Opinion ID: 2301105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Role of Assessment/Funding

Text: The question of funding a thorough and efficient education in the Abbott districts has plagued this litigation from the start. See Abbott v. Burke, 100 N.J. 269, 495 A. 2d 376 (1985). In Abbott VI, we repeated our concern that adequate funding remains critical to the achievement of a thorough and efficient education. 163 N.J. at 118, 748 A. 2d 82 (quoting Abbott V, supra, 153 N.J. at 517-18, 710 A. 2d 450). And, yet again, plaintiffs complain that the DOE has neither provided sufficient budgetary guidance to the districts, nor allocated funding based on actual need. More specifically, plaintiffs claim that the DOE has imposed upon the districts pre-established, arbitrary per-student funding amounts that do not take into account real per-student costs. The Chief Judge framed the global question as whether there are systemic factors that exist that undermine the ability of the districts to obtain the funding they need or that limit the ability of the Department to assess that need. OAL Initial Decision at 50. Although he acknowledged that the funding disputes of individual districts were not a proper subject for review in the global issues matter (and should instead be resolved in separate proceedings), the Chief Judge nonetheless examined the funding experiences of the Paterson and Jersey City School Districts to aid in his inquiry on the systemic issue. He found that neither the Paterson or Jersey City application, nor the DOE's responses to those applications, provided adequate bases for the funding amounts initially requested or ultimately granted. Paterson, for example, at one point changed its per-student funding proposal, but failed to submit any information to allow anyone to understand whether [the amount requested was] based upon an assessment that the... figure [was] adequate to provide a well-planned, high-quality education. Id. at 52. The DOE was equally unhelpful in its responses. Its reply to Jersey City was described by the Chief Judge as containing blanket statement[s] providing no explanation [in respect of] the sufficiency of the funding amounts approved. Id. at 53. Of particular concern to the Chief Judge was the prevalence of DOE funding approvals of $4,500 per student with no explanation whether that amount was sufficient. In short, he found no evidence that the districts made a program-by-program, center-by-center assessment of the funding required to deliver an appropriate education. Id. at 54. Nor was there any evidence that if such assessments were performed[,] ... the DOE reviewed these assessments or even saw them. Ibid. As a result, it was not possible to determine whether the funding amounts requested by the districts and/or granted by the DOE were adequate for the provision of fully compliant Abbott preschool programs. Ibid. At the same time, the funding process and the DOE's responses suggested an appearance of ... arbitrariness. Id. at 53. The Chief Judge concluded that the districts must conduct reasonable evaluations, reviews and assessments of themselves, their preschool children and their providers' circumstances and ... use these as aids in formulating plans for the implementation of Abbott preschool. Id. at 55. He required those findings to be made available to the DOE so that it too can, as it must, conduct reasonable reviews and assessments of the districts' actions. Ibid. The Chief Judge also concluded that clear guidelines must be issued by the DOE so that districts will be aware of the information needed by the Department to conduct meaningful evaluations of the districts' plans. Ibid. The Commissioner fully concur[red] that assessment of needs and evaluation of programs is central to any meaningful implementation of Abbott mandates.... Commissioner Decision at 81. Thus, he directed that to the extent that the Department may not be ensuring that assessments of student need are occurring or providing sufficient guidance as to how they are to be conducted ..., the Department shall... recommend to the Commissioner such revisions to its practices and procedures as may be necessary....