Opinion ID: 1537676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: review of the constitutionality of the 1975 act

Text: As just noted, I would have deferred ruling upon the constitutionality of the 1975 Act and, instead, would have remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The majority has rejected this approach and has chosen to review the Act. Having registered my dissent regarding the majority's decision to examine the facial constitutionality of the Act at this time, I could stop here. However, two very important considerations impel me to comment further on the constitutionality of this legislation. First, in their briefs and at oral argument, plaintiffs and supporting amici raise numerous objections to the constitutional validity of certain portions of the 1975 Act. They vigorously attack some provisions as being facially unconstitutional. They contend that others might be shown to be invalid-as-applied. Consideration of their contentions is conspicuously absent from the majority's opinion. Not only does the majority fail to address plaintiffs' and amici's objections to the 1975 Act, it displays a regrettable degree of temerity by not even acknowledging them. Because of this failing and because I find many of these contentions to be potentially meritorious, I feel obliged to discuss them in this portion of my dissent. Second, by means of this discussion I hope to identify those aspects of the 1975 Act which are constitutionally suspect and, thereby, provide the trial court with guidance concerning the issues to be raised at the plenary hearing. I also hope to provide some criteria upon which the trial judge may test the constitutional bouyancy of the Act. I will first examine the objections raised by plaintiffs and amici with respect to Article II of the Act and then analyze their contentions regarding Article III. A. Article II of the 1975 Act: Goals, Standards and Guidelines: Procedures of Evaluation: Enforcement In Robinson I, this Court held that, as part of the State's continuing obligation to provide for a thorough and efficient system of free public schools, the State must define the content of the educational opportunity required by the Constitution. Specifically, the Court stated: We repeat that if the State chooses to assign its obligation under the 1875 amendment to local government, the State must do so by a plan which will fulfill the State's continuing obligation. To that end the State must define in some discernible way the educational obligation ... The State has never spelled out the content of the constitutionally mandated educational opportunity. [62 N.J. at 519] As the majority correctly observes, the Legislature finally undertakes to do this in Article II of the 1975 Act. Ante, at 456. Section 4 of that article defines the overall goal of a thorough and efficient system by stating that said goal ... shall be to provide to all children in New Jersey, regardless of socioeconomic status or geographic location the educational opportunity which will prepare them to function politically, economically and socially in a democratic society. Section 5 elaborates upon this general statement by outlining those elements which the State system of education must contain in order to comply with the thorough and efficient standard. These elements, intended to serve as guidelines for implementing the Act, include, inter alia, establishment of educational goals at both the State and local level [§ 5a]; instruction intended to produce the attainment of reasonable levels of proficiency in the basic communications and computational skills [§ 5c]; efficient administration [§ 5h] and adequate evaluation procedures [§ 5j]. Article II of the 1975 Act then delegates the more detailed formulation of statewide goals and standards to the State Board of Education (State Board), after consultation with the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and review by the Joint Committee on the Public Schools. [§ 6]. It further delegates establishment of local educational goals, objectives and standards to the local boards of education (local boards). [§ 7]. Finally, Article II provides for periodic review of these statewide and local goals and standards [§§ 8, 9], for additional monitoring procedures [§§ 10, 11, 12] and for remedial powers to be used when necessary to correct deficiencies in the system. [§§ 14, 15, 16]. The majority blithely reviews these provisions and concludes: What is meant by a thorough and efficient education has now been defined; the goal of such an education has been stated; the elements of which it is to consist have been enumerated [ Ante, at 463]. The majority reaches this conclusion without any consideration whatsoever of the attendant regulations of the Act. Ante, at 454 n 2. I agree that the provisions of Article II, when viewed separately, do not transgress the constitutional precepts previously enunciated by this Court ( e.g., Robinson I, supra, 62 N.J. at 515), and that the delegation of responsibility contained therein is clearly permissible. [3] Robinson I, supra, 62 N.J. at 510; Ante, at 458. However, as I have stated previously, these provisions, without full regulatory implementation, are constitutionally insufficient because they fail to fully comport with the mandate of the education clause. Supra Part I. [4] Therefore, standing alone, Article II of the Act cannot be sustained. To be constitutional, the statute requires proper and complete regulatory implementation. Furthermore, the Act and its attendant regulations, when taken together, must meet additional requirements. The legality and the thoroughness of the regulations are just as important as the legality and thoroughness of the Act itself. The verbiage in the regulations is the seat of power. In accordance with my expressed efforts to assist the trial court before which a plenary hearing would be held, I set forth a series of criteria by which the recently promulgated implementing regulations may be