Nj.com - Advocate tells N.J. Supreme Court state aid cuts deprived children of adequate education

Statehouse Bureau - Poll: Most NJ residents want more education spending, but not by Supreme Court order

Nj.com - Advocate tells N.J. Supreme Court state aid cuts deprived children of adequate education

Wall Street Journal - Court Weighs Funding  (NY Politics April 21, 2011)

By LISA FLEISHER

TRENTON—The future of New Jersey school funding is in the hands of the state Supreme Court, after the Christie administration and an advocate for poor children on Wednesday made final arguments on whether the recession justified a billion-dollar cut to local school district subsidies.

In a struggle that could ensnare all three branches of government, the court is considering whether to order Gov. Chris Christie and the Legislature to spend as much as $1.74 billion more on schools than the governor proposed for the upcoming school year. His proposed $29.4 billion state budget includes $10.2 billion for school districts.

A ruling against the state could prompt deep cuts in other services, or a constitutional crisis if the governor or the Legislature refuse the court's order.

"If the justices want, people can make cuts to hospitals, nursing homes, higher education institutions, or we can just say, 'No, we're not doing it, period,'" said state Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, a Republican and Christie ally.

Mr. Christie has consistently rejected additional taxes.

This is the latest chapter in a fight that has been in the court's lap for three decades. In 1981, the Education Law Center, a Newark-based advocacy group, sued the state in Abbott v. Burke, saying it didn't provide a free "thorough and efficient" education as required by the constitution. That eventually led to the court ordering the state to send extra money to urban districts.

In 2009, former Gov. Jon Corzine received court approval to use a formula to measure children's needs across the state, rather than funnel money specifically to select poor districts, known as Abbott districts.

The court said the state had to spend as much as the formula required for three years. But Mr. Corzine shorted the formula about $300 million in the 2009-10 school year.

After Mr. Christie underfunded the formula by $1.6 billion for the current school year, the Education Law Center filed its latest lawsuit. The state is spending about $10.6 billion on local school districts this year. David Sciarra, the law center's executive director, argued the case and said the cuts were a "serious failure" of the court's directive and harmed students.

Superintendents have testified the cuts led to program cuts, teacher layoffs, larger class sizes and more.

The state's case was argued by Peter Verniero, a former state Supreme Court justice and former attorney general. Under heavy questioning by the justices, some of whom were his former colleagues, he said a "thorough and efficient" education cannot be delivered by money alone—one of Mr. Christie's key policy arguments.

Justice Barry Albin responded: "You can't teach students without teachers, it's as easy as that."

The court also debated constitutional rights and powers. Mr. Verniero said the court should not trample on the Legislature's right to enact laws and spending as it sees fit, especially in a fiscal crisis. "We can not in the name of the constitution violate the constitution itself," he said. He also asked the court to "stay" its hand until an administration report on how schools were doing was completed.

print | email | share

By John Mooney, April 21 in Education |Post a Comment

The courtroom inside the Hughes Justice Center was a little more crowded than usual yesterday, even for an Abbott v. Burke case, as all eyes were on the state Supreme Court to see what it will do next.

The court -- just five justices sitting -- was hearing oral arguments over the latest Abbott challenge and whether Gov. Chris Christie’s and the legislature’s $1 billion in state aid cuts this year left schools unable to provide the "through and efficient" education the state constitution requires.

The stakes are high, not just for the schools and their students but also for the state budget, which could suddenly see a huge budget hole, if the court is so inclined.

But in a public session that ran overtime, that was just part of the drama yesterday on a court that itself is in tumult, not to mention a former justice making a cameo return of his own.

Here were five individuals in starring roles, at least yesterday, including one who barely said a word:

Jaynee LaVecchia, associate justice

She didn’t wait long, letting the lawyer for the plaintiffs finish a brief opening statement before she asked a blunt question: whom exactly was he representing?

It’s at the core of the case, and apt for the author of the last Abbott decision in 2009. Is this a matter for just New Jersey’s poorest students, especially those in its so-called Abbott districts like Newark, Camden and Paterson, or for all students in New Jersey?

