statement of education law center on the … · statement of education law center ... in-depth...

STATEMENT OF EDUCATION LAW CENTERON THE REPORT ON THE COST OF EDUCATION

Education Law Center’s mission, since 1974, is to advocate for equal andadequate educational opportunities for all New Jersey public school children, especiallythose living in our state’s disadvantaged communities. We also serve as counsel toplaintiffs in the landmark Abbott v. Burke education equity case, the over 325,000children – mostly poor, African-American and Latino -- who attend preschools and K-12 schools in our state’s poor urban or Abbott districts. I present this testimony onbehalf of these children, and on behalf of disadvantaged school children in districts allacross our state.

INTRODUCTION: EXTEND AND EXPAND THE REVIEW PROCESS

At the outset, the process for review and public comment on the Report onEducation Costs (Report) for New Jersey’s 1.2 million public school students must beextended and expanded. The Report presents some of the results of a study by the DOEof education costs (Cost Study) done in late 2002 and early 2003. This Cost Study waskept secret for almost four years, even from the small number of outside educators whowere convened by the DOE on January 21, 2003 to provide input on its education costmodels. The Report on the DOE Study was not made public until December 11th, justdays in advance of this hearing. While the DOE indicates it may hold additionalhearings in January, no such hearings have been scheduled. Finally, the DOE has set adeadline of December 28th for written comments.

This timeframe for public review and comment is completely unreasonable andunacceptable, given the critical educational issues and constitutional rights implicatedby the cost determinations presented in the Report. ELC – and I’m certain others – havejust begun the process of having experts in school finance and education reform analyzethe costing out methods and determinations in the Cost Study, and to compare theStudy results with the current education spending under former Governor Whitman’sfunding law, the Comprehensive Improvement and Financing Act of 1996 (CEIFA), theconstitutionally-prescribed funding requirements established in the Abbott rulings, andother cost studies undertaken in neighboring states such as Maryland, New York and,most recently by the Augenblick firm in Connecticut.

2

We urge, therefore, that the deadline for written comments on the Report beextended until January 31, 2007, and that several more public hearings be scheduledduring January. These hearings should focus on specific aspects of the Cost Study, suchas the appropriateness of the costing-out methods used; the proposed foundation costs;the proposed costs for supplemental programs for low income or “at-risk” students;and the proposed costs for special education. This will allow stakeholders concernedwith specific elements of the Cost Study – special education, the needs of students inhigh poverty urban districts, for example – to have the time and opportunity to providein-depth analysis and comment.

We also note that, as you know, ELC unfortunately had to file a lawsuit underthe Open Public Records Act (OPRA) to get documentation of the Cost Study from late2002 and 2003. As a result of that legal action, we’ve received some documents of theCost Study over the last two months. However, just last Thursday, the Departmentprovided an additional 12,000 pages of additional documents to ELC. Review of thismaterial is critical to a full understanding of the Cost Study and, needless to say, willneed substantial additional time for review.

We also are concerned that the Report does not address several key elements ofthe Cost Study and necessary for a full examination of education costs -- elementstypically addressed in the studies done in other states by the Augenblick firm,American Institutes for Research (AIR) and others. Early education is notably missing,along with analyses of the current revenues – state and local – to support educationspending in communities across the state. Nor does the Report analyze the DOEproposed education costs in each area – foundation education, special education,supplemental or at risk – against current and actual costs for each area and in eachdistrict. All of these critical elements relate to each other, so without these “missingpieces,” it is difficult to provide meaningful comment on the Report.

We urge, therefore, the DOE to set a schedule for public release – and publichearings with ample time for review and comment – additional reports on the elementsof education costs not presented in the December 11th Report.

As mentioned above, ELC has not had adequate time to review the Report in anydepth, nor have we had the time to review the background documents received as aresult of our outstanding OPRA lawsuit. We also have not had time to work withexperts retained by ELC and others to analyze the Report and the Cost Study. As aresult, ELC can only provide some preliminary comments today, and we reserve ourright to provide a more detailed analysis at a later date.

3

Based on our preliminary analysis, however, there are several reasons why theeducation costs proposed by DOE in the Report must be rejected outright, and must notused as the basis for any new school funding formula.

1. THE COST STUDY IS OUT OF DATE

The Cost Study was done by DOE in late 2002 and early 2003, even thoughthe Report presenting the results of the Study were not released until December 11,2006, almost four years later. The Report does not explain why the Cost Study was keptsecret for four years, and not publicly released earlier.

Most importantly, the Cost Study relied on State and federal educationalstandards, programs, reforms, accountability requirements in place in 2002, and data onstudent, school, and district characteristics and performance that is now over four yearsold. These data, standards and other indicators were used by DOE staff to create thehypothetical districts and input resource models that formed the basis of the DOEdeterminations of education cost. They were also used by DOE staff to determinedistrict educational success for the successful school district (SSD) developed by DOE todetermine foundation or “regular” education cost.

