School Law
Educational Funding Litigation
A. Robinson v. Cahill
The New Jersey court was not the first to rule on the constitutionality of inadequate funding for low-income districts. Early cases in sister states challenged the constitutionality of state school systems funded by local taxpayers in separate school districts claiming violation the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.1 The Robinson court remanded the litigants to Judge Theodore Botter in Superior Court to present their case. Judge Botter accepted testimony that showed “a correlation between per pupil expenditures and various gauges of performance, such as SAT scores and truancy rates.”2 Acknowledging that pouring more money into a district will not automatically increase achievement, more “money can give districts options to attack their problems in ways not available to them now.”3
Judge Botter ruled against the state, on two grounds, one of which, as in earlier sister-state litigation, was that the “New Jersey system of financing public education denies equal protection rights guaranteed by the New Jersey and Federal Constitutions.”4 Before the Botter Decision made it to the New Jersey Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court in San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez 5handed school litigators across the nation a major blow contradicting this ground. Education is not a fundamental right under the United States Constitution and inequity between districts does not deprive any suspect class of citizens the equal protection of the law. 6 Inequities between districts are permissible as long as the “State's system be shown to bear some rational relationship to legitimate state purposes.” 7
Rodriguez only applied to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent made clear that “nothing in the Court's decision today should inhibit further review of state educational funding schemes under state constitutional provisions.”8 The New Jersey court was still free to rule that inequitable educational funding across districts violated the equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution.
Rutgers Law School Professor, Paul Trachtenberg, gave the Robinson court a way out of the equal protection reasoning to accomplish the same result. Noting the support of local politicians for the case, he realized that an equal protection claim would shift the focus away from educational inequality toward general taxpayer relief, as residents in municipalities with high taxes for police or any municipal service would sue the state to share in expenses. His amicus brief gave the court an “opportunity to render a favorable decision wholly outside of the binding logic of Rodriguez.”9 Every child has a right to an adequate education under the “thorough and efficient” (T & E) clause of the New Jersey Constitution.10
The discovery that the educational clauses of state constitutions imply a right of the child became the cornerstone American educational litigation, particularly after the Supreme Court’s rejection of the equal protection argument in Rodriguez. Indeed, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the holding of Judge Botter concerning the equal protection provision of the state constitution. If unequal spending from “local taxation for local expenditure is an unconstitutional method of providing for education then it may be an equally impermissible means of providing other necessary services customarily financed largely from local property taxes, including local police and fire protection, public health and hospitals, and public utility facilities of various kinds.” 11
The New Jersey court accepted the part of the Botter decision formulated by Trachtenberg, that a “thorough and efficient system of education” created a right to education.12 The Court mandated standard was subsequently elaborated “to equip a child for his role as a citizen and as a competitor in the labor market.”13The Robinson Court found that the state system of education failed to meet the required standard for children in the urban areas.14
The idea that education is ultimately the responsibility of the state government rather than the local district had precedent. The “thorough and efficient” clause was put into the constitution of New Jersey in 1875. Before that, education was “left to the determination of the governing bodies of the several political subdivisions of the state. By those amendments, however, the people declared, among other things, that thereafter the legislature should provide [it].”15
The Court ordered the legislature to fund education more adequately. The legislature stalled and former governor Richard Hughes became Chief Justice. He accomplished that which he could not do as governor; he got the income tax passed. Hughes ordered all schools in New Jersey to be shut down as of July 1, ending summer school and all spending on personnel until the legislature complied with Robinson. The legislature reluctantly went along. Governor Byrnes was happy, as he wanted the income tax to support education, but it was unpopular. His solution, a New Jersey original, was a property tax rebate to every homeowner in the state, sent straight from Trenton with his signature on it.
B. Abbott v. Burke
Chapter 212 passed after Robinson was a capacity-equalizing plan. Districts decided the local property tax rate and the state would ensure a set amount of revenue for the district depending on the level of taxation voters chose regardless of the property wealth of the district. The law provided for evaluation, monitoring of districts, and annual testing of students, to be regulated by the education department. In the end, local districts made their own determinations. The state instead was to monitor schools over the processes—financial management, curriculum planning, and basic skills.