The lawyer, David Sciarra, pointed out that the Abbott case isn’t really about just Abbott districts any more, not since the 2008 School Funding Reform Act (SFRA), which extended funding to all districts with at-risk students.

The opening exchange set the tone. LaVecchia was going to be front and center, leading the questions to attorneys on both sides. And she saved the zingers for the state’s lawyer, Peter Verniero.

For instance, how can the state contend two years ago -- albeit under a different administration -- that the SFRA provides a constitutionally compliant education and now come back and say underfunding it was also OK.

She described the funding formula as prescribed two years ago as "tablets from the mountain."

Yes, she said, the state is in fiscal crisis -- its main argument -- but does that allow it to take constitutional short cuts?

"Judicial decree is not just walked away from, and that is what you are asking us to do," she said to Verniero.

Court watchers have learned not to read too much into the words spoken by judges in oral arguments. The ones that will really count may be LaVecchia’s next words, as a prime candidate to write the impending Abbott decision.

Peter Verniero, former associate justice and state’s counsel

Verniero, a former state Attorney General and associate justice on this very court, had a tough job -- and a tough audience.

Now in private practice since leaving the court in 2004, Verniero was brought in by the Christie administration a month ago after a state Superior Court judge finished fact-finding hearings that clearly favored the plaintiffs.

Not only was he facing a skeptical court, but he did so with some of the biggest guns in the Christie administration sitting in the front row behind him: Christie’s counsel, his chief of staff, the acting state education commissioner, and the attorney general herself, Paula Dow.

Known for being thoughtful and even a little soft-spoken, Verniero began amiably: "May it please the court."

And it was rough sliding from there. The centerpiece of his argument is that the state’s fiscal crisis has left difficult choices, and the cuts in aid this year were among them. He said for the court to order their immediate reinstatement could cause "irreparable harm."

"I just ask you to consider the implications of $1.6 billion or some subset of that,” he said late in the questioning, which went far longer than that of Sciarra. "Give us the opportunity and breathing room to work our way out of this crisis."

There was more to his argument, plenty more. He said that the cuts, while steep, still left schools providing an adequate education, a long way from the early days of the Abbott litigation.

He said other reforms are underway in terms of school and teacher accountability, which will bring stronger change than dollars ever could at this point, the main political argument from Christie these days.

Verniero disclosed for the first time that the Christie administration, in fact, would begin a new review of the school funding law to determine if its requirements for so-called adequacy were indeed sufficient or too generous, a process that he said could take a year.

But he kept coming back to "good faith" and asking the court to let the executive and legislative branches determine what is best.

"Litigation, even constitutional, has its limits," he said, citing separation of powers and other sacrosanct lines. "We cannot in the name of the constitution violate the constitution itself."

Barry Albin, associate justice

As much as LaVecchia led the questioning, Albin was a close second. Known to be blunt, he had some tough questions of his own – especially of Verniero.

In one twist, he asked about the so-called millionaire’s tax at the center of political dispute for two years, not calling it that but making it clear in describing the surcharge that Christie let expire, costing the state $1 billion in revenues.

The state said it had no money to provide districts, he said, but this was not the first time it had been in a fiscal hole.

"I know you are still in a fiscal crisis," Albin said, "but when the promise was made [to fully fund the formula in 2009], there was a $1 billion funding source and now we’re $1 billion less."

Albin also was the most specific about programs in place in schools, and the teachers and services that have been cut. "You can’t teach children without teachers, it’s as easy as that," he said at one point.

And he was most critical of Verniero’s claims of good faith.

"Nobody is accusing you of not acting on good faith," Albin said. “These are terrible fiscal times, no question. But to a student who has a fundamental right to a thorough and efficient education, does it make a difference if you are acting in good faith and his right still isn’t being met?"

Yet he was also the one who noted the irony of the deliberations, the state now resisting a school funding formula it devised, and the plaintiffs defending the law it once fought."

"You fought tooth and nail against this same statute," he told Sciarra.

David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center

Certainly not new to the podium, Sciarra was as relaxed as he’s even been before the court in this epic case. After the favorable fact-finding report, the better legal cards were in his hand, and the justices were asking the tougher questions of his opponent.