Clearly, the Cost Study is now out of date. Many significant changes ineducational programming, reforms and accountability measures, under state law, theAbbott rulings and the federal No Child Left Behind Act have taken place since 2002,changes which directly impact upon the resources needed in districts and schools tomeet federal and state accountability and performance standards. Some of the mostimportant of the changes includes the requirements for schools and districts in need ofimprovement or in restructuring under NCLB; the requirements for meeting AnnualYearly Progress (AYP) under NCLB; more rigorous standards for middle and highschools, and the Secondary Reform Initiative in the Abbott districts; the requirementsimposed upon schools from the Collaborative Assessment and Planning forAchievement (CAPA) reviews and reports; and the new requirements recently imposedunder the Quality Single Accountability Continuum (QSAC), just to name a few.

Our students, schools and districts will be required to address or meet therequirements, reforms and accountability measures over the next several years,especially as New Jersey’s proficiency levels increase in 2007 and 2010, and as the new5th grade and science assessments are added. See Report, Appendix 4-11. Meeting theserequirements will take new resources or require the reallocation of existing resources.

4

In addition, the methods used in costing out studies have advanced significantlysince 2002, as is made clear from the study just completed in Connecticut by JohnAugenblick’s partner, Robert Palaich. For example, the Connecticut study, unlike theDOE Cost Study, used various techniques to ensure the needs of students in highpoverty urban districts and NCLB requirements of NCLB were taken into account.

Indeed, the Special Legislative Committee on School Funding Reformacknowledged that education costs are not static, but extremely “dynamic,” and shouldbe revisited every two years. The Cost Study already is out of compliance with theCommittee’s own standard for ensuring education costs used in any formula are up-to-date and not stale.

2. THE COST STUDY DID NOT FOLLOW ACCEPTED STANDARDS FOR“PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT”

The Report claims that the DOE used a costing-out method known as“professional judgment” (PJ), a process whereby education resources and inputsnecessary to meet academic standards are determined by groups or “panels” of outsideeducators, business officials and other professionals. The Report indicates the DOEassembled and convened PJ panels on January 21, 2003. The Report also claims theprocess used by DOE was similar to PJ methods used in other state costing out studies.

It is clear that DOE did not follow basic and accepted standards used by schoolfinance experts, and indeed Augenblick and Palaich itself, to conduct costing outthrough the PJ method. As John Augenblick repeatedly made clear in his testimony tothe Special Legislative Committee, the Cost Study was entirely “controlled” by DOEstaff, from start to finish. This is unlike the studies performed by A&P in Maryland andConnecticut, and the study the firm was just hired to perform in Pennsylvania. Thosestudies differ fundamentally from the Cost Study in that the process and results aredetermined in an independent and unbiased manner, by school finance experts, in anopen and transparent process not controlled by State education officials.

In addition, the education professionals brought in to do the study are given fullauthority to analyze student, school and district needs, specify necessary educationresources, and make final “judgments” on those needs and resources. They are alsoinvolved in the determinations of educational success that form the basis of the SSDmethod, if used in the study.

This type of rigorous process was clearly not followed by DOE in January 2003.The hypothetical schools and districts were entirely created by DOE staff, not outside

5

professionals. The DOE staff, not outside professionals, also initially developed theresource input models based on the hypothetical schools and districts, and made allfinal determinations. Indeed, the outside professionals brought in by DOE in January2003 were given the DOE input models; asked to provide comment; were not permittedto take the models out of the room; then were sent away and never brought back toreview the models any further. In fact, the first time any of those January 2003participants saw the models again was when the Report was released on December 11th,almost four years after they met with the DOE.

The method used by DOE in 2003 was not “professional judgment,” by anymeasure. Rather, DOE made all the determinations, not outside professionals, as istypically done in PJ studies, such as the Connecticut study. At best, the professionalsgave some input on DOE models, once in January 2003, and were sent away never to beheard from again. On this basis alone, the 2003 Study should be rejected and not usedas the basis for any new funding formula.

3. THE COST STUDY IMPROPERLY USES “HYPOTHETICAL DISTRICTS”

The Cost Study rests upon hypothetical school districts created by DOE staff in2002 as the basis for determining resources and costs. These hypothetical K-8 and K-12districts are presented in Appendix 3 of the Report.

The use of hypothetical districts, developed by DOE, is similar to the methodused by the Department to determine the education costs that formed the basis for the1996 CEIFA funding law.

Our analysis of these hypothetical districts shows that, like the CIEFA models,they bear no relationship to actual New Jersey districts and schools and, in particular,the high poverty Abbott districts. The hypothetical districts are unlike Abbott districtsin every respect: district size, school configuration, and concentration of low incomestudents and students with limited English proficiency. These differences are spelledout in the attached Exhibits 1-10.

