1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 03246-01S, EDU 04029-99S, EDU 04030-99S, EDU 04113-99S, EDU 04436-99S, EDU 05356-99N, EDU 05358-99N, EDU 05799-99N, EDU 05804-99N, EDU 05873-99N, EDU 07157-99N, EDU 07158-99N, EDU 07456-99N, EDU 07914-00N, EDU 09462-00N
legally actionable violation can be difficult to determine. In this case, that determination is exacerbated by the passage of time in a setting where there exists a yearly cycle of events regarding budgets, plans, applications and an ever-changing population of individuals to be educated, who, for the most part, move on to a new school level each September. The application process for the 2000-2001 school year, which is the subject of much of the detailed evidential analysis presented by the petitioners in their briefs is, now, in March/April 2001, considerably dated, at least as to the districts' plans and applications for the approaching 2001-2002 school term. Thus, to a large degree, while the evidential details of what occurred last year are important as examples of what purportedly was wrong (or right) with the efforts of districts and, more pointedly here, the Department, it is the overarching systemic concerns raised by the petitioners that are most amenable to current treatment. In part, this is due to the fact that some of the DOE responses to the Court's mandates were not in effect at the time the January 2000 applications were issued, nor were they in effect, or even in existence, in the weeks and months immediately post-Abbott VI . As the case is judged today, regulations are in effect, the Expectations document is published, and a series of post-Abbott VI training and guidance events have occurred. Whether any of these have sufficiently performed the tasks for which they are meant and whether, even if valuable, such matters have allowed the Department to sufficiently respond to the Court's mandates so as to defeat the claims of the petitioners, is a primary aspect of the decisions herein. The ELC agrees that any relief that might be found appropriate in regards to its systemic complaints must be prospective in nature.17 To the extent that the evidence presented establishes that the DOE has not done what the Court
17This is in contrast to Perth Amboy's claim regarding facility expenditures it contends the DOE has already approved but has failed to actually fund.
- 38 -