Opinion ID: 2301105
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Systemic Issues

Text: As Chief Judge Masin points out in his Initial Decision, the question whether the DOE has met the Court's mandates in Abbott V and Abbott VI presents a moving target for review. OAL Initial Decision at 36-37. During the period after this case was filed in 1999, up to April 2000 when the OAL Initial Decision issued, Abbott VI was decided and the Department promulgated regulations, published Early Childhood Program Expectations: Standards of Quality ( Expectations ), [3] and provided training for district personnel. OAL Initial Decision at 36. Even as to the global issues, the factual context was changing. As for the parents and students (from Paterson, Jersey City, Newark and West New York) represented by the ELC, the Chief Judge observed that the necessary level of evidence surrounding the[ir] actual individual and particularized needs [was] not before [him]. Id. at 37. Even so, the parties continued to present, by certifications to this Court, unfolding factual information relating to both systemic and district specific issues. We are unable to resolve district specific issues on this record and anticipate that they will be either cooperatively resolved for next year as the Department reviews the district plans submitted on November 15, 2001 or through the administrative appeal process. We will therefore address only those systemic or global issues considered by Chief Judge Masin and the Commissioner.
In Abbott VI, we required the Department to provide [s]ubstantive educational guidance for all Abbott district preschool programs ... by April 17, 2000 in preparation for the 2000-01 school year. 163 N.J. at 107, 748 A. 2d 82. That requirement stemmed from a set of related concerns: the need for criteria against which district programs can be evaluated and for a mechanism to prevent the development of a two-tiered system in which one group of children is offered daycare and another group is offered high-quality preschool. Ibid. Substantive educational standards provide goals for teachers and students alike, as well as direction for achieving those goals in the classroom. In response to our mandate in Abbott VI, the DOE adopted the Expectations in April 2000. DOE, Expectations, at http://www.state.nj.us/njded/ece/expectations (last visited on Dec. 31, 2001). Similar to the Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS) [4] for grades K12, the Expectations outline the goals of preschool education without, however, specifying the details of a curriculum aimed at achieving the desired results. Subsequently, on December 17, 2001, the DOE proposed an amendment to N.J.A.C. 6A:24-3.3(a)(4) requiring districts to integrate the goals of the Expectations into their preschool programs. 33 N.J.R. 4186, 4187. Because the DOE's position on the Expectations is that they are not meant to be used in isolation, but as one of the many resources that are essential to building a developmentally appropriate early childhood program, Expectations, supra, at Preface, ¶ 3, the Department promised the creation of a curriculum strategy, the Early Childhood Education Curriculum Framework ( Framework ), to supplement the Expectations with substantive guidance and to aid in the realization of the Expectations. DOE, Framework, at http://www.state.nj.us/njded/ece/framework/index.html (last visited on Dec. 31, 2001). The DOE has not issued a final version of the Framework, and, therefore, plaintiffs ask us to declare that the DOE has failed to fulfill the mandate of Abbott VI. Plaintiffs submit that the Expectations alone do not provide the guidance necessary for districts and community providers to implement uniform, high-quality preschool education in the Abbott districts. The Commissioner has advised that the development of the Framework has significantly advanced. DOE, Early Childhood Education: Advancing Implementation, Ch. 3(a), at http://www.state.nj.us/njded/ece/implementation ( Advancing Implementation ) (last visited on Dec. 31, 2001). In September 2001, the Department released, in draft form, an extensive substantive chapter on strategies to meet preschool expectations and to guide assessments of the children's progress. The chapter covers social and emotional development, creative arts, mathematics, science, and other areas. DOE, Framework, at http://www.state.nj.us/njded/ece/framework/doc. Continued progress with the Framework is essential for the scheduled review by the early childhood education community to be effective and for educators to have adequate time to plan programs for the 2002-03 school year. For the current school year, the Abbott districts are integrating the goals of the Expectations with nationally recognized preschool curriculum models. Twenty-four Abbott districts employ one or more of these recognized models: five use Curiosity Corner, eleven use High/Scope or their own program based on High/Scope, four use Creative Curriculum, one uses Scholastic's Early Childhood Workshop, two use a hybrid of at least two of the aforementioned programs, one uses a hybrid of Abecedarian and the Kellog Five Star Project, and six have developed their own curricula. In his June 1 decision, the Commissioner direct[ed] ... the Department [to] revise its practices and procedures as may be necessary to include ... review of district curriculum plans and to remain faithful to the Framework development schedule established in the Department's Advancing Implementation document. In re Abbott Global Issues, No. 171-01, slip op. at 73 (Commissioner of Education June 1, 2001) (Commissioner Decision); see also N.J.A.C. 6A:24-3.3(a)(4). DOE review of curriculum plans will assist the districts in compliance with Framework strategies. See proposed amendment to N.J.A.C. 6A:24-34 at 33 N.J.R. 4186, 4187 (Dec. 17, 2001). To ensure availability of detailed curricula for use in the 2002-03 school year, and to meet the DOE's time frame for implementation workshops, the DOE must, as scheduled, complete a final draft of the Framework by April 30, 2002. See Advancing Implementation.