evaluated. (1) Regulations Must Be Specific. It is well settled that the education clause requires the State or its agents to define in some discernible way the educational obligation mandated by the Constitution. Robinson I, supra, 62 N.J. at 519; Ante, at 456. Accordingly, they must prescribe the statewide standards of a constitutionally minimum quality education to which local school districts must adhere. These standards are especially important where the State chooses to assign much of its responsibility to local government. Without such standards there is no way of ascertaining whether school districts are, in fact, providing that level of educational opportunity which the Constitution mandates. Opinions of this Court and the provisions of the 1975 Act itself recognize the importance of establishing minimum standards of performance for measuring and evaluating the educational opportunity being afforded by local school districts. Robinson I, supra, 62 N.J. at 516, 519; Robinson IV, supra, 69 N.J. at 159-65 (Pashman, J., concurring and dissenting). Robinson IV, supra, 69 N.J. at 175-76 (Mountain and Clifford, JJ., dissenting); L. 1975, c. 212, §§ 2b(3), 5a, 6, 7. The majority as well recognizes this fact when it points out that the State must define the content of the constitutionally required educational opportunity so that `in some discernible way' the scope of this obligation [will] be made apparent. Ante, at 456. See also Levin, A Conceptual Framework for Accountability in Education, 82 School Rev. 363 (1974). It follows that, to fully comply with the education clause, the Act must be supplemented by State Board regulations which set forth goals and standards that are specific enough to provide a meaningful way to evaluate local efforts and measure local performance. (2) Regulations Must Provide for Standards of Performance and Levels of Proficiency In addition to being specific, the goals and standards promulgated under § 6 of the Act must be sufficiently rigorous to guarantee that local districts are, in fact, providing the constitutionally minimum educational opportunity. The broad contours of this constitutional opportunity can be inferred from the language of our opinions. The former Supreme Court characterized the significance of the education clause as follows: Its purpose was to impose on the legislature a duty of providing for a thorough and efficient system of free schools, capable of affording to every child such instruction as is necessary to fit it for ordinary duties of citizenship.    [ Landis v. Ashworth, 57 N.J.L. 509, 512 (Sup. Ct. 1895)]. In Bd. of Ed., Elizabeth v. City Coun., Elizabeth, 55 N.J. 501 (1970), this Court elaborated upon the meaning of thorough and efficient: Thus it is the duty of the Commissioner to see to it that every district provides a thorough and efficient school system. This necessarily includes adequate physical facilities and educational materials, proper curriculum and staff and sufficient funds. [55 N.J. at 506] Finally, in Robinson I, we defined the contours of a thorough and efficient system in the following manner: The Constitution's guarantee must be understood to embrace that educational opportunity which is needed in the contemporary setting to equip a child for his role as a citizen and as a competitor in the labor market. [62 N.J. at 515] In its definition of what constitutes a thorough and efficient education, § 4 of the 1975 Act substantially adopts the above language. It follows that, to be constitutionally and statutorily sufficient, statewide standards must define with some degree of specificity, the minimally required programs, facilities and attendant staff which each local district must provide in order to meet the mandate of a thorough and efficient educational system. Certainly, without requisite planning, facilities and staff, provision of an equal educational opportunity (62 N.J. at 516) is impossible. Although these standards need not be rigid and inflexible (and may be subject to change in accordance with policy determinations by appropriate State agencies), they must specify, in some workable fashion, levels of constitutional adequacy for each of the above elements. § 5. I draw special attention to one particular type of standard  standards of pupil performance. Without this type of standard it will be difficult to determine the success of individual school districts in preparing their pupils for active citizenship and productive lives. I find that, to conform to both constitutional and statutory requirements, the regulations promulgated under § 6 must contain standards of pupil performance. These standards necessarily contemplate that the pupils of a district will attain a reasonable degree of proficiency in such basic skills as reading, writing and simple mathematics. [5] A school system which fails to impart these basic skills to its students, with at least a reasonable degree of success, is undoubtedly falling short of its obligation under the education clause. [6] I agree with the majority that diversity ... will inevitably exist among the separate school districts. Ante, at 459. However, this certainly does not mean that failure to assure a constitutionally minimal education to children from disadvantaged districts can be justified or tolerated on the basis of diversity. To achieve the consistent degree of success which is contemplated by the thorough and efficient standard, everybody must be involved in this project  teachers, administrators, children, parents, advisors and an army of educational consultants. If this effort takes a child from a welfare family living in a city slum, places him in a classroom and thoroughly and efficiently overcomes the education he is getting in the streets, New Jersey will be proud of its commitment to the equality of all people. Formulation and enforcement of minimum standards of pupil performance are particularly important in light of recent findings by the National Assessment of Educational Progress which reveal alarming reductions in levels of writing performance among our youth and in light of the severe inadequacies found by the trial court to exist in many of New Jersey's school districts. 