Alcantara v. Moro, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Judge Smith authored this opinion for the Appellate Division, that court’s first published opinion of the new Term. The appeal was from a final decision of the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education that the School Funding Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 8A:7F-43 et seq. (“SFRA”), was constitutional as applied to the Township of Lakewood.
The case has a significant history, including a previous decision by the Appellate Division that was reported at 475 N.J. Super. 58 (App. Div. 2023) (“Alcantra I”). That ruling provided important background for the latest decision.
In short, as Judge Smith recounted, quoting at length from the prior opinion, Lakewood has a high percentage of Orthodox Jewish residents whose children are enrolled in private religious schools. “Like other districts, Lakewood's state-issued school aid is calculated based upon its 6,000 enrolled public school students. However, Lakewood’s education budget has been severely strained by its obligation to provide transportation and special education tuition to many of the 31,000 non-public school students not included in its aid calculation.” Over half of the total school budget in a recent year “went to transportation and special education tuition for non-public students.”
The Lakewood public schools, in which “[t]he entire student body is eligible for free or reduced-price lunches based on household income[,] … has a high percentage of students who speak English as a second language.” Over 94% of Lakewood’s public school students are Latino or Black.
“Lakewood had difficulty hiring and retaining teachers and other instructional aides. Classroom instructional salaries were the second lowest in the state on a per-pupil basis. A preschool program, which had been recommended in a 2009 needs assessment, was never implemented. Student performance was also depressed. Test scores from 2014-15 indicated that only twenty-three percent of high school students met or exceeded expectations on the PARCC assessment for English, whereas only five percent met that threshold in math. Only six percent of district students scored above 1550 on the SAT, compared to forty-three percent of students statewide, placing Lakewood in the thirteenth percentile of all districts.”
Plaintiffs filed a petition with the Department of Education, alleging that Lakewood had violated its duty under the New Jersey Constitution to provide a “thorough and efficient” education to public school students, due to insufficient SFRA funding. After a lengthy procedural history, during which a finding was made that Lakewood students were not receiving the required “thorough and efficient” education and the Appellate Division in Alcantra I ordered further proceedings, the Commissioner issued a final decision that rejected plaintiffs’ argument about funding. As Judge Smith summarized, the Commissioner determined that “Lakewood's failure to provide T&E to its students d[i]d not derive, in significant part, from the provisions of the SFRA," but from "Lakewood’s tax-related choices that decreased revenue, the significant deficiencies in Lakewood’s spending practices, and Lakewood’s failure to control its transportation and special education costs.”
The Appellate Division applied “an enhanced deferential standard” of review to that decision and found that it was supported by “substantial evidence to support the agency’s findings.” Judge Smith outlined that evidence in detail.
Plaintiffs contended that “Alcantara I ‘elevated [Lakewood’s public school students] to a status previously accorded only students in Abbott districts.’ Put differently, petitioners argue that, because we concluded that Lakewood public school students suffer from an ongoing constitutional deprivation, Lakewood must now receive the unique constitutional status of ‘wards of the State.’ (citing Abbott v. Burke (Abbott XXI), 206 N.J. 332, 340(2011)). This ward status, in turn, means ‘[t]he State has a special, heightened responsibility to Lakewood’s students’ as it did with the Abbott districts.”
Judge Smith did not agree. “Like Abbott XXI, petitioners here challenge the constitutionality of the SFRA as applied to a specific school district. See Abbott XXI, 206 N.J. at 369. However, the Abbott XXI petitioners argued that the SFRA was unconstitutionally applied to them because it was not fully funded by the Legislature. Ibid. That is not the record we have before us. Indeed, the vast record shows Lakewood has received all the SFRA funding that it has qualified for.” Thus, plaintiffs true complaint was that “the SFRA [is] unconstitutional because it doesn't yield enough state aid to cover the shortfalls caused by Lakewood’s budget and spending choices, particularly in the areas of transportation and special education. These choices, the record shows, have drained resources away from Lakewood’s public school students, and are consistently at odds with cost-saving recommendations made by respondents.”
Though plaintiffs lost this appeal, that did not end the court’s ruling. “[w]e are mindful that there are Lakewood school children who suffer from an ongoing constitutional deprivation. This stark truth, evident in the record, is undisputed by the parties. Indeed, it is petitioners’ foundational claim, and respondents, charged with a constitutional obligation to ensure that all New Jersey school children receive a thorough and efficient education, do not disagree. While we conclude that Lakewood’s failure to provide a thorough and efficient education for its public school students is not due, in significant part, to the SFRA, the search for an equitable, effective and efficient solution to the plight of these children must not end here.” The panel “express[ed] measured optimism that respondents, and Lakewood, will navigate a timely path forward to guarantee and safeguard the right of all Lakewood schoolchildren to a thorough and efficient education.”
May it be so.