In addition, the DOE failed to use both free and reduced lunch eligibility todetermine low income concentrations for its district models, further divorcing itsmodels from the reality of actual New Jersey school districts. See Exhibit 11 attached.

In declaring CEIFA unconstitutional, the Supreme Court in the 1997 Abbott IVruling specifically rejected using hypothetical districts, divorced from the realities of

6

actual districts, schools and students. Any funding formula based on such districts willclearly be educationally and constitutionally inadequate.

4. THE PROPOSED BASE COST IS WELL BELOW CURRENT COST

Based on the hypothetical school districts, the DOE developed a set of inputmodels for K-12 districts for “foundation” or “general” education that are presented inAppendix 3 of the Report. Using those input models, the DOE determinedapproximately $8500 per pupil is sufficient to educate all students under the State’sacademic standards – the Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS). Report, page 17.

In declaring the general education cost under CEIFA unconstitutional, theSupreme Court underscored two flaws: the absence of any concrete evidence linking thecost to the resources needed for students to achieve the CCCS, and the failure to showthat the difference between the CEIFA cost and the general education cost in the State’ssuccessful suburban districts – or District Factor Group I&J districts – representedspending on general education in those districts not needed to achieve the CCCS or, inother words, excess costs.

To replace the CEIFA general education cost, the Supreme Court in Abbott IVexplicitly placed upon the Department the obligation to (1) “convincingly”demonstrate” that any new cost determination is adequate to ensure all New Jersey’sstudents a rigorous curriculum and program that will enable them to achieve the CCCS;and (2) demonstrate that any “excess” cost in the successful suburban districts is notneeded to enable students in those districts to achieve the CCCS.

The DOE clearly failed to address these critical issues in its Study and in theReport. As the attached Exhibits show, the proposed $8500 per pupil general educationcost almost $1700 per pupil below the current the cost in every district group, andsubstantially below the statewide average cost. The DOE proposed cost isapproximately $2500 below the cost in the successful suburban districts, which serves asthe cost benchmark for the Abbott districts under the Abbott IV ruling. See Exhibit 12.

The DOE proposed general education cost also is far below the cost determinedby the professional judgment panels in Connecticut, a comparable state, in the recentlycompleted study performed by A&P.

Most importantly, the Report presents no explanation for these significantdifferences, nor offers any evidence concerning the wide gap between the DOEproposed cost and the costs in the successful suburban districts. On the face of the

7

Report, it doesn’t appear that the DOE even attempted to address this critical issue,especially since, by proposing $8500, the DOE is, in effect, declaring $2 billion in currentgeneral education spending unnecessary for students to achieve the CCCS.

It appears that the difference between the DOE proposed cost and the currentcost for general education in I&J districts and other districts may be explained byfactors, including the DOE use of median salaries, instead of average salaries; lowercosts for heath care and benefits; and lower faculty student ratios, especially in themiddle and high school models. More time is needed to fully analyze these and otherfactors which contribute to the alarmingly low, and obviously inadequate, generaleducation cost presented in the Report.

5. THE COST STUDY USES “BELOW AVERAGE” TO DEFINE “SUCESSFULSCHOOL DISTRICTS”

In addition to the developing costs from hypothetical districts, DOE staff alsodetermined foundation or general education costs through the SSD method, which theReport describes as “identifying districts that have met some predetermined level ofstudent performance and examining the base [general education] cost expenditures inthese districts.” Report, page 3-4.

This is precisely the same method used by the NJ Supreme Court to determine aconstitutionally adequate general education cost for our high poverty Abbott districts inthe Abbott rulings, and currently remains in effect. Abbott requires a foundation orgeneral education cost at the average level of expenditures in educationally successfulsuburban I&J districts, also known as “parity.” There are 128 I&J districts servingapproximately one fifth of the State’s students, a comparable enrollment level to the 31Abbott districts.

As indicated above, Abbott IV ordered parity in the cost for general educationfor the Abbott districts at the level of the average expenditure in successful suburbandistricts. The Court also made clear that parity could not be replaced in any newfunding law with a general education cost lower than the I&J average unless the lowerlevel is based on rigorous, verifiable study of the costs necessary to enable all studentsto achieve the CCCS and NCLB requirements, and the difference represents wasteful orexcessive expenditures in the successful suburban districts.

Instead of defining SSD’s consistent with the Abbott definition, the DOE used adifferent “predetermined level of student performance” to define SSD for purposes ofits Cost Study. The DOE definition of success is any district meeting or exceeding the

8

required the proficiency level on State assessments for 2004-05 established for districtsto make Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) under the State’s NCLB plan. Report, page 4.Applying this proficiency level, the DOE determined 305 districts met its definition of“success,” and that these districts – over half the State – had a general education cost ofapproximately $8500 per pupil. Report, page 5. This general education cost is almostexactly identical to the general education cost determined by DOE using itshypothetical district method, as described above.

