Robinson v. Cahill

• Decision Date: 30 January 1976
• Citation: 355 A.2d 129,69 N.J. 449
• Parties: Kenneth ROBINSON, an infant by his parent and guardian ad litem, Ernestine Robinson, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. William T. CAHILL, Governor of the State of New Jersey, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 449

69 N.J. 449

355 A.2d 129

Kenneth ROBINSON, an infant by his parent and guardian ad litem, Ernestine Robinson, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. William T. CAHILL, Governor of the State of New Jersey, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Nov. 24, 1975.

Decided Jan. 30, 1976.

Lewis B. Kaden, Perth Amboy, Sp. Counsel to the Governor, for appellant Governor of the State of

N.J. (Lewis B. Kaden, of counsel and on the brief, Judith Nallin and Arthur Winkler, Asst. Counsel to the Governor, Trenton, on the brief)

Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants Treasurer of the State of N.J., Com'r. of Ed. of the State of N.J., N.J. State Bd. of Ed., and State of N.J. (William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., attorney, of counsel and on the brief, Jane Sommer, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief.)

David Goldberg, Trenton, for appellants President of the Senate of the State of N.J. and the Senate of the State of N.J. (Warren, Goldberg & Berman, Trenton, attorneys).

Jack Borrus, New Brunswick, for appellants Speaker of the General Assembly of the State of N.J. and the General Assembly of the State of N.J. (Borrus, Goldin & Foley, New Brunswick, attorneys, Jack Borrus, of counsel, David M. Foley, New Brunswick, on the brief).

Harold J. Ruvoldt, Jr., Jersey City, for respondents (Ruvoldt & Ruvoldt, Jersey City, attorneys and Sp. Counsel to Dennis L. McGill, Corp. Counsel, Jersey City, Frank H. Blatz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, Plainfield, Joseph LaCava, Corp. Counsel, Paterson, and Julius Fielo, Corp. Counsel, East Orange).

Paul L. Tractenberg and David G. Lubell, New York City, of the New York bar, for amici curiae Ed. Committee, Newark Chapter, N.A.A.C.P. and American Civil Liberties Union of N.J. (Tractenberg, Lubell, and Frank Askin, Newark, attorneys, Stephen Eisdorfer, Newark, on the brief).

William Zaino, Somerset, for amicus curiae N.J. School Boards Ass'n.

Cassel R. Ruhlman, Jr., Trenton, for amicus curiae N.J. Education Ass'n (Ruhlman & Butrym, Trenton, attorneys).

Andrew T. Berry, Newark, on behalf of amici curiae Tp. of Livingston and the Boards of Ed. of the School Districts of Montclair, Berkeley Heights, Chatham Tp., New Providence, Rumson, Sandyston-Walpack, Summit and Millburn, Avon-by-the-Sea, Belmar, Englewood, Mendham Tp., and the City of Englewood and the Mayor of the Borough of Carlstadt (McCarter & English, Newark, attorneys for amici-curiae Tp. of Livingston and the Boards of Ed. of the School Districts of Montclair, Berkeley Heights, Chatham Tp., New Providence, Rumson, Sandyston-Walpack, Summit and Millburn, Arthur T. Berry, Newark, of counsel and on the brief, Peter F. Shebell, Jr., Asbury Park, attorney for Avon-by-the-Sea and Belmar, Walter T. Wittman, Hackensack, attorney for amicus curiae Bd. of Ed. of City of Englewood, Arthur J. Lesemann, Hackensack, attorney for amicus curiae City of Englewood, Mills, Doyle, Hock & Murphy, Morristown, attorneys for amicus curiae Bd. of Ed. of Tp. of Mendham, Paul S. Barbire, Rutherford, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Mayor of the Borough of Carlstadt).

Robert T. Pickett and David C. Long, Newark, of the Illinois bar argued the cause for amicus curiae The Education Reform Project of The Greater Newark, Urban Coalition (Pickett & Jennings, Newark, attorneys, Robert T. Pickett, of counsel and on the brief, David C. Long, on the brief).

Morton Feldman, Atlantic City, submitted a memorandum on behalf of amici curiae Pleasantville Taxpayers Ass'n, Weymouth

Taxpayers Ass'n, Ass'n of Concerned Citizens of Vineland and Gilbert Cramer.

PER CURIAM.