Urban districts, with so much municipal overburden, usually set low rates of taxation despite the provision in the law that would bring in more state aid with a higher rate of taxation. Urban students in general needed more money than average to get an adequate education. Concerned with the plight of urban students, the Educational Law Center (ELC), founded by Trachtenberg, brought another suit, Abbott v. Burke.16 This time, however, the courts were not going to hear the case until administrative remedies had been fully exhausted. The case ultimately ended up in the hands of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Steven L. Lefelt in the New Jersey Department of Education.17
Judge Lefelt issued a 600 page decision determining that the ELC proved that “there are unmet educational needs in poor urban districts and vast program and expenditure disparities between property rich suburban and property poor urban school districts.”18 The Commissioner of Education, using his authority over administrative law judges in his department, rejected the ruling. “If a district is found to meet the requirements by the State for T & E (Thorough and Efficient), then its spending is, by legal definition, adequate.”19 The court disagreed with the commissioner and affirmed Judge LeFelt’s findings. It ordered “districts designated by the Commissioner as ‘urban districts’ located in DFGs A and B . . . funding that approximates the average net current expense budget of school districts in DFGs I and J.”20 The 28 urban districts, soon to be known as the Abbott Districts, are required to have the same amount of funding as the “lighthouse districts,” those with the highest District Group Factor.21
The legislature replaced Chapter 212 after Abbott II with the Quality Education Act (QEA). QEA was not an equalizing plan but a foundation formula that guaranteed to all districts the same minimum spending. Districts would have to first raise a “local fair share” based on property values and income levels, basically setting property tax rates in all districts. Extra money was provided for the urban Abbott districts and a rigorous state graduation test was mandated. Significant gains, 38% passing in 1986 rose to 68% in 1989. Average scores on the SAT rose 30 points within the decade. But QEA had major political problems.
The local fair share provision forced urban districts to raise property taxes even with extra aid. Since only $420 million in funding was provided to non-Abbott districts, they faced higher increases in taxes. QEA eliminated the payment of teacher pensions by the state, $900 million by 1990, and forced the burden onto the local district. The legislature cut much of its Abbott funding in favor of property tax relief and QEA was then ruled unconstitutional. 22
The Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act (CEIFA), an extremely complicated statute, was passed 1996. CEIFA introduced the famous core curriculum standards to measure a “thorough and efficient” education and determined a level of funding necessary for student proficiency in the standards.
QEA and CEIFA were opposed for trying to limit the amount suburban districts spent on education to help narrow the gap between the lighthouse districts and in the Abbott districts. This was the least expensive route to Abbott parity. “Weak schools should not be made strong by making strong schools weak. Holding children down is not the same as pulling children up.”23 Local funding for pensions was intended to be balanced with increased QEA funding in average districts, while forcing rich districts, with higher paid and more experienced teachers, to cut spending on educational programs. To discourage spending above the average foundation level, CEIFA required a disclaimer on local school ballot budgets above the state minimum. Both attempts by the state were ultimately rejected. “Average education throughout the state in not wise public policy.” 24 Spending in the lighthouse districts remained high and out the reach of the poorest district.
CEIFA was unconstitutional in the context of the Abbott districts since they did not receive full parity funding. 25 The State was ordered to bring the Abbott districts to parity with the lighthouse districts by July 1997. On remand, under the advice of court appointed “master,” Superior Court Judge Michael King recommend an extra $312 million annually for the Abbott districts and $2.4 billion in buildings upgrades. Judge King mandated full day kindergartens and pre-schools for children aged three and four. The high court affirmed, but accepted the state’s position that a thorough and efficient education meant the core curriculum standards rather than a certain level of funding. 26 Abbott districts, however, would receive more funding to meet those standards.
C. Bacon v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ.
Several urban districts adjacent to Abbott districts were also classified for extra aid to their districts. Other districts received single shot ad hoc aid to make up for their inadequate aid. CEIFA became amended so many times that it burgeoned “to the point that what a district should receive, and why, becomes an exercise in legislative archaeology.” 27
State aid was frozen at 2002 levels until 2007 for all districts except the Abbotts. Districts received the previous level of aid even if enrollment increased. This meant that in non-Abbott poor districts “the shortfall amounted to about $1,627 per pupil in 2005-06. In the Middle Districts the impact was $758 per pupil. By contrast, the impact of the ‘freeze’ shortfall amounted to only $386 per pupil in DFG I and J districts, and $188 per pupil in Abbott districts.” 28
Seventeen underfunded non-Abbott districts in South Jersey brought suit claiming the need for lighthouse funding, and funding for new schools and pre-schools in Bacon v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ,.29 They faced problems similar to those in the Abbott districts. After six years of litigation, the commissioner of education agreed that New Jersey needed a new funding statute taking into consideration the poverty and achievement of all New Jersey districts.
