Opinion ID: 2294246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 46

Heading: Supplemental Programs

Text: Supplemental programs in the Abbott districts are those supplemental educational and educationally-related programs and services that are unique to [students in Abbott districts], not required in wealthier districts, and that represent an educational cost not included within the amounts expended for regular education. Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 180 [693 A. 2d 417] ( quoting Abbott III, supra, 136 N.J. at 453-54 [643 A. 2d 575]). Supplemental programs and services were defined in N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2 as follows: Those programs and services not already required by State or Federal law, but that are supported by school and school district needs assessment of resources required to improve instructional performance, which may include programs and services on the Abbott X Chart of Supplemental Programs. In Abbott V the Court, by its author, Justice Handler, reviewed the remedial measures that must be implemented in order to ensure that public school children from the poorest urban communities receive the educational entitlements that the Constitution guarantees them. Abbott V, supra, 153 N.J. at 489 [710 A. 2d 450]. The Court stressed the importance of having the particularized needs of the students in the Abbott districts drive the determination of what supplemental programs should be developed. Id. at 511 [710 A. 2d 450]. The Commissioner was authorized to implement supplemental programs at the request of individual schools or districts dependent upon existing needs and the Court required adequate funding of such programs necessary for the achievement of a thorough and efficient education. The Court re-examined the issue of supplemental programs in Abbott X. In that matter, the same parties that are before the court today requested the Court direct the improvements to implementation of whole school reform and supplemental programs as agreed to in the Court ordered mediation. Abbott X, supra, 177 N.J. at 584 [832 A. 2d 891]. By way of the Court's order it set forth in paragraph 4, Supplemental Programs: a. Every Abbott school shall continue to implement supplemental programs as set forth in the chart entitled `Supplemental Programs in Abbott Schools,' attached hereto. Although the DOE has not agreed that all the programs listed on the chart are supplemental or are required by Abbott V, the department has agreed to the inclusion of the contents of the chart in regulations to be adopted; b. Regulations shall be developed to guide school and district assessment, planning and implementation of needs-driven supplemental programs as set forth in the chart entitled Supplemental Programs in Abbott Schools. Id. at 587 [832 A. 2d 891]. As noted, a chart concerning Supplemental Programs in Abbott Schools was appended as an appendix. The following was set forth: In Abbott V, the Supreme Court directed implementation of supplemental programs and services in Abbott schools. In some program areas the Court established a baseline as the minimum requirement. In others, the programs are required without a baseline, but the design of the program must be based on need. In still others, the program is not required, but must be implemented and designed as needed. In all program areas, the Court stressed the importance of having the particularized needs of these children drive the determination of what programs should be developed, concluding that the provision of supplemental programs involving necessary services should not be detached from the actual needs of individual Abbott schools and districts. The determination of need must guide school and district plans and budgets in all program areas. Thus, where the Court established a baseline, schools must either provide the baseline or, depending on need, adjust it to provide none, less or more than the baseline, or an alternate design. Id. at 590 [832 A. 2d 891] (emphasis added). The chart was broken down into three areas of supplemental programs: 1. Required program areas with baseline; 2. Required program areas with no baseline; and 3. If needed program areas. The only options listed as mandatory in the first sub-section listed above were full-day kindergarten and class size limits. Plaintiffs urge the at-risk costs set forth in the SFRA are not sufficient to address the unique disadvantages of the Abbott students and do not include the necessary resources for the needed supplemental programs. See, e.g., Belfield, 15 T 62:10-66:14; P-19 ¶ 41. They assert SFRA should be deemed unconstitutional as applied as it fails to require Abbott districts to implement the Abbott V and Abbott X supplemental programs, particularly as there is no differentiated funding concerning the same. Further, plaintiffs assert there is no assurance the necessary funding will be directed to the special needs and disadvantages of Abbott students, but rather, the necessary funds may be taken from the general budget thereby depriving the students of these necessary programs. Defendants counter it is particular needs that guide supplemental programs, the chart appended to Abbott X is not a rigid prescription of supplemental programs that must be provided to the students in the Abbott districts, State's Post-Trial Brief at 15 ¶ 44, and lastly assert there are more than ample funds provided to the Abbott districts to provide whatever supplemental programs are needed. This court is satisfied the defendants' position is the prefered one. Belfield admitted per pupil costs if all supplemental programs were deemed necessary would be over $33,000 for each middle and high school student, and $31,000 for each elementary school student. Belfield, 16 T 23:20-24:6. Belfield conceded he did not compute the applicable costs for all supplemental students who are at-risk in New Jersey, nor how much the same would increase the education budget. Id. at 24:7-12. In its rebuttal case the defense presented Atwood. She testified the costs to support or fund the supplemental programs as urged by Belfield would be, approximately, an additional $2.9 billion. Atwood, 29 T 127:5-128:3. To continue to require separate funding of supplemental programs is antithetical to the goal of a unified funding scheme as enacted in SFRA, particularly when the State has demonstrated there should be adequate funds for all necessary programs in all districts, including the Abbott districts.