118 N.J. Super. at 248-57. The fact that disparities in levels of proficiency may stem from economic, social, geographic or racial factors  or that greater resources may be necessary to educate children with deprived backgrounds  does not justify the failure to fix such minimum standards. 118 N.J. Super. at 243, 252-53; Guthrie Kleindorfer, Levin & Stout, Schools and Inequality (1970); McDermott & Klein, The Cost-Quality Debate in School Finance Litigation: Do Dollars Make a Difference, 38 Law & Contemp. Prob., 415 (1974). In Robinson I the Court so held by stating that [ w ] hatever the reason for the violation, the obligation is the State's to rectify it. 62 N.J. at 513 (emphasis supplied). The necessity for promulgating standards of pupil performance and levels of proficiency derives not only from the language of our opinions but from the 1975 Act as well. In § 5, the Act specifically lists, as one of the major elements of a thorough and efficient system of public schools: Instruction intended to produce the attainment of reasonable levels of proficiency in the basic communications and computational skills. [ L. 1975, c. 212, § 5(c)] That the 1975 Act ultimately considers the performance of pupils as one measure of a thorough and efficient system is borne out by language in Sections 2b(3), 3 [definitions of administrative order, goals, objective, standards, state compensatory education pupil], 8, 9, 10, 11(b), 11(d), 11(h). Section 3, for example, defines standards as the process and stated levels of proficiency used in determining the extent to which goals and objectives are being met (emphasis added). Section 10 expressly requires the Commissioner to develop and administer a uniform, State-wide system for evaluating the performance of each school, which  shall be based in part on annual testing for achievement in basic skill areas. § 10 (emphasis supplied). In promulgating goals, standards and procedures, the State Board and the Commissioner must comply with these statutory mandates. (3) Regulations Must Provide for Remedial Plans and Corrective Action Without an effective mechanism for enforcing its standards and objectives, the legislative plan for financing public education will fail to satisfy the continuing obligation of the State. Therefore, either the Act itself or its implementing regulations must provide the necessary means of enforcement. The 1975 Act recognizes this requirement in § 2b(5) and purports to fulfill it in §§ 14 through 16. Section 14 provides that if the Commissioner, upon review of the reports and evaluations submitted pursuant to preceding sections, finds that a district has failed to show sufficient progress in reaching pertinent goals and standards, he must direct the local board of education to prepare and submit a remedial plan for his approval. If the Commissioner approves the plan, he then supervises its implementation; if, however, he finds the plan to be deficient, he must order the local board to show cause why corrective action should not be taken pursuant to § 15. Section 15 states that, if after a plenary hearing, the Commissioner still finds it necessary to take corrective action, he is empowered to order necessary budgetary changes within the school district, ... order in-service training programs for teachers ... or both. Where these sanctions are inadequate, the Commissioner can recommend that the State Board take appropriate action, as follows: ... The State Board, on determining that the school district is not providing a thorough and efficient education, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, shall have the power to issue an administrative order specifying a remedial plan to the local board of education, which plan may include budgetary changes or other measures the State board determines to be appropriate. Nothing herein shall limit the right of any party to appeal the administrative order to the Superior Court. [Section 15; emphasis added] In the event that the local board becomes recalcitrant, § 16 authorizes the State Board to obtain an order from the Superior Court directing the local school board to comply with the administrative order issued under § 15. Identifying these remedial provisions as crucial to the success of the legislative plan, the majority finds that they impose a continuing two-fold obligation on the Commissioner and the State Board, as the State's representatives. Ante, at 459. This obligation includes monitoring the content of the evolving, constitutionally mandated system and insuring that over the years and throughout the State each pupil shall be offered an equal opportunity to receive an education of such excellence as will meet the constitutional standard. Ante, at 459. As the majority admits, this is a great and ongoing responsibility. Ante, at 461. The Court then enables the Commissioner and the State Board to meet this enormous responsibility by finding that they have been given a vast grant of power such as may be needed to fulfill the obligation. Ante, at 461. On this basis, the Court rejects the contention that the power given to the State Board and the Commissioner to make budgetary changes does not include the power to compel an increase in local school budgets above that fixed by local authorities. Reasoning that such a limitation would undermine the State's authority to compel local districts to make the financial commitments necessary to satisfy the constitutional mandate, thereby emasculating the legislative scheme, the Court concludes: But where it is clear that an inadequacy stems from a failure of fiscal resources, then the power given to the Commissioner and the State Board to effect changes in local budgets does include the power to increase such budgets beyond the amounts locally determined. Such power must of course