Education Law Center
60 Park Place
Suite 300
Newark, N.J. 07102
(973) 624-1815
By:
David G. Sciarra, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs-Movants
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
RAYMOND ARTHUR ABBOTT, ET AL.,
DOCKET NO. 42,170
Plaintiffs-Movants,
CIVIL ACTION
v.
FRED G. BURKE, ET AL.,
Defendants-Respondents.
CERTIFICATION OF DR. DANIELLE FARRIE
Dr. Danielle Farrie, of full age, hereby certifies as follows:
1.
I am Director of Research at the Education Law Center
(“ELC”), and have served in that capacity since September, 2008. As
Director of Research, I am responsible for the collection and
analysis of data, and conducting research, on a wide variety of
educational
issues,
assessments
and
including
academic
school
performance,
funding,
school
improvement, and student and school demographics.
preschool,
reform
and
Prior to my
employment at ELC, I conducted research in the field of urban
education on such topics as white flight from schools, the effect
of school choice policies on the racial and economic segregation of
1
schools, and the effect of racial integration on perceptions of
school
quality.
A
copy
of
my
resume
is
attached
to
this
Certification as Exhibit A.
2.
I am submitting this certification to provide the Court
with data and analysis about how the proposed cuts in 2010-11 state
formula aid impact staff, programs and services in school districts
with high enrollments of poor or "at-risk" students. My analysis is
based on data obtained from a sample of 44 of these "high needs
districts."
For my analysis, I collected data prepared by these
districts for the Department of Education ("DOE") and included in
their 2010-11 Annual Budget Submissions.
All districts were
required to file these Annual Budget Submissions with the DOE by
March 22, 2010.
3.
In preparing this Certification, I reviewed the specific
provisions of the SFRA formula; this Court's ruling in Abbott XX;
the aid amounts provided to school districts under the SFRA formula
in the current 2009-10 school year; the State's proposed aid levels
to districts, as contained in the notice of state aid for 2010-11
issued by the DOE to districts on March 19, 2010; and the 2010-11
Annual Budget Submissions for the 44 high needs districts.
4.
In addition, I am familiar with the analysis of the
State's $1.081 billion reduction in kindergarten through 12 grade
("K-12") formula aid to districts statewide, including high needs
districts, by Melvin Wyns, as set forth in his Certification filed
with the Court on this motion.
2
5.
To
analyze
how
districts
responded
to
the
State's
significant reduction in formula aid for the 2010-11 school year, I
analyzed the budget documentation from a sample of districts
classified by the DOE as high needs.
High needs districts have an
enrollment where 40% or more of the students are “at-risk,” as
defined by eligibility for the federal free or reduced priced lunch
program.
In
proficiency
addition,
levels
on
the
state
regulation. See N.J.A.C.
district
is
not
meeting
certain
assessments,
set
by
DOE
.
the
in
Under these criteria, DOE has
classified 93 districts as high needs, including all 31 Abbott
districts.
A list of these districts, including student enrollment
characteristics, is set forth as “Table 1: Student Enrollment
Characteristics of High Needs Districts” attached as Exhibit B.
6.
In April 2010, I requested the high needs districts to
provide ELC with certain database files included in their 2010-11
budgets submitted to the DOE on March 22, 2010.
requested
the
following
budget
data
files:
Specifically, we
1)
Advertised
Appropriations; 2) School-Based Budget Appropriations; and 3) the
Supporting Documentation – Budgeted Full-Time Equivalents.
7.
To date, 44 high needs districts have responded to my
request, a response rate of or 47%. Seventeen (55%) of the 31
Abbott districts provided the requested data.
A list of the
districts participating in my research analysis is attached in
Exhibit C. The participating districts are representative of the
high needs districts in terms of size, location, grade span, and
3
socioeconomic status. High needs districts are located in every
county in the state and our sample represents districts in all but
three
counties.
The
districts
represented
include
elementary
districts, secondary districts, and K-12 districts. Most of the
districts are in District Factor Groups A and B, though there are
also a handful of middle income districts. The districts range in
size from small districts with fewer than 1,000 students to large
districts with over 10,000 students. An analysis comparing these
characteristics for the districts in the sample and those not
participating is set forth as “Table 2: Description of Sample of
High Needs Districts” attached as Exhibit D.
8.
Districts are required to submit electronic budgets for
each school year using software provided by DOE. In general, the
budgets allocate available revenue from state, local, and federal
funds to specific expenditure line-items. Account codes are used
to identify the line items by fund (i.e. current expense, capital
outlay, special schools, special revenue), program (e.g. regular
programs, special education, bilingual education), and function
(e.g. instruction, support services). While most school districts
report all appropriations at the district level, Abbott districts
are required to submit school-based budgets. The school-based
budgets can be merged with the district level budget using a
crosswalk that translates the budget line numbers from the
school-based files to the account numbers in the district-wide
file. In addition to these appropriations files, districts
4
prepare a packet of supporting documentation. I analyzed the
schedule of budgeted positions for the current year and the
budget year, which provides an itemized list of staffing changes
for 37 staff positions.