Enrollment in Abbott preschool programs is not compulsory. If the promise of early childhood education is to be met, parents in the Abbott districts must not only be aware of the opportunity offered, but must be informed about the advantages of participation for their children. In some communities, recruitment will be critical to the success of the Abbott preschool venture. The issue in Abbott VI concerned the need for community outreach to inform parents about the availability of preschool for three- and four-year old children in the Abbott districts. Abbott VI, supra, 163 N.J. at 119, 748 A. 2d 82. The Court anticipated at that time that existing enrollments could be examined in order to determine, based on the projected preschool population, whether parents in the community are aware of the district's preschool programs. Ibid. Low enrollments would trigger a determination of parental awareness and, then, concerted outreach efforts to improve [those] enrollments. Ibid. At present, if the number of children in the early childhood programs do[es] not exceed 50 percent of the projected preschool population in the district, the [local] board [is required to] develop a corrective action plan to increase enrollments which shall be approved by the Commissioner and then implemented by the district. N.J.A.C. 6A:24-3.3(a)(8). The issue addressed below by the Chief Judge was, therefore, whether the Department, faced with evidence of such `low' enrollments, ha[d] taken appropriate steps to require that the districts determine the awareness of parents about ... preschool programs and, as appropriate, adopt plans to promote awareness and ... encourage enrollment. OAL Initial Decision at 42. A problem arose, however, because of a disagreement between the parties regarding the appropriate manner of determining the projected number of three- and four-year-olds in a district. Ibid. When outreach efforts are initiated based on the percentage of total eligible students, accuracy in projecting that number is essential. Before the Chief Judge, the Department's expert asserted, without documentation, that each district other than Elizabeth is serving at least 50% of its `projection.' Ibid. Plaintiffs' expert used his own methodology and calculated the number of eligible three- and four-year-old students in each district at twice the district's first-grade enrollment. Ibid. Using that figure and comparing it to the actual number of students enrolled, plaintiffs' expert concluded that twelve districts had enrollment rates below fifty percent, thereby triggering the community outreach corrective action requirement for those districts. Ibid. On the record before him, the Chief Judge was unable to determine which expert's calculation, if any, yielded the correct measurement of enrollment. Id. at 44. Thus, he was unable to adjudicate the issue whether, in respect of any Abbott district, the community outreach requirement had been triggered. In lieu of that determination, the Chief Judge urged the DOE to adopt a uniform standard through the administrative rulemaking process to measure districts' preschool enrollment and to determine the need for community outreach. Id. at 45. The Commissioner fully concurred with the Chief Judge and directed the development of appropriate regulations. Commissioner Decision at 74-75. On November 5, 2001, proposed amendments to N.J.A.C. 6A:24-3.3 were published in the New Jersey Register. 33 N.J.R. 3716, 3717-18. By those amendments, the Department has set forth a uniform method for calculating the universe of eligible three-and four-year-old children that averages the total number of public and non-public school kindergarten and first grade pupils in a district. N.J.A.C. 6A:24-3.3(a)(8). [A]ppropriate adjustments may be made to that figure based upon the documented history of the actual enrollments in the three- and four-year-old programs over the last three years, id. at (a)(9)(i), and to reflect any factors in the community that might affect the growth rate in the three- and four-year-old populations, such as a large employer moving in or out of the district, or a new housing development.... Id. at (a)(9)(ii). This method yields the minimum projected number of three-year-old and four-year-old children that must be served in the next school year.... Id. at (a)(9)(iii). In addition, the DOE has proposed an amendment to N.J.A.C. 6A:24-3.3(a)(8) that increases the outreach trigger from the current 50% to 90% by the 2003-04 school year. Id. at (b)(1) (moving the 2001-02 trigger to 70%, the 2002-03 trigger to 80%, and the 2003-04 trigger to 90%). We note as to those proposals that the districts' success