ELC compared the DOE proficiency level for “success” with the statewideaverage district proficiency level; the successful suburban I&J district averageproficiency level; and the increase in the AYP proficiency level due to take effect in2007. See Exhibit 13 attached. The differences are dramatic. The DOE level is not onlywell below the state average for district performance, but it is substantially below theaverage performance level in I&J districts, in some cases almost 30 points lower. Evenworse, the DOE proficiency level will be replaced shortly with a markedly higher level,no doubt leaving many districts the DOE considers successful off the list.

The DOE SSD definition also is lower than those used in other cost studies,notably the definition developed by Robert Palaich of A&P in the recently completedConnecticut cost study.

Clearly, the DOE manipulated – and lowered -- the definition of a successfuldistrict in order to arrive at a lower general education cost, one that matched up withthe low cost the DOE developed using hypothetical districts and resource models.More disturbing, however, is the DOE failure to even consider the SSD levelconstitutionally established for the Abbott districts – the successful suburban districts.As the Court made clear in Abbott IV, these districts represent the “recipe for success”that sets the standard of district performance not just for the Abbott districts, but for theentire state. Indeed, the Court expressly rejected the State’s attempt in CEIFA to definesuccess based on the statewide average performance and costs.

The SSD method used by DOE in its Cost Study is even worse than CEIFA. Itdefines success not even as average performance, but below average, using an AYPlevel that is about to be stepped up significantly.

6. THE COST STUDY’S WEIGHT FOR LOW INCOME STUDENTS IGNORESOR MINIMIZES ABBOTT SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAMS

Using the hypothetical districts and resource models, the DOE determined theprograms, staff and services to be added to the general education cost in order to ensure

9

low income students can meet the CCCS and NCLB requirements. The cost of theseextra resources for low income students, which the DOE calls “at-risk,” are thenfactored as a percentage of the general education cost, or “weight.” The weight for lowincome students determined by DOE in the Cost Study is 0.45 of the general educationcost. Report, page 16.

ELC analyzed and compared the extra resources added by DOE into the resourcemodels against the supplemental programs, staff and services ordered by the SupremeCourt for high poverty Abbott districts in the Abbott rulings. The Abbott supplementalprograms were identified by the Court in the 1998 Abbott V decision based upon a fullevidentiary record concerning the needs of low income students in the high povertyurban districts and schools, and the programs, staff services required and/or needed toaddress those extraordinary student and school needs. These required and neededsupplemental programs was reaffirmed by the State and the Court in the 2003 Abbott Xmediation agreement, and under the terms of Abbott X, must continue to beimplemented in urban districts and schools.

Our analysis clearly shows that the DOE resource models either minimize, orignore altogether, the supplemental programs and services for low income studentsrequired under Abbott. See Exhibits 14-16 attached. Many “minimum baseline” staffrequired by Abbott are not provided for at all, including instructional facilitators inelementary schools, community services coordinators in middle and high schools, anddropout prevention specialists. Other required Abbott supplemental programs --implementation of which is based on particularized need – are also not provided for all,such as early grade math literacy and school to work and college transition programs,or only provided for in the very large district models, such as alternative middle andhigh school programs or on-site social services.

In addition, the Abbott supplemental staff that are provided in the DOE models –elementary parent liaisons and social workers, for example – are allowed only at thebare minimum level of 1 FTE, regardless of school size or local particularized need. Stillother requirements, such as reading tutors in early grades, small per pupil allotmentsfor limited after and summer school, are set at predetermined levels by the DOEwithout any relationship to student and school need, as required by Abbott. Still otherAbbott supplemental program areas, such as enriched nutrition and extra initiatives inart, music and special education, are simply ignored altogether.

One egregious example illustrates this problem with the DOE low incomeweight. In Abbott V, the Court expressly rejected the DOE proposal to basesupplemental costs on a fixed number of security guards for each urban school, without

10

regard to size, location, building issues, neighborhood violence and other factors. TheCourt noted that the needs for security in urban schools will vary considerably,depending on these factors, noting that, for example, Trenton Central High Schoolrequired over 20 personnel to maintain security. Yet, the DOE model provides for nosecurity guards in elementary schools, regardless of size and need; 1 security guard formiddle schools, regardless of size and need; 1 security guard for a high school in amoderate size district; and 7 and 8 security guards for high schools in large and verylarge model districts. There is also nothing in the Report suggesting that Abbottdistricts will have the opportunity to demonstrate the need for additional security staffand programs based on local particularized need, as Abbott requires.

The Report demonstrates that DOE failed to even consider the Abbottsupplemental program requirements in making its cost determinations for low incomechildren in the Report. The proposed low income weight in the Report clearly isinadequate and inconsistent with the supplemental program requirements establishedin Abbott and current in effect.