But that didn’t mean he didn’t have work to do, if nothing else to lay out exactly what he was proposing to the court. And while sometimes a fiery advocate, Sciarra’s an adept politician as well, knowing the magnitude of what the justices could decide -- and the potential backlash it could bring.

So if the court needed a roadmap, Sciarra appeared more than willing to provide one. He spoke of the need to "remediate" the cuts and immediately return funding to districts, but was diplomatic in not demanding it be done all at once. He kept it to broader terms, asking for progress, but real progress.

"The serious harms of this year will only carry over to the next year and the next without a remedy of this court," he said.

Sciarra also focused on at-risk students, the ones most harmed by the cuts, he said, in seeing their tutoring and other support programs scaled back.

"This is not something that hangs by a thread or is along the margins," he said. "It gets to the very core of the kinds of programs that the program was designed to deliver."

Roberto Rivera-Soto, associate justice

The justice is maybe the court’s most controversial, outspoken in his conservatism and the one who at least in oral arguments has been most critical of the Abbott plaintiffs. It has led to engaging exchanges in the past.

Yesterday, he barely said a word, asking no questions of either side.

A signal that he had already made up his mind? Or knowledge that the court -- or at least its majority -- had done so? Or even maybe part of his ongoing protest to the standoff that has left the court down a member and prompted the promotion of appellate court judge Edwin Stern to fill the vacancy for now?

Christie last year refused to reappoint former Justice John Wallace, and instead picked a new appointee, Anne Patterson, whom the Democrat-led state Senate has refused to confirm. That led the court to elevate Stern for the time being, but the tug-of-war has only heightened Christie’s criticism of the court for what he claims is its activist rulings, including in the Abbott case.

Whatever Rivera-Soto’s thinking, it proved a notable day for silences in the courtroom, with Justice Helen Hoens also barely asking questions beyond two technical points and Stern only asking a few himself.

In addition, two of the seven seats on the bench were empty altogether.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner has long recused himself from the Abbott deliberations, given he was attorney general under former Gov. Jon Corzine when SFRA was written.

An unexpected recusal came when the court yesterday announced Justice Virginia Long would also sit out, after hearing the first part of the case this winter. Justices do not typically explain why, but a court spokeswoman alluded to a potential conflict of interest with parties involved in the fact-finding portion of the case.

That leaves just five justices hearing the case and making the decision that could have repercussions well beyond schools and even school equity. The court set no timetable, but an expedited schedule indicates it will rule by the time the final fiscal 2012 budget is struck.

"Thank you, to both counsels," LaVecchia said in closing, before the five justices filed out. "We’ll take it under advisement."

Statehouse Bureau - Poll: Most NJ residents want more education spending, but not by Supreme Court order

Thursday, April 21, 2011

BY CHRIS MEGERIAN

State House Bureau

STATE HOUSE BUREAU

TRENTON — Most New Jersey voters want more education spending, but nearly as many don't want the Supreme Court to force the state to pump more money into schools, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll being released today.

Poll says NJ residents want more money for the classroom, but don't was the state Supreme Court to get involved.

“The state Supreme Court case on school spending could scramble the budget and voter opinions are mixed," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "They favor spending more on schools but they don’t think the court should tell the Legislature to do it."

Sixty percent of voters said schools should get more money, compared to 36 percent who disagreed. Meanwhile, 53 percent said the court should not order more spending, as opposed to 42 percent who want the court's involvement.

The question of whether the state's highest court should weigh in on New Jersey's current school funding dilemma was raised on Wednesday during the latest hearing in the long-running case of Abbott v. Burke.

Education advocates say Gov. Chris Christie's budget cuts are unconstitutional because the state is obligated to provide a "thorough and efficient system of free public schools." They want the court to order the state to spend an additional $1.7 billion on schools in the upcoming fiscal year.

The state argued that budget cuts did not create a constitutional problem, saying it was forced to cut spending because of a fiscal crisis. Because of that, the state said the court not interfere.

Today's poll also finds support for Christie's education proposals. Sixty-nine percent support merit pay for teachers, and 62 percent want to limit tenure.

