| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Record 'N.J. Supreme Court appointee to look into state education cuts'January 13, 2011 "...Lynne Strickland, who has watched repeated rounds of school funding litigation from her advocacy post as executive director of the Garden State Coalition of Schools, said she expected the justices would render their decision before the fiscal 2012 budget is due.
“I guess they decided not to punt,” she said. “I’m just worried about how this is all going to play out. There is so much uncertainty in the air.”
njspotlight.com 1-14-11 'Supreme Court Remands Abbott v. Burke to Lower Court for Fact Finding' Justice's order appears to put burden of proof on Christie administration...
N.J. Supreme Court appointee to look into state education cuts Thursday, January 13, 2011 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY JANUARY 13, 2011, 7:24 PM BY LESLIE BRODY THE RECORD STAFF WRITER
The New Jersey Supreme Court appointed a “special master” Thursday to examine whether the Christie administration’s cuts to public school aid are constitutional.
The New Jersey Supreme Court appointed a “special master” Thursday to examine whether the Christie administration’s state aid cuts deprived children of their constitutional rights to thorough educations.
The court said Bergen County Assignment Judge Peter E. Doyne must report back to the court by March 31, and parties in the case must submit responses by April 21.
That means the Supreme Court’s decision will come too late to affect local school boards’ deliberations over the next few months for next year’s spending; they must hold public hearings in March and hold budget votes on April 27, according to the New Jersey School Boards Association.
Association spokesman Frank Belluscio said boards would plan using state aid figures expected next month and the new 2 percent cap on tax levy increases. If the court orders the state to distribute additional aid after school budgets are passed, he said, by current law that money would have to go toward restoring trimmed services or property tax relief.
“The general speculation is flat funding from last year, but we really don’t know,” Belluscio said.
David Sciarra, an attorney for the Education Law Center, which brought the litigation against the aid cuts, predicted that the schedule for the special master would enable the Supreme Court to render its decision on the legality of the cuts well before July 1, the deadline for the governor to pass the state budget for the coming fiscal year.
The backstory - The state Supreme Court has heard fights over fair funding since the 1970s. The new formula, which took effect in 2008, ended the so-called Abbott program, which sent billions of dollars to the state’s 31 poorest cities. The new formula still sends most of the state aid to those communities, but allocates dollars based on each district’s number of disadvantaged children; the goal was to help working-class and middle-income towns get a fair share as more high-risk children enrolled.
Last spring, Governor Christie cut $820 million in aid to schools, saying they were necessary due to a fiscal crisis. In oral arguments before the court last week, Sciarra said it was too late to ask for that money to be restored for this school year, but he asked the court to direct the governor to avoid such cuts in the coming year.
Several justices asked whether it would be useful to have more detailed evidence of the cuts’ impact, such as losses of special education services or spikes in violence due to layoffs of security staff.
Doyne is well-versed in the complex issues involved: He also served as special master in the spring of 2009, when he held three weeks of hearings in Hackensack to review the state’s new school funding formula. In a lengthy decision, Doyne recommended the new formula to the Supreme Court, which upheld it.
The Education Law Center argues Christie’s cuts violated the state’s obligation to fully fund that formula for three years, then evaluate it. The Christie administration countered there simply was not enough money to go around and cuts were distributed equitably, with each district losing aid worth 5 percent of its budget.
On Thursday the Supreme Court said the state “must bear the burden” of proving the current funding can provide an adequate education in districts with high, medium and low concentrations of disadvantaged students.
“The state now must prove that the students’ right to a thorough and efficient education can still be preserved after a $1 billion state aid cut,” Sciarra said.
Asked how the pending litigation might affect the governor’s state aid plans for the coming year, spokesman Michael Drewniak said by e-mail, “We will be formulating our budget in the normal course.”
In last week’s hearing, Assistant Attorney General Nancy Kaplen argued against appointing a special master, saying a remand hearing is “not going to change the fact … only so much can be allocated to education because of other pressing needs.”
Christie has repeatedly argued that massive infusions of money have not boosted achievement in the worst schools, and pushed his proposed remedies, such as eliminating tenure and expanding school choice.
