Quality Public Education for All New Jersey Students

 

 
     Pre 2012 Announcement Archives
     2012-13 Announcement Archives
     2013-14 Announcement Archives
     2014-15 Announcement Archives
     Old Announcements prior April 2009
     ARCHIVE inc 2007 Announcements
     2009 Archives
     2008 Archives
     2007 Archives
     2006 Archives
     2010-11 Announcements
     2005 through Jan 30 2006 Announcements
3-22-11 Special Master's Report to the Supreme Court: State did not meet its school funding obligation
njspotlight 'Abbott Fact Finding: Christie Cuts Hurt At-Risk Kids' Judge Doyne says as much as $1.6 billion needed to fully fund Abbott v. Burke formula

"...But in a case that is now dating back close to 40 years, the true drama will come in what happens next with the state Supreme Court, which requested Doyne’s fact-finding report as part of the latest challenge under the epic case. The court could next demand the administration restore the cuts -- or even the full funding -- or something short of that, prospects that set off their own commentary yesterday.

Yet while the politicians and lawyers argue constitutional law and school funding, a raucous hearing last night in Newark over school reform plans also spotlighted the challenges ahead in ultimately bringing improvement to the urban schools -- with or without the added money..."

N Y Times - Judge Is Critical of Cuts in Aid for New Jersey Schools

Star Ledger - Judge says Christie's school budget cuts violated constitution, fell heavily on high-risk districts ‘New Jersey, money and schools’ By Star-Ledger Editorial Board ‘Braun: N.J. Supreme Court to take its turn on deciding constitutionality of Christie's school funding’

Philadelphia Inquirer - Judge: Christie's education aid cut was unconstitutional

 njspotlight.com  -  Abbott Fact Finding: Christie Cuts Hurt At-Risk Kids

Judge Doyne says as much as $1.6 billion needed to fully fund Abbott v. Burke formula

 

By John Mooney, March 23 in Education 

The opening line of a state judge’s latest opinion in the Abbott v. Burke school equity case may have said it all.

 

"And so, once again, unto the breach," started Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, paraphrasing William Shakespeare’s “Henry the Fifth."

 

From there, Doyne launched into a 96-page opinion released yesterday. His fact-finding hearings found Gov. Chris Christie’s $1 billion in cuts to public schools this year left schools falling well short of the state constitution’s guarantee of a "thorough and efficient" education system.

 

Doyne said as much as $1.6 billion more would be needed to fully fund the formula.

 

But in a case that is now dating back close to 40 years, the true drama will come in what happens next with the state Supreme Court, which requested Doyne’s fact-finding report as part of the latest challenge under the epic case. The court could next demand the administration restore the cuts -- or even the full funding -- or something short of that, prospects that set off their own commentary yesterday.

 

Yet while the politicians and lawyers argue constitutional law and school funding, a raucous hearing last night in Newark over school reform plans also spotlighted the challenges ahead in ultimately bringing improvement to the urban schools -- with or without the added money.

 

A Narrow Task

The tenor of Doyne’s written opinion had been largely expected, since this is the same judge in the last round of hearings two years ago who backed the state’s School Funding Reform Act (SFRA), which he says is being underfunded.

 

Doyne stressed that his task was a narrow one, to judge whether conditions set under the funding formula in 2009 were still being met and current funds "can permit our school districts to provide a thorough and efficient education to the children of our State."

 

"Given the proofs adduced as heretofore related," Doyne wrote, "the answer to this limited inquiry can only be 'no.'"

 

Most scathing for the administration, Doyne wrote that the cuts hit hardest at the poor and at-risk students that the Abbott v. Burke case was intended to protect.

 

The administration had argued this year's cuts were evenly divided, with every district losing an amount equal to no more than 5 percent of its total budgets. But Doyne sided with the plaintiffs that the per-pupil amounts lost were as much as 50 percent higher for students in at-risk districts.

 

He also cited more than 200 districts now spending less than the formula deemed as "adequate," with three quarters of the state’s low-income and disadvantaged students residing in those districts.

 

Doyne was careful is saying that money alone was not enough to raise the achievement levels of students. He praised one key witness for the state, Eric Alan Hanushek of the Hoover Institute, in making that argument nationally.

 

And Doyne wrote one stinging line that for all the money spent through the Abbott remedies, "our ‘at-risk’ children are moving further from proficiency." He said the task for helping those children must rest with the state Department of Education and the districts in spending the money more wisely and effectively.

 

"That said, the court cannot abandon or waiver from its constitutional commitment," he wrote.

