|
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
|
|
original
submission, three-year-olds were to receive a full-day program
with a per-pupil cost of $8,400.
There is no explanation of the sufficiency of the per-pupil cost
at either rate. Apparently the
cost for full-day was more than twice that for half-day, but one
is left to guess whether the
original $3,400 cost was actually sufficient for an appropriate
half-day. (It may be that the
$8,400 figure reflects the inclusion of matching DHS funds.
If this is so, the rate per pupil is apparently $4,200, an $800
dollar per-pupil increase over
the previous figure. How the two figures relate and to what extent
one or the other constitutes
sufficient funding for an appropriate education is not revealed.)The
DOE approved the revised plan
by letter dated June 13, 2000. The letter makes no reference
to the change in per-pupil costs. It states that the "plan meets
all . . . required components."This
blanket statement may imply that the DOE was satisfied that the
plan would provide the well-planned,
high-quality preschool education contemplated by
the Court, but the approval letter, much like the plan produced
by the district, does not explain
how that conclusion is justified. It is interesting to note that
Newark's plan originally called
for funding for a full-day program in approved centers for three-year-
olds at $4,500 per child, with
matching funds from the DHS to be blended with that
amount. As revised, on September 19, 2000, the Newark plan sets
the rate for the same program
at $4,750, again to be matched by DHS funds. Again, there is no
explanation of the sufficiency
of either figure, or any reason given for the change in rate.
To the extent that the rates
varied from those originally sought in Jersey City, or those
sought in the amendment, there are no doubt reasons for the differences
between the two districts, but
on the face of the proposals and approvals, there is no way to
understand the differences and
the justifications as to why the amount needed per pupil
varies. Of course, it is exactly this difference in the needs
and circumstances of individual
programs and of individual districts and students that argues
for careful assessment by districts
and the DOE, and against anything smacking of arbitrary
treatment.
|
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
