The NJ Department of Education based its 2003 study of education costs on hypothetical or "model" school districts developed by DOE staff, and not on the needs of actual students or schools. The models also do not reflect the real-life conditions of the State’s urban or "Abbott" districts, repeating a fundamental flaw that led the NJ Supreme Court to reject former Governor Whitman’s 1996 funding law known as the Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act (CEIFA).

A November 15th report by the Joint Legislative Committee on School Funding Reform recommended that the costs developed by DOE in its 2003 study serve as the basis for a new school funding law, even though the study has never been made public and is nearly four years old.

The use of hypothetical school districts to determine education costs conflicts with recent statements by state education officials and legislators who pledged to replace the unconstitutional CEIFA funding law with a new formula that would "follow the child," suggesting that funding would be based on student need rather than geography.

To determine education inputs and costs in 2003, the DOE staff constructed model school districts each of fixed size – small, moderate, large and very large –along with a fixed number of schools by grade configuration (K-5, middle school, etc.). The DOE then created "at-risk" levels, using fixed percentages of poor students and limited-English proficient (LEP) students respectively.

These DOE models bear no relationship to the actual characteristics of Abbott districts, schools and students. Some of the most glaring differences are:

• ● Abbott district total enrollments vary considerably from all the DOE models, with five districts well above the "very large" district model (Figure 1).
• ● 41% of all Abbott schools have grade configurations and enrollments different from those in the models (Figure 2).
• ● All 31 Abbott districts have low-income enrollments in excess of the models, with most districts two or even three times higher than the models (Figures 3-6).
• ● The number of limited-English proficient students in most Abbott districts exceeds the fixed percentage in the models, with several districts far in excess of the models (Figures 7-10).

In addition, the DOE based its percentage of low-income students using free-lunch eligibility only, excluding those students eligible for the reduced price lunch program. When both free and reduced lunch students are counted, the gap between the low-income students in the DOE models and Abbott districts widens even further (Figure 11).

Use of free and reduced lunch eligiblity often fails to capture the full extent of student poverty in urban districts. Adminstrators often cannot obtain required paperwork from highly mobile students and parents, and from immigrant families.

The difference between the hypothetical model districts and real Abbott districts is crucial. If the models are unrealistic, and have significantly lower concentrations of low income students and students with special needs, any funding formula based on the models will simply not be adequate to meet the educational and related needs of actual students, schools and districts, especially in urban communities with high concentrations of poor and disadvantaged students.

The similarities between the model districts created by DOE in 2003 and those developed by DOE for the 1996 CEIFA funding law that was declared unconstitutional are striking. Neither bears any relationship to the real-life conditions in the Abbott districts and schools, nor do they reflect the extent of student need due to poverty and other factors. The lack of connection between the models and the actual needs of real-life students and schools in the Abbott districts was cited by the Supreme Court as one of several reasons why the CIEFA funding law was inadequate:

The [CEIFA] model district also was not based on the characteristics of the special needs [Abbott] districts. Not one of the twenty-eight SNDs conforms with the model district, and CEIFA... The model district assumes, as the basis for its resource allocations and cost projections, conditions that do not, and simply cannot, exist in these failing districts. The fallacy of the use of the hypothetical model school district is that it can furnish only an aspirational standard. It rests on the unrealistic assumption that, in effectuating the imperative of a thorough and efficient education, all school districts can be treated alike and in isolation from the realities of their surrounding environment.

Abbott v. Burke IV, 149 N.J. at page 172.

Similarly, the DOE’s latest version of the model school district is not based on the high poverty, urban characteristics of the Abbott districts, and none of these districts conforms to the models. The models assume conditions that do not exist in the Abbott districts, and they again treat these districts "in isolation from the realities of their surrounding environment."

"Its disappointing that the DOE has repeated the very same -- and fundamental -- error that made the CEIFA funding law inadequate and unconstitutional," said David Sciarra, ELC Executive Director. "For the benefit of all New Jersey school children, and especially the overwhelmingly poor and minority children in our high poverty urban communities, it is imperative that the Legislature reject the DOE’s flawed costing-out methods."

ELC is urging the Legislature to authorize a new education cost study, performed by independent experts, and based on professional and constitutional standards. The study should include a detailed analysis of the actual needs of Abbott districts, schools and students to ensure the successful programs and reforms required by the landmark Abbott rulings are maintained and strengthened, and are expanded to reach other disadvantaged students and school districts.

For information, contact David Sciarra at dsciarra@edlawcenter.org or 973-624-1815, ext 16.

Prepared: December 7, 2006

Copyright © 2006 Education Law Center. All Rights Reserved.