Given the complexity of this economic situation, any increase at all is a victory. We are very, very fortunate that the governor has made education a top priority, children a top priority.

Lucille Davy, Education Commissioner

For a district like ours, flat funding actually means a decrease, because there are other costs that continue to grow, from salaries and benefits, to gas and oil and maintenance. With our buildings being older, keeping them up to standards costs more.

Rodney Lofton, Trenton Public Schools Superintendent

Huh? Is it an increase or a decrease in school funding? Why is Davy sucking up to Corzine if school funding is going down? Why is Lofton whining if his funding is increasing despite a tanking economy?

Like everything else, the devil is in the details. (Here’s the details: the district-by-district state aid numbers from the DOE.) Thus, early yesterday afternoon, when 500 or so white-knuckled business administrators sat at their desks and downloaded their state aid figures, it was more a matter of whether you’re a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full type of guy. Yes, state aid is largely flat. But that means that most school districts must either cut staff or services to keep their own budgets flat or present taxpayers with increases because the vast majority of a district’s budget – usually about 80 to 85% — is union-negotiated salaries and benefits, and salaries alone are up somewhere in the neighborhood of 5%.

The word from the DOE has been all along that districts should expect the same number of state aid dollars as last year, so most forward-thinking school districts went ahead and either planned on presenting tax increases to voters or cut staff, services, or supplies in order to come in flat.

A big chunk of the state aid went to poor-but-not-Abbott-districts, per the new School Fund Reform Act, currently being evaluated by the courts. Rodney Lofton, Superintendent of Trenton Public Schools, an Abbott district, seems especially upset, grouching to the Trenton Times,

It will absolutely mean that we will lose teachers, administrators, secretaries and other employees in this process.

And a little chunk of the state aid went to previously-deprived rich districts, who griped that it wasn’t enough. For instance, the Trenton Times quoted the School Board Finance Chair of Robbinsville Public Schools in Mercer County, which got a 5% increase:

Matthew O’Grady, the chair of the district’s facilities, finance and transportation committee, said the 5 percent bump in aid “doesn’t even come close to what we need. Forget what we need, what we deserve. … We’re continually doing more with less.”

Of course, some people are unhappy with any increase in school aid at all. The Star-Ledger editorial page harrumphed,

On the spending side, Corzine avoids cuts that would hurt “the most vulnerable among us,” and we’re glad he’s not putting more of a squeeze on hospitals and health care. But when aid to public schools makes up more than a third of the state budget, should it really be going up instead of down? Surely the time has come to force greater efficiencies on the state’s 616 school districts.

Neat hat trick for Corzine. Everyone’s unhappy: school districts that saw flat aid, school districts that saw aid decreases, school districts that saw aid increases, and anyone who sees that we spend way too much on education in the first place. Of course, there’s still the question of how the State Court will rule on whether the Abbott districts should get more money, which would through a wrench into a budget that has found something to offend everyone. Maybe it’s a good budget after all.