CONCLUSION: A NEW COST STUDY “PENNSLVANIA STYLE”

The Cost Study presented in the Report is out of date; used improper standardsand procedures; was not based on actual students, schools and districts in New Jersey,including those in our high poverty urban communities; did not consider current andeffective expenditures and practices for general education; did not consider generaleducation costs in our high performing suburban districts; used a watered downdefinition of success to determine general education costs; and failed to consider thecost of providing the educational and educationally related programs, staff and servicesidentified as needed in schools and districts serving high concentrations of low incomestudents.

Even based on this preliminary analysis, it is clear the Cost Study cannot serve asthe basis for a new school funding formula.

We need a new Cost Study, one that takes into account current needs, practicesand costs, and is performed independently and in accordance with accepted standardsand procedures.

Pennsylvania has provided us with the template for this new cost study. Just lastweek, the Pennsylvania State Board of Education awarded P&A a $650,000 contract todo “a comprehensive Statewide costing-out study to arrive at a determination of thebasic cost” to educate students in the Commonwealth to meet State academic standards.

11

P&A must use at least three different methods to determine costs – professionaljudgment, successful schools and evidence-based models of proven programs andservices. A quick glance at the RFP describing how these methods are to beindependently carried out by A&P is striking – both for the professionalism andstriving for the state-of-the-art, and to show the extent of the deficiencies in the DOECost Study.

I am submitting a copy of the RFP for the Pennsylvania Cost Study for review.We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We just have to have the courage to admit whatwas done in 2003 is woefully inadequate and does a disservice to our children and ourhigh quality public schools. It’s time to move on. Thank you.

SOURCE | 2003 DOE Cost Out Study (documents obtained by ELC); For enrollment data: 2005-06 Fall Survey

Figure 1. Comparison of Abbott and DOE Model District K-12 Enrollments

4,817

6,166

6,406

5,3305,372

1,040

1,696

1,332

1,725

1,821

1,856

1,884

2,200

4,063

3,901

25,01318,031

13,52012,650

9,621

9,474

9,194

9,042

8,187

3,7403,629

3,248

3,074

2,595

37,052

2,470

7,510

7,359

7,127

26,403

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

DOE Small

Keansburg

Burlington

Hoboken

DOE Moderate

Pleasantville

Neptune

Orange

Pemberton

Millville

West New York

Irvington

Perth Amboy

Passaic

East Orange

DOE Very Large

Paterson

NewarkD

istr

icts

Enrollment Figures

DOE VeryLarge

DOELarge

DOEModerate

DOESmall

Prepared by The Education Law CenterDecember 2006

Exhibit 1

Figure 2. Abbott Schools by Grade Configuration: DOE Model and Other

ConfigurationsDOE Model configurations

N %K-5 84 18.5%K-8 99 21.9%6-8 33 7.3%9-12 47 10.4%

Total 263 58.1%Other grade configurations

N %PK-PK 12 2.6%

K-K 8 1.8%K-1 2 0.4%K-2 9 2.0%K-3 9 2.0%K-4 41 9.1%K-6 34 7.5%K-7 3 0.7%1-2 2 0.4%1-4 4 0.9%1-5 5 1.1%1-6 1 0.2%1-8 4 0.9%2-4 1 0.2%3-4 1 0.2%3-5 4 0.9%3-6 2 0.4%3-8 2 0.4%4-6 5 1.1%5-10 1 0.2%5-6 2 0.4%5-8 13 2.9%6-12 4 0.9%6-6 2 0.4%6-7 1 0.2%7-12 3 0.7%7-8 8 1.8%8-12 1 0.2%8-9 1 0.2%9-9 1 0.2%9-10 1 0.2%

10-12 2 0.4%Total 187 41.3%

SOURCE | Report on the Cost of Education, New Jersey Department of Education, December 2006; 2005-06 Fall Survey.

Prepared by the Education Law CenterDecember 2006

Exhibit 2

SOURCE | Report on the Cost of Education, New Jersey Department of Education, December 2006; 2005-06 Fall Survey

Figure 3. Comparison of Low-Income Concentrations between Abbott and DOE Model Districts: Small K-12

31.0% 31.3%43.0%

49.7%

0

41.6%35.2%

20.0%

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

DO

E M

odel

Sm

all K

-12

(Fre

eLu

nch

Onl

y)

Glo

uces

ter

Bur

lingt

on C

ity

Gar

field

Har

rison

Sal

em

Kea

nsbu

rg

Districts

Low

Inco

me

Con

cent

ratio

ns

31.3%35.2%

49.7%

68.9%11.6% 10.6%

14.7%

15.0%

22.0%13.0%

9.6%

20.0%

43.0%41.6%

31.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

DOE ModelSmall K-12 (Free

Lunch Only)