in conducting outreach programs can be reviewed only if a uniform method for calculating projected enrollments is used. The variability that results when each district is permitted to develop its own methodology makes it considerably more difficult for the DOE to evaluate effective strategies to improve preschool attendance. In the end, it is the outreach effort that is critical to the success of the Abbott programs. We recognize that even if every parent is informed about the availability of preschool, not all parents will choose to enroll their children. As the State's experts reported in Evaluation of Early Childhood Programming in the 30 Abbott School Districts: Phase 1 Report (Feb. 2001), some parents may not wish to put their child[ren] in the `world' too soon, while others may prefer a more family-oriented child care environment or the flexibility of alternative child care options. Id. at 10. The decision not to enroll a child in the district's preschool program also may be affected by cultural attitudes, including distrust of the educational system, among other things. OAL Initial Decision at 43. The goal is to inform parents of preschool age children about the opportunity to enroll their children in the Abbott programs. In other words, children should not be denied the benefits of a quality preschool program simply because their parents do not know it exists. This appears to be an area where partnering with community organizations might be of great assistance in achieving outreach goals. By way of example, we are informed that the Department of Human Services entered into a $1.3 million contract with the Hispanic Directors Association of New Jersey (Association) to provide recruitment services in Spanish-speaking communities. According to the State, these efforts have borne fruit. As of May 1, 2001, 1,789 of the 3,182 families contacted by the Association advised that they would enroll their children in an Abbott preschool program. Such results are encouraging. Nonetheless, thousands of children have not been enrolled in preschool in the Abbott districts. The DOE must work with the districts to develop corrective action plans when the districts do not meet enrollment goals and must review, with the districts, the effectiveness of these plans during the implementation phase.
Plaintiffs and Amici allege that the Commissioner of Education has willfully violated the Court's Abbott mandates by unlawfully excluding Head Start programs from district plans and by insufficiently funding community providers generally. In Abbott V and Abbott VI, we considered the use of community daycare centers as part of the Abbott preschool program. At that time, both the DOE and the plaintiffs supported the use of community daycare centers because, as a practical matter, a readily-available source of staff and facilities could be found in the DHS-licensed programs then operating in the Abbott districts. Abbott VI, supra, 163 N.J. at 114, 748 A. 2d 82. Indeed, the DOE had adopted N.J.A.C. 6:19A-3.3(b) (revised and now found at N.J.A.C. 6A:24-3.3(b)), which required districts to collaborate with community providers whenever practical. Abbott VI, supra, 163 N.J. at 114-15, 748 A. 2d 82. In Abbott VI, the issue was not whether community daycare centers should be included in the district program, but whether they could be included, because they are not designed to provide a preschool educational experience that prepares disadvantaged children to achieve academically in school. Id. at 114, 748 A.2d 82. We approved the use of community providers with the caveat that daycare centers could not be incorporated into Abbott district programs unless they met the stringent requirements imposed on those programs. In other words, a two-tier system that denied any child a quality preschool experience would not be permitted. It was in that context that we stated, When an existing daycare center is unable or unwilling to comply with those requirements, cooperation with that center would be presumptively not `practical' under N.J.A.C. 6:19A:3.3(b). Abbott VI, supra, 163 N.J. at 115, 748 A. 2d 82. Today, plaintiffs complain that certain of the Head Start programs have been excluded from the district plans by the DOE. We agree with the Chief Judge that N.J.A.C. 6A:24-3.3(b) [5] requires the districts to wherever possible make use of existing community-based programs to deliver preschool services rather than duplicate such programs. OAL Initial Decision at 46. We also read the DOE regulation to establish a presumption that duplication of services is not permitted unless substantial reasons are set forth in the Department's decision