Thursday, March 3, 2011

Closing Arguments

Here are two comentaries and a news article about the closing arguments.
John Mooney at NJ Spotlight
Bob Braun in the Star Ledger
Leslie Brody in the Record

Judge Doyne's report is due to the Court on March 31.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Closing Arguments Scheduled for Wednesday, March 2

Education Law Center finished calling witnesses on Friday, Feb. 25, and closing arguments in the remand hearing are scheduled for Wednesday, March 2, at 2pm at the Bergen County Courthouse.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Melvin L. Wyns is an expert in New Jersey Public School Finance and a former Director of the NJ Department of Education’s Office of School Finance (1988-2001),is the only witness today. He was retained to analyze the reduction of state aid and the impact of level of accuracy in the current spending level SFRA.

SFRA (School Funding Reform Act) is a statute and as I was reading the statute I found this to be particularly interesting: “The State in addition to any constitution mandates , has a moral obligation to ensure that New Jersey’s children, wherever they reside, are provided the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed any school funding formula should provide, resources in a manner that optimizes the likelihood that children will receive an education that will make them productive members of society”. It seems to me that the State has been failing our children for a long time. Since the beginning of this trial I have heard testimonies over and over on how the lack of funding has hurt children across the State of New Jersey.

For example, Mr. Wyns testified today that Trenton was above adequacy in funding in 09-10.  Now with the current level of funding, it is below adequacy. The districts with the highest At-Risk students lost the most in state aid. Mr. Wyns had a power point that he explained in detail which I could not see and could not catch it all, but I did ask David Sciarra if it would be posted online and he said it would be on their website. I would suggest that you look at it because it was quite interesting. The spending adequacy in current year shows 72% are being educated in districts that are defined as being under adequacy. Mr. Wyns stated that if fully funded most districts after 3 years would be in adequacy. See Mr. Wyns' certification with some of the data, but not the Powerpoint.

The other thing in the SFRA statue I found interesting is “The Constitution of the State of New Jersey states that the Legislative shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all children in the state between the ages of Five and Eighteen years'. The State must provide, and they have a Moral Obligation to ensure, that children in Public Schools have a thorough and efficient education with resources to make them productive members of society. Well they failed. Our children are not getting what they are supposed to be getting under the current budget and may not get it with the proposed budget for next year. The State has not even provided all the necessary resources that kids need to pass the test that they have imposed. What is wrong with this picture?

I am rooting for our children.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Clifton Superintendent Richard Tardalo On Hot Seat

    The continuation of the hearing on Thursday Feb. 24th started with Judge Peter Doyne summerizing the State's major elements of proof which include:

  • Inefficient Time to show proof that the education budget cuts has not hindered the "through and efficient clause"
  • Due to economic crisis, cuts were equitable throughout all districts
  • Sufficient funds per district to manage itself accordingly
  • Federal funding is considered as appropriate alleviation of the budget cuts
  • There is little connection between Performance and Funding 
    David Sciarra and Eileen Conner of the Education Law Center spent a couple hours asking the Clifton Superintendent of Schools Richard Tardalo a series of questions which began asking his overall experience in education which include starting as a 5th grade elementary teacher in 1973 and rose from special education teacher in the Bronx and Brooklyn, principal and later Superintendent for the last 2 years of Clifton School District.   He shared that there are approximately 11,000 children in the district, 14 Elementary Schools, 2 middle schools and 1 High Schools.  The city itself has a population of 80,000 people of which 48% are Hispanic, 40% Caucasian, 2% African American and 10% "other".  67 different languages spoken in the schools with 65% of families expressing that english is NOT the primary language spoken.   7% of students quality for ESL and 36% qualify for free or reduce lunch.

