CLOSING ARGUMENT (3/2/11)
Undisputed on Plaintiffs motion before the Supreme Court
that SFRA was not fully funded in 2010-11, with the State
having reduced K-12 state aid by $1.08 billion from the
2009-10 level
A)
Special Master and parties are well aware of the limited
issue on remand, as set forth in Remand Orders #1 and #2
Given the State’s reduction in aid, can NJ Districts with
varying concentrations of at-risk students provide the
Comprehensive CCCS to all students at current levels of funding
through the SFRA?
Are districts able to deliver the CCCS to their students
this school year with the current, reduced level of funds
provided by the State?
Court's remand orders make clear about several factors:
1) the comprehensive CCCS mean all nine content areas in
the CCCS, and not just language arts, math and science, the
areas assessed annually by the State;
2) "all" means that the CCCS must be delivered to all
students, not a majority or some other subset of those students;
3) "current funding levels through the SFRA" means in the
funding actually allocated to districts in FY11, not prior or
future school years;
4) "districts with low, medium and high concentrations of
at-risk students" means that the delivery of the CCCS must be
examined not just statewide or in some limited subset of
districts, but with a particular focus on at-risk students in
the range of NJ districts with varying enrollment levels of
those students.
B)
Remand Orders are also clear on another critical issue: the
State has the burden of proof on the limited remand issue, not
plaintiffs
Further, comparing how the state aid reduction was
allocated among districts, or among categories of districts, and
the resulting funding levels, is not sufficient for State to
meet its burden.
This comparative data is already before the
Supreme Court – on remand, the State must do more—it must
demonstrate that those reductions had no negative effect on the
ability of districts with varying concentrations of at-risk
students to deliver the CCCS to all students in the 2010-11
school year.
C)
In the remand proceeding, State attempted to meet its
burden by presenting proofs that there is an insufficient
correlation or relationship between funding and student
outcomes.
1)
Heard the testimony of Eric Hanushek, who formed his
opinion that NJ could cut 5-10% -- or even more – without any
effect on a thorough and efficient education, in 15 minutes
during an initial phone call with Def. Counsel. But Mr. Hanushek
conceded that his opinion is based on national data going back
to 2007-08, that he had not analyzed current funding levels in
NJ school districts or the impact of the aid reduction on
programs, services and positions in districts, and even that he
had any knowledge of NJ’s CCCS and their pivotal role as the
measure of a T&E education for NJ students.
2)
Then we had the testimony of Bari Erlichson of the DOE
in which she presented scatterplots she prepared charting last
year’s State test results in language arts and math against
districts FY10 spending relative to the SFRA adequacy level.
While Dr. Erlichson could only surmise that her scatterplots
appeared to show a lack of a relationship between districts’
spending level and test scores, she admitted that they also show
a pattern of lower outcomes and district wealth or poverty.
Bottom line: neither Hanushek nor Erlichson offered any
evidence related to the specific issue on remand and that might
help the State meet its burden.
B) State next presented evidence, through DOE analyist Kevin
Dehmer, on the State’s 1.083 billion reduction in K-12 aid, and
making comparisons of how the reductions were allocated among
districts – much of the same data already before the Supreme
Court; and data which Remand Order #1 makes clear is
insufficient to meet the State's burden.
But Mr. Dehmer also presented a critical piece of relevant
evidence -- for the first time on this motion and in response to
an inquiry from the Special Master -- a simulation demonstrating
the levels of state aid that would be required to fully fund the
SFRA in FY11, using the parameters in the formula.
Mr.
Dehmer's demonstrated that the State reduced SFRA formula aid,
not just by 1.08 billion, but by $1.6 billion statewide from the
level required by the SFRA formula (full funding in FY11).
C)
Mr. Dehmer's testimony that the State reduced formula
aid by $1.6 billion, or almost 19% of all state aid, was then
confirmed by Plaintiff’s school finance expert Mr. Wyns, who
further analyzed the State's data on the required level of
funding under SFRA and its’ impact on the funding levels of
districts with low, medium and high concentrations of at-risk
students. Mr. Wyns undisputed testimony demonstrated that:
a) The State’s underfunding of the SFRA impacted high
poverty districts the most, with those districts experiencing an
aid loss of approximately $1500 per pupil
b) The State’s underfunding of the SFRA resulted in an
increase in the number of districts spending below their SFRA
defined adequacy level, from 161 to 205, and for the 161
districts below adequacy in 2009-10, they moved significantly
further below their adequacy level in the current year.
c) 135 of the 205 districts with current funding levels
below SFRA adequacy are districts with medium and high
concentrations of at risk students.
72% of all at-risk students
in the state are now in districts spending below SFRA adequacy.
Given this analysis, Mr. Wyns opinion was firm and
undisputed: the growing number of districts below SFRA adequacy
do not have current funding to provide the CCCS to their
students, at the level prescribed by the SFRA formula.
Finally, State brought forward four district
superintendents, who testified under subpoena, from the
Piscataway, Woodbridge, Montgomery Tp and Bridgeton districts.
The testimony of these superintendents, along with the
superintendents of Clifton and Buena Regional, we’re remarkably
consistent:
a)
all are spending under their SFRA adequacy level and
moved further away from that level as a result of the State’s
aid cut
b)
in making budget cuts, all attempted to keep the
instructional component of the CCCS curriculum intact, but some
had to reduce or eliminate instructional programs in the world
languages, technology, and career education areas of the CCCS.
And they also cut their teacher corps, resulting in increased
class sizes at all grade levels.
c) all made cuts in critical supports for students and
teachers, programs that they made clear are essential to the
delivery of the CCCS, particularly for at-risk, LEP students,
students with disabilities and students otherwise at risk of
academic failure.
These cuts included librarians, guidance counselors,
technology teachers, teachers and tutors for students behind in
language arts and math, nurses, security personnel,
instructional supervisors, assistant principals, professional
development and other critical supports.
d) all spelled out their heroic efforts to achieve
reasonable and legal efficiencies in their budgets and to
redirect saved funds into instruction and student and teacher
support programs
e)
and all made clear that, because of the program and
staff reductions they were compelled to make as a result of the
State’s aid reduction, they cannot provide and deliver the
comprehensive CCCS to all of their students in the current
school year.
What’s so striking about this record is that the State
never brought forward a single witness from any district to
testify that their district could provide the CCCS to all
students, particularly those students at-risk and with special
needs, at the current funding level.
In closing, on this record, the State has clearly not met
its burden on the limited remand issue.
The State has not
attempted to show that districts throughout the State are
providing the CCCS on reduced funds.
They’ve not even shown one
district that is doing so.
What they have demonstrated is that, their failure to fund
the SFRA formula in the current year, has caused more districts
to fall further behind the resource adequacy threshold set by
the formula as necessary to provide the CCCS.
Two years ago the State argued strenuously -- based on a
five year intensive development process and lots of expert
testimony -- that the SFRA resolved the longstanding, central
issue at the heart of the Abbott litigation: it defined the
funding required for all districts to provide T&E, as measured
by the CCCS.
The Supreme Court accepted that formula.
While
the State may have now changed its mind about the SFRA formula,
that ship has sailed.
Based on this record, Plaintiffs respectfully request the
Special Master conclude that the State has not met its burden of
demonstrating that districts can provide the CCCS to all
students at current funding levels.