be wisely exercised and any such exercise will always be subject to judicial review, but there is no doubt that under the terms of the Act of 1975 such power exists. [ Ante, at 462] While I agree that, to be constitutional, the State's legislative scheme must delegate to its agents the authority to order increases in local school budgets, I doubt that the Legislature, in fact, intended to confer such power upon the Commissioner or the State Board. First, § 15 authorizes the Commissioner or the State Board to undertake necessary budget changes ( i.e., to interchange line items), but it does not expressly mention budget increases. Second, the stringent limitations imposed by § 25 on annual increases in the school budget reflect a legislative intent diametrically opposed to that found by the majority. Finally, the Act fails to specify in what manner and from whose pockets such agency-ordered budget increases are to be paid. Had the Legislature intended to confer this power upon the Commissioner or the State Board, it probably would have addressed these problems. Nevertheless, without the remedial power to increase local budgets the State would be unable to effectively ameliorate those deficiencies which arise solely or primarily from the local board's failure to prepare an adequate budget. [7] To summarize with respect to Article II: In order to survive a constitutional challenge, Article II of the 1975 Act and its attendant regulations, taken together, must (1) formulate goals and standards of performance with sufficient specificity to provide a means for measuring and evaluating local efforts; (2) develop effective procedures for determining whether local school districts are, in fact, complying with statewide standards, including standards of pupil performance, and (3) establish a mechanism for compelling local school districts to remedy deficiencies when they fall below such standards. B. Article III: State School Aid: Equalization Formula In addition to requiring that the State define the educational opportunity mandated by the Constitution, the education clause also demands a financial commitment on the part of the State. Specifically, the State, as part of its overall obligation, must guarantee that local effort plus the State aid will yield to all the pupils in the State that level of educational opportunity which the Constitution requires. Robinson I, supra, 62 N.J. at 519. Therefore, with respect to the fiscal provisions of the 1975 Act, the litmus test of constitutional validity is whether its provisions assure that each school district has adequate funds available to provide a constitutionally sufficient education for all its students. The test is not, as the majority contends, whether the fiscal provisions of the Act afford sufficient financial support for the system of public education that will emerge from the implementation of the plan set forth in the statute. Ante, at 464. This latter test is unreliable. By presuming that the legislative plan is constitutionally valid, the test requires only that the fiscal provisions provide the plan with sufficient funding. If, however, the plan were found to be constitutionally suspect, the test would no longer be workable since the mere funding of a constitutionally deficient scheme obviously would not satisfy the State's financial commitment. In the instant case, the State purports to satisfy its financial responsibility through the equalization support provision (§ 18) and the other State aid formulae contained in Article III of the Act. Plaintiffs and several amici curiae argue to the contrary that these provisions fail to comport with the State's constitutional obligation. I will discuss their contentions in the enumerated sections below. (1) Equalization Support for Current Expenses (§ 18); Equalization of Tax Resources versus Equalization of Per Pupil Expenditures Defendants and supporting amici curiae rely heavily upon § 18 for their claim that the 1975 Act alleviates the wide disparities in district expenditures which have resulted from discordancies in their tax bases and which were identified in Robinson I as the principle cause of the constitutional deficiency. 62 N.J. at 515; see Robinson IV, supra, 69 N.J. at 141. Because State aid for debt service and budgeted capital outlay (§ 19) utilizes the State support formula set forth in § 18, the following comments are equally applicable to those provisions. Under the formula set forth in § 18, the amount of State aid to which a district will be entitled is determined by first dividing the district equalized valuation per pupil [8] by the guaranteed valuation per pupil and then subtracting the quotient from 1.0000. The resulting fraction is designated the district State support ratio. In order to obtain the exact amount of State aid which the district will receive under this provision, the State support ratio is then multiplied by the lesser of (1) the district's net current expense budget for the prebudget year or (2) the resident enrollment times the State support limit. State support limit is defined as the 65th percentile net current expense budget per pupil for the prebudget year when all districts' figures are ranked from low to high. (§ 3). The impact which the State support limit has on State aid in general will be discussed below. Infra, at 551. Guaranteed valuation per pupil means 1.3 (1.35 each year after the 1976-77 school year) times the State average of equalized assessed valuations per pupil enrolled in the public schools. The intended purpose of § 18 is to make available to each student that amount of district current expenses (but not in excess of the statewide 65th percentile) which would presumably be available if the district had an equalized assessed valuation of 1.35 times the State average of assessed valuations. The majority seems to accept § 18 as valid, almost without discussion. I find this acceptance to be premature and without sound justification. At least two grounds exist upon