9.
My
analysis
relies
on
the
data
contained
in
the
Appropriations and Budgeted Full-Time Equivalents data files from
those 44 participating districts.
districts
report
actual
In the Appropriations files, the
expenditures
for
2008-09,
revised
appropriations for 2009-10, and appropriations for 2010-11 for up
to 1,028 individual budget expenditure line items.
these line items
into broader budget categories
I collapsed
for ease of
interpretation. As guidance, I used the categories reported by the
DOE in the “User-Friendly” Budget Summaries, an annually published
budget summary intended to provide increased public accountability
and transparency.
10.
With the data from these files, I compared the changes
made by the districts among the various budget categories in their
2009-10 and 2010-11 budgets.
From this analysis, I am able to
determine the specific program areas in the 2010-11 budgets that
were reduced by districts in response to the State's reduction in
K-12 formula aid.
11.
As described by Mr. Wyns in his Certification, the State
is reducing K-12 school funding aid $1.081 billion statewide. Wyns
Cert., ¶
. The aid reduction for individual districts equaled
4.994% of the 2009-10 general fund budget for the district, except
5
in districts where K-12 state aid is less than this amount. To
achieve this reduction in each district, the DOE reduced the level
of various SFRA formula aid categories through an established
"pecking order." Wyns Cert,
12.
I first analyzed overall district budgets and summarized
the differences in the main expenditure categories for the 2009-10
and 2010-11 school years among the high needs districts in the
research sample.
This analysis is set forth as "Table 3: Summary
of 2010-11 Budget Reductions in High Needs Districts" attached as
Exhibit E.
13.
Table 3, Exhibit E, shows the following:
a)
The total budgets for the 44 high needs districts in
the research for 2010-11 is $4.446 billion, which represents a
$223 million, or 5%, reduction over the previous year (200910) budget;
b)
Districts'
instruction
services.
account
and
cut
$73
$93
million
million
in
in
expenditures
expenditures
on
on
support
Together, cuts in instruction and support services
for
$166
million,
or
75%
of
the
total
budget
reduction; and
c)
Districts reduced their expenditures for capital
outlay by $34.3 million or 58% of the total from 2009-10.
Capital outlay includes items that are funded by general fund
revenues including increases to the general fund capital
reserve
account,
equipment
6
purchases,
and
facilities
acquisition and construction services.
14.
I
also
disaggregated
the
data
to
examine
budget
reductions in the former Abbott districts and other High Needs
districts separately. This analysis is set forth in "Table 4:
Summary of 2010-11 Budget Reductions in Abbott Districts" and
"Table 5: Summary of 2010-11 Budget Reductions in Other High Need
Districts," attached to this Certification as Exhibit E.
15.
Table 4, Exhibit E shows the following:
a)
Abbott districts cut $73 million or 7% of their
expenditures on instruction and $73 million or 4% of their
expenditures on support services. These two categories include
reductions to many of the supplemental programs required by
Abbott ??, the same programs included in the cost study used
in the development of the SFRA, such as attendance and social
work, health services, alternative education, and security;
b)
Abbott districts cut their expenditures on capital
outlay in half, reducing appropriations by $18 million;
c)
Abbott districts had a net increase in the special
schools category. This is due to increasing expenditures
required for charter school payments, though many of the
smaller
programs
like
summer
school
and
adult
education
experienced cuts.
16.
Table 5, Exhibit E shows the following:
a)
The other High Needs districts also substantially
reduced instructional expenditures, cutting 5% or $20 million
7
over the previous year. Overall, expenditures for support
services were
relatively stable, through some individual
programs experienced significant cuts, such as guidance,
attendance and social work, and improvement of instruction;
b)
The other High Needs districts cut $16 million or
over 60% of capital outlay expenditures;
c)
The
other
High
Needs
districts
funded
special
schools at a similar level, though they too were required to
increase transfers to charter schools while at the same time
cutting expenditures for summer and evening schools.
17.
I further analyzed the districts' budget data to provide
a more in-depth examination of the specific program or service
reductions within the main expenditure categories.
This analysis
is set forth as "Table 6: 2011-10 Reductions by Expenditure
Category in High Needs Districts," attached as Exhibit F.
18.
Table 6, Exhibit F, shows the following:
a)
Expenditures in the regular (or core curriculum)
instructional program are cut by $61.8 million, or a 6%
reduction from 2009-10.