     ELC went on to question every single cut the district had to make, especially since the community rejected the proposed budget to include a 4% tax levy in response to the state's budget cuts.  Mr. Tardalo noted that through negotiations, the City Council only permited a 1.3$ tax levy which prompted the cuts he was trying to avoid such as:
  • Supervisors
  • Media specialists
  • Professional Developent
  • Literacy series
  • Math series
  • Pay freezes, even for the Superintendent, who contractually did not have to take a pay freeze but opted to do so
  • Cut freshmen athletic teams and some intermural programs
  • Significant increase of class size
  • And much more
      Judge Doyne eventually began to ask whether the old Core Curriculum Content Standards being achieved as a result of this the budget cuts.  Old as opposed to upcoming CCCS in 2011, which he expressed was not to be considered when discussing budget cuts affects on proficiency since it was not being implemented yet.   Mr. Tardalo expressed that most students  below 50% proficiency especially from Title 1 schools.  "We want all students to achieve proficiency, emphasis on all.  I am not sure whether meeting minimum efficiency is good enough for the work force or higher education." summarized Mr. Tardalo

     Judge Doyne finalized the questioning with asking if the superintendent had the additional monies that were cut, how would he have used said money to help the District?  Mr. Tardalos response was that he would place more Basic Skills Instruction and Saturday Programs.  His supervisors and media services would not have been let go.  Over all most of the programs would not have been altered. 


      At this point, the Deputy Attorney General Jon Martin began to question the witness and focused on pointing out what positions the Superintendent did have available to him from his 1400 employees, 900 certified staff, 180 teacher aides and para professionals which Mr. Tardalo was asked to elaborate the roles and costs of various positions.   He consistently alluded to teacher negotiations and evaluations.  Mr. Tardalo chose not to speak on the issue consider the hearing was a public forum and discussing his views on the matter may affect negotiations down the road.   As the state continued to question Mr. Tardalo, he always found his way back to teacher efficiency and evaluation, of which Mr. Tardalo would repeat his refusal to comment.

      Judge Doyne tried to get around this issue with asking if as an educator, did he agree that there can be a improved performance of our students if our schools were readily able to discharge the 5-8% least capable teacher? What has happened in the past when you try to fire such a teacher?  Mr. Tardalo responded that there are some things that can be done like refusing to provide promotion or raises but firing a teacher can be a very costly issues.    So Judge Doyne asked whether the reason why discharging a teacher due to poor student performance was not on the table at the moment because of cost? Again, the superintendent could not answer due to the aforementioned limitation of upcoming contract negotiations. 


       The state continued their line of questioning to note that some of their issues such as increasing class size was happening before the current budget cuts and ultimately making the case that Clifton is an efficient district but there are still areas it can manage with less money. 

        For Friday Feb. 25th, Melvin L. Wyns will be the only witness called. The hearding will begin at 10 a.m. He is an expert in New Jersey public school finance and a former Director of the NJ Department of Education’s Office of School Finance (1988-2001).

Court Schedule for Friday, Feb. 25

On Friday, Melvin L. Wyns will be the only witness called. His testimony will begin at 10 a.m. He is an expert in New Jersey public school finance and a former Director of the NJ Department of Education’s Office of School Finance (1988-2001).
Wednesday’s court session started by Judge Doyne asking for clarification on a few things from previous testimonies. State’s attorney did not do a good job in clarifying those issues and, in fact, Judge Doyne had to repeat the question a few times. Although Judge Doyne said he did not want to but had to agreed with David Sciarra on his comment about the lack of funding level and how it impacted the poorest districts. The reduction was done off the formula and was not consistent.

The first witness was Walt Whitaker, Superintendent of Buena Regional School District. This district was one of the 17 Rural Districts that brought a lawsuit against the State on the basis that rural school district suffered as must as urban school district. And listening to him talk about what they lost it sounded like a page from Paterson. They lost music and arts, technology and no world language for K-5. Mr. Whitaker gave a very detailed and lengthy breakdown of his district and what they lost.

Mr. Frederick Jacobs was the attorney doing the questioning because he was one of the attorneys involved with the lawsuit. There were a few times that Judge Doyne had to stop him because he kept bringing up NCLB but he did say he would allow it if he could tie it into SFRA. Judge Doyne asking the State if they had any objections and they did not. At times it seemed that Judge Doyne asked more questions and did more objections than either side. So with that being said I hope that Judge Doyne do the right thing by All Our Children.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Court Schedule for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (2/23-2/25)

Education Law Center will begin to call witnesses on Wednesday. Walt Whitaker, Superintendent of Buena Regional School District, is scheduled to testify at 10 a.m. on Wednesday. On Thursday, Richard Tardalo, Superintendent of Clifton Public Schools, will testify at 9 a.m.

