| ||||||||||||
SUPREME COURT ABBOTT DECISION 5-28-09, excerpts:
P 8 from pdf file (6)
We have reviewed the record, the Special Master’s findings
and recommendations, and the arguments of the parties.2 We
conclude that SFRA is constitutional, to the extent that this
record permitted its review. We therefore hold that SFRA’s
funding formula may be applied in Abbott districts, with the
following caveats. Our finding of constitutionality is premised
on the expectation that the State will continue to provide
school funding aid during this and the next two years at the
levels required by SFRA’s formula each year. Our holding
further depends on the mandated review of the formula’s weights
2 In reviewing the report of a Special Master, we “employ our
ordinary standards of review, considering them in the same
manner as we would the findings and conclusions of a judge
sitting as a finder of fact.” State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 93
(2008). We “accept the fact findings to the extent that they
are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record.”
Ibid. Legal conclusions, on the other hand, are owed “no
particular deference.” Ibid. We have applied those standards
in our analysis of this matter.
and other operative parts after three years of implementation.
See N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-46(a), (b), -51(a), -55(f), -57(a), -59.
P9 pdf (7)
Our approval of SFRA under the State Constitution relies,
as it must, on the information currently available. But a state
funding formula’s constitutionality is not an occurrence at a
moment in time; it is a continuing obligation. Today’s holding
issues in the good faith anticipation of a continued commitment
by the Legislature and Executive to address whatever adjustments
are necessary to keep SFRA operating at its optimal level. The
three year look-back, and the State’s adjustments based on that
review, will provide more information about the efficacy of this
funding formula. There should be no doubt that we would require
remediation of any deficiencies of a constitutional dimension,
if such problems do emerge.
P11 (9)
The State enacted SFRA, however, after decades of school
funding litigation that have led to the issuance of numerous
remedial orders to enforce the constitutional rights of the
pupils in the Abbott districts. The constitutional review,
therefore, cannot begin with the familiar presumption. If the
State is to replace adherence to those prior remedial orders
with the application of SFRA’s new funding formula for children
in Abbott districts, it must demonstrate that the concerns that
p12 (10)
compelled the Court to resort to judicially crafted remedies
have been overcome.
P43 (41)
Our finding that that approach is not constitutionally
infirm is tethered to the State’s commitment diligently to
review the formula after its initial years of implementation and
to adjust the formula as necessary based on the results of that
review. This Court remains committed to our role in enforcing
the constitutional rights of the children of this State should
the formula prove ineffective or the required funding not be
forthcoming.
P44-45 (42,43)
A costing-out study such as that engaged in by the State is
rife with policy choices that are legitimately in the
Legislature’s domain. In the record below, each value judgment
attacked was demonstrated to have been made in good faith, and
on the basis of available factual data informed by advice from
experts, including national experts, whose testimony revealed
that they had the interests of the pupils in mind. The record
reflects that the Executive and Legislature have engaged in an
accepted process to develop a fair and adequate funding system
for use across the state. We see no reason, or basis, for us to
43
second-guess the extraordinarily complex education funding
determinations that went into the formulation of the many moving
parts to this funding formula.
p46 (44)
Unlike in prior moments in the history of
school funding litigation in this state, we do not now confront
legislative inaction or failure to identify and provide
realistic education funding support to at-risk children whose
severe educational challenges cause their programs to be the
most costly. It was previous indifference to a constitutional
deprivation that started us down the Robinson/Abbott path.
Although that may have been our point of embarkation, today we
are in a different place.
P47 (45)
The Legislature and Executive have made
considerable efforts to confront the difficult question of how
to address the education needs of at-risk pupils, no matter
where those children attend school. Those efforts are all the
more impressive due to the coordinate branches’ collective will
to do so during difficult economic times when there is extreme
pressure on scarce State resources.
Although we do not have the ability to see ahead and to
know with certainty that SFRA will work as well as it is
designed to work, we trust that the State will not allow our
school districts to regress to the former problems that
necessitated judicial intervention in the first place. Indeed,
our finding of constitutionality is based, in no small part, on
the expectation that the Legislature and Executive will not
permit that deplorable state of affairs to recur in our school
districts.
p48 (46)
Although the Special Master recommended that SFRA be found
to be constitutional, he further recommended that supplemental
funding continue to Abbott districts, during and until the three
year look-back review of SFRA. He did so because he could not
predict SFRA’s immediate and practical effect on the delivery of
educational services in Abbott districts. App. at 82 (slip op.
at 132). The State could not have been stronger in arguing to
the contrary, that it would undercut the cohesiveness of the new
funding scheme to allow the continuation of supplemental
funding.
This funding formula was designed to operate as a unitary
whole and, in order to achieve its beneficial results, it must
be allowed to work as it was intended.
P49 (47)
Although we cannot evaluate with precision the changes that
a switch to funding under SFRA will entail in each Abbott
district, there is comfort in knowing that until the look-back
evaluation of SFRA’s initial years of implementation takes
place, the Abbott districts will have two sources of additional
money that will provide a substantial cushion of resources. We
cannot ignore the State’s estimation that the Abbott districts
will receive, cumulatively over the next two years,
approximately $630 million in federal funds.16 In allowing that
practical consideration to be a factor in the determination to
move forward with SFRA, we perceive no inconsistency with Abbott
II. The federal funds are not being used as a crutch against
some structural failing in the funding scheme itself. Rather,
we simply refuse to ignore the stark reality of such a large
amount of federal funds for the Abbott districts’ use during the
same period in which they claim they require the continuation of
supplemental funding.
16 The federal funding comes from a combination of three sources:
Title I, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301, the federal Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400, and the
Federal American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L.
No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115. App. at 80 (slip op. at 130).
P 50 (48)
In addition, there is also Emergency Aid that the DOE has
budgeted and will have available for districts if they need it.
The combination of both safety nets of considerable resources is
significant and tips in favor of allowing SFRA to be implemented
as it was designed. SFRA is meant to be a state-wide unitary
funding system whose elements shall be subject to periodic
reexamination and retooling as necessary to keep the formula
operating with equity, transparency, and predictability.
P51 (49)
The legislative and executive branches of government have
enacted a funding formula that is designed to achieve a thorough
and efficient education for every child, regardless of where he
or she lives. On the basis of the record before us, we conclude
that SFRA is a constitutionally adequate scheme. There is no
absolute guarantee that SFRA will achieve the results desired by
all. The political branches of government, however, are
entitled to take reasoned steps, even if the outcome cannot be
assured, to address the pressing social, economic, and
educational challenges confronting our state. They should not
be locked in a constitutional straitjacket. SFRA deserves the
chance to prove in practice that, as designed, it satisfies the
requirements of our constitution.