Gloucester Burlington City Garfield Harrison Salem Keansburg HobokenDistricts

Low

Inco

me

Con

cent

ratio

ns

Reduced-Price Lunch PercentageFree Lunch Percentage


Exhibit 3


Figure 4. Comparison of Low-Income Concentrations between Abbott and DOE Model Districts: Moderate K-12

32.2% 34.6%

58.8%

69.8%

83.4%

20.0%

50.4%50.0%

29.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

DO

E M

odel

Mod

erat

e K

-12

(free

lunc

hon

ly)

Pem

berto

n

Phi

lipps

burg

Nep

tune

Long

Bra

nch

Ple

sant

ville

Ora

nge

Brid

geto

n

Asb

ury

Par

k

Districts

Low

Inco

me

Con

cent

ratio

ns

DOE Model Moderate K-12 (free lunch only)

31.0% 31.3%

43.0%49.7%

0

41.6%35.2%

20.0%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

DO

E M

odel

Sm

all K

-12

(Fre

e Lu

nch

Onl

y)

Glo

uces

ter

Bur

lingt

onC

ity

Gar

field

Har

rison

Sal

em

Kea

nsbu

rg

Districts

Low

Inco

me

Con

cent

ratio

ns

34.6%

58.8%

69.8%

83.4%

13.3% 8.7%10.3%

12.3% 11.7%

10.3%

8.3%

6.3%

32.2%

20.0%

50.4%50.0%

29.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

DOE ModelModerate K-12

(free lunch only)

Pemberton Philippsburg Neptune Long Branch Plesantville Orange Bridgeton Asbury Park

Districts

Low

Inco

me

Con

cent

ratio

ns

Reduced-Price Lunch PercentageFree Lunch Percentage


Exhibit 4

Figure 5. Comparison of Low-Income Concentrations between Abbott and DOE Model Districts:Large K-12


47.1%57.5% 58.3% 61.7% 63.0%

70.6% 74.6%

87.4%

12.3%

9.4% 9.6% 7.5% 11.0% 8.5%

13.4% 8.2%

8.3%6.2%

41.4%

56.4% 57.5%

40.0%

55.6%

3.1%

10.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

DOE ModelLarge K-12(free lunch

only)

Millville Vineland Trenton Plainfield NewBrunswick

West NewYork

Irvington PerthAmboy

EastOrange

Passaic Camden Union City

Districts

Low

Inco

me

Con

cent

ratio

ns

Free Lunch Percentage Reduced-Price Lunch Percentage


Exhibit 5

SOURCE | For Prototype District Data 2006:Special Session Joint Legislative Committee, Public School Funding Reform Report

For Enrollment Data: 2005-06 Fall Survey SOURCE | For Prototype District Data 2006:Special Session Joint Legislative Committee, Public School Funding Reform Report














Figure 6. Comparison of Low-Income Concentrations between Abbott and DOE Model Districts: Very Large K-12

65.2%

11.0%

60.0%64.3% 66.4%

60.9%

10.6%9.2% 10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

DOE Model VeryLarge K-12 (free

lunch)

Jersey City Paterson Newark Elizabeth

Districts

Low

Inco

me

Con

cent

ratio

ns

Reduced-Price Lunch Percentage

Free Lunch

Prepared by The Education Law Center:December 2006

Exhibit 6

Figure 7. Comparison of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Populations between Abbott and DOE Model Districts: Small K-12


0.2%1.3%

2.4%

10.0%

12.2%

3.6%2.8%1.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Salem Keansburg Gloucester Hoboken DOE ModelSmall K-12

Burlington City Harrison Garfield

Districts

LEP

Perc

enta

ges


Exhibit 7

Figure 8. Comparison of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Populations between Abbott and DOE Model Districts: Moderate K-12


1.6% 2.1% 3.2%

13.6%11.6%

12.5%

9.3%7.2%

1.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Pemberton Neptune Philippsburg PJPPrototype:

Moderate K-12

Long Branch Asbury Park Orange Plesantville Bridgeton

Districts

LEP

Perc

enta

ges


Exhibit 8

Figure 9. Comparison of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Populations between Abbott and DOE Model Districts: Large K-12


0.7%

4.4% 4.5%

15.6%18.1%

20.3%

29.4%30.9%

3.3%4.8%

8.1%

15.4%14.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

EastOrange

Millville DOEModel

Large K-12District

Irvington Vineland Camden NewBrunswick

Trenton Plainfield West NewYork

PerthAmboy

Passaic Union City

Districts

LEP

Perc

enta

ges


Exhibit 9

Figure 10. Comparison of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Populations between Abbott and DOE Model Districts: Very Large K-12