 

Next Steps

Yet what the court will do next was subject of considerable conjecture in the aftermath of the release. It has set an April 21 deadline for responses from both sides. The Education Law Center (ELC), arguing for the plaintiffs, said it will seek full funding of SFRA, although it didn’t say in what timeframe.

 

"The Special Master's [Doyne's] report is an important step towards providing all New Jersey public school children with the education they need, deserve and are constitutionally entitled to receive," read an ELC statement.

 

Christie’s spokesman, Michael Drewniak, issued his own statement that repeated the administration’s argument that money has been wasted through the Abbott remedies and added that it worsened the state’s budget crisis.

 

"The Supreme Court should at last abandon the failed assumption of the last three decades that more money equals better education, and stop treating our state’s fiscal condition as an inconvenient afterthought," Drewniak said.

 

"The Court’s legal mandates on the legislative and executive branches of government have incontrovertibly contributed to our current fiscal crisis without uniformly improving education, particularly for the at-risk students the Court claims to be helping with its rulings."

 

Democrats didn’t jump to praise the opinion, at least not publicly, but some said it gave them further ammunition in their arguments against the cuts in the first place and the harm they did to schools.

 

"While we are still far from the resolution of this case, and I anxiously await the Supreme Court's final words, what is clear is that the governor's cavalier disregard for public education and our constitutional funding formula is now getting the scrutiny it deserves," said state Sen. Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex), the Senate majority leader.

 

Live from Newark

Still, the opinion’s release was an intriguing juxtaposition to what happened a few hours later in the monthly meeting of the Newark’s school advisory board.

 

Before a standing room only crowd in Barringer High School’s auditorium -- with a few hundred more outside -- scores of speakers stood to mostly criticize the details in the Christie administration’s plans for the state-run district. Christie has made Newark the focus of his reform plans, bringing in new leadership for the district and pushing especially for the expansion of charter schools there, including within district buildings.

 

It led to a tense evening, with the Newark Teachers Union (NTU) bringing out its members and charter schools bringing out their parents and plenty of shouting in between. But rarely was money even mentioned in that context, and the Abbott decisions -- let alone yesterday’s opinion -- barely at all.

 

One activist was asked would the same arguments take place if all the Abbott remedies were in place and SFRA was fully funded?

 

"Probably not, probably not," said Wilhemina Holder, a long-time parent advocate. "People are being forced to look for alternatives, and that’s what we have here."

 

Still, she said the battle lines have shifted in urban education over the last 10 or 20 years, with admittedly less talk of money for its own sake.

 

“When my kids were in school, we certainly didn’t have enough money, there wasn’t advanced placement courses and teachers," she said of her children, now grown.

 

"Now nobody is talking about money, it’s the options of what you do with it," she said. 

N Y Times - Judge Is Critical of Cuts in Aid for New Jersey Schools

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA

New Jersey’s cuts in school financing violate the State Constitution’s mandate to provide “a thorough and efficient” education system and hit poor districts especially hard, a judge reported to the State Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The report by Judge Peter E. Doyne is not binding on the court, but it raises the prospect that the justices could once again order the state to direct more money to poor schools. That would complicate Gov. Chris Christie’s efforts to cut spending as the state struggles with its worst fiscal problems in generations.

Shortly after taking office last year, Mr. Christie cut $475 million in school aid from the budget of about $11 billion that was already in place. For the fiscal year that began July 1, he and the Legislature reduced that aid by $820 million from the previous year, or about 8 percent; wealthier districts received no aid. For the coming year, he has proposed a $250 million increase.

The Supreme Court appointed Judge Doyne of Superior Court as a special master to determine whether the actions last year fulfilled the obligations imposed by previous rulings.

“It is clear the state has failed to carry its burden,” Judge Doyne wrote in the report.

“Despite the state’s best efforts, the reductions fell more heavily upon our high-risk districts and the children educated within those districts,” the judge wrote. “The aid reductions have moved many districts further away from adequacy.”

Judge Doyne noted that New Jersey spends far more than most states on education, that it has a budget crisis and that money can be spent unwisely, but that those issues were not part of his inquiry.

The governor’s press secretary, Michael Drewniak, responded that “the Supreme Court should at last abandon the failed assumption of the last three decades that more money equals better education and stop treating our state’s fiscal condition as an inconvenient afterthought.”

Judge Doyne’s report is the latest move in Abbott v. Burke, a case now nearly three decades old. In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that schooling in poor districts was so poor as to be unconstitutional; the court forced the state to put more money into them.

