New Jersey Judge Rules Budget Cuts Deny Students Thorough and Efficient Education

The special master appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear evidence about whether the current levels of funding are sufficient to provide New Jersey school children the  “thorough and efficient education” required by the state constitution issued an opinion last week which clearly held that the state is not meeting the constitutional mandate. Abbott v. Burke, No. M-1293, Opinion/Recommendations to the Supreme Court ( Sup. Ct, Bergen Co, March 22, 2011). Superior Court Judge Peter E. Doyne, acting as a special master under the Supreme Court’s remand order, refused to consider the state’s claims that the court should address current economic realities, and what the appropriate judicial response should be in times of fiscal crisis. He held that these issues were outside the scope of the issues he was directed to consider by the Supreme Court. The judge did allow the state to present evidence on these points in case the high court decided to consider these matter.

The plaintiffs in Abbott v. Burke had initiated this case last June when they filed a motion requesting the state’s high court to block implementation of the 2010-2011 budget, because it failed to fund schools at the levels required by the 2008 School Funding Reform Act (SFRA). Governor Chris Christie and the state legislature had adopted an austerity budget that cut education funding by 13.6%. Plaintiffs' main claim was that the state had violated the condition the court had laid down in its decision approving the new formula in 2009, i.e. that the new formula be fully funded.

In January, 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court remanded the case to Judge Doyle, who had gathered evidence for the court in connection with its ruling on the constitutionality of the SFRA two years ago, to hear evidence on this issue. The Supreme Court stated in its remand order that the state must bear the burden of demonstrating that the present level of school funding can provide for a thorough and efficient education as measured by the comprehensive core minimum standards in districts with high, medium, and low concentrations of disadvantaged students. In a follow-up remand order, the court specifically denied the state’s request for clarification of the remand order to include consideration of the state’s fiscal condition.

A major part of the state’s case during the eight days of hearings before Judge Doyne was a claim that “There are various efficiencies which could be accomplished in each district.” Judge Doyne heard extensive evidence on the actual impact of the cuts in six districts in various parts of the state. (Four of the six superintendents who testified appeared as witnesses for the state.) Although he acknowledged that a number of efficiencies had been effectuated in these districts, he held that “without quantification of the savings achieved or to be achieved by all districts for the FY 11 fiscal year, it is impossible to find, based on anecdotal evidence alone, [sic] these efficiencies would significantly impact the effectuated reductions.” (emphasis added.).

Judge Doyne specifically found that:

1. If the SFRA formula had been fully funded for FY 11, an additional $1.6 billion would have been required.
2. Despite the State’s best efforts, the reductions fell more heavily upon our high need districts and the children educated within those districts.
3. The aid reductions have moved many districts further away from “adequacy;” and
4. The greatest impact of the reductions fell upon our at risk students.

Judge Doyne then concluded that:

[T]he Court cannot abandon or waiver from its constitutional commitment. Although discretion had been afforded to the individual districts to spend their allocated monies in a manner that best serves those district needs, it was painfully obvious important support and ancillary programs have been eliminated in effectuating the imposed reductions. These programs had helped bring our at-risk and under-performing students closer to the mandated standards.

The constitutionality of the state’s budget cuts will now be finally decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court which has directed all of the parties to submit their briefs responding to the special master’s report by April 21, 2011.