which the equalization support formula of § 18 may fall. First, this provision may not sufficiently reduce the current disparity among school districts with respect to their tax resources per pupil to adequately redress the constitutional objections identified in Robinson I. Second, the provision may not, in fact, guarantee constitutionally adequate dollar-inputs-per pupil for the State's poorer districts. While neither contention has been proven as a facial matter, both are sufficiently plausible to merit a full evidentiary hearing. As to the first contention, our opinions have identified the disparity of tax resources per enrolled pupil among the school districts as one of the primary causes of current constitutional deficiencies. Robinson I, supra, 62 N.J. at 515; Robinson IV, supra, 69 N.J. at 141. Therefore, to pass constitutional muster, any legislative scheme must substantially reduce these disparities. In this regard, the 1975 Act represents an improvement over the Bateman Act. Nevertheless, it still fails to alleviate much of the disparity. For instance, although the number of districts whose tax resources are equalized by guaranteed valuations under the 1975 Act (59%) [9] substantially exceeds the number of such districts equalized under the Bateman Act (27.2%), it still falls short of the total number of districts by 41%. Similarly, the number of pupils in such districts falls short of the total number of students by 32.7% and the aggregate equalized assessed valuations in such districts falls short of the total by 50.8%. Even if minimum support aid were to be eliminated from the Act, equalization would continue to be well below required levels. Based on these statistics, it is likely that, upon remand, the trial court will find that the 1975 Act does not achieve a sufficiently high degree of equalization among the districts to alleviate disparities. In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Judge Conford discusses this objection to the 1975 Act at length. Ante, at 476 - 477, 485 - 493. (Conford, P.J.A.D., t/a, concurring and dissenting). To a large extent, I am philosophically in accord with that discussion. [10] However, as to the second contention, I would go one step further than my dissenting Brother and require that the 1975 Act guarantee adequate and relatively equalized expenditures per pupil as well as equalized per-pupil tax resources. [11] This requirement stems from the principles set forth in the various opinions in this case. In Robinson I, for example, dollar input per pupil, not guaranteed valuation per pupil provided the primary criterion for measuring legislative compliance with the education clause. This criterion was supported by a trial court finding that there is a substantial correlation between financial input and the quality of education. 118 N.J. Super. 223 passim. Although the entire discussion need not be repeated here, it is helpful to recite a portion of it: In most cases, rich districts spend more money per pupil than poor districts; rich districts spend more money on teachers' salaries per pupil; rich districts have more teachers and more professional staff per pupil, and rich districts manage this with tax rates that are lower than poor districts, despite equalizing aid ... Other input factors include school buildings, equipment, text books and library facilities. There is ample evidence to show the correlation between wealth and the quality of these facilities, and that severe inadequacies exist in many poor districts. [118 N.J. Super. at 237-38, 249] Chief Justice Weintraub, writing for the Court in Robinson I, expressly adopted the trial court's finding: ... [I]t is nonetheless clear that there is a significant connection between the sums expended and the quality of the educational opportunity ... Hence we accept the proposition that the quality of educational opportunity does depend in substantial measure upon the number of dollars invested, notwithstanding that the impact upon students may be unequal because of other factors, natural or environmental. [62 N.J. at 481] While there has been much debate concerning the degree to which expenditures on education can affect the quality of education, see e.g., McDermott & Klein, The Cost-Quality Debate in School Finance Litigation: Do Dollars Make a Difference?, 38 Law & Contemp. Prob. 415 (1974); Mosteller & Moynihan, eds., On Equality of Education (1974); Guthrie, Kleindorfer, Levin & Stout, Schools & Inequality (1971); Coleman, Equality of Educational Opportunity (1966), there can be little doubt that adequate financing is a necessary condition for an effective educational system, even if not a sufficient one. McDermott & Klein, supra at 429-40. Relying on these findings, Chief Justice Weintraub held that, in the absence of other relevant suggestions, the Court would evaluate State school aid legislation on the basis of its success in reducing discrepancies between school districts in their dollar inputs per pupil: [12] The trial court found the constitutional demand had not been met and did so on the basis of discrepancies in dollar input per pupil. We agree. We deal with the problem in those terms because dollar input is plainly relevant and because we have been shown no other viable criterion for measuring compliance with the constitutional mandate. [62 N.J. at 515-16; emphasis added] Although the majority recognizes this criterion, its discussion of the requisite dollar input is notably brief: We cannot say that under these circumstances the dollar input per pupil ... will not be sufficient to offer each pupil an equal educational opportunity as required by the Constitution. [Ante, at 464] This statement reflects an unfortunate emasculation of the State's responsibility to provide sufficient funds to meet its constitutional obligation, and a concurrent abdication of this Court's duty to oversee the legislative function. The question here is not whether the dollar input levels per pupil may be adequate, but whether they will be adequate. In Robinson IV, Chief Jurtice Hughes reaffirmed the primary importance of this factor by equating the concept of dollar input per pupil to that of expenditure per pupil. 