Justices
hear dispute over preschool funds
Thursday, October 28, 2004 • BY ROBERT
SCHWANEBERG Star-Ledger Staff
The lawyers came prepared to argue the law. But the
justices wanted facts, and the lawyers did not have them.
That made for a contentious hearing yesterday before the New
Jersey Supreme Court on whether the state has shortchanged
the neediest school districts on aid for preschool
programs.
Time and again, the justices asked for concrete examples
of how schoolchildren in the poorest districts have been
harmed, only to be told by lawyers that the issue is purely
legal.
Lawyers for poor school districts contended the state
has reneged on an obligation to pay the full cost of
programs ordered by the high court to prepare 3- and
4-year-olds to succeed academically once they reach
elementary school.
A deputy attorney general argued that Education
Commissioner William Librera can require poor districts to
use local property taxes to pay for part of their preschool
programs.
For support, both sides relied on the high court's
rulings in the long-running Abbott vs. Burke lawsuit, in
which the justices have ordered the state to pay billions of
dollars to improve educational quality and facilities in the
neediest districts.
As usual, the justices reserved decision, but not before
Chief Justice Deborah Poritz expressed frustration over
having to decide the case on sparse information.
"The problem is you've both taken very extreme
positions," Poritz said. "In the end we're left with two
extremes and no understanding of how this can work in the
real world."
As calculated by the nonprofit Education Law Center, the
state shortchanged 21 of the state's neediest school
districts a total of $39.4 million for their preschool
programs during the past school year. Five of those
districts -- Phillipsburg, Pemberton, Passaic, Neptune and
Millville -- went to court to recoup $14.7 million.
Richard Shapiro, a lawyer for those districts, said they
were forced to make a variety of cuts, such as not buying
textbooks, dropping programs or not replacing teachers who
retired.
But Justice Barry Albin said he was looking for
real-life examples, not hypothetical illustrations.
"We should be able to identify what the hole was, where
the suffering was, the books that weren't delivered to
children," Albin said.
Shapiro conceded he did not have such detailed examples.
He added that both Librera and a state appeals court viewed
the case as one that turned on the law rather than the
facts.
Senior Deputy Attorney General Michele Lyn Miller argued
the districts cannot show they were harmed because, in the
final analysis, they were not.
She said needy districts have been instructed to take
money out of their elementary and high school programs to
fund their preschool programs, but the state then gives them
"supplemental" aid to make up the shortfall in their K-12
programs.
Shapiro said the commissioner consistently
underestimates how much state aid the poorest districts
need.
Robert Schwaneberg covers legal issues. He can be reached
at rschwaneberg@starledger.com or (609) 989-0324.
© 2004 The Star-Ledger. Used by NJ.com with
permission.
|