Regular instruction represents the
largest expenditures by far among the various instructional
categories in the districts' budgets;
b)
Districts also reduced expenditures in every other
area of the core instructional program, including special and
bilingual education, remedial and vocational instruction, and
extra curricular activities;
8
c)
Specific supplemental program areas under the Abbott
rulings, such as before and after school programs, health
services, and attendance and social work, experienced cutbacks
even
though
comparatively
expenditures
low.
The
in
these
expenditure
program
category
areas
for
are
other
supplemental programs for at-risk students is reduced by $15
million or 67%. This item covers supplemental programs that
are
not
identified
elsewhere,
such
as
small
learning
communities, academies, tutoring, and reading improvement ;
d)
Districts reduced expenditures in several critical
areas of support services categories.
Of note are the
reductions in two categories focused on school reform and
professional
development
--
$18
million
or
18%
for
"improvement of instructional services" -- and $2 million or
26% for "instructional staff training services;"
e)
Districts also made reductions in expenditures for
guidance (11%), health services (6%), child study teams for
special education (4%), attendance and social work (17%), and
school libraries (7%); and
f)
Districts
reduced
other
small,
but
important,
expenditures in adult education, summer school programs and
vocational education.
In addition, State subsidies to the
federal free and reduced price lunch and breakfast program for
at-risk students were reduced for 2010-11. See (cite Budget).
Expenditures for food services, a critical program in high
9
needs districts, are reduced by 2.9 million or 42%.
19.
My analysis shows that, in response to the State's
substantial cut in K-12 formula aid, districts had to reduce
expenditures in almost every component of their budgets, including
the core instructional program for regular education, or the core
curriculum, and special education.
In addition, districts made
significant cuts in expenditures for many of the programs and
services for at-risk students, and for high needs districts serving
intense concentrations of those students.
that
these
at-risk
programs
are
It is important to note
included
in
the
cost
model
underlying the SFRA formula, and were previously included in the
supplemental programs requirements for Abbott districts which, as
the Court indicated in Abbott XX, would be continued with formula
funding under the SFRA.
20.
Table 6, Exhibit F also shows that transfer payments to
charter schools are significantly higher in 2010-11.
This increase
is attributable to increasing charter school enrollments and a
decision by DOE that directed districts to "hold harmless" charter
schools from any cuts in funding.
As a result of DOE's decision,
charter schools are insulated from having to bear any of the
districts' budgetary reductions in 2010-11.
21.
In addition to examining the districts' reductions in
various budgetary expenditure categories, I also analyzed data from
the "Supporting Documentation" files submitted to the DOE to assess
the impact of those budgetary reductions on specific staff in the
10
high needs districts and schools.
In the Supporting Documentation
files, districts are required to provide the number of Full-Time
Equivalents (FTE’s) currently employed and the expected change for
the
upcoming
school
classifications.
year
in
37
distinct
staff
position
For my analysis, I grouped these staff positions
into 6 program areas.
A detailed description of the positions
included in each of these 6 categories is set forth in Exhibit G
attached to this Certification.
22.
The results of my analysis of the reductions in staff
positions are set forth in "Table 7: Summary of 2010-11 Reductions
in Staff Positions," and is attached as Exhibit H.
23.
Table 7, Exhibit H, shows the following:
a)
The high needs districts in the research sample will
cut a total of 3,188 full-time equivalent ("FTE") positions
for the 2010-11 school year. This represents an overall staff
reduction of 8%;
b)
1,355,
The districts reduced regular teacher positions by
or
7%
workforce,
of
along
the
total
with
493
core
instructional
positions
providing
teaching
special
education to students with disabilities;
c)
The Abbott districts cut 145 or 56% of all tutors
and reading specialists, and districts reduced professional
development staff by 26 or 5%;
d)
Guidance and social work positions have been reduced
by 168 or 12%; and
11
e)
Districts cut 10% or 1,001 of all other positions,
which includes positions in the technology, health services -e.g. school nurses -- school and district operation and
administration.
24.
My analysis of the reductions in staff positions mirrors
my findings regarding the cuts made by districts in the various
budgetary expenditure categories -- all areas of the educational
program are affected, including regular and special education
teaching
staff,
and
staff
essential
to
the
provision
of
supplemental programs and services for at-risk students, such as
reading tutors, guidance counselors, and social and health services
personnel.
25.
Clearly, districts reduced some program areas and staff
more than others, the breadth and depth of the reductions across
all instructional and program categories -- from regular to special
education and an array support services -- reflects the size of the
budget reduction each district had to make resulting from the
State's substantial cut in formula aid.
This broad sweep of the
budgetary cutbacks also reflects the absence of any requirements or
guidelines established by the DOE for prioritizing the reductions
or limiting cuts in certain key instructional or supplemental
program areas.