69 N.J. at 141. [13] In Robinson I itself, the Court found it unnecessary to establish precisely what level of dollar input per pupil would meet constitutional standards because [o]n its face the statutory scheme [then under consideration] [bore] no apparent relation to the mandate for equal educational opportunity. 62 N.J. at 516. That the statute failed to guarantee adequate levels of per pupil expenditure was equally apparent: The constitutional mandate could not be said to be satisfied unless we were to suppose the unlikely proposition that the lowest level of dollar performance happens to coincide with the constitutional mandate and that all efforts beyond the lowest level are attributable to local decisions to do more than the State was obliged to do. Surely the existing statutory system is not visibly geared to the mandate that there be a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all children in this state between the ages of five and eighteen years. [62 N.J. at 516] The situation before us today differs markedly from that presented in Robinson I because the 1975 Act is no longer as clearly and facially inadequate as the Bateman Act with respect to attaining adequate dollar inputs per pupil. Nevertheless, we should not place this Court's imprimatur on a constitutionally suspect statute. Rather, we should defer ruling upon the constitutionality of the equalization support provisions until after an evidentiary hearing has produced factual determinations as to the operational impact of these provisions. (2) Minimum Support § 18(c) and Save Harmless Aid (§§ 55, 56) Section 18(c) provides that no district shall receive less in current expense equalization support than 10% of the State support limit. The save-harmless provisions assure that no district shall receive less in total State aid for 1976-1977 than it received during the 1974-1975 school year (§ 55), nor less in total State aid for 1977-1978 than one-half of the difference between what it received in 1974-1975 and what it is otherwise entitled to receive in the current year (§ 56). In Robinson IV, we found similar flat grant provisions contained in the Bateman Act to be inconsistent with the goal of equality of educational opportunity because they left existing arbitrary ratios of tax resources per pupil unaffected. 69 N.J. at 149. In a world of limited resources and serious disparities in the wealth and expenditure levels of local districts, these forms of State aid tend to exacerbate rather than alleviate current inequities. By distributing State aid without regard to need, they at once increase the existing gap between rich and poor districts and reduce the amount of State revenues available to close the gap. Even though they devote only a small percentage of funds to these forms of aid, the minimum aid provisions of the 1975 Act are in one sense even more inequitable than those of the Bateman Act. While under the Bateman Act all districts received minimum aid, under the 1975 Act only those districts which exceed the guaranteed level of valuation do. In light of this factor, I note my disagreement with the Chief Justice's view that the magnitude of minimum aid under the 1975 Act is not such as to require excision. Ante, at 472 (Hughes, C.J., concurring). If these provisions are inconsistent with the constitutional mandate, then they must be stricken regardless of their magnitude. Although I might otherwise argue for invalidation of both the minimum support and save-harmless provisions of the 1975 Act (see, e.g., Ante, at 493 - 495 (Conford, P.J.A.D., t/a, concurring and dissenting)), I would prefer to await the results of the plenary hearing on the Act. In all fairness, defendants should be given an opportunity to defend retention of these provisions and to establish that they are consistent with fulfillment of the constitutional mandate. Nevertheless, it is clear that in an educational system which is marked by glaring disparities, it makes little sense to disburse State funds to self-sufficient districts while simultaneously depriving poorer districts of needed assistance. Therefore, if the court below finds that the equalization support provisions of the 1975 Act are inadequate as applied, then it must invalidate the minimum aid provisions as well. (3) Categorical Program Support (§ 20) and Transportation Aid (§§ 34, 35) Section 20 authorizes distribution of additional State aid to provide for the increased cost of educating handicapped children or those with other special needs. This is accomplished for pupils attending special education classes by assigning additional weight for the cost of their education according to a schedule of additional cost factors. A district's categorical support is calculated by multiplying its number of additional cost units by the State average net current expense budget (§ 20(d)). Under §§ 34 and 35, respectively, the State provides for the full cost of transporting all handicapped children and all other pupils residing beyond a specified distance from school. Plaintiffs and certain amici argue forcefully that, as with minimum support and save-harmless aid, these forms of aid are disbursed without regard to need and, hence, are inconsistent with the goals of eliminating current disparities between school districts. See Robinson IV, supra, 69 N.J. at 166-67 (Pashman, J., concurring and dissenting). The majority fails to even recognize this argument. [14] Contrary to its apparent indifference, I find plaintiffs' contention to have some merit. Regardless of the laudable intentions upon which these categorical aid provisions are based, they cannot pass constitutional muster if, by their manner of distributing aid, they withdraw sufficient funds from the State's coffers so that the State can no longer assure each district