7.7%

13.9% 14.0%12.2%

15.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

DOE Model: Very LargeK-12

Jersey City Paterson Newark Elizabeth

Districts

LEP

Perc

enta

ges


Exhibit 10

Figure 11. Free-lunch and Reduced-price Lunch Eligibility in Abbott Districts, 2005-06

Total Enrollment Free lunch eligible Reduced price lunch eligible

Free- plus reduced-price lunch eligible students

Asbury Park 2,595 2,217 83.4% 168 6.3% 2,385 89.7%Bridgeton 3,740 3,167 69.8% 376 8.3% 3,543 78.1%Burlington 1,821 582 31.3% 198 10.6% 780 41.9%Camden 12,650 11,823 74.6% 975 6.2% 12,798 80.8%

East Orange 9,621 6,801 63.0% 881 8.2% 7,682 71.2%Elizabeth 18,031 14,005 66.4% 2,244 10.6% 16,249 77.0%Garfield 2,200 1,591 35.2% 662 14.7% 2,253 49.9%

Gloucester 1,725 684 31.0% 256 11.6% 940 42.6%Harrison 1,856 764 41.6% 275 15.0% 1,039 56.6%Hoboken 1,884 1,309 68.9% 182 9.6% 1,491 78.5%Irvington 7,359 4,294 58.3% 623 8.5% 4,917 66.8%

Jersey City 26,403 17,822 60.9% 3,214 11.0% 21,036 71.9%Keansburg 1,696 967 49.7% 253 13.0% 1,220 62.7%

Long Branch 4,063 2,486 50.0% 613 12.3% 3,099 62.3%Millville 5,372 2,614 41.4% 689 10.9% 3,303 52.3%Neptune 3,629 1,788 34.6% 531 10.3% 2,319 44.9%

New Brunswick 6,166 3,879 57.5% 504 7.5% 4,383 65.0%Newark 37,052 24,158 65.2% 3,705 10.0% 27,863 75.2%Orange 3,901 2,713 58.8% 476 10.3% 3,189 69.1%Passaic 9,194 8,696 70.6% 1,022 8.3% 9,718 78.9%Paterson 25,013 16,269 64.3% 2,319 9.2% 18,588 73.5%

Pemberton 4,817 1,612 29.5% 726 13.3% 2,338 42.8%Perth Amboy 8,187 5,706 61.7% 1,238 13.4% 6,944 75.1%Phillippsburg 3,248 1,161 32.2% 315 8.7% 1,476 40.9%

Plainfield 7,127 4,015 56.4% 682 9.6% 4,697 66.0%Pleasantville 3,074 1,869 50.4% 432 11.7% 2,301 62.1%

Salem 1,332 770 43.0% 98 5.5% 868 48.5%Trenton 7,510 6,952 55.6% 1,174 9.4% 8,126 65.0%

Union City 9,474 8,777 87.4% 309 3.1% 9,086 90.5%Vineland 9,042 4,536 47.1% 1,181 12.3% 5,717 59.4%

West New York 6,406 3,680 57.5% 703 11.0% 4,383 68.5%ALL ABBOTT 246,188 167,707 56.8% 27,024 8.7% 194,731 65.5%

SOURCE | 2005-06 Fall Survey


Exhibit 11

Comparison of Actual 2005 Foundation Spending and DOE "Base Cost"

2005 Actual Per Pupil Spending

Abbott Districts $10,909 $2,399 22%Other Poor Districts $9,290 $780 8%Middle Districts $9,948 $1,438 14%I & J Districts $10,975 $2,465 22%State $10,194 $1,684 17%SOURCE | New Jersey Department of Education, Office of School Funding, Advertised Revenues, FY 2005; Report on the Cost of Education, NJDOE, December 2006.

* $8,510 or the average of the DOE base cost estimates.

Difference from DOE Base Cost *


Exhibit 12

Language Arts Literacy MathDOE's "Successful School Districts" Standards

Grade 4 75 62Grade 8 66 49

Grade 11 79 64State Average: 2005

Grade 4 81 80Grade 8 71 61

Grade 11 84 76Actual Successful Suburban School Districts' Average: 2005

Grade 4 92 91Grade 8 90 84

Grade 11 95 912007-08 AYP Thresholds

Grade 4 82 73Grade 8 76 62

Grade 11 85 74

New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Evaluation

Comparison of Proficiency Standards: DOE "Successful School Districts," Actual Performance, and 2007-08 AYP Standards

SOURCE | Report on the Cost of Education, NJDOE, December 2006;

and Assessment, 2005; New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Title I Accountability.