On Friday, Melvin L. Wyns, an expert in New Jersey public school finance and a former Director of the NJ Department of Education’s Office of School Finance (1988-2001), is expected to testify.

The Thursday and Friday schedules are still tentative, and additional witnesses may be called. Court may be in session on Saturday. Check back for more information.

Monday 2/21 proceedings

Six inches of snow didn't stop the court proceedings as the State rested its case.

Thanks to John Mooney of NJ Spotlight for the coverage: find his article here.

ELC begins its case on Wednesday, 2/23.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Court Schedule for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday (2/21 through 2/23)

Court will be in session on Monday, Feb. 21, from approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. In the morning, Earl Kim, Montgomery Township Superintendent, will finish the testimony that he began last Wednesday. He will be followed by Kevin Dehmer, Fiscal Policy Analyst at the New Jersey Department of Education. That will conclude the State's witnesses.

Court will NOT be in session on Tuesday, Feb. 22.

On Wednesday, Feb. 23, Education Law Center will begin to call witnesses. ELC expects to present witnesses Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. When the witness list is available, it will be posted here.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

State Expert Testifies

On Wednesday, the State called Eric Hanushek of Stanford University’s Hoover Institute as an expert witness. Hanushek is a well-known academic researcher who regularly testifies in school funding cases (at a rate of $375/hr according to his deposition). Hanushek always testifies against increasing funding for schools. He believes that there is little or no connection between school funding and academic performance and argues that school budgets can be cut significantly without affecting the quality of education. For example, he recommends that schools save money by firing teachers whose students get low test scores and increasing class sizes for those that remain.

On Wed., Hanushek testified about these ideas as the State tried to show that more than $1 billion cuts in NJ school aid did not prevent schools from providing a “thorough and efficient” education. He had a tough time making that case. Hanushek has not done any recent research in NJ, and did not know much about the state funding formula, the specific cuts that districts were forced to make this year or the impact those cuts had on schools and students. He was not familiar with the “core content curriculum standards” which define the education that NJ schools are required to deliver. Hanushek acknowledged that he had only spent a few hours looking at data supplied by the NJ Dept. of Education.

The State did get its expert to testify that in his opinion, schools could deliver a “thorough and efficient” education despite the budget cuts. But since he had no specifics and seemed only vaguely familiar with how a “thorough and efficient” education has been defined in NJ, he didn’t seem to help the State’s case very much, especially since in this round, the “burden of proof” is on the State to show that students are still getting what they need to meet state standards.

More reportage on Day 2 and 3

Here is Star Ledger columnist Bob Braun describing how the state misused its own witness on Day 2.

Today's Herald News/Record on Day 3's expert testimony, Public Schools Can Survive Cuts.

Court resumes on Monday.


Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Court Will NOT Be In Session Thursday, Friday, Saturday

The remand hearing will resume on Monday, Feb. 21, at 9 a.m. We don't know who the witnesses will be on Monday, though it is presumed that Kevin Dehmer, Planning Associate 2 (Statistics/Data Analysis) at the New Jersey Department of Education, who was due to testify next, will be called as a witness by the State next week. Education Law Center witnesses will also testify next week. Check back for more information.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Witnesses Expected to Testify on the Third Day (2/16)

The State is expected to call Eric Hanushek, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, and Earl Kim, Superintendent of Schools in Montgomery Township, to testify on Wednesday, 2/16. Court is in session from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., with breaks. Hanushek is expected to testify in the morning, and Kim in the afternoon.

The Second Day 2/15

Today the State called Dr. Bari Erlichson, Director of the Office of Education Data. She presented a series of "scattergraphs" that plotted student achievement and educational adequacy spending for the 2009-10 school year.  We could not see the graphs in the audience, so describing it to you is very difficult. Basically, in a scattergraph, if the data being presented forms a line, then the two elements are correlated to each other.  The graphs Erlichson presented did not develop a line, so she drew the conclusion that student achievement and spending at the educational adequacy level were not related.