Put simply, DOE provided no guidance or direction
regarding
districts
how
should
approach
the
programming
and
staffing reductions required to absorb the state funding reduction.
Each district, therefore, has been left to make its own decisions
12
about which programs, services, and staff to cut or eliminate in
order to fashion a budget at the reduced State K-12 formula aid
level.
I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are
true.
I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are
knowingly false, I am subject to punishment.
__________________________
DANIELLE FARRIE, PhD
Dated: May, 2010
13
Exhibit A
Danielle C. Farrie
Employment
2008 – present
Research Director, Education Law Center, Newark, NJ
2006 – 2008
Research Assistant, School of Social Administration, Temple University,
Philadelphia, PA
2008
Consultant, Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA
2007 Intern, U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division,
Poverty and Health Statistics Branch
2005 – 2007
Research Assistant, Institute for Public Affairs, Temple University, Philadelphia,
PA
2005 – 2006
Research Assistant, Pennsylvania and Metropolitan Philadelphia Survey, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA
2004 – 2005
Research Assistant, A Place to Live and Learn, Temple University, Philadelphia,
PA
2001 – 2005
Research Assistant, Philadelphia Survey of Child Care and Work, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA
2001 – 2002
Teaching Assistant, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
Education
Ph.D.
Temple University, Sociology, 2008
M.A.
Temple University, Sociology, 2003
B.A.
Loyola College, Sociology and Writing, 2000
Publications
Farrie, Danielle, Yookyong Lee, & Jay Fagan. (forthcoming). The effect of cumulative risk on
paternal engagement: Examining differences among adolescent and older couples. Youth
14
& Society.
Fagan, Jay, Rob Palkovitz, Kevin Roy & Danielle Farrie. 2009. Pathways to paternal
engagement: Longitudinal effects of risk and resilience on nonresident fathers.
Developmental Psychology. 45(5):1389-1405.
Cabrera, Natasha J., Jay Fagan, & Danielle Farrie. 2008. Explaining the long reach of fathers’
prenatal involvement on later paternal engagement with children. Journal of Marriage
and Family. 70(5):1094-1107.
Cabrera, Natasha J., Jay Fagan, & Danielle Farrie. 2008. Rejoinder: Why should we encourage
unmarried fathers to be prenatally involved? Journal of Marriage and Family.
70(5):1118-1121.
Fagan, Jay & Danielle Farrie. 2008. “Fathers and the Life Cycle” in The Encyclopedia of the Life
Course and Human Development, edited by D. Carr. Farmington Hills, MI: The Gale
Group.
Laughlin, Lynda, Danielle Farrie, & Jay Fagan. 2009. Father involvement with children
following marital and non-marital separations. Fathering. 7(3):226-248.
Conference Presentations
Goyette, Kimberly A., Joshua Freely, and Danielle Farrie. “This school’s on its way down:
Thresholds of racial change in schools and perceived school quality." Paper presentation,
Eastern Sociological Society Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, February 2007.
Barlas, Frances and Danielle Farrie. “Perceptions of neighborhood safety: Social disorganization
and racial differences in the impact of neighborhood characteristics.” Paper presentation,
American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, QC, August 2006.
Goyette, Kimberly A., Joshua Freely, and Danielle Farrie. “This school's gone downhill: Racial
change and perceived school quality." Paper presentation, Population Association of
America Annual Meeting. Los Angeles, CA, April 2006.
Farrie, Danielle & Julie E. Press. “Informal job search and employment in the service sector: The
role of female network ties.” Paper presentation, American Sociological Association
Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, August 2005.
Laughlin, Lynda & Danielle Farrie. “Gender and neighborhood satisfaction.” Paper presentation,
Institute for Women’s Policy Research Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., June
2005.
Farrie, Danielle. “Neighborhood racial change and the residential preferences of whites in Los
Angeles.” Paper Presentation, Eastern Sociological Society Annual Meeting, New York,
15
NY, February 2004.
Press, Julie E., Jay Fagan, and Danielle Farrie. “The Philadelphia Survey of Child Care & Work:
An Overview.” Poster presented at Child Care Bureau Annual Conference, Washington D.C.,
April 2003.
Farrie, Danielle. “Locating Labor and Morality: State Intervention in a Free Market Society.”
Paper presented at Temple University Department of Sociology Annual Student Conference,
Philadelphia, PA, February 2002.
