N.J. Gov. Christie's school budget cuts reflect waning support of public education, unions

By Bob Braun/Star-Ledger Columnist
March 18, 2010, 5:00AM

The Republican governor faced the Legislature to warn of a crisis. Quick reform was needed. The issue was money for education. Salaries and benefits paid to teachers. Collective bargaining obstructed change, he warned, so new laws were needed.

Sound familiar? But — wait.

In 1984, lawmakers — despite misgivings and resistance from the New Jersey Education Association — gave Tom Kean what he wanted: A whopping, statewide increase in starting salaries for public school teachers.

How things have changed. The other day, another Republican governor — whose election was supported by Kean — blamed much of the fiscal crisis on money spent on teachers. The problems, Chris Christie insisted, began 20 years earlier, timing the initial blame for soaring costs, not with Kean, but Kean’s successor, Jim Florio.

But Kean persuaded the Legislature to increase the minimum starting salary for teachers to $18,500. It was about $15,000 at the time — compared to $21,000 nationally — and Kean was reacting to the report of a national commission that, months before, warned school failure was as destructive as a foreign military invasion.

The report, entitled "A Nation at Risk," recommended teacher compensation be "professionally competitive, market-sensitive, and performance-based." Teachers, the report went on, should be paid at levels similar to lawyers and accountants.

Kean, one of the greatest boosters of public schools among modern governors, said: "People have got to be assured they are getting better teachers, as well as better paid teachers."

But now, says Kean, "the environment is very different." The state then had an $800 million surplus — thanks to a growing economy and a new state income tax pushed by his predecessor, Brendan Byrne. Kean himself agreed to a tax increase. "Teachers are no longer poorly paid — and people are frustrated by the lack of accountability."

There are other differences. In the 1980s, public education was the darling of politicians. Teachers, especially after the national report, were depicted as long-suffering heroes who deserved more respect — and more money. Now, they’re seen as bad guys who selfishly eat everyone’s lunch to fatten their benefits.

"There has been a real disconnect since then," says Lynne Strickland, executive director of the Garden State Coalition of Schools, representing more affluent districts. "Private sector employees who once felt sorry for what teachers were making now get angry when they see what teachers are making."

Attitudes have changed. Paul Tractenberg, a Rutgers law professor and the force behind decades of challenges to the school aid formula, sees a "subtle and complicated" shift in public attitudes toward education — a shift reflected in Christie’s speech.

"People still support education," Tractenberg says, "but now they question whether public schools are the best way to achieve a good education."

He cites what he calls the "drumbeat" for privatizing education — through vouchers and charter schools — that, once favored primarily by suburban conservatives, has now gained support among urban minority groups as well.

"It’s kind of puzzling because studies show privatized schools generally don’t do as well as public schools," he says.

The attack on public schools also paradoxically represents a victory — probably an unwanted one now — for teacher unions, particularly the dominant NJEA. The union, never very popular, has insisted it represents public education. Christie used the ploy of discussing his cuts to education in the context of eviscerating the union.

You don’t have to hate public schools — just the NJEA — to agree with funding cuts.

Perhaps the most important change is the role of the state Supreme Court. For decades, no matter what the fiscal crisis, the court insisted schools be funded. Less than a year ago, the court approved a new school aid formula on the condition it is funded.

"This undoubtedly will end up in the courts,’’ says Tractenberg, "but this is not an especially propitious time to go to the court."

Why? Because, in his first term, Christie will appoint two new members to replace retirees — and decide on reappointing two others. That’s a majority.

"Those are not circumstances that will make for a court ready to defend school funding as boldly as it has in the past," Tractenberg said. "That’s no secret to anyone."