LEARNING COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL VS. BOARD OF Â EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, HUDSON COUNTY(COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION), A-5551-14T3

Background

Four Jersey City charter schools (Learning Community, Soaring Heights, Ethical Community, Golden Door) petitioned the Commissioner of Education claiming SFRA-based funding shortfalls violated the New Jersey Constitution's "thorough and efficient" clause.
Charter funding is governed by the Charter School Program Act (CSPA) and SFRA; charter schools receive 90% of specified per‑pupil local and equalization aid categories, plus certain categorical aid, but not Adjustment Aid.
SFRA's Adequacy Budget defines the per‑pupil spending necessary to meet the CCCS; Equalization Aid and categorical aid fund shortfalls; Adjustment Aid is transitional "hold harmless" assistance not based on per‑pupil calculations.
Petitioners argued Jersey City’s extensive tax abatements reduced the general tax levy and necessitated Adjustment Aid to meet constitutional minimums for their students; they asked the Commissioner to order BOE to pay 90% of per‑pupil Adjustment Aid.
The ALJ granted summary judgment to DOE/BOE, finding the statutes unambiguous: Adjustment Aid is not part of the formula for charter funding and is transitional district assistance; petitioners failed to show they cannot provide a constitutional education under current funding.
The Commissioner adopted the ALJ decision; the Appellate Division affirmed, applying de novo statutory interpretation and deferential review to agency fact findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether charter schools are entitled to receive Adjustment Aid (or 90% of it) under CSPA/SFRA	Charter schools should get 90% of funds available to district students, including Adjustment Aid, because otherwise charter students receive less than the constitutional minimum	Statutory text (N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-12(b)) excludes Adjustment Aid; Adjustment Aid is transitional district assistance not part of per‑pupil adequacy	Held: No. Adjustment Aid is not provided to charter schools; statute is clear and unambiguous.
Whether lack of Adjustment Aid renders the statutory funding scheme unconstitutional as applied to Jersey City charters under the Thorough and Efficient Clause	SFRA/CSPA, as applied, result in underfunded charter schools below constitutional minimums because Adjustment Aid bridges local shortfalls	The Adequacy Budget (without Adjustment Aid) defines the constitutionally required per‑pupil spending; Adjustment Aid is not part of that baseline and was transitional	Held: Rejected. Adequacy Budget governs constitutional minimum; absence of Adjustment Aid does not, per se, make statute unconstitutional.
Whether petitioners raised a genuine factual dispute that current funding prevents them from providing a thorough and efficient education	Petitioners submitted affidavits asserting harms from funding shortfalls and argued tax abatements reduced local levy below LFS	DOE/BOE and ALJ: petitioners produced no specific statutory/regulatory deficiencies or objective proof that education fell below CCCS; no showing of exact levy/LFS gap	Held: No genuine factual dispute. Petitioners failed to show they cannot meet required standards under current funding.
Whether voluntariness of charter enrollment affects relief (i.e., students can attend traditional public schools)	Petitioners: Students shouldn’t have to choose between an adequately funded district school and an underfunded charter	DOE/BOE: Charter program is voluntary; parents may choose district schools; charters need not be funded identically	Held: The court relied on precedent recognizing the voluntary nature of charter enrollment; this undercuts equal‑protection style complaints and supports denying relief.

Key Cases Cited

J.D. ex rel. Scipio-Derrick v. Davy, 415 N.J. Super. 375 (App. Div. 2010) (discusses charter funding framework and voluntary nature of charter enrollment)
In re Grant of Charter Sch. Application in re Englewood on the Palisades Charter Sch., 164 N.J. 316 (2000) (upholds constitutionality of CSPA funding structure)
Abbott ex rel. Abbott v. Burke, 199 N.J. 140 (2009) (Abbott XX) (explains SFRA, Adequacy Budget, and weighted funding formula)
Abbott v. Burke, 206 N.J. 332 (2011) (Abbott XXI) (addresses local levy and adequacy relationships)
In re Proposed Quest Acad. Charter Sch. of Montclair Founders Grp., 216 N.J. 370 (2013) (outlines scope of appellate review of agency decisions)
Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22 (1995) (sets standards for judicial review of administrative actions)