In 2008, the court allowed the state to modify the Abbott standards, allowing more money to be spread beyond the poorest districts. But Judge Doyne wrote that state aid this year fell $1.6 billion short of the standards set by that ruling.

Mr. Drewniak said the court’s rulings had “contributed to our fiscal crisis without uniformly improving education.”


Star Ledger - Judge says Christie's school budget cuts violated constitution, fell heavily on high-risk districts

Published: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 10:00 PM     Updated: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 7:55 AM

 By Star-Ledger Staff

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie’s cutbacks in school funding violate the state’s mandate to provide children "a thorough and efficient" education, a court-appointed Special Master declared today in a finding that could force the governor to come up with millions more for schools.

 

The opinion by Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, who was appointed by the state Supreme Court in January, will now be considered by the state’s highest court, potentially setting the stage for another historic confrontation on an issue that has been litigated for more than 40 years.

 

"The difficulty in addressing New Jersey’s fiscal crisis and its constitutionally mandated obligation to educate our children requires an exquisite balance not easily attained," Doyne wrote. "Despite the state’s best efforts, the reductions fell more heavily upon our high risk districts and the children educated within those districts."

The Supreme Court appointed Doyne as Special Master in January after the Education Law Center, a Newark-based school advocacy group, filed a motion last year arguing that cuts in spending violated the state constitution.

The court heard oral arguments on the case, then asked Doyne to determine "the constitutionality of the current funding levels," and submit his findings and conclusions of law to the Supreme Court. His 96-page opinion was issued today.

Asked about the ruling on his "Ask the Governor" radio show this evening, Christie said, "It’s crazy, just crazy."

 

A spokesman for the governor’s office said Doyne acknowledged the Supreme Court limited his inquiry by excluding consideration of the impact of the state’s unprecedented budget crisis, and noted that despite the fact New Jersey meets or exceeds all other states in spending for "at-risk" students, many of those students continue to fail to meet basic educational proficiency.

 

"The Supreme Court should at last abandon the failed assumption of the last three decades that more money equals better education, and stop treating our state’s fiscal condition as an inconvenient afterthought," the spokesman, Michael Drewniak, said. "The court’s legal mandates on the legislative and executive branches of government have incontrovertibly contributed to our current fiscal crisis without uniformly improving education."

 

David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center, said Doyne’s findings provide a "sobering analysis" of the effect of aid cuts on the state’s schools.

 

"The judge concluded that based on the evidence, the reduction in aid has significantly impaired the ability of districts to deliver the standards to their children," Sciarra said. "If (the Supreme Court) accepts his conclusions that the state has not met its burden of proof, and the funding reduction has had a deleterious impact on students ... then the question becomes what to do about that?"

The ELC will now make the case that Doyne’s findings should be sustained, and that the state’s funding formula should be properly implemented, according to a statement released by the center.

Both sides have until mid-April to write briefs in the case. The high court may schedule oral arguments, and can accept, modify or reject Doyne’s findings.

 

The original school aid cut last year was about $1 billion, a shortfall that grew to $1.6 billion because the state did not provide additional funds that would have been generated by the state’s School Funding Reform Act formula.

 

The eight-day "remand" hearing in Doyne’s courtroom in Bergen County included testimony from a half-dozen superintendents, the state’s director of education data and a nationally known expert on school finance.

 

In reference to the superintendents’ testimony, Doyne said, "despite the best efforts of the superintendents, the core curriculum content standards are not being met at existing funding levels."

The state’s content standards are a collection of grade-by-grade level material, from mathematics to social studies, that all children are expected to learn.

 

Paul Tractenberg, a Rutgers University law professor and co-founder of the Education Law Center, said he believes it is unlikely the Supreme Court would reject Doyne’s findings.

Among the issues looming, he said, is that if the court upholds Doyne’s findings, what would the remedy be?

 

"Do you order the state to come up with $1.6 billion now? Does it (the court) hold the governor or Legislatiure in contempt of court if it doens’t come up with the money? It’s not inconceivable, given this govenor’s personality, it could be a direct constitutional crisis," Tractenberg said.

 

"He (Christie) could stop short of going for the jugular now, or he could kind of up the ante by threatening what will happen if the court adopts Judge Doyne’s opinion," Tractenberg said.

Assembly Budget Committee Chairman Louis D. Greenwald (D-Camden) said Doyne’s findings "re-emphasize how the governor’s budget both overburdened property taxpayers and endangered education.

 

"The fact that the greatest impact of the governor’s cut was felt by at-risk students is, unfortunately, more evidence his budget did not include his oft-touted shared sacrifice," Greenwald said in a statement.