16
EXHIBIT B
Table 1: Student Enrollment Characteristics of High Needs Districts
District
Asbury Park
Atlantic City
Bayonne
Belmar Boro
Beverly City
Bound Brook
Bridgeton City
Buena Regional
Burlington City
Camden
Camden County Vocational
Carteret
Chesilhurst
Clementon
Cliffside Park
Commercial
Dover Town
East Newark
East Orange
Egg Harbor City
Elizabeth
Englewood City
Essex County Vocational
Fairfield Township
Fairview Boro
Freehold Boro
Garfield City
Gloucester City
Guttenberg
Hackensack
Haledon
Harrison Town
Highlands
Hillside Twp
Hoboken
Irvington
Jersey City
Keansburg
Keyport
Lakewood
Lawnside Boro
Linden
Lindenwold Boro
Lodi Boro
Asian
0%
13%
7%
1%
0%
2%
0%
1%
2%
1%
2%
23%
1%
3%
7%
0%
2%
1%
0%
2%
2%
6%
1%
0%
3%
2%
2%
2%
9%
6%
8%
8%
1%
1%
4%
0%
13%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
3%
10%
Black
75%
42%
10%
6%
58%
7%
40%
16%
53%
51%
37%
20%
65%
23%
3%
15%
7%
3%
92%
21%
24%
53%
52%
61%
2%
15%
8%
5%
2%
32%
13%
1%
8%
67%
15%
93%
36%
13%
11%
31%
97%
36%
50%
8%
17
Latino
23%
36%
32%
35%
12%
65%
49%
19%
5%
46%
38%
37%
23%
10%
41%
5%
79%
81%
8%
40%
65%
34%
44%
13%
66%
56%
41%
6%
85%
46%
53%
58%
7%
21%
58%
7%
38%
16%
17%
56%
2%
31%
23%
40%
White
2%
10%
51%
57%
30%
26%
10%
64%
40%
1%
23%
20%
11%
64%
49%
80%
12%
15%
0%
37%
9%
6%
3%
19%
29%
26%
49%
88%
4%
15%
26%
32%
84%
10%
24%
0%
11%
69%
69%
12%
1%
30%
24%
40%
At
Risk
69%
65%
51%
40%
56%
55%
82%
42%
38%
81%
87%
58%
-37%
34%
65%
61%
76%
72%
72%
73%
56%
85%
68%
62%
58%
59%
51%
70%
43%
54%
67%
33%
50%
67%
75%
73%
64%
30%
52%
51%
47%
59%
44%
LEP
9%
11%
6%
7%
1%
11%
18%
3%
3%
7%
0%
5%
0%
2%
8%
0%
10%
16%
4%
3%
15%
10%
0%
5%
12%
17%
9%
1%
17%
8%
4%
8%
0%
5%
3%
5%
12%
2%
3%
11%
0%
6%
5%
5%
IEP
15%
13%
14%
14%
10%
11%
12%
20%
15%
20%
33%
10%
11%
14%
11%
9%
9%
8%
15%
18%
9%
12%
17%
12%
16%
15%
13%
18%
9%
11%
13%
12%
18%
9%
13%
8%
13%
14%
17%
13%
8%
15%
14%
9%
Total
2,174
6,391
8,810
521
217
1,506
4,708
2,496
1,806
13,105
1,868
3,900
104
519
2,588
671
2,924
225
9,891
502
21,303
2,699
2,121
609
1,057
1,348
4,492
2,125
956
4,880
1,013
1,820
179
3,161
2,294
7,276
28,119
1,854
1,177
5,457
297
6,123
2,264
3,126
(cont)
Long Branch
Lower Township
Middlesex County Vocational
Milleville City
Mount Holly
Mullica
Neptune
New Brunswick
Newark
North Bergen
North Plainfield
Orange
Passaic city
Passaic County Manchester Regional
Passaic County Vocational
Paterson
Paulsboro
Pemberton Township
Pennsauken Township
Penns Grove-Carneys Point Regional
Perth Amboy
Phillipsburg
Pine Hill Boro
Plainfield
Pleasantville
Prospect Park
Quinton
Rahway
Red Bank
Riverside
Roselle Boro
Salem City
Seaside Heights
Seaside Park Boro
Somers Point
Trenton
Union City
Upper Deerfield
Ventnor City
Vineland City
Weehawken
West New York
Westville
Wildwood City
Willingboro township
Winslow
Woodbine Boro
Asian
2%
1%
5%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
5%
6%
1%
3%
0%
3%
3%
1%