The earlier history of this protracted litigation appears elsewhere in our reports. ¹ It need not be restated here. On September 29, 1975, there was enacted into law a statute known as the Public School Education Act of 1975, (c. 212, L. 1975, N.J.S.A. 18A:7A--1 Et seq.). Immediately following its passage, motions were addressed to this Court by a number of different parties in the cause. The various forms of relief sought by these motions all implicated one underlying issue: was or was not the Act of 1975 constitutional? We hesitated to entertain the motions. No lower court determination of this underlying issue was before us for review; the parties had had no opportunity to avail themselves of an evidentiary hearing at which a record could be made; a judgment by us might savour somewhat of an advisory opinion. These considerations, however, were felt to be outweighed by the desirability of reaching a speedy decision as to the constitutionality of the enactment--at least when examined Facially. ² We thought it would Accordingly we address ourselves to the issue as to whether, on its face, the 1975 Act is or is not constitutional.

be possible--and if so, highly desirable--to decide at once whether the statute, on its face, did or did not meet constitutional requirements. Parenthetically, we note that [355 A.2d 132] whether it may or may not pass constitutional muster as applied in the future to any individual school district at any particular time, must quite obviously await the event. Only in the factual context then presented and in the light of circumstances as they may then appear could such a determination be made.

I

It is, initially, of vital importance to note that this is the first time in the course of this litigation that we have had an opportunity to consider a plan intended to meet all aspects of a thorough and efficient education. Robinson I, as the opening sentence of the opinion makes clear, involved only 'the constitutionality of statutes providing for the Financing of elementary and secondary schools.' (62 N.J. 473, 480, 303 A.2d 273, 276; emphasis supplied). It is of course true that the opinion says much that bears significantly upon aspects of the problem of public education other than the fiscal one. And although we have not hitherto been asked to examine the adequacy of the educational system in this State in other than financial terms, we have been constantly mindful that money is only one of a number of elements that must be studied in giving definition and content to the constitutional promise of a thorough and efficient education. Thus in Robinson IV we said (A) multitude of other (non-fiscal) factors play a vital role in the educational result--to name a few, individual and group disadvantages, use of compensatory techniques for the disadvantaged and handicapped, variation in availability of qualified teachers in different areas, effectiveness in teaching methods and evaluation thereof, professionalism at every level of the system, meaningful curricula, exercise of authority and discipline, and adequacy of overall goals fixed at the policy level. (69 N.J. 133, 141, 351 A.2d 713, 717)

We are now called upon to examine a legislative proposal that at once seeks to define the constitutional promise, identify the components of which it consists, establish a procedural mechanism for its implementation and afford the financial means necessary for its fulfillment. We approach our analysis having in mind the presumption of validity which accompanies the legislative act.

II

In Robinson I we pointed out that the State had never defined or spelled out the content of the educational opportunity required by the Constitution, and we indicated that this must be done so that 'in some discernible way' the scope of this obligation would be made apparent. 62 N.J. at 516, 519, 303 A.2d 273. This, as we have noted, the Legislature has now undertaken to do. The goal of a thorough and efficient education and the principal elements of which it must consist are explicitly stated:

The goal of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools shall be to provide to all children in New Jersey, regardless of socioeconomic status or geographic location, the educational opportunity which will prepare them to function politically, economically and socially in a democratic society. (N.J.S.A. 18A:7A--4)

A thorough and efficient system of free public schools shall include the following major elements, which shall serve as guidelines for the achievement of the legislative goal and the implementation of this act.

a. Establishment of educational goals at both the State and local levels;

b. Encouragement of public involvement in the establishment of educational goals;

c. Instruction intended to produce the attainment of reasonable levels of proficiency in the basic communications and computational skills;

d. A breadth of program offerings designed to develop the individual talents and abilities of pupils;

e. Programs and supportive services for all pupils especially those who are educationally disadvantaged or who have special educational needs;

f. Adequately equipped, sanitary and secure physical facilities and adequate materials and supplies;

g. Qualified instructional and other personnel;

h. Efficient administrative procedures;

i. An adequate State program of research and development; and

j. Evaluation and monitoring programs at both the State and local levels. (N.J.S.A. 18A:7A--5)

To the 'major elements' listed above should be added the requisite of sufficient fiscal support. Perhaps this is implied in what is quoted above. In any event it is dealt with at length in a later portion of the statute ³ and is discussed below.

Together with these legislative statements of educational aims and of the ingredients of which a thorough and efficient education must consist, attention should be directed to one of the findings appearing in a prefatory portion of the Act. This reads as follows:

Because the sufficiency of education is a growing and evolving concept, the definition of a thorough and efficient system of education and the delineation of all the factors necessary to be included therein, depend upon the economic, historical, social and cultural context in which that education is delivered. The Legislature must, nevertheless, make explicit provision for the design...