Adopting the principles of the state board in the Bacon decision, the legislature passed the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) in 2008. SFRA did away with special needs Abbott districts in favor of a category of special needs students. All districts would receive extra funding for their “at risk” students defined by eligibility for free or reduced lunches. Abbott districts received extra funding, not as a designated special needs district, but as any other district based on the number of students designated as “at risk.” Additionally, under the SFRA “not only will the preschool reforms won for the poor by ELC continue; they will now be extended to poor children in eighty-four additional relatively poor school districts.” 30 Relief for all New Jersey districts was in sight.
SFRA was found to be constitutional as long as it was fully funded. 31 Every district in NJ, from Abbott to the lighthouse DFG J districts, received full SFRA funding in 2009 and 2010. The Supreme Court recognized this when the Abbott litigants returned to court to complain of less than full SFRA funding in 2011. “We granted the State relief from those remedial [court] orders that bound it to the parity [to lighthouse district spending] remedy for the pupils from Abbott districts, and authorized the State to implement in Abbott districts SFRA’s level of funding. It is now undisputed that the State has failed to fully fund SFRA in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011.” 32
The court ordered the former Abbott districts in 2011, although technically abolished by SFRA, to be fully funded based on the SFRA formula. It did not order full funding for other districts, as the Abbott districts' former “constitutionally based remedies have imbued them with status akin to that given to wards of the State.” 33 As a result, the Court again set the Abbott districts apart for special status, from other New Jersey districts, “that the plaintiff class of schoolchildren from the Abbott districts cannot be deprived of the full SFRA funding. . . .” 34
D. Alcantara et. al. v. Hespe et. al.
Press Release-Alcantara v. Hespe
In the tradition of Robinson v. Cahill and Abbott v. Burke, New Jersey cases that transformed American education in the twentieth century and helped advance New Jersey public schools into twenty-first century leadership, I file Alcantara v. Hespe with the New Jersey Department of Education.
As a teacher in Lakewood High School, I have first-hand knowledge of the effects that inadequate funding have on my students. Over the last decade, I have seen the decimation of one the best faculties in the state, the closure of an extremely popular vocational program, and the loss of educational support for my struggling students. This has left our most needy children with little hope for a successful future. This because, the State of New Jersey, treats Lakewood as if it were a wealthy district; that with a population of 108,000 it should easily provide for 5,500 public school students.
The reality is that Lakewood has not 5,500 but 35,000 public and nonpublic children who are supported by a tax base that has the ninth lowest per capita income of 564 New Jersey municipalities. One third of the district budget is spent on required services for all 35,000 of its children, half of which is by right under the United States Constitution and the other half by right under New Jersey law. It is simply wrong that the Department of Education funding formula ignores the existence of over 84% of the children of Lakewood when calculating adequate funding for Lakewood. The result is that my students, the public school students, are hurt the most, and all the children of Lakewood suffer. This bodes poorly for the nation and will have a detrimental impact on the State of New Jersey, which does not need more failing school districts.
I implore all supporters of public education in Lakewood and New Jersey to rally behind this lawsuit so that every child should count, so that Lakewood public schools should once again rank among the finest in the state, and so that the wonderful communities in Lakewood will no longer have to compete under against an inadequate funding formula, but instead will stand united for the common good.
/s/Arthur H. Lang
Arthur H. Lang
Educator/Attorney at Law
Dated June 16, 2014
Arthur Lang has been teaching mathematics in Lakewood High School since 2003. He has a degree in Government from the University of Texas, a degree from Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood, a Masters degree in Educational Administration from Chadron State College in Nebraska, and a Juris Doctor from Rutgers Law School in Newark. He studied under the constitutional scholar Wallace Mendelson while at University of Texas and under the father of educational litigation, Paul Tractenberg, while at Rutgers Law School. He and his family have been resident of Lakewood for over 30 years.Court Papers
Click Amended Petition to download the Petition.
On July 17, 2014, the Lakewood Board of Education voted NO in conference on the question of supporting the Petitioners in Alcantara v. Hespe.
On September 2, 2014, Respondents moved to dismiss the petition for failure to name the Lakewood Board of Education as a party.
Click Motion to Dismiss to download the State's motion to dismiss.
