'Special master' will hold further hearings and report by end of March on constitutionality of the current funding levels Watch video
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
TRENTON — After cutting spending for schools by about $1 billion last year, the Christie administration today was ordered by the New Jersey Supreme Court to prove the reduced funding can sufficiently provide a "thorough and efficient education" to the nearly 1.4 million children in the state’s classrooms.
The state’s highest court, which last week heard oral arguments in the long-running Abbott v. Burke school funding case, appointed a "special master" to hold further hearings — and report by March 31— on the constitutionality of the current funding levels.
Calling the obligation to fund schools "a fundamental responsibility of the state," the Supreme Court again named Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne to hold hearings in the case and submit proposed fact-findings and conclusions of law. Doyne served as special master in an earlier round of the Abbott case, in 2008.
The order did not specify when the hearing would take place, or what parties and attorneys will be permitted to participate; a case management conference is scheduled for next Tuesday. But experts who have followed Abbott V. Burke said it could include a chance for some school districts, many of whom have railed against the aid cuts, to tell the court how the cuts affected them.
"The reason the Supreme Court remanded it to (Doyne) is so he could conduct an evidentiary hearing: What would you have done if you received full funding of the formula? As a result of the cut in state aid, what kinds of staff and programmatic and educational cuts did you have to make? How did that affect the quality of eduction?" said Rutgers University law professor Paul Tractenberg, a former board member of the Education Law Center, the Newark-based advocacy group that brought the case.
The standoff over the aid shortfalls began last spring, when Gov. Chris Christie slashed school funding by $820 million. The Education Law Center filed a motion charging the cuts violated the state’s school funding formula, called the School Funding Reform Act.
The Supreme Court order gives the state the burden of proving the reduced funding formula is sufficient — something Tractenberg called an "uphill fight."
"I think it requires a lot of heavy lifting by the state now to justify this," he said.
The state Attorney General’s Office did not comment on the case.
Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said the education funding cuts were fair and should stand. "We believe the funding levels in the current fiscal year budget — which were necessary to close an $11 billion deficit — were done in an equitable and legal manner and should be upheld."
During his State of the State address on Tuesday, Christie referenced the school funding battle: "We must end the myth that more money equals better achievement. It is a failed legal theory — and we can no longer waste our children’s time or the public’s money waiting for it to work."
David G. Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center, said the order "reaffirmed that the state’s responsibility to provide a thorough and efficient education is fundamental and extends to all students."
The timing and the high stakes could throw a wrench into the state’s budget process. After Doyne’s report is issued, the two sides are expected to file briefs in April. It was not clear whether another hearing would follow.
School funding is a huge portion of the state’s annual budget, which Christie must sign by days’ end on June 30.
"If they tell us we have to spend another $1 billion, it’s going to absolutely devastate the budget," said Assemblyman Joseph Malone, (R-Burlington,) who has criticized the court’s role in the school funding debate, saying the justices wrongly equated spending with educational success.
"It’s their meddling that has gotten us into this problem," he said. "It is a comedy of errors."
The ruling comes as school districts are preparing their budgets for the next school year. Districts are to submit proposed budgets to the state by March 4; voters cast ballots on their school spending plans April 27.
Perth Amboy Superintendent John Rodecker, whose district filed a friend of the court brief in the case, said he was pleased the court found the argument against last year’s state aid cuts credible enough to investigate further. But he said the collision of the court’s decision and the next budget will be a challenge.
"If we are just trying to operate year to year without any recognition of districts’ size or economic status, it becomes very difficult to plan a budget, much less a curriculum and a school system," Rodecker said.
Chris Megerian contributed to this report.
By Jeanette Rundquist and Jessica Calefati/The Star-Ledger