2%
9%
1%
0%
2%
2%
0%
1%
0%
0%
3%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
5%
1%
1%
1%
15%
2%
4%
1%
4%
0%
1%
3%
0%
Black
26%
5%
15%
30%
38%
10%
62%
20%
58%
1%
24%
82%
8%
17%
24%
34%
51%
30%
37%
39%
7%
10%
27%
57%
53%
21%
25%
43%
24%
10%
67%
72%
20%
1%
18%
62%
1%
23%
6%
21%
3%
1%
8%
22%
91%
57%
33%
18
Latino
40%
6%
38%
17%
16%
22%
11%
77%
34%
80%
53%
17%
88%
45%
62%
57%
8%
12%
35%
22%
89%
11%
7%
42%
44%
60%
4%
30%
63%
13%
30%
6%
27%
8%
12%
35%
96%
13%
33%
46%
65%
87%
5%
43%
5%
8%
41%
White
33%
87%
42%
52%
45%
67%
25%
2%
8%
14%
17%
0%
1%
35%
11%
6%
40%
55%
19%
38%
3%
77%
63%
0%
2%
15%
70%
24%
12%
77%
2%
22%
52%
90%
65%
3%
2%
56%
47%
30%
28%
10%
82%
34%
2%
32%
27%
At
Risk
61%
46%
38%
56%
44%
33%
42%
67%
70%
50%
46%
74%
81%
50%
68%
81%
61%
46%
56%
54%
72%
29%
40%
72%
63%
70%
34%
50%
22%
34%
53%
69%
89%
27%
40%
65%
94%
43%
46%
61%
54%
59%
38%
57%
45%
38%
84%
LEP
6%
2%
0%
4%
4%
2%
3%
22%
10%
9%
7%
12%
25%
3%
0%
13%
1%
1%
4%
5%
0%
4%
1%
19%
6%
6%
0%
4%
22%
3%
10%
2%
8%
0%
2%
12%
33%
2%
14%
6%
7%
16%
2%
14%
1%
1%
4%
IEP
10%
17%
31%
19%
20%
11%
16%
15%
15%
13%
13%
15%
13%
15%
16%
14%
18%
15%
19%
17%
9%
13%
20%
12%
11%
13%
8%
15%
9%
19%
15%
18%
15%
10%
13%
13%
11%
10%
8%
14%
10%
12%
18%
24%
14%
13%
15%
Total
4,824
1,837
1,897
6,267
986
724
4,433
6,708
40,507
7,465
3,083
4,568
12,398
775
2,802
24,087
1,400
5,008
5,568
2,454
9,461
3,645
2,182
6,461
3,478
837
343
3,872
842
1,435
2,818
1,425
207
78
1,115
11,448
9,730
896
943
9,770
1,164
7,054
353
879
4,674
6,063
211
(cont)
Woodbury City
Woodlynne
High Needs Total
State*
Asian
1%
9%
3%
8%
Black
43%
36%
35%
17%
Latino
12%
46%
41%
19%
White
44%
7%
17%
55%
At
Risk
49%
73%
64%
28%
LEP
1%
12%
9%
4%
IEP
16%
16%
13%
17%
Total
1,599
459
401,909
1,378,631
Source: 2007-08 NJ School Report Card, 2007-08 Fall Survey
Note: At-Risk = Eligible for Federal Free or Reduced Priced Lunch Program, LEP = Limited English Proficient, IEP = Students with
Individualized Education Plan
* State total for IEP represents the statewide classification rate for ages 3-21 including districts, charter schools, and state agencies
19
EXHIBIT C
List of Participating Districts
Abbott “High Needs”
Other “High Needs”
ASBURY PARK CITY
BRIDGETON CITY
BURLINGTON CITY
CAMDEN CITY
CITY OF ORANGE TWP
ELIZABETH CITY
GARFIELD CITY
GLOUCESTER CITY
IRVINGTON CITY
LONG BRANCH CITY
MILLVILLE CITY
NEWARK CITY
PASSAIC CITY
PEMBERTON TWP
PERTH AMBOY CITY
VINELAND CITY
WEST NEW YORK TOWN
BOUND BROOK BORO
BUENA REGIONAL
CARTERET BORO
EGG HARBOR CITY
FREEHOLD BORO
HACKENSACK CITY
HILLSIDE TWP
LAKEWOOD TWP
LINDEN CITY
LINDENWOLD BORO
LODI BOROUGH
MOUNT HOLLY TWP
MULLICA TWP
NORTH PLAINFIELD BORO
PASSAIC CO MANCHESTER REG
PENNS GRV-CARNEY'S PT REG
QUINTON TWP
RAHWAY CITY
RED BANK BORO
ROSELLE BORO
UPPER DEERFIELD TWP
VENTNOR CITY
WEEHAWKEN TWP
WILDWOOD CITY
WILLINGBORO TWP
WINSLOW TWP
WOODBURY CITY
20
EXHIBIT D
Table 2.