Despite the State Respndents' motion to dismiss, the Commissioner of Education subsequently sent the case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). On October 22, 2014, Petitioners submitted their brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Click Response to Motion to Dismiss to download the Petitioners' reply to the State's motion to dismiss.
On January 14, 2015, Professor Paul L. Tractenberg asked the Court for leave to participate as amicus curiae.
Click Letter to Court to download Prof. Tractenberg's letter to the Court.
On January 28, 2015 Petitioners submitted a brief in favor the participation of the amicus.
Click Brief in Favor of Participation of Amicus Curiae to download Petitioners' brief in favor of participation.
On January 30, 2015, Respondents filed a brief in opposition to the participation of the amicus.
Click Respondents' Brief in Opposition to the Participation of Amicus Curiae to download the brief in opposition to the participation of the amicus.
On March 11, 2015, Judge John S. Kennedy granted Professor Tractenberg leave to participate.
Click Order to Participate to download the Court's order.
On April 14, 2015 the amicus curiae filed a brief in opposition to the State's motion to dismiss the petition.
Click Amicus Brief Opposing Motion to Dismiss for Professor Tractenberg's brief in support of Petitioners.
On April 27, 2015 Respondents filed a brief in reply to the brief of amicus, again in support of the motion to dismiss.
Click Respondents' Reply to Brief of Amicus Curiae to download Respondents' second brief in favor of dismissing the Petition.
On July 23, 2015, the Court denied Respondents' motion to dismiss
Click Order Denying Motion to Dismiss to download the order of the Court clearing the way for trial.
On February 19, 2016, Petitioners moved for summary decision.
Click Motion for Summary Decision to download Petitioners' brief in support of the motion for summary decision.
On April 14, 2016, Professor Paul L. Tractenberg, participant, submitted his brief in favor of the motion for summary decision.
Click Amicus Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Decision to download Professor Tractenberg's brief in support of the motion for summary decision.
On April 14, 2016, Respondents submitted their brief in opposition of the motion for summary decision.
Click Resondents' Brief Opposing Motion for Summary Decision to download Respondents' brief in opposition of the motion for summary decision. Click Respondents' Exhibits A and B to download Respondents' Exhibits A and B. Click Exhibit C to download Respondents' Exhibit C. Click Respondents' remaining exhibits. to download Respondents' remaining exhibits.
On April 25, 2016, Petitioners submitted their Reply Brief in favor of the motion for summary decision.
Click Petitioners' Reply to download Petitioners' reply brief in support of the motion for summary decision.
On May 11, 2016 the State Monitor approved the 2016-17 Lakewood School Budget overriding its rejection by the Board of Education. The budget included enhanced adjustments to the local tax levy growth limitation not in the March 21, 2016 draft.
Click Letter to Court to download Petitioners' May 17, 2016 letter updating the Court with the changes.
Disposition of the motion was transferred to Judge Solomon A. Metzger on June 15, 2016, the ALJ in in the initial Bacon decision. On July 19, 2016 Judge Metzger denied the motion for summary decision.
Click Order Denying Summary Decision to download Judge Metzger's order.
The governor signed P.L.2016, c.22 on August 9, 2016 creating a consortium charged with providing mandated nonpublic school transportation.
Click Petitioner's Letter to download Petitioners' August 9, 2016 letter to Judge Metzger concerning the new law.
On October 4, 2016 the Lakewood Board of Education moved to participate.
Click Lakewood BOE Motion to Participate to download the motion to participate.
Click Petitioners' Response to download Petitioners' response to Lakewood BOE participation..
Click Respondents' Response to download Respondents' response to Lakewood BOE participation..
Click November 8 Letter to download Petitioners' November 8, 2016 letter to Judge Metzger concerning expenses for 2016-17.
On November 21, 2016 Judge Metzger granted the Lakewood Board of Education's motion to participate.
Click Lakewood BOE Order of Participation to download the Order.
On May 12, 2017, Petitioners moved for emergency relief.
Click Motion to download the motion. Click Exhibits to download the exhibits.
Disposition of the case was transferred to Judge Susan M. Scarola. On May 23, 2017, Respondents responded in opposition to the motion for emergency relief.
Click Response to download Respondents' papers.
On May 24, 2017, Petitioners withdrew their motion for emergency relief.
