[brief] As proof positive of the gross mismatch between [...]’s actual circumstances and needs and [...]’s formulaic Adequacy Budget for [...], just consider that for the past two school years, based on [...] state aid notices, [...] has been spending substantially more than its Adequacy Budget.\textsuperscript{16}  According to [...]’s express terms, if a district proposes a budget that includes a budgeted local tax levy and equalization aid that together exceed the Adequacy Budget, it is deemed to be proposing “programs and services in addition to the core curriculum standards adopted by the State Board of Education,” that is to say, beyond T&E, and the district must include in the legal hearing on the budget a statement to that effect.  N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-5 (d) (10).  Moreover, if the local voters reject a local tax levy for a budget exceeding the Adequacy Budget, the budget \textsuperscript{16}Illustratively, the notice published by [...]’s Office of School Finance of Projected 2023-24 State School Aid (28a) shows [...]’s "Amount Over Adequacy" as $7,392,666 (based on Projected Adequacy Spending or, "Adequacy Budget," of $123,706,303 and a Prebudget Year Spending of $131,098,969).  Yet, [...]’s User Friendly Budget Summary for the same school year—2023-24—includes as “Unusual Revenues and Appropriations” an item amounting to “$98,368,439 with the source listed as “State aid,” and the explanation listed as “Additional state aid needed to assure T&E. ” (32a).  In fact, this was not normal “State aid” at all, but was a projected advance state aid loan, thus far only partially provided for that school year.  is submitted to the municipal governing body for a “determination of the amount that should be expended. ”  If the governing body reduces the district’s proposed budget, “the district may appeal any of the reductions to the commissioner on the grounds that the reductions will negatively impact on the stability of the district given the need for long term planning and budgeting. ”  However, “A district may not appeal any reductions on the grounds that the amount amount is necessary for a thorough and efficient education. ”  N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-5 (e) (1).  In other words, when a district’s proposed budget exceeds its [...] Adequacy Budget, there is in effect an unrebutable presumption that anything proposed to be spent beyond the Adequacy Budget is not necessary for T&E.  Yet, in the same school years when, according to statute, [...] was exceeding its [...]-defined Adequacy Budget, the State was providing huge and annually increasing advance state aid loans to the district.  And those loans were based on certifications by the commissioner to the state treasurer to the effect that, without the loans, [...] had insufficient funds to provide its students with T&E.  Clearly, there is a fundamental contradiction between how [...] defines T&E formulaically through its Adequacy Budget and how the district, the commissioner and the treasurer define it on the ground given [...]’s unique demographic and fiscal circumstances.  By extending these annual loans, the State’s Executive Branch is acknowledging that [...] funding is not sufficient for [...]; but the New Jersey courts have made crystal clear that annual discretionary loans cannot make up for [...]’s constitutional deficiencies.