Nj.com - Advocate tells N.J. Supreme Court state aid cuts deprived children of adequate education

Published: Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 5:09 PM     Updated: Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 6:04 PM

By The Associated Press The Star-Ledger

TRENTON — Thousands of struggling students in New Jersey are being deprived of an adequate education because of state aid cuts initiated by Gov. Chris Christie and approved by the Legislature, a lawyer for the children told the state Supreme Court today.

Lawyer David Sciarra, who represents the Education Law Center in Newark, an advocacy group for children in low-income cities, told the state's highest court that New Jersey should be required to fully fund the public school aid formula the court accepted in 2009.

Former state Supreme Court justice Peter Verniero, who represented the state, said the cuts to public education were necessary because of the state's dire fiscal condition. Districts with the most at-risk children received the smallest reduction in state aid, he said.

"I would just ask that you consider the implications of awarding a $1.6 billion restoration or some subset of that," Verniero said during oral arguments in the ongoing battle over school funding. "Stay your hand. Give the elected branches (executive and legislative) some breathing room to work their way out of this crisis."

The current state budget shortchanges the school funding formula by hundreds of millions of dollars, prompting the legal challenge. It's the latest chapter in a long-running battle over how to fund public education for the poorest children living in one of the richest states.

There's no word on when there will be a ruling.

The proposed state budget would have to be reworked if the court orders more education funding in the next school year. Gov. Chris Christie already has said that he would not raise taxes, so the money would come from property tax rebates, hospital charity care, higher education or other sources.

A ruling requiring additional aid would also be a significant blow to Christie's education agenda. The governor maintains that aid hasn't equaled achievement and has proposed changes that include an end to automatic tenure, basing teacher evaluations partially on student achievement, adding charter schools and using state tax dollars to fund a pilot school voucher program.

Several close Christie advisers attended the hearing, underscoring the decision's importance to the administration.

Five justices will decide the case. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, who worked under Christie and former Gov. Jon Corzine, and Associate Justice Virginia Long recused themselves.

Some of the toughest questions for the state came from Associate Justice Barry Albin, a nominee of former Gov. Jim McGreevey, who reminded the state that a prior attorney general argued vigorously on behalf of the current school funding formula. Attorney General Anne Milgram said the formula had to be fully funded — even during a recession — when she made a plea for the court to adopt the new plan.

A lower-court judge, asked to delve into school funding, calculated the difference between a formula the court found constitutional and the amount given to local schools this year was $1.6 billion.

Sciarra argued that the 2011-12 state budget should restore that amount to schools, and that the state should be required to fully fund its school aid formula for the two years after that.

The advocacy group said achieving educational equity is so important that a tough economy shouldn't be a major consideration.

Verniero argued that times are different now, with the recession dragging on longer than predicted. He said that the cuts have not caused the state to abandon its responsibility to provide all students with a "thorough and efficient" education, but that the burden must be measured against the constitutional obligation to keep the state budget in balance.

Albin said the state had $1 billion in revenue from a surcharge on the wealthiest residents but allowed the additional tax to lapse. Christie has refused to consider renewing the surcharge, despite Democrats' urging him to do so.

Sciarra said the cuts resulted in larger class sizes, layoffs of teachers in language arts, math, science and physical education, and a host of other program and service cuts. He said the number of schools now rated below adequate grew from 181 to 205 after the latest round of cuts.

Christie's budget for the upcoming year proposes restoring $250 million of the $820 million in K-12 aid sliced from the 2010-11 state budget.

Over the long history of the case, the state Supreme Court has consistently ruled that New Jersey should provide more money to the state's poorest school districts.

The rulings have led to free pre-schools for 3- and 4-year-olds in those cities, replacements and repairs for decrepit school buildings, and extra help for teaching key areas such as reading.

But they've rankled opponents. They're a scourge to people like Christie, who say judges shouldn't make laws. Schools in the suburbs complain their districts get shortchanged because so much aid goes to poorer schools. And, the rulings have a direct effect on the state budget.

As Christie points out frequently, the changes ordered by the court have not brought closed the achievement gap between wealthy and poor districts — even though low-income districts now spend as much on education as the state's wealthiest districts — and in several cases, more.