Opinion ID: 2294246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of PJP process in general and as implemented in New Jersey.

Text: Plaintiffs contested the use of the PJP process to create SFRA, arguing that the approach did not focus on, or adequately take into consideration, the actual needs and costs of education in Abbott districts. As we described in detail before we remanded this matter in Abbott XIX, the State hired the firm of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) to conduct a PJP costing-out study of education in New Jersey. In brief, the PJP process asks panels of expertswell-regarded educators experienced in delivering the State's curricular standards in different rolesto determine the resources needed by students in order to attain the State-mandated CCCS. The report generated by APA formed the backbone of the funding formula eventually enacted as SFRA. After hearing testimony from education experts for both plaintiffs and the State, the Special Master concluded that APA implemented a fair process leading to an informed review of the necessary funding required to attempt to ensure a thorough and efficient education as required by the CCCS. App. at 38 (op. at 209-10, 971 A. 2d at 1030). In so finding, he credited the testimony of several experts, particularly that of Dean David Monk of the College of Education at Pennsylvania State University, who testified that the use of the PJP process was reasonable and provided a systemic approach to connect the inputs and outputs of the educational funding system. App. at 28 (op. at 201, 971 A. 2d at 1025). The Special Master found not only that the PJP approach is one of four accepted methodologies utilized to create a school funding formula, but that it is the most commonly accepted methodology in use. App. at 21 (op. at 195, 971 A. 2d at 1021). Plaintiffs argue that the State instead should have ascertained the actual spending in Abbott districts and used those costs to develop a funding formula. In support of that argument, they point to the State's use of such an approach instead of the PJP process to determine the funding level that would be allocated under SFRA to expand the Abbott preschool program to at-risk children throughout the state. Plaintiffs' logic does not compel the result they seek. Although the State chose to use an actual-cost analysis using Abbott district data for preschool, it does not follow that that methodology would have been better suited, or even appropriate, to the more complex task of determining the funding levels that will provide for the inputs necessary for all students in the State to achieve the CCCS. We see no constitutional flaw in the State's decision to use a process regarded by national experts as one of the top four when developing a new comprehensive school funding scheme. Although the PJP process is not the only method by which the cost of providing necessary educational resources may be determined, Dean Monk viewed it as the preferred method for developing a grounded, need-based, statewide funding formula. We therefore adopt the Special Master's finding that, while acknowledging [that] no one methodology can predict with unerring accuracy the monies needed to meet the standards provided (here, the CCCS), we are satisfied the PJP process established fairly and equitably the first step in constructing a constitutionally mandated equitable funding formula. App. at 38 (op. at 209-10, 971 A. 2d at 1030). Plaintiffs further argue that implementation of the PJP process was deficient, primarily because of the composition of the panels. For example, plaintiffs argue that, unlike the prior studies in which APA was involved where the first panel of experts consisted of school-level administrators, in New Jersey the initial PJP panel was comprised solely of Department of Education (DOE) employees. [10] The criticism is factually accurate but not substantiated as a flaw in the legitimacy of the product generated by the process. The Special Master was not persuaded that this represents a material failing in the PJP process. Neither are we. The record developed before the Special Master shows that APA had a wealth of experience in many states and is considered a leader in the field as it concerns the PJP process. Dean Monk recognized the firm to be very capable, able, and testified that it is among the top experts in the development of funding formulas through the use of the PJP process. Thus, APA's expertise in running the PJP process was well established in the record. We therefore find support for rejecting criticism of the first panel's membership in the explanation provided by APA's Vice President, Justin Ryan Silverstein, who was present and assisted the New Jersey participants during the panel processes. Silverstein testified that based on his experience in implementing the process, the first panel's membership had sufficient professional experience to be able to identify resources necessary to achieve the defined educational objectives. He also noted that the panelists gave clear justifications for their conclusions. The Special Master gave credence to that testimony when he concluded that the PJP process was a fair and equitable first step in the creation of a constitutional funding formula. App. at 38 (op. at 209-10, 971 A. 2d at 1030). He further dismantled the criticism about the initial panel's composition by noting that each succeeding panel had unbridled freedom to change or modify the work of the previous panels and three of the eight panelists (37.5 percent) on the third panel were from Abbott districts. App. at 30-31 (op. at 203-04, 971 A. 2d at 1026-27). Based on that record, we conclude that although the New Jersey PJP process may have differed from the process as implemented in other states, any differences do not equate to constitutional shortcomings.