Opinion ID: 2301105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Head Start/Community Providers

Text: 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]