Description of Sample of High Needs Districts
In Sample
N
Percent
District Factor Group
A
B
CD
DE
FG
N
V
Grade Span
K-6/K-8
K-12
7-12/9-12
Vocational
Enrollment
0-1800
1801-3500
3501 +
Total
Not in Sample
N
Percent
17
18
6
2
0
1
0
39%
41%
14%
5%
0%
2%
0%
18
17
6
3
1
0
4
8
35
1
0
18%
80%
2%
0%
13
10
21
44
30%
23%
48%
100%
21
N
Total
Percent
35
35
12
5
1
1
4
20
26
0
3
37%
35%
12%
6%
2%
0%
8%
0%
41%
53%
0%
6%
28
61
1
3
38%
38%
13%
5%
1%
1%
4%
0%
30%
66%
1%
3%
23
13
13
49
47%
27%
27%
100%
36
23
34
93
39%
25%
37%
100%
EXHIBIT E
Table 3: Summary of 2010-11 Budget Reductions in High Needs Districts (N=44)
GENERAL CURRENT EXPENSE
Instruction
Support Services
CAPITAL OUTLAY
SPECIAL SCHOOLS
GRANTS AND ENTITLEMENTS
DEBT SERVICE
TOTAL
2009-10
2010-11
Reduction
$1,541,823,636
$2,303,841,952
$59,107,759
$141,464,293
$586,737,058
$35,310,013
$4,668,284,711
$1,448,733,256
$2,230,938,203
$24,777,104
$161,178,133
$544,391,025
$35,621,351
$4,445,639,072
-$93,090,380
-$72,903,749
-$34,330,655
$19,713,840
-$42,346,033
$311,338
-$222,645,639
Percent
Change
Percent
of Total
Reduction
-6%
-3%
-58%
14%
-7%
1%
-5%
42%
33%
15%
-19%
-100%
Percent
Change
Percent
of Total
Reduction
-7%
-4%
-55%
15%
-6%
-13%
-5%
41%
42%
10%
-17%
1%
100%
Percent
Change
Percent
of Total
Reduction
-5%
0%
-61%
-1%
-12%
8%
-4%
44%
-35%
0%
27%
-100%
Table 4: Summary of 2010-11 Budget Reductions in Abbott Districts (N=17)
GENERAL CURRENT EXPENSE
Instruction
Support Services
CAPITAL OUTLAY
SPECIAL SCHOOLS
GRANTS AND ENTITLEMENTS
DEBT SERVICE
TOTAL
2009-10
2010-11
Reduction
$1,119,678,845
$1,674,092,480
$32,559,825
$132,380,894
$480,791,303
$11,898,941
$3,451,402,288
$1,046,845,494
$1,600,263,764
$14,540,496
$152,144,450
$450,708,854
$10,349,878
$3,274,852,936
-$72,833,351
-$73,828,716
-$18,019,329
$19,763,556
-$30,082,449
-$1,549,063
-$176,549,352
Table 5: Summary of 2010-11 Budget Reductions in Other High Needs Districts (N=27)
GENERAL CURRENT EXPENSE
Instruction
Support Services
CAPITAL OUTLAY
SPECIAL SCHOOLS
GRANTS AND ENTITLEMENTS
DEBT SERVICE
TOTAL
2009-10
2010-11
$422,144,791
$629,749,472
$26,547,934
$9,083,399
$105,945,755
$23,411,072
$1,216,882,423
$401,887,762
$630,674,439
$10,236,608
$9,033,683
$93,682,171
$25,271,473
$1,170,786,136
22
Reduction
-$20,257,029
$924,967
-$16,311,326
-$49,716
-$12,263,584
$1,860,401
-$46,096,287
EXHIBIT F
Table 6. 2010-11 Reductions by Expenditure Category in "High Needs" Districts (N=44)
Reduction
GENERAL CURRENT EXPENSE
Instruction:
Regular Program
Special Education
Basic Skills/Remedial
Bilingual Education
Vocational - Instruction
Co/Extra-Curr. Activities
Athletics
Other Instructional Program
Before/After School Programs
Summer School Instruction
Alternative Ed Programs
Other Supplemental/At-Risk Programs
Community Service Program
Support Services:
Tuition
Attendance and Social Work
Health Services
Speech, OT, PT, Related & Extra. Services
Guidance
Child Study Team
Improvement of Instructional Services
Educational Media Services - School
Library
Instructional Staff Training Services
General Admin
School Admin
Central Svcs & Admin Info Tech
Operation & Maintenance of Plant
(inc. Security)
Student Transportation
Other Support
Personal services - employee benefits
Food Services
Percent
of Total
Reduction
2009-10
2010-11
$1,065,470,591
$277,618,133
$20,073,258
$85,408,765
$1,059,797
$10,799,621
$26,691,961
$867,320
$12,851,241
$1,577,555
$13,204,657
$23,462,705
$2,738,032
$1,003,668,666
$270,180,832
$17,517,344
$83,307,454
$905,914
$9,619,172
$23,817,970
$2,039,099
$11,810,395
$2,329,340