When Judge Doyne realized that the extensive data charts being presented were for the 2009-2010 school year, he was disturbed.  He pointed out that his charge was to find out if the 2010-11 school budgets were adequate.  The previous year' data did not help him, unless it could be contrasted with this year's data [which isn't available yet] or the year before the SFRA's implementation [2006-07].

Doyne was very pointed to the state," I do not view this case as starting anew." The question is not if the SFRA is adequate, that was decided in 2009.  The question is, do schools have adequate resources this year.

A side note: Senator Loretta Weinberg came to the courtroom. David Sciarra, attorney for the children, said that it is the first time in his history with the Abbott litigation that a sitting legislator has come to the proceedings.

More on Day 1 in Court

Yesterday afternoon in Court proved to be even more interesting than the morning. Most of the State’s questioning focused on the actual budget process and on what cost saving measures had been put into place by the Woodbridge Superintendent, Dr. Crowe. What I found most fascinating is that the Judge took over most of the questioning toward the end of the day and the hot seat got even hotter. At one point he said to the State's lawyers “Well, if you’re not going to ask the questions, I will.” He focused for some time on the Budget Certification Letter signed in May 2010. Superintendents have to certify that the budget will allow them to provide an education that meets NJ standards. Both Superintendents said that at this point in time, they believe otherwise. Dr. Crowe said the County Superintendent advised him that choosing not to sign could mean that the district doesn’t receive any state funds.

Woodbridge lost $9 Million in State Aid for the 2010-11 school year, representing a 33% cut in State Aid. The Superintendent and several members of his administration gave up their salary increases as a cost cutting measure. They also initiated joint services with the municipalities and outsourced food services. There were also questions about approximately $800,000 in Stimulus Funds which had been deferred by the Woodbridge School District, at the recommendation of the Commissioner of Education.

Dr. Crowe said that his staff is doing their very best to ensure that their students meet the standards but they are very restricted in helping the students that need the most help.
Here are the links to the news coverage

http://www.northjersey.com/news/116212454_School_chiefs_grilled_on_aid_cut_impact.html

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/11/0214/2117/

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/nj_school_superintendents_test.html

Monday, February 14, 2011

What I found to be very interesting was when Judge Doyne asked the State"Is Race & Ethnicity in question in this case?" He then asked the State to use the language that was pertaining to the court case. Listening to Judge Doyne and the phrase that comes to my mind is "Let me be perfectly clear", which I think is a good thing so that there will be no misunderstanding on anyone's part.

Another thing that was interesting when the Superintendent from Piscataway said the cuts to World Language resulted in them using dvd's. Piscataway is using dvd's that are about 10 years old to teach spanish and the teachers using them may not even speak the language.

Piscataway is a G-H District and went from 13% free and reduce lunch to 28%. Their state aid was cut by $5 million. They are hurting. There were times when the Mr. Copeland seemed hestitant to answer some questions and Judge Doyne had to repeatedly ask him to clarify some statements he made. Mr. Copeland was truly on the hot seat today.

First Day Underway

Today is the first day of the remand trial on the SFRA [School Funding Formula of 2008].  Judge Doyne has been charged by the NJ Supreme Court to present findings of fact as to whether the failure to fully fund the SFRA in 2010-11 violates the NJ Constitution's promise of a thorough and efficient education.

Today's first witness was called by the State of NJ even though he is a party to the suit on behalf of the ELC's complaint.  Mr. Robert Copeland, Superintendent of Piscataway, testified to the losses by Piscataway schools. It was a long list of losses.  Judge Doyne pressed Mr. Copeland about the effects of the losses. Could the district meet the demands of the Core Curriculum Content Standards? "In the most basic way," replied Copeland.  He clarified that he didn't have the resources to help the children most at risk. Copeland spent most of the day on the stand. He was followed by the Superintendent of the Woodbridge Public Schools.

We can't thank these superintendents enough for standing up for their students, and through them, all our children.

If you want to read up more on the background of the case, go to http://www.njspotlight.com/ for great reportage or to http://www.edlawcenter.com/ for the long history.