Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2787-11T4
01-26-2015
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED QUEST ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL OF MONTCLAIR FOUNDERS GROUP.
Michael J. Confusione argued the cause for appellant Tracey Williams, a member of Quest Academy Charter School of Montclair Founders Group (Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Confusione, of counsel and on the briefs). Geoffrey N. Stark, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Commissioner of Education (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Stark, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Maven and Hoffman. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Education. Michael J. Confusione argued the cause for appellant Tracey Williams, a member of Quest Academy Charter School of Montclair Founders Group (Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Confusione, of counsel and on the briefs). Geoffrey N. Stark, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Commissioner of Education (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Stark, on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by MAVEN, J.A.D.
In this appeal, we consider the fifth application by Quest Academy Charter School of Montclair Founders Group (Quest), for approval of a proposed charter high school in the Township of Montclair (Township). Petitioner Tracey Williams, one of Quest's founders, on behalf of Quest, appeals from the final determination of Acting Commissioner of Education David Hespe (Commissioner), dated January 18, 2011, denying Quest's application for approval. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On October 15, 2011, Quest submitted an application to the Department of Education (Department), pursuant to the Charter School Program Act of 1995, N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-1 to -18 (the Act), seeking authorization to open a charter high school in the Township. A team of Department personnel conducted a review of the application to assess and evaluate the completeness of Quest's responses to the specific criteria required by the Act. The evaluators noted concerns in areas regarding faculty and professional development, sufficiency of programs targeted to special populations of students, the assessment process, facilities, and governance.
As required by N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-4(c), Quest also submitted its application to the Montclair Board of Education, as well as its Superintendent, Frank R. Alvarez, Ph.D., for a review and recommendation. On December 15, 2011, Dr. Alvarez submitted his recommendation to the Commissioner that Quest's application be denied. Among other things, he stated that, "Quest Academy's premise for justifying the need for this charter school is based on inaccurate information, outright distortions, and tenuous evidence of parental and community demand." In addition, based upon Quest's enrollment assumptions, $2.1 million in funding would be diverted from the budget for the district's schools, which would be "devastating." He also stated that Quest's application failed to recognize "a five-year trend that shows a closing of the academic achievement gap based on HSPA results with only a three percent difference between Caucasian and African-American general education students."
The High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) is the standard exam for determining student achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics as specified in the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards. N.J.A.C. 6A:8-1.3
Following its initial review, the Department requested addenda from Quest, which Quest submitted on December 16, 2011. The addenda clarified Quest's facility selection procedures, noted that renovations to the building would be cosmetic since the building had recently been upgraded. Quest also provided means by which it would measure its academic goals, including the use of interim benchmark assessments and disaggregated student test scores to narrow the achievement gap between students of different populations, and the use of lesson plans to track the integration of technology into the curriculum. Quest additionally provided an updated financial plan, which included a detailed budget summary.
On January 6, 2012, Quest representatives met with Department representatives to discuss the application. In a letter dated January 9, 2012, Quest responded to Dr. Alvarez's recommendation. In relevant part, Quest stated that establishment of the charter school was imperative because the students in Montclair needed a choice in high schools. Further, in response to Dr. Alvarez's opinion regarding the fiscal impact on the Montclair school district, Quest noted the existence of a $10 million surplus in the district's budget. On January 17, 2012, the Commissioner issued a decision denying Quest's application based upon deficiencies identified during the charter school application evaluation process.
On February 15, 2012, Quest filed a notice of appeal from the Commissioner's decision. The Commissioner filed a motion for leave to file an amplification of the reasons for the denial of Quest's application, pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(b), which we granted.
In the amplification of reasons, the Commissioner noted that the proposed charter high school would be located in a small school district, which was presently served by only one high school. He determined the instructional and curricular goals established in the application were not clearly aligned with the needs of students from the Montclair community.