an adequate and equalized level of expenditure per pupil. So long as any school district is underfinanced, no valid legislative purpose is served in distributing this form of State aid in the manner set forth in the 1975 Act. If, however, it can be shown that the equalization support program of the 1975 Act will assure an adequate level of per pupil expenditure for each district in the State, then I would find the constitutionality of the above provisions to be unimpeachable. The facts needed to make this determination, however, are not now before us. For this reason, I would reserve judgment on the constitutionality of these provisions, as well as that of the 1975 Act, until a plenary hearing can determine their operational effect. (4) Elimination of Weighted Pupil Factors as provided for in the Bateman Act It is now widely recognized that children from lower socioeconomic level homes often require greater input of educational resources if they are to realize progress comparable to that realized by children from more fortunate backgrounds. Bateman Report (1968) at 48. Public education in disadvantaged areas is frequently more expensive due to the greater demand for compensatory education programs. This fact was substantiated by findings of the trial court, 118 N.J. Super. at 243, 245, 252-53, 262-63, and repeated by Chief Justice Weintraub in Robinson I, where he stated: Although we have dealt with the constitutional problem in terms of dollar input per pupil, we should not be understood to mean that the State may not recognize differences in area costs, or a need for additional dollar input to equip classes of disadvantaged children for the educational opportunity. [62 N.J. at 520] The Bateman Act sought to address this concern by assigning additional weight to deprived children for purposes of calculating the amount of State aid which a district would receive under the act's equalization support provisions. When determining the number of weighted pupils in a given district, children who were recipients of AFDC (aid to families with dependent children) would be given a factor of 1.75 (as compared with the factor of 1 which they otherwise would have been assigned). 118 N.J. Super. at 259. In reviewing the constitutionality of the Bateman Act, the trial court found this weighting factor to be one of the most equitable and constitutionally relevant provisions of the act. 118 N.J. Super. at 263. Plaintiffs and amici claim that in eliminating the AFDC weighting factor from the 1975 Act, the Legislature has failed to comport with its constitutional obligation. They add that the granting of additional weight to pupils enrolled in bilingual or State compensatory programs under § 20 (0.16 and 0.11, respectively), though intended to deal with the additional cost of educating disadvantaged children, is a poor and constitutionally inadequate substitute for the AFDC provision. The majority rejects this contention and sanctions the 1975 Act which notably excludes provisions for such underprivileged children. Similarly, my dissenting Brother would relegate this problem to the level of legislative discretion. Ante, at 508. (Conford, P.J.A.D., t/a, concurring and dissenting). I must register my strong dissent to both of these approaches. The Constitution requires the State to provide a thorough and efficient education to all pupils in the State. There is nothing discretionary about this requirement. If it costs more to provide a thorough and efficient education to children in an economically or socially disadvantaged area, then the additional funding must be made available. While the Legislature is not bound to employ an AFDC weighting factor formula or any other predetermined formula, Robinson IV, supra, 69 N.J. at 145, it may not choose to ignore the problem. Therefore, if the 1975 Act, when viewed in its entirety, fails to assure certain districts adequate dollar input per pupil because it fails to recognize the additional cost of educating impoverished children, then plaintiffs' objection may reach constitutional dimensions. Hence, as already noted, I would remand for a plenary hearing to determine whether spending levels adequately compensate for these additional costs. (5) Use of Prebudget Year in Calculating Allocation of Aid under the Equalization Support, Debt Service and Capital Outlay Provisions Plaintiffs and amici contend that use of the prebudget year budget in calculating equalization support, debt service and capital outlay grants tends to perpetuate inequities since it fails to account for inflation and it makes State aid dependent upon past expenditures. Again, the majority fails to address this claim. While I believe that the use of prebudget year budgets is facially reasonable and justified by considerations of administrative convenience, I would not preclude plaintiffs from proving the contrary on remand. For example, it may be that this device, by failing to account for inflation, prevents poorer districts from meeting those levels of per pupil expenditure necessary to provide a thorough and efficient system of education. The use of prebudget year figures is certainly one of the factors which must be examined by the trial court when reviewing the overall operational effect of the 1975 Act. [15] (6) State Support Limit The State support limit is defined supra at 540. The purpose of this limitation is to prevent the State from paying its full share of a local school budget ( i.e., the share resulting from use of the State support ratio, see supra at 540), where the local budget is considered to be extravagant in terms of per pupil expenditures. The cut-off point is designated as the 65th percentile net expense budget per pupil. Plaintiffs and amici challenge this provision on the ground that when a district's actual needs run above the State 65th percentile of all districts, State aid must be provided on the basis of that district's needs and not be subject to the arbitrary restriction set by the State support