Opinion ID: 2294246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Prelude to SFRAGenerally

Text: In November 2002, the State employed the consulting firm Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) to assist in determining the cost of providing an adequate education to this State's students. Cert. of Lucille E. Davy (Davy), Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE), D-1 ¶ 4. In designing SFRA, the DOE, in conjunction with APA, chose the Professional Judgment Panel (PJP) methodology because it identifies the needed resources and determines the cost of providing services to students that are disadvantaged as well as to those that are not disadvantaged. D-1 ¶ 6. It also accounts for different economies of scale and incorporates input from educators. Ibid. PJP process involves several tasks: (1) identifying performance standards or outcomes that define the State's educational goals; (2) creating prototypical model school districts that reflect the state's districts; (3) designing education resource models (including equipment, personnel, and programs) with the use of practitioner panels; (4) determining the actual cost of the components identified in the models; and (5) developing a funding formula which is to be used to derive the cost of providing a through and efficient education in any school district. Id. ¶ 7. In identifying performance standards, the DOE used the Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS), as the same were found constitutionally sufficient in Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 168 [693 A. 2d 417]. Abbott XIX, supra, 196 N.J. at 552-53 [960 A. 2d 360]. The CCCS describe what students should know and be able to do in nine academic areas: visual and performing arts, comprehensive health and physical education, language arts literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, world languages, technological literacy, ... career education, and consumer, family, and life skills. Dr. Jay Doolan Cert., D-73 ¶ 14. The CCCS are a dynamic set of standards intended for all students, id. ¶¶ 15, 21, which are to be reviewed and updated every five years. N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-46(a). As such, the system for assessing the standards must be both dynamic in responding to new information and highly standardized to ensure validity, reliability, and comparability. D-73 ¶ 21. The CCCS were developed by the DOE and adopted by the New Jersey State Board of Education (BOE) in May 1996 with a statewide assessment system then heralded as the beginning of a new era for public schools in the State. D-73 ¶ 5. By adoption of the CCCS and the assessment systems higher expectations for all New Jersey students were brought to bear. The CCCS was the BOE's response to the Robinson and Abbott litigation. The standards were the product of a task force of educators, college professors, and representatives of business and industry who sought to create a curriculum framework in each content area. These standards were thereafter accepted by the Court as a means to define a thorough and efficient education. In developing the model school districts, APA analyzed information compiled from each school district in the state to create six model districts based on the demographics of school districts in this State. Dep't of Education & Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Report on the Cost of Education (RCE), D-2; see also Abbott XIX, supra, 196 N.J. at 553 [960 A. 2d 360]. District information gathered included district size, grade span, and the percentage of at-risk, limited English proficiency (LEP), and special education students. Id. In designing the resource model, the State utilized three rounds of practitioner panels. D-1 ¶ 8; see also D-2. The first round consisted of seven DOE employees. Ibid. The first panel recommended the resources needed in the six hypothetical districts. D-2 at 8. Panel members were instructed to identify necessary resources and not to be overly constrained by concerns about cost, but they also were counseled not to design their dream school. Abbott XIX, supra, 196 N.J. at 553 [960 A. 2d 360]. The second round included participants nominated by stakeholder groups, such as the Education Law Center (ELC), New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), and New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA). D-1 ¶ 8. Specifically, the second group included whole school reform facilitators, school business administrators, superintendents, a principal, and teachers with wide cross sections of [the State's] schools. Ibid. The second round's large group was divided into smaller panels. Ibid. Each small group was assigned a school district of varying size from very small to very large. Ibid. These smaller groups reviewed and modified the resources identified in round one. D-2 at 8. The third group contained eight membersfive superintendents, a school board member, a school business administrator, a professor in educational leadership from Kean University. D-1 ¶ 8. The third panel provided a final set of recommendations. D-2 at 8. In determining the actual costs of the resources needed, after the panels concluded, the DOE began to determine the costs by units rather than per pupil amounts. D-1 ¶ 10. The DOE also updated the per pupil costs identified by the panels and calculated the weights to be applied to base per pupil amounts. Ibid. On December 12, 2006, the DOE issued the RCE, reflecting the work accomplished since 2002. D-1 ¶ 11. Immediately thereafter, the Department scheduled six formal hearings for public comment on the RCE. Id. ¶ 14. At the hearings, the ELC and other public interest groups, NJEA, NJSBA, New Jersey Association for School Administrators, New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association, individual legislators, taxpayers, school district employees and board members presented and/or submitted testimony. Id. ¶ 15. While the hearings were being conducted, the DOE retained three nationally recognized experts in the field of school financeDr. Allen Odden, Dr. Lawrence Picus, and Mr. Joseph Olchefske (Odden; Picus; Olchefske). Id. ¶ 18. Doctors Odden and Picus reviewed the RCE using their evidence-based model approach (EBM), which identifies school programs and education strategies proven to improve student learning. Id. ¶ 20. Olchefske provided input as well. Ibid. Odden synthesized the reports into one report issued on January 19, 2007 entitled Final Report on the Reviews of the Report on the Cost of Education in New Jersey (Final Expert Report). Ibid. The Final Expert Report commented on areas the experts found adequate and those in which they determined the DOE should make adjustments. Ibid. Their recommendations have been summarized as follows: allocate more resources for professional development; expand the definition of at-risk to include students eligible for a reduced-price lunch; [7] use mean, instead of median, salary data; undertake additional research into the cost of substitute pay and employee benefits; employ a newer geographic cost adjustment; and simplify the formula by combining the base amounts for moderate, large, and very large districts. Abbott XIX, supra, 196 N.J. at 554 [960 A. 2d 360]. To develop a funding formula, upon the completion of the hearings and receipt of the final expert report, the DOE sought the advice of three additional expertsMr. Thomas Corcoran, Dr. Susanna Loeb, and Dean David Monk (Corcoran; Loeb; Monk)to serve as an advisory panel. D-1 ¶ 21. In addition, from April 2007 to December 2007, the DOE conducted stakeholder and legislator meetings. Id. ¶ 22. In response to the final expert report and public comments, and upon consultation with the advisory panel, the DOE made changes to the funding proposal, which are set forth in the DOE's final proposal, entitled A Formula for Success: All Children, All Communities (Formula for Success or the FFS), D-12; Id. at ¶ 23. The Formula for Success sets forth the model district and educational resources that enable children to meet the CCCS, laying the foundation for SFRA. Id. ¶ 24. The FFS sets forth the base costs of educational resources and augmented weights for middle and high school students. Ibid. It also delineates the appropriate weights for at-risk and LEP students. Ibid. The FFS utilizes one model district with enhanced resources in contrast to the six used in the RCE. Id. ¶¶ 25-26. In the single model, a large K-12 district, additional funds were provided for maintenance employees, annual capital improvements, instructional aides for at risk students, enhanced security, and other initiatives. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. The FFS expanded the definition of at-risk students to include those students receiving free and reduced priced lunches. Id. ¶ 28. The State chose the large district as a statewide model for the following reasons as set forth by the Court: [the State] claims that larger districts generally are more efficient and that, therefore, the use of a larger model would provide incentive for the creation of larger, more efficient districts, consistent with the Legislature's preference for such efficiencies. In addition, DOE asserts that large and extra-large districts tend to have more at-risk students, and generally are more likely to reflect the characteristics of a greater number of districts. Abbott XIX, supra, 196 N.J. at 555 [960 A. 2d 360].