Assembly Republican Budget Officer Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) said "everyone who pays property taxes or cares about education in New Jersey should brace themselves for another potential blow from the New Jersey Supreme Court," however.

Several superintendents said they welcomed the possibility their districts would end up with more resources.

 

Edison Superintendent Richard O’Malley said his district was handed a $9.78 million budget cut last year, equal to 55.8 percent of the state aid Edison received the previous year. The district, the largest in Middlesex County, cut 131 education positions, full-day kindergarten, elementary world language instruction, middle school athletics, after-school busing and money for new textbooks and technology.

 

"The district suffered a tremendous academic setback with the loss of this amount of money in one year with no time to plan," O’Malley said. "Those effects have been felt this year and will be felt in years to come. What is not stated in these numbers is what’s lost on the future education of our children."

 

By Jeanette Rundquist and Jessica Calefati/The Star-Ledger

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey, money and schools

Published: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 6:12 AM

 By Star-Ledger Editorial Board

It comes as no surprise to learn that a Superior Court judge has concluded the massive cuts in school spending this year are harming students, especially those most reliant on state aid.

Judge Peter Doyne heard convincing testimony that the cuts resulted in larger class sizes and damaging rollbacks in such areas as remedial reading, teacher training and even security.

 

Doyne’s ruling does not mean the state must restore all the spending cuts. The state Supreme Court will consider that question within the next several months, in time for the debate over next year’s budget. Doyne was asked only to gather the facts.

 

And how could anyone expect a different result? If you cut nearly $1 billion from schools, it is obviously going to hurt students. The next time someone argues that money doesn’t matter, ask them if they’re willing to give up money from their own children’s schools.

Still, it is beyond frustrating that these court cases brush by most of the current discussion on reform.

 

Yes, ending remedial reading classes can hurt a child. But so can tenure protections that allow terrible teachers to remain in the classroom, and that’s not part of the discussion. The best charter schools are performing miracles in places such as Newark, and that’s not part of the discussion either. The list goes on.

 

Yesterday, we heard the predictable and stale reactions on both sides.
Sen. Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex) issued a statement saying Gov. Chris Christie’s “cavalier disregard for public education” is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves.

 

That’s not fair. Christie imposed these cuts in a way that limited the damage to poor districts. Dozens of wealthy suburban districts lost all state aid.

 

And the governor has been energetic on the reform front, pushing a program that closely matches President Obama’s, including charter schools, tenure reform and merit pay. Agree or not, this is not the profile of a governor who is indifferent to urban education.

 

Meanwhile, the governor’s office dismissed urban schools’ measurable gains made possible by state aid, and said the court was treating the state’s fiscal condition as “an inconvenient afterthought.”

 

This echoes the administration’s losing argument in court, where state attorneys kept arguing the state was broke. The argument would be more convincing if the governor hadn’t insisted on lower taxes for millionaires. And Doyne’s job was only to assess the impact of the cuts on the state’s ability to meet its core standards, anyway.

 

The state’s ability to pay will be considered by the state Supreme Court within the next several months. A reasonable guess is that it will order increased spending, but phase it in over several years.

 

None of that should stall the governor’s march toward reforms. And in the end, that fight may be more important.

 

 

Braun: N.J. Supreme Court to take its turn on deciding constitutionality of Christie's school funding

By Bob Braun/Star-Ledger Columnist

TRENTON — The decision by Judge Peter Doyne was clear: Gov. Chris Christie failed to comply with the state Constitution by cutting school aid by $1.6 billion. The implication for the future also is clear: New Jersey is heading for a constitutional showdown of historic proportions.

"The lines have never been so sharply drawn," said Paul Tractenberg, a Rutgers law professor who has devoted his long career to the intersection of education and constitutional law. "Clearly, we are at the orange, if not the red, warning level light."

Doyne was appointed by the state Supreme Court to answer the question of whether funding cuts allowed the state to maintain the constitutionally required "thorough and efficient" school system as measured by the ability of students to meet curricular standards.

The judge wrote, "The answer to this limited inquiry can only be ‘no.’" But, aware of what must happen now, Doyne quickly added, "The more daunting questions have been reserved by and for our Supreme Court."

Those "more daunting questions" include what the state’s highest court will do in response to Doyne’s findings. It could reject them, but that seems unlikely.

"The court will not ignore such a detailed and factual report," Tractenberg said.

But what it might do is something Doyne did not have the power to do — balance the state’s fiscal condition against the constitutional requirement for a thorough and efficient education. The judge, serving as a special master, used the word "daunting" in another context — what he called "daunting economic realities" facing New Jersey.

