblyman Schaer may be correct.

“Based on what you’ve shared, I cannot refute that if they have found it challenging to obtain the providers of the services for the one session, I understand that as opposed to not offering the one service because it’s not optimal at the level that is desired to have two [sessions] or more, so that I definitely understand, Allen-McMillan said, to which Schaer responded to by asking for a budget increase.

“Where’s the money? We’re talking about 54,000 New Jersey children not getting the special services that they require.

“The budget calls for $1,040 per child,” Schaer went on.

“That is a problem! It doesn’t add up. This is the budget committee. It’s supposed to add up, it’s supposed to make sense!”

At that point the acting Education Commissioner seemed to recognize that the issue will have to be resolved, describing it as “an important point.”

“I’m going to say that this is an important point where the ongoing discussion such as this will help to inform the final budget,” she said.

“You know, that is what was proposed, but we definitely understand that there will be discussions and there may be some amendments to the initial suggestion, in the fiscal year, 2024 budget,” she noted.

But that was not enough to satisfy Schaer, who, sounding incredulous, asked how it was possible the budget was submitted without adding up.

“So, am I understanding correctly that this budget was put together by your department knowing in advance that it was not fiscally making sense? That the numbers do not add up?” he asked.

“The numbers add up from our perspective because we look at, as my colleague said, when funds are returned and the $11 million that was returned, you shed light on that,” she responded.

“So, with all due respect, can I ask what your department felt was the reason for the return of the 11 million?” Schaer than asked.

“It’s unspent. So from our standpoint, if the money is unspent, it wasn’t utilized, then it wasn’t needed,” she replied.

But that response prompted another line of questioning from Schaer, who then sked why no one was concerned about the amount of money being returned.

“So, $11 million out of $43 million – that’s 25 percent of the funds allocated – we’re not spent. Does that cause your department to have any concern?” he asked.

“We have a decentralized system so we do not second guess the districts,” she responded.

“If the funds are returned, then the funds were not needed to execute the services they were desired to do,” she went on.

“But you have shed light and said that it is not that the services were not provided because we couldn’t get the providers – but it still was returned.

And so from a fiscal perspective, we must look at the funding that is utilized and make decisions based upon that,” she added.

“So we are happy to be in conversation with you and if you recommend another amount, I’m sure that this august body can discuss that and look to make a recommendation that will go forward to the governor,” she concluded.

“That is very kind,” Schaer responded.

“Except the governor’s budget is supposed to be a budget that makes sense and it doesn’t.

“I will tell you these numbers are a slap in the face,” Schaer said.

While the governor proposes the budget, it is ultimately the lawmakers who are responsible for drafting and approving the annual appropriations act, sending it to him for his signature or veto prior to the July 1st deadline.