|
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
|
|
education.
Indeed, the original application did not provide any background
information for the sufficiency
assessment regarding the originally proposed $5,000 per four-year-
old. If the reduction to $4,500
is a change to a predetermined set rate (here is that
$4,500 number again), there is no evidence in the record as to
the manner in which that rate
was determined and how it relates to the provision of an appropriate
Abbott preschool education.
Additionally, while there are presumably legitimate reasons why
the cost per student is higher
for those served in the Passaic County Educational
Services District, the rate for these students remains the same
in the revised plan, while the
DHS-center rate has been reduced. How, one wonders, does the reduction
in one program relate to the
stable rate in the other, and what impact, if any, does the
reduction have on the program provided? To the extent that the
applications do not explain
the whys and wherefores, one is left to guess. The Department's
approval of the revised plan,
by letter dated April 24, 2000, references revisions "discussed
on April 18 [the date of the
second revision to the plan]," including the provision of "half
of the full-day costs ($4,500)
for children in community programs," and approves the same.
There is no reference in the letter to the reason for the reduction,
no evidence in the record of
the nature of the discussions of April 18, and no suggestion as
to how, why or from whom the
suggestion for the revision arose. It must be assumed that the
Department believed that the
plan, including its per-student cost, was adequate to
provide an Abbott-compliant education. However, since the reduction
was to $4,500, the reduction
seems suspiciously to have been based on some pre-set DOE rate
calculation. Again, if this
is true, a proposition that the DOE denies, no evidence
explaining or justifying the adequacy of that rate has been presented.
If this is not true, how was
the $4,500 rate determined? In the face of a record lacking in
explanation and documents that
are likewise empty, the appearance of the very arbitrariness that
troubled the Court in Abbott
IV is evident.
|
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