In addition, the Commissioner referenced Dr. Alvarez's recommended denial of Quest's application based upon his belief that Quest's three-month timetable to develop a curriculum "was not sufficient for completing the designated task." Further, the Commissioner noted Dr. Alvarez's clarification of Quest's characterization of MHS as a "failing school," since, according to Dr. Alvarez, the school had met thirty-eight of the forty federally mandated indicators required for an adequate yearly progress attainment. Moreover, the Commissioner considered Dr. Alvarez's concern that the proposed charter high school would have a negative impact upon the district's budget.
Next, the Commissioner identified Quest's educational plan as weak because it "failed to present [its] varied ideas as a comprehensive and fully integrated educational school program." He found Quest did not provide adequate information to determine "which approaches would be used to guide instruction, which would be most effective for the targeted students, and how they would all align with one another." He also determined the application did not "adequately demonstrate alignment with New Jersey's Core Curriculum Content Standards."
Additionally, the Commissioner concluded Quest failed to provide evidence that their plans to serve at-risk students would adequately focus on promoting high levels of student achievement. Specifically, he found the plans did not demonstrate a capacity for identifying, serving, and monitoring diverse student populations effectively; nor did the application sufficiently address the achievement gap issues as related to special education beyond Child Study Teams and Intervention and Referral Services. Finally, he determined the application provides little in the way of gifted and talented programs or co-curricular activities.
The Commissioner also determined Quest had "failed to present an adequate plan for facility acquisition and renovation within the expedited timeframe, a reasonable scope of work, and the related costs." He explained that although a facility had been identified, "the application did not provide a funding mechanism for renovation of this now closed school building or for fixtures and furnishings." Further, he noted a review of Quest's budget revealed insufficient funds to finance such items. Lastly, the Commissioner expressed the application neither delineated sound plans for initial and ongoing recruitment of Board members, nor established a clear role of parents in the education of their children.
On appeal, Quest claims the Commissioner acted arbitrarily and capriciously in his assessment of specific factors, N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-5(c), (d), (i), and (j), and in reaching his determination. With respect to each factor, Quest argues its application adequately addressed the Act's requirements and the Commissioner's decision demonstrates he did not sufficiently review Quest's submission. Thus, Quest contends (1) the Department's assessment of the District's lack of need for a charter school was speculative; (2) it was based upon an untimely and speculative recommendation by Dr. Alvarez; and (3) it ignored substantial information that Quest had submitted to the Department in compliance with N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-5(c), (d), (i), and (j). We have carefully considered these arguments and conclude that they are without merit.
Quest had initially placed in issue the applicable standard of review and argued this court should apply "something more like a substantial, credible evidence standard of review" when reviewing what Quest characterizes as the Commissioner's quasi-judicial acts. However, in its reply brief and at oral argument before us, Quest acknowledged the Court's recent ruling that upheld "arbitrary and capricious" as the appropriate standard of review to be employed when reviewing a denial of a charter school application. In re Proposed Quest Acad. Charter Sch. of Montclair Founders Grp., 216 N.J. 370, 385 (2013). In that decision, the Court addressed Quest's appeal of the denial of its third charter school application. Since the Court has provided clear guidance on the standard of review, we consider Quest's contention moot.
--------
Within the Act, the Legislature declared, among other things, that "the establishment of charter schools as part of this State's program of public education can assist in promoting comprehensive educational reform by providing a mechanism for the implementation of a variety of educational approaches which may not be available in the traditional public school classroom." N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-2.
The Act provides that an application to establish a charter school must be submitted to the Commissioner, the local board of education, and in the case of a State-operated school district, the State superintendent. N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-4(c). The local school board or State superintendent must review the application and forward a recommendation to the Commissioner. Ibid. The Act states, "[t]he Commissioner shall have final authority to grant or reject a charter application." Ibid.