Exhibit 13

Moderate Large Very Large(minimum required baseline with added

programs, services, and staff based on local particularized need)

Base Model Added resources 20% at risk



Full-day KindergartenFull-day program Yes na Yes na Yes na

1 FTE Instructional aide per K classroom No 2 No 2 No 2

Early reading literacy90-minute reading block No No No No No No

Regular program assessments No No No No No No1 FTE Instructional facilitator/leader No No No No No No

1 FTE Teacher tutors/reading specialists No 8* No 8* No 8*

Elementary parent involvement:Full-time parent liaison required No 1 No 1 No 1

Class size standardsPreK: 15 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

K-3: 21 4 and 5: 23

6 and above: 24 6-8: 13 No 6-8: 14 No 6-8: 15 No9-12: 13 No 9-12: 13 6 additional teachers 9-12: 13 6 additional teachers

Elementary social and health referral and coordination:

1 FTE Nurse 1 No 1 No 1 No 1 FTE Social worker No 1 No 1 No 1

1 FTE Counselor 1 No 1 No 1 No 1 FTE Parent liaison No See elementary parent

involvement No See elementary parent involvement No See elementary parent

involvement 1 FTE Instructional facilitator No No No No No No

Middle and high school social and health referral and coordination

1 FTE Community services coordinatorMiddle No No No No No No

High No No No 1 parent liaison No 1 parent liaison

Access to technology:5:1 Student-Computer Ratio Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

1 FTE Media specialist Elementary 1 No 1 No 1 No

Middle 1 No 1 No 1 NoHigh 1 No 2 No 2 No

1 FTE Technology specialistElementary 1 No 1 No 1 No

Middle 1 No 2 No 1 NoHigh 1 No 2 No 2 No

Dropout prevention and alternative education:Alternative middle and alternative high school

program, high quality No No No No NoDistrictwide program with 2 directors and 7

teachers 1 FTE Dropout prevention specialist No No No No No No

chart of supplemental programs.* The number of reading specialists (teacher tutors) provided in the at-risk models is based on an assumption made by NJDOE that 30% of 1st grade students, 20% of 2nd grade students, and 10% of 3rd through 5th grade students will require tutoring.

SOURCE | Report on the Cost of Education , NJDOE December 2006: Appendix 9: Tables 4A through 7C and 13C; Abbott requirements from Abbott X mediation agreement

Comparison of DOE Models with Abbott Supplemental Requirements: Required Programs with Minimum Resource Standards

Abbott RequirementsComparable DOE Model Provisions by District Size

K-5: 17 No K-5: 19 No K-5: 19 No


Exhibit 14

Moderate Large Very LargeBase Model Added resources

20% at riskBase Model Added resources


60% at risk

Early math literacy and mastery of other subjects No No No No No No

Violence prevention and school security

Security guardsElementary No No No No No No

Middle 1 No 1 No 1 NoHigh 1 No 3 4 3 5

Other resourcesElementary $7,500 No $7,500 No $7,500 No

Middle $7,500 No $7,500 No $7,500 NoHigh $7,500 No $15,000 No $7,500 No

School-to-work and -college transition No No No No No No

agreement, chart of supplemental programs.* Additional "at-risk" school personnel receive the same professional development allocation as other school staff under the base model.

No* $1,250/personnel No*

SOURCE | Report on the Cost of Education , NJDOE December 2006: Appendix 9: Tables 4A through 7C and 13C; Abbott requirements from Abbott X mediation

Comparison of DOE Models with Abbott Supplemental Requirements: Required Programs without Minimum Resource Standards

Abbott Requirements

Comparable DOE Model Provisions by District Size

Professional development $1,250/personnel No* $1,250/personnel


Exhibit 15

Moderate Large Very LargeBase Model Added resources



60% at risk

Instructionally-based after school programs

ElementaryNo $480/pupil equipment* No $480/per pupil

equipment* No $480/per pupil equipment*

Middle No $480/pupil "other"* No $480/pupil "other"* No $480/pupil "other"*High No $47/pupil "other"* No $15/pupil "other"* No $17/pupil "other"*

Instructionally-based summer programs

ElementaryNo $400/pupil equipment* No $400/pupil equipment* No $400/pupil equipment*

Middle No $400/pupil "other"* No $400/pupil "other"* No $400/pupil "other"*High No $400/pupil "other"* No $400/pupil "other"* No $600/pupil "other"*

Enriched nutrition programs No No No No No NoExemplary art, music, and special education

No No No No No No

School-based management and budgetingNo No No No No No

agreement, chart of supplemental programs.* The number of students who qualify for after-school and summer programs is unclear in the DOE models: information not provided.

No No School-Based Youth Services Program $500K

SOURCE | Report on the Cost of Education , NJDOE December 2006: Appendix 9: Tables 4A through 7C and 13C; Abbott requirements from Abbott X mediation

Comparison of DOE Models with Abbott Supplemental Requirements: As Needed Programs

Abbott Requirements

Comparable DOE Model Provisions by District Size

On-site social and health servicesNo No No


Exhibit 16

statement of education law center on the … · statement of education law center ... in-depth...

Documents