After oral arguments last week, some observers speculated the justices might delay rendering a decision until after budget season to avoid the political turmoil that might ensue. The court set a firm timetable, however, stating that after Doyne reports his findings, the parties should file briefs in response by April 14, with replies by April 21.
Lynne Strickland, who has watched repeated rounds of school funding litigation from her advocacy post as executive director of the Garden State Coalition of Schools, said she expected the justices would render their decision before the fiscal 2012 budget is due.
“I guess they decided not to punt,” she said. “I’m just worried about how this is all going to play out. There is so much uncertainty in the air.” E-mail: brody@northjersey.com
njspotlight.com 'Supreme Court Remands Abbott v. Burke to Lower Court for Fact Finding
Justice's order appears to put burden of proof on Christie administration'
In the Assembly chamber of the Statehouse on Tuesday, justices of New Jersey’s Supreme Court listened as Gov. Chris Christie in his State of the State address made a not-so-subtle jab at the Abbott v. Burke school funding case.
“We must end the myth that more money equals better achievement,” Christie said. “It is a failed legal theory, and we can no longer waste our children’s time or the public’s money waiting for it to work.”
Two days later, the justices answered back: "Not so fast."
The court yesterday ordered the latest Abbott challenge to Christie’s $1.1 billion in school aid cuts be remanded to a lower court for fact-finding hearings. The justices are essentially asking for a determination as to whether the reductions in school aid left public schools in an unconstitutional state.
The remand to a "special master" was not surprising, since virtually every one of the justices had hinted as much in oral arguments a week ago. The same judge who held the post during the 2009 round of Abbott hearings will again fill the position.
The Burden of Proof
Perhaps more surprising, the court appeared to give a boost to the plaintiffs. In an order issued by Justice Virginia Long, the all-important burden of proof rests on the Christie administration. It is charged with showing that all schools -- rich and poor -- were continuing to provide "thorough and efficient education” in the face of widespread layoffs and program cuts.
"The state must bear the burden of demonstrating the present level of school funding... can provide for a thorough and efficient education as measured by the comprehensive core curriculum standards in districts of high, medium and low concentrations of disadvantaged students," read Long's order, in part.
The remand drew immediate reaction from both sides. The Education Law Center (ELC) -- the advocacy group that has led the Abbott litigation -- cited the statement as almost a victory in itself.
"The Supreme Court has again reaffirmed that the state's responsibility to provide a thorough and efficient education is fundamental and extends to all students," said David Sciarra, the ELC’s executive director and lead attorney.
Christie’s office said his cuts were necessary to close a deep budget gap and were made equitably across all districts. Spokesman Michael Drewniak reiterated the governor's State of the State address, calling the court’s edicts part of the "failed education and funding policies of the past.”
"The Governor pointed to the continued achievement gap between students in urban vs. suburban districts, despite the massive infusions of funding and per-pupil cost in some districts," said Drewniak.
Fact-Finding Hearings
In its order, the court asked that Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne of Bergen County hold the fact-finding hearings and report back by March 31, prime time for both the state’s budget deliberations and the local school budget decisions.
Even the choice of Doyne drew some conjecture as to its significance. Doyne is the judge who held the fact-finding hearings in 2009, leading up to the court’s last Abbott ruling, which is now the core of the current case.
Doyne's report, which some saw as sympathetic to the law center’s case, included a recommendation for the court to temporarily extend funding for supplemental programs such as extra counselors, tutors and after-school services.
In the end, the court did not follow Doyne’s advice on that point. Instead, it ruled in favor of a new school-funding formula proposed by then-Gov. Jon Corzine, which came without that supplemental money.
"Here is a guy [Doyne] who actually thought there should be more generous state funding," said Paul Tractenberg, the Rutgers University law professor who first brought the Abbott case as a founder of the Education Law Center. "And now he’s confronted with a 14 percent reduction."
Still, Doyne did not make many friends on the plaintiff's side of the courtroom, Tractenberg said. In the same report he was almost dismissive of some of the ELC's expert witnesses.
Either way, Doyne does brings the advantage of being well-versed in the case. And he wasted little time yesterday ordering the lawyers to his courtroom next Tuesday to lay out a schedule and other procedures for the upcoming hearings.
Known for being pleasant, collegial, and extremely hard working, Doyne closed his letter to the lawyers: "I shall look forward to working with you."