On September 26, 2017, Participant Lakewood Board of Education wrote Judge Scarola asking for a conference complaining that "it is not being made fully aware of what has transpired to date, may have interests that are somewhat divergent of the Petitioners, and is being requested to expend significant resources and time in directions that may not advance the Board’s interest."
Click BOE letter to download Mr. Inzelbuch's letter on behalf of the Lakewood BOE.
Click Petitioners' letter to download Petitioners' letter in response.
Click Prof. Trachtenberg's letter to download Participant Paul L. Trachtenberg's letter in response.
Click Respondents' letter to download Respondents' letter in response. Judge Scarola denied Mr. Inzelbuch's request for a conference.
On December 29, 2017 Participant Professor Paul L. Trachtenberg submitted a prehearing statement to the Court.
Click Prof. Trachtenberg's letter to download Prof. T.'s statement.
Click Demographic report to download the report of Ross Haber and Associates.
Also on December 29, 2017, Respondents moved to bar the expert report of Dr. Danielle Farrie of the Education Law Center written on behalf of Petitioners.
Click State's Motion to download the motion.
On January 3, 2018, Petitioners responded in opposition to the motion
Click Petitioners' letter to download Petitioners' letter brief and Dr. Farrie's report.
On January 10, 2018, Respondents replied to Petitioners' opposition.
Click State's Motion to download Respondents' reply to Petitioners' opposition.
On January 11, 2018 Participant Professor Paul L. Tactenberg filed his opposition to Respondents' motion to bar the report of Dr. Danielle Farrie.
Click Prof. T.'s letter to download Professor Trachtenberg's opposition to the motion to bar the report.
On January 3, 2018, Participant Lakewood Board of Education submitted a letter together with two reports urging Judge Scarola to summarily decide the matter in favor of Petitioners.
Click Mr. Inzelbuch's letter to download the BOE request.
Click Report of Mr. Wyns to download Mr. Wyns report.
Click Ms. Gamm Esq. to download Ms. Gamm's report.
On January 8, 2018 Respondents wrote Judge Scarola that under the rules "a participant may not file motions nor may it submit evidence" .
Click Respondents' letter to download Respondents' letter.
On January 9, 2018 Petitioners submitted their opposition to "any event that will delay the hearing (trial) in this matter."
Click Petitioners' letter to download.
On January 16, 2018 Respondents requested an adjournment of the trial. Participant Professor Paul L. Trachtenberg and Petitioners submitted their opposition.
Click Respondents' letter to download,
Click Participant's letter to download.
Click Petitioners' letter to download.
Judge Scarola denied the BOE motion for summary judgment, denied the barring of Dr. Farrie's testimony, and denied Respondents' request for an adjournment.
Click Court Order January 22, 2018 to download Judge Scarola's order.
On January 30, 2018 Petitioners moved in Superior Court in Alcantara et. al. v. Inzelbuch et. al. for an order to enforce a subpoena served upon the superintendent to appear at the trial and for an order to enforce a subpoena served upon the assistant business administrator to appear at the trial, an emergent motion to be heard by Judge Mary C. Jacobson, A.J.S.C.
Click MER-L-000244-18 to download. Also click Reply Brief and Exhibits for Petitioners' early reply brief delineating Petitioners' grievances against the Lakewood BOE in their pursuit of this case.
Click Scheduling Order to download Judge Jacobson's order setting a hearing date. Defendants consented to testifying at the trial on agreed upon dates and Petitioners withdrew the motion from Superior Court.
Petitioners presented their case on February 5, 2018, February 7, 2018, February 12, 2018, February 13, 2018 and February 22, 2018. After receiving transcripts of February 13, 2018 and February 22, 2018 Petitioners filed an emergency motion on March 9, 2018.
Click Emergency Motion 2018 to download.
Click Exhibits to download the accompanying exhibits.
Click February 5, 2018 February 7, 2018 February 12, 2018 February 13, 2018 February 22, 2018 to download each day of testimony on behalf of Petitioners.
On March 15, 2018, Respondents asked for a 10 day extension to answer the emergency motion. Click Respondents' letter to download Respondents' request for an extension to answer. Petitioners submitted their opposition to the extension of time. Click Petitioners' letter to download. Participant Lakewood BOE also opposed the extension. Click BOE letter to download the BOE letter opposing an extension.