limit. While the majority rejects plaintiffs' challenge by endorsing the 1975 Act, I would, consistent with my approach throughout this case, provide plaintiffs or amici the opportunity to prove on remand that the operation of the State support limit does, in fact, prevent one or more school districts from meeting their needs or satisfying standards of performance established pursuant to Article II of the Act. (7) Spending Increase Limit (Section 25): Section 25 places a cap on permissible yearly increases in the net current expense budget per pupil. It limits such spending increases in accordance with a stated formula, which treats districts with per pupil expenditure levels below the State average somewhat more generously than districts which are above the State average. In particular, it should be noted that this section inhibits and may even undermine efforts by low-spending districts to equal the per pupil expenditure levels of the higher-spending districts. Consequently, gaps between district current expenditure levels will be closed very slowly. [16] In addition, § 25 makes it particularly difficult for low-spending districts to catch up to those districts spending above the State average. Finally, as the majority points out, the intended purpose of this section is unclear. Ante, at 466. Therefore, I find this provision to be constitutionally suspect. See also Judge Conford's discussion on this point, Ante, at 494-495. [17] However, since the State may wish to present some countervailing justification for this provision, I would remand this question to the trial court for a determination as to whether § 25 is at all consistent with the goal of a thorough and efficient system of education. If it is not, it must be stricken. (8) Municipal Overburden The problem of municipal overburden was first identified in the trial court's opinion, 118 N.J. Super. at 273, and again in Robinson I, supra, 62 N.J. at 477, 519. Chief Justice Weintraub, labeling the problem a critical factor in any system of local responsibility, described it as follows: One difficulty with the design for local fiscal responsibility is that the tax base to which the school districts are remitted is already overloaded, particularly in the major cities, by the other demands for local service. [62 N.J. at 519] In Robinson IV the Court reemphasized the seriousness of the problem, 69 N.J. at 150-51 and, in a separate opinion, I more fully discussed its implications and parameters. [18] However, at that time, this Court chose not to address the problem  a decision which was attributable to its complexity, the necessity for a quick judicial disposition and the recognition that the Court order was merely an interim remedy and not a final plan. Implicit in the majority's position, however, was the notion that any permanent program for State aid to education ought to account for municipal overburden. The guaranteed valuation per pupil formula, as set forth in § 18 of the 1975 Act, fails to do so. Equalization of tax resources under that provision will not necessarily guarantee adequate per pupil expenditures in those districts plagued with municipal overburden. Since the overburdened municipality may be unable to obtain adequate funding for that portion of its budget for which the locality is responsible, it may not be able to provide the requisite levels of educational opportunity. The majority clearly recognizes these facts. However, it disposes of the issue simply by speculating that the problem of municipal overburden may never occur, since the State school aid may obviate that predicament, and by advising the Legislature to address itself to this potential problem. Ante, at 466. I cannot concur with this disposition. The Constitution imposes on the State an affirmative duty to provide for a thorough and efficient system of free public schools. Any system of education which falls short of this constitutional command must be rejected. As Chief Justice Weintraub said: A system of instruction in any district of the State which is not thorough and efficient falls short of the constitutional command. Whatever the reason for the violation, the obligation is the State's to rectify it. If local government fails, the State government must compel it to act, and if the local government cannot carry the burden the State must itself meet its continuing obligation. [62 N.J. at 513; emphasis supplied] This statement of our Court is directly relevant to the point at hand. The majority should not discard plaintiffs' admittedly sound contention with respect to municipal overburden on the basis of mere supposition. Instead, the matter should be remanded for a factual determination as to whether the State school aid provisions do, in fact, alleviate the problem of municipal overburden or whether that problem remains in spite of the 1975 Act. If the latter is found to be true, then the Act cannot be sustained without some modification to account for this problem. [19] An idle suggestion that the Legislature address itself to the problem surely will not satisfy the Court's responsibility. To summarize, the problems and contentions which I have just outlined do not necessarily support the conclusion that any particular provision, or the Act in its entirety, is unconstitutional on its face. The Legislature is free to choose whatever mechanism it deems proper to meet its continuing obligation under the educational clause. Robinson IV, supra, 69 N.J. at 145. However, in the final analysis, the Legislature's product must provide a thorough and efficient system of free public schools. Any act which falls short of that goal is constitutionally inadequate and, hence, invalid. In light of the problems and contentions discussed above, the constitutionality of the 1975 Act has clearly been brought into question. While each of the challenged provisions might be able to stand on its own, when viewed together, they raise serious doubts as to whether the 1975 Act is constitutional as applied.