Tuesday, February 22, 2011

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.