On March 27, 2018 Judge Susan Scarola denied Petitioners' motion for emergency relief. Click Order to download the order.
in a March 29, 2018 letter, Professor Paul L. Trachtenberg, Participant, asked the governor "immediately to rectify the state’s longstanding failure" in Lakewood. Click Professor Trachtenberg's Letter to Governor to download.
On April 5, 2018, the Commissioner of Education ruled against the emergency motion in concurrence with the ALJ. Click Commissioner's Ruling Emergency Motion to download.
On April 26, 2018, Petitioners asked the Commissioner to reconsider his denial of the emergency motion. On May 7, 2018 Respondents submitted their opposition brief and a letter dated May 7, 2018 from Glenn Forney of the DOE Division of Finance to the Lakewood superintendent offering a $28 million loan to the district to cover the deficit labeled "Exhibit A." Click Respondents' brief to download. Petitioners subsequently withdrew their emergency motion.
On April 30, 2018 Respondents submitted their second motion to dismiss. Click Second Motion to Dismiss to download.
Petitioners submitted their opposition brief on May 31, 2018. Click Petitioners' Opposition Brief to download the brief and click Petitioners'Exhibits for the exhibits.
On June 6, 2018 Professor Paul L. Tractenberg, Participant, submitted his opposition to Respondents' second motion to dismiss. Click Amicus Curaie Brief to download.
On June 11, 2018 Respondents submitted their reply to Petitioners' opposition to the second motion to dismiss. Click Respondents' Reply to download. Petitioners' subsequently requested the Court to set a date for oral argument on the motion.
On July 26, 2018 Petitioners moved to supplement the record after the enactment of P.L.2018, c.67. Click Letter July 26, 2018 to download.
On August 3, 2018 Participant Lakewood Board of Education submitted the certification of the superintendent and business administrator concerning cuts in state aid for the current school year due to the recent change in law. Letter August 3, 2018 to download. Thirty nine minutes later Respondents submitted their response claiming that P.L.2018, c.67 is not ripe and that its effects are speculative. Click Response August 3, 2018 to download. On August 10, 2018 Respondents' submitted the following letter to the Court. Click Letter August 10, 2018 to download.
On August 13, 2018 Petitioners submitted their reply papers. Click Reply Brief to download. Click Exhibits to download the accompanying exhibits. Click Certification to download the certification of Mr. Melvin Wyns in support of the motion to supplement the record.
On August 16, 2018 Participant Lakewood BOE moved to become a full party. Click Letter August 16, 2018 to download. On August 17, 2018, Participant Professor Paul L. Tractenberg submitted the following letter to the Court in response to the Lakewood BOE's motion to become a full party to the matter. Click Letter August 17, 2018 to download.
On August 20, 2018 the parties and participants were in court to be heard on the three motions. Click Order August 20, 2018 to download the order of Judge Scarola.
On September 4, 2018, Petitioners filed their Second Amended Petition pursuant to the order of the Court dated August 20, 2018. Click Updated Pleadings to download.
On September 18, 2018, Respondents filed their Answer to the Second Amended Petition. Click Respondents' Answer to download.
On September 27, 2018, Petitioners submitted the export report of Mr. Melvin Wyns, the Director of the Office (Bureau) of School Finance from September 1988 to July 2001. Click Expert Report to download. Subsequently on September 27, 2018, Participant Lakewood BOE submitted the following letter to Judge Scarola. Click Mr. Inzelbuch's Letter to download. On September 28, 2018, Participant Professor Paul L. Tractenberg submitted the following letter to Judge Scarola. Click Prof. Tractenberg's Letter to download. On October 2, 2018, Respondents submitted the certification of Glenn Forney in response to paragraph 7 of the August 20, 2018 order. Click Certification of Mr. Forney to download. On October 3, 2018, Respondents, Participant Lakewood BOE and Participant Professor Paul L. Tractenberg submitted the following letters. Click Mr. Inzelbuch's October 3, 2018 Letter , click Respondents' October 3, 2018 Letter and click Professor Tractenberg's October 3, 2018 Letter to download. On October 5, 2018, Professor Tractenberg submitted an email letter to the Court urging finality. Click Professor Tractenberg October 5, 2018 Letter to download.
Judge Scarola denied the motion to intervene submitted by the Participant Lakewood Board of Education. Click October 9, 2018 Order to download. The parties appeared December 18 for the for the testimony of Mr. Wyns. Click Mr. Wyn's Testimony to download the transcript.