$13,419,329
$7,753,453
$2,364,288
-$61,801,925
-$7,437,301
-$2,555,914
-$2,101,311
-$153,883
-$1,180,449
-$2,873,991
$1,171,779
-$1,040,846
$751,785
$214,672
-$15,709,252
-$373,744
-6%
-3%
-13%
-2%
-15%
-11%
-11%
135%
-8%
48%
2%
-67%
-14%
28%
3%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
-0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
$335,991,140
$34,521,144
$44,523,300
$55,174,244
$72,512,810
$100,903,916
$102,540,066
$328,826,686
$28,488,125
$41,819,262
$56,060,843
$64,783,840
$96,929,191
$84,476,541
-$7,164,454
-$6,033,019
-$2,704,038
$886,599
-$7,728,970
-$3,974,725
-$18,063,525
-2%
-17%
-6%
2%
-11%
-4%
-18%
3%
3%
1%
0%
3%
2%
8%
$47,354,479
$7,750,886
$68,610,527
$134,604,308
$85,931,322
$43,866,647
$5,717,916
$61,960,852
$131,020,766
$77,896,541
-$3,487,832
-$2,032,970
-$6,649,675
-$3,583,542
-$8,034,781
-7%
-26%
-10%
-3%
-9%
2%
1%
3%
2%
4%
$400,615,782
$176,881,313
$365,704,983
$175,316,739
-$34,910,799
-$1,564,574
-9%
-1%
$628,882,703
$6,953,952
$663,996,313
$4,044,252
$35,113,610
-$2,909,700
6%
-42%
16%
1%
0%
-1%
23
Dollar
Percent
Change
(cont.)
Emergency Reserve
Maintenance Reserve
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Total Capital Expenditures
Capital Reserve
SPECIAL SCHOOLS
Summer School
Other Special Schools
Accr Evening/Adult/PostGrad Schools
Adult Ed Local
Vocational Evening
Evening School for Foreign-born
GED
Transfer to Charters
GRANTS AND ENTITLEMENTS
Preschool Education Aid
Other Grants and Entitlements
DEBT SERVICE
Repayment of Debt
Total
Reduction
Percent
of Total
Reduction
0%
0%
2009-10
$55,144
$34,916
2010-11
$1,775
$26,931
Dollar
-$53,369
-$7,985
Percent
Change
-97%
-23%
$58,387,362
$720,397
$24,701,111
$75,993
-$33,686,251
-$644,404
-58%
-89%
15%
0%
$6,202,474
$155,950
$5,585,496
$2,071,855
$4,445,635
$155,950
$3,595,096
$344,253
-28%
0%
-36%
-83%
$37,538
$30,000
$127,380,980
$21,754
$0
$152,615,445
-$1,756,839
$0
-$1,990,400
-$1,727,602
$0
-$15,784
-$30,000
$25,234,465
-42%
-100%
20%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
--
$340,042,411
$246,694,647
$362,428,600
$181,962,425
$22,386,189
-$64,732,222
7%
-26%
-29%
$35,310,013
$4,668,284,711
$35,621,351
$4,445,639,072
$311,338
-$222,645,639
1%
-5%
0%
100%
24
EXHIBIT G
Detailed Description of Position Codes
Category
Regular Teachers
FTE Position
Teachers - General Fund
Teachers - Special Revenue
Special Education
Support
Child Study Team - Professional
Child Study Team - Support
Classroom Aides - General Fund
Classroom Aides - Special Revenue
Speech, OT, PT & Related Services
Extraordinary Services
Tutors & Reading
Specialist
Teacher Tutors & Reading Spec
Professional
Development
Facilitators, Math & Lit. Coaches
Improv of Instruc - Support
Prof Development - Professionals
Prof Development - Support
Guidance/Social Work
Attendance & Social Work
Guidance - Support
Guidance - Professional
25
EXHIBIT H
Table 7. Summary of 2010-11 Reductions in Staff Positions
Abbott
Regular Teachers
Spec Ed Support
Tutors and Reading Spec.
Professional Development
Guidance/Social Work
Other - Admin.,Tech, Operations,Health
Total
FTE's
2009-10
13,956
4,033
261
510
1,137
8,122
28,019
2010-11
Cuts
-943
-276
-145
-15
-149
-795
-2,323
Other High Needs
Percent
Change
-7%
-7%
-56%
-3%
-13%
-10%
-8%
26
FTE's
2009-10
5,724
1,553
13
66
271
2,332
9,958
2010-11
Cuts
-412
-217
0
-11
-19
-206
-864
Percent
Change
-7%
-14%
0%
-16%
-7%
-9%
-9%
Total
FTE's
2009-10
19,680
5,586
274
577
1,408
10,453
37,977
2010-11
Cuts
-1,355
-493
-145
-26
-168
-1,001
-3,188
Percent
Change
-7%
-9%
-53%
-5%
-12%
-10%
-8%