Christie and legislative leaders based their decision on how they saw those realities and their lawyers in the Attorney General’s Office argued the state cannot afford to fund the formula because of a "perfect storm" of declining revenues and a "persistent" deficit.

The Supreme Court, Doyne noted, specifically reserved for itself "the question of what effect, if any, the state’s fiscal condition may have on plaintiff’s entitlement to relief."

The high court has three options. It can agree the state doesn’t have the money and defer or cancel the promise of full funding. It can insist, as it did in 1976, that the formula be fully funded, even if that means raising taxes — a remedy the late Chief Justice Richard Hughes enforced with a statewide school shutdown.

"Or," says Tractenberg, "it can try to find the nearly invisible line between the two.’’

In the past, the court, which has issued 20 extensive decisions on school funding in 40 years, allowed the state to freeze funding while coming up with interim solutions.

"But that’s very different from cutting school aid by nearly 20 percent — that’s what happened this year," Tractenberg says.

What makes this constitutional conflict so sharp is the attitude of the Christie administration toward the school funding law. During eight days of hearings, Doyne frequently noted the state was arguing against the very law it was supposed to defend — the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) — by contending money didn’t make a difference.

Doyne noted such an argument "runs in direct contravention of the accepted principles of the SFRA formula" and "defies the underlying pillar of SFRA."

The Christie administration was, in effect, throwing the case before Doyne — or, at least, giving it an intentional walk — to get to the main event, the battle between the governor and the court, a court he already has vowed to remake to his own liking.

If there were any doubt, Christie’s spokesman Michael Drewniak issued a statement attacking the court’s past decisions:

"The Supreme Court should at last abandon the failed assumption of the last three decades that more money equals better education, and stop treating our state’s fiscal condition as in inconvenient afterthought. The Court’s legal mandates on the legislative and executive branches of government have incontrovertibly contributed to our current fiscal crisis without uniformly improving education, particularly for the at-risk students the Court claim’s to be helping with its rulings.’’

The court knew a showdown was coming. Unlike the last time it asked Doyne to review school funding litigation, the Supreme Court specifically reserved the right to create remedies.

"It didn’t ask Judge Doyne to make any recommendations this time," said David Sciarra, the director of the Educational Law Center (ELC), which brought the case. The last time — only two years ago — the ELC and the state argued against each other, the state was defending the law and the center was attacking it. Doyne said the "irony" of the reversals by both parties was "too obvious to note."

Throughout the decision, the judge repeatedly turned to the impact on the state’s neediest children. He said he found that "despite the best effort" of local educators, state standards were not met. "The loss of teachers, support staff and programs is causing less advanced students to fall farther behind and they are becoming demonstrably less proficient," he wrote.

Doyne knew the weight of his work and the coming battle. He oddly opened his ruling with a famous line from Shakespeare’s "Henry the Fifth," a play about the epic struggle between England and France: "And so, once again, unto the breach."

Philadelphia InquirerJudge: Christie's education aid cut was unconstitutional

By Rita Giordano Posted on Tue, Mar. 22, 2011

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

Gov. Christie's deep aid cuts last year have prevented New Jersey public schools from providing students the "thorough and efficient" education required by the state constitution, a Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge Peter Doyne's 96-page advisory report did not suggest what action should follow. He left those "more daunting questions" to the state Supreme Court, which had requested that he serve as a special master to investigate the constitutional issue.

Depending on what the court decides, the matter could have significant repercussions on the state's finances. In the fiscal year that ends June 30, New Jersey would have to have provided another $1.6 billion to comply with the funding formula law, according to Doyne's report. Faced with a nearly $11 billion deficit, Christie slashed education aid by about $820 million.

Doyne acknowledged the difficulty of meeting the constitutional mandate during the state's fiscal crisis. But he said, repeatedly, that New Jersey failed during recent hearings to prove that its funding levels were adequate.

"Something needs to be done to equitably address these competing imperatives," Doyne wrote. "That answer, though, is beyond the purview of this report. For the limited question posed to this Master, it is clear the state has failed to carry its burden."

Despite the state's efforts to inflict less pain on poorer districts, Doyne wrote, "the reductions fell more heavily upon our high-risk districts and the children educated within those districts."

Thirty-six percent of New Jersey's school districts were funded at a level deemed less than adequate under the funding formula, according to Doyne. Seventy-two percent of the state's at-risk students lives in those districts, he wrote.

The parties in the case have until April 14 to file responses to Doyne's report.