On December 21, 2018 and on January 7, 2019, Professor Paul L. Tractenberg, Participant, submitted letters to the Court urging finality. Click Letter Prof. T. December 21, 2018 and Letter Prof. T. January 7, 2019 to download.
On January 8, 2019 Judge Scarola denied Respondents' motion to dismiss. Click Order January 8, 2019 to download.
On January 24, 2019 Professor Tractenberg submitted a letter to the Court in anticipation for a scheduled conference on Monday January 28, 2019 urging the Court to "act definitively to assure that whatever witnesses the State presents and whatever theory of the case it seeks to advance through them are responsive to the case as it has evolved." Click Letter Prof. T. January 24, 2019 to download.
The trial is scheduled to resume in July 2019 when Respondents will present witnesses in their defense.
On March 4, 2019 Petitioners requested leave of the Court to file for summary decision. Click Summary Decision to download. On March 5, 2019 Petitioners wrote the Court concerning the relevancy of Respondents' witness list. Click Letter March 5, 2019 to download the letter and click Respondents' Witness List to download the list. On March 12, 2019 Respondents wrote a letter opposing Petitioners' request for leave to file for summary decision. Click Opposition to Summary Decision to download. On March 18, 2019 Participant Professor Paul L. Tractenberg submitted a letter supporting Petitioners' request for leave to file for summary decision. Click Prof. T. Letter March 18, 2019 to download the letter. On April 18, 2019 Judge Scarola denied Petitioners leave to file for summary decision. Click April 18, 2019 to download. On April 18, 2019 Judge Scarola denied leave file for summary decision. Click Judge Scarola Letter to download her decision.
On April 19, 2019 Participant Professor Paul L. Tractenberg submitted a letter to Judge Scarola as to her denial of leave to file for summary decision. Click Prof. Tractenberg's Letter April 19, 2019 to download the letter.
On June 18, 2019 Participant Lakewood BOE submitted a letter to Judge Scarola asking for summary decision. Click BOE Letter June 18, 2019 to download the letter.
On July 3, 2019 Participant Professor Paul L. Tractenberg again submitted a letter to Judge Scarola laying out the issues before the court and the role of the OAL in "providing the evidentiary basis for the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the state’s school funding laws." Click Prof. Tractenberg's Letter July 3, 2019 to download the letter.
On July 8, 2019 Participant Lakewood BOE submitted a letter to Judge Scarola. Click Mr. Inzelbuch's Letter to download the letter. Click for July 8, 2019 BOE Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N
On July 17, 2019 Participant Lakewood BOE submitted another letter to Judge Scarola. Click Mr. Inzelbuch's July 17, 2019 Letter to download the letter. Click for July 17, 2019 BOE Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit O Exhibit P Exhibit Q Exhibit R
On July 19, 2019 Respondents sent a letter to Judge Scarola opposing motions and evidence submitted by the Participant Lakewood BOE. Click State's Letter July 19, 2019 to download the letter. Judge Scarola subsequently responded. Click Ruling July 19, 2019 to download.
On July 22, 2019 Participant Lakewood BOE submitted a letter to Judge Scarola asking for her recusal. Click BOE Letter July 22, 2019 to download the letter. Neither Petitioners or Respondents moved for recusal and the hearing continued as scheduled on July 23, 2019.
The parties appeared in court on July 9, 10, 22 and 23 to conclude presentation of the case.
Click July 9, 2019 July 10, 2019 July 22, 2019 July 23, 2019 to download each day of testimony on behalf of the State Respondents. Petitioners and Respondents are due to submit summations after which the Court will decide the matter.
On July 28, 2019 Judge Scarola sent a letter to the parties asking them to jointly stipulate, to "information (with citations and relevant documents attached) regarding LPSD for each school year at issue in this matter (2014-2015 through 2018-2019)." Click The Court's Letter July 28, 2019 to download the letter. On August 28, 2019 Respondents responded that they "will not stipulate to any additional data to be part of the record without context for its consideration." Click Respondent's Letter to download.
On September 4, 2019 Petitioners submitted a letter to the Court accompanied by tables of the requested data and the sources of the data. Click BOE Letter July 22, 2019 to download Petitioners' letter. Click Data to download the requested information that was available.
On October 4, 2019 Petitioners submitted their summation brief to the Court. Click Summation Brief to download Petitioners' Summation.
On October 8, 2019 Participant BOE submitted a letter to Judge Scarola with exhibits. Click BOE Letter Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D
Endnotes