document. That said, we are troubled by reports that Head Start programs are facing decreasing enrollment, escalating loss of staff, and financial difficulties. We are told that certified staff has fled to district-run programs, lured by the higher compensation packages those programs offer. It is specifically claimed that seventeen Head Start programs in Abbott districts have lost more than 125 certified teachers in the last three years, and that all of the education staff and social workers have left the Head Start program serving Asbury Park, Long Branch, Neptune, and Keansburg. We recognize the invaluable service that Head Start provides in the Abbott districts. In Abbott VI, we observed that Head Start present[s] unique issues. 163 N.J. at 116, 748 A. 2d 82. Designed to fit the needs of the community, Head Start offers low-income children comprehensive medical, dental, mental health, nutrition, family involvement, and transportation programs, and has been instrumental in increasing the school readiness of young children from low-income families. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Children's Entry into Public School: A Report on the National Head Start/Public School: Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Study (2000) (reporting that Head Start children enter school ready to learn and able to achieve at national academic norms). It has been represented to us that because of Head Start's unique features, many parents prefer Head Start programs over district-run programs. Nonetheless, [s]tate preschool standards are ... more demanding than Head Start program standards, Abbott VI, supra, 163 N.J. at 116, 748 A. 2d 82, and, therefore, the DOE must supplement existing Head Start funding with state funding sufficient to allow Head Start to meet state standards and to retain certified teachers. The Chief Judge expressed his frustration at the lack of a record in respect of an alleged breakdown in discussions between state officials and Head Start providers. OAL Initial Decision at 48. We have been informed that the disputes are not about the use of Head Start as part of the Abbott district preschool plans, but, rather, the cost of bringing Head Start up to state standards. To avoid duplicat[ing] programs or services otherwise available in the community, as required by N.J.A.C. 6A:24-3.3(b), districts should utilize Head Start providers unless they are not able and willing to comply with Abbott preschool standards, or unless the cost of doing so is demonstrably more expensive than other high-quality alternatives. The districts must develop budget proposals based on a careful analysis of a provider's pre-existing obligations and funding sources. The DOE need not offer additional funding for services designed to meet federal regulations unless there is a need to improve those services to meet state standards. In sum, reasonable supplemental funds must be provided so that Head Start (and other appropriate community providers) can meet the more demanding State preschool requirements. Ensuring that qualified, certified teachers are available for all Abbott programs is an essential component of adequate state funding. Districts must address salary parity between district-run and community provider-run programs in their needs assessment evaluations. If community providers, such as Head Start, can demonstrate an inability to retain qualified staff due to salary parity problems, the DOE must consider additional funding for teacher salaries. Finally, we note that N.J.A.C. 6:11-5.2(f) grandfathers certified elementary school teachers with two years preschool experience by waiving the requirement of Abbott VI that they obtain an instructional certificate with a P-3 endorsement in order to be hired as teachers in Abbott preschool programs. [6] We find the grandfather provision to be a reasonable response to the establishment of new certification requirements that would otherwise negatively affect experienced, certified teachers. We are confident the exemption will not compromise the education of any preschool children. The DOE, which historically grandfathers all certificate holders affected by new requirements, strictly limited N.J.A.C. 6:11-5.2(f) to those teachers with the training and experience it judged fully adequate to the task. The parties agree that there is a teacher shortage that affects both community daycare providers and district-run preschools. Additional funding, when appropriate for community providers, will help them to retain qualified teachers, but it will not increase the pool of qualified teachers. [7]
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....