In approving or disapproving a charter school application, the Commissioner does not act in a quasi-judicial capacity and therefore "need not provide the kind of formalized findings and conclusions necessary in the traditional contested case." In re Charter School Application of Englewood, 320 N.J. Super. 174, 217 (App. Div. 1999) (citing East Windsor Reg'l Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Educ., 172 N.J. Super. 547, 551-52 (App. Div. 1980)), affd as modified, 164 N.J. 316 (2000). Rather, his reasons "must be discernible from the record. In re Renewal Application of Red Bank Charter Sch., 367 N.J. Super. 462, 476 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 180 N.J. 457 (2004) (citing In re Allegations of Physical Abuse at Blackacre Acad., 304 N.J. Super. 168, 188 (App. Div. 1997)).
The standard for judicial review of administrative agency action is limited. As stated earlier, "[a]n appellate court may reverse an agency decision if it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Quest, supra, 216 N.J. at 385. Stated differently, "[u]nless a Court finds that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the agency's ruling should not be disturbed." Id. at 385 (quoting Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997)). A court may intervene only when "it is clear that the agency action is inconsistent with its mandate." In re Petition for Rulemaking, 117 N.J. 311, 325 (1989).
In this context, the arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard "subsumes the need to find sufficient support in the record to sustain the decision reached by the Commissioner." A failure to consider all the evidence in a record "would perforce lead to arbitrary decision making." Quest, supra, 216 N.J. at 386. See, e.g., Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965) (noting that "the proofs as a whole" must be considered). After its review of the record, an appellate court "may not substitute its own judgment for the agency." In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007)).
Quest contends the Commissioner was arbitrary in its assessment of the application. Quest contends its application adequately addressed the Act's requirements yet, the Commissioner ignored substantial information it had submitted to the Department in compliance with N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-5(c), (d), (i), and (j). We disagree with these contentions.
The statutory references with which Quest contends it has complied in its proposed charter school application mandates that an application set forth: (1) "the proposed governance structure of the charter school including a list of the proposed members of the board of trustees of the charter school or a description of the qualifications and method for appointment or election of members of the board of trustees;" N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-5(c); (2) "[t]he educational goals of the charter school, the curriculum to be offered, and the methods of assessing whether students are meeting educational goals;" N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-5(d); (3) "[a] description of the procedures to be implemented to ensure significant parental involvement in the operation of the school;" N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-5(i); and (4) "[a] description of, and address for, the physical facility in which the charter school will be located." N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-5(j).
The amplified decision adequately sets forth the bases for the denial of the application, including the Commissioner's determination Quest's proposed curriculum offered a "weak education plan" and its proposal for faculty, facility and finances reflected a "weak organizational plan." The amplified decision demonstrates the Commissioner thoroughly reviewed the voluminous record before ultimately concluding Quest "failed to provide a coherent, focused, detailed, or clearly articulated research-based strategy for attacking identified problems." The Commissioner found many weaknesses in the application, which he therefore denied for numerous reasons stated.
Quest also argues the Commissioner erred by relying in part upon Dr. Alvarez's recommendation, which it contends was based upon "outdated application materials" and a speculative conclusion that the proposed charter school would have a devastating effect on the District's budget. The record demonstrates the Commissioner did not rest his decision solely upon Dr. Alvarez's recommendation, but rather relied on a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the application. The Commissioner did not err by considering Dr. Alvarez's concerns in reviewing Quest's application.
Upon our careful review of the record, we conclude the Commissioner's amplified decision reflects a comprehensive review of the submitted materials. There is no support for Quest's suggestion the Commissioner failed to consider all of the evidence in the record. Rather, the Commissioner's amplified decision detailed his review of Quest's application in applying the Act, a statute of which he is presumed to have extensive knowledge. We will not second guess the Commissioner's analysis and educational judgment expressed in his amplification letter. We are satisfied the Commissioner did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in assessing Quest's submissions. We therefore conclude the Commissioner's rejection of this application is sustainable on the record. There is no basis for judicial intervention.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION