IN RE N.J.A.C. 6A:8 STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding up on any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0768-16T 4 IN RE N.J.A.C. 6A:8
STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT
______________________________
Argued October 29, 2018 – Decided December 31, 2018
Before Judges Messano, Gooden Brown and Rose.
On appeal from the adoption of amended regulations at
N.J.A.C. 6A:8, Standards and Assessment by the New
Jersey State Board of Education.
Jessica A. Levin argued the cause for appellants Latino
Action Network, Latino Coalition of New Jersey,
Paterson Education Fund, Education Law Center and
NAACP New Jersey State Conference (Education Law
Center, attorneys; American Civil Liberties Union of
New Jersey, attorneys; Jessica A. Levin, of counsel and
on the joint briefs; David G. Sciarra, on the briefs;
Edward L. Barocas, of counsel and on the brief; Jeanne
LoCicero and Alexander Shalom, on the joint brief).
Kathryn E. Duran, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondents New Jersey State Board of
Education and Kimberley Harrington, Acting
Commissionier, New Jersey Department of Education
(Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa
Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Kathryn E. Duran, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellants, Education Law Center (ELC), Latino Action Network (LAN),
Latino Coalition of New Jersey, Paterson Education Fund, and NAACP New
Jersey State Conference, challenge amendments to N.J.A.C. 6A:8, proposed by
respondent Department of Education (DOE) and adopted by respondent State
Board of Education (the Board). We provide some background.
I.
Enacted in 1979, the Proficiency Standards and Assessments Act (the
Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-1 to -16, requires DOE and the Board to "establish a
program of standards for graduation from secondary school," including "a
statewide assessment test in reading, writing, and computational skills . . . ."
N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-1. The test must "measure those basic skills all students must
possess to function politically, economically and socially in a democratic
society." N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-6.1.
The Act originally mandated that beginning in 1981, the test "be
administered to all ninth grade pupils and to all other high school pupils who
ha[d] previously failed to demonstrate mastery of . . . graduation proficiency
standards . . . ." N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-6 (1988). Local boards of education were
A-0768-16T4
2
required to provide remedial instruction to students who do not meet the State
proficiency standards by the end of tenth grade. N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-3 (1988).
In 1988, the Legislature amended the Act to provide that the test "be
administered to all [eleventh] grade pupils and to any [eleventh] or [twelfth]
grade pupil who ha[d] previously failed to demonstrate" proficiency. N.J.S.A.
18A:7C-6. Local boards of education must now provide remedial instruction to
students who do not meet the State proficiency standards by the end of eleventh
grade. N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-3. "Any [twelfth] grade student who does not meet"
the "State and [school] district examination standards for graduation[,]" but "has
met all the credit, curriculum and attendance requirements shall be eligible for
a comprehensive assessment of said proficiencies utilizing techniques and
instruments" approved by the Commissioner of Education, "other than
standardized tests." Ibid.
The Board adopted the Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS) in
1996. These were baseline standards that local school districts must follow in
formulating curricula in nine subject areas, essentially defining the elements of
what is taught in New Jersey's public education system. See New Jersey
A-0768-16T4
3
Learning Standards.1 School districts began administering the High School
Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) to eleventh-grade students in the 2001-02
school year. Your Guide to the HSPA.2 The HSPA was designed to assess
mastery of CCCS standards for English language arts (ELA) and mathematics .
Ibid. Students who failed the ELA or math components of the HSPA could take
them again in order to pass. Id. at 4. In addition, these students could
demonstrate proficiency through the Alternative High School Assessment
(AHSA) process, which did not involve standardized testing. Ibid.; see N.J.S.A.
18A:7C-3.
Following the 2008 issuance of a report by the New Jersey High School
Redesign Steering Committee, the Board adopted in 2010 Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) in mathematics and ELA. 3 Historical Context: Overview of
1
STATE OF N.J., DEP'T OF EDU., https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs (last
visited Dec. 20, 2018). Throughout our opinion, we take judicial notice of
undisputed facts pursuant to N.J.R.E. 202(b).
2
STATE OF N.J., DEP'T OF EDU. 1,
https://nj.gov/education/assessment/hs/hspa_guide_english.pdf (last visited
Dec. 14, 2018).
3
See NJ steps Re-Designing Education in New Jersey for the 21st Century, THE
N.J. HIGH SCH. REDESIGN STEERING COMM.,
https://dspace.njstatelib.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10929/22628/e242008a.pd
f?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (last visited Dec. 14, 2018).
A-0768-16T4
4
New Jersey's Statewide Testing Program.4 The same year, the State joined the
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
Consortium, a national group formed to "collaboratively develop[] a common
set of assessments to measure student achievement of the [CCSS] and
preparedness for college and careers." 5 Ibid.
From November 2014 through November 2016, a study commission ,
established pursuant to former Governor Chris Christie's Executive Order No.
159, conducted meetings and received input from educators, parents, students,
and community representatives regarding the CCCS, CCSS, PARCC; and, more
generally, the use and effectiveness of assessments in determining whether
4
STATE OF N.J., DEP'T OF EDUC.,
https://nj.gov/education/assessment/history.shtml (last visited Dec. 14, 2018).
5 In 2014, the DOE issued a memorandum to school districts mandating new
proficiency assessment requirements utilizing PARCC tests for students in the
2016, 2017, and 2018 graduating classes. See David C. Hespe, Graduation
Requirements Class of 2016, 2017 and 2018, STATE OF N.J., DEP'T OF EDU. (Sept.
30, 2014), https://www.aclu-
nj.org/files/8314/4130/5113/2015_09_01_GrdReq.pdf (last visited Dec. 14,
2018). ELC filed an appeal alleging these graduation standards were adopted in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). T.B. v. N.J. Dep't of
Educ., No. EDU-1732-2015N, Settlement Agreement 1,
http://www.edlawcenter.org/assets/files/pdfs/Newsblasts/T.B.%20Settlement%
20Agreement.pdf (last visited Dec. 14, 2018). In a settlement agreement dated
May 6, 2016, the DOE conceded the APA violation. Id. at 1-2.
A-0768-16T4
5
students have mastered required subjects. Study Commission on the Use of
Student Assessments in New Jersey: Final Report. 6 In its January 2016 final
report, the study commission concluded that the PARCC tests offered several
advantages. The study commission also recommended that DOE require all
public school students in grades three through twelve take the PARCC end -of-
course tests for every course in which they were enrolled. Id. at 12, 17. It
recommended that the HSPA be replaced by the PARCC ELA 10 7 and Algebra
I exams as the graduation proficiency assessment "at least for the initial years
of implementation" of the new PARCC-based education standards. Id. at 17.
The commission stated that through 2020, students should also be permitted to
demonstrate graduation-level proficiency in ELA and math through substitute
standardized tests like the PSAT, SAT, ACT, and other exams administered by
third parties, if they desired. Ibid. However, beginning with the 2020 class,
students "should be required to take the PARCC [end-of-course] assessments in
6
STATE OF N.J. 4, 18-19 (Jan. 1, 2016),
https://www.state.nj.us/education/archive/studycommission/FinalReport.pdf
(last visited Dec. 14, 2018).
7
The numbered ELA test refers to the grade in which students take the
equivalent course. ELA 10 is administered in tenth grade.
A-0768-16T4
6
courses in which they are enrolled -- without having to achieve a prescribed
score -- before they can access the alternative assessments for high school
graduation." Ibid. The commission concluded that beginning in 2021, passing
scores on end-of-course PARCC tests should be required for graduation. Ibid.
In 2016, the Board proposed regulatory revisions to N.J.A.C. 6A:8 to
"implement[] the . . . []CCCS[] and the statewide assessment system," and
reflect "adoption of the . . . []PARCC[] assessments." 48 N.J.R. 736(a). ELC
representatives testified before the Board, and, along with ACLU-NJ, ELC
submitted written comments opposing the amendments. The Board adopted the
amendments in August 2016, effective September 6, 2016. See 48 N.J.R.
1790(b).
Under the new regulations, "all students [must] demonstrate proficiency
in the high school end-of-course PARCC assessments in ELA 10 and Algebra I,
or through alternative means," in order to graduate. N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(6). In
transitioning to the new PARCC assessment system, for the 2016, 2017, 2018
and 2019 graduating classes, "students who did not take both the ELA 10 and
the Algebra I end-of-course PARCC assessments[,] or who [took them] but [did]
not achieve a passing score on both," may satisfy the graduation proficiency
requirements by: 1) passing a "substitute competency test" in either or bot h
A-0768-16T4
7
areas; 2) passing another relevant end-of-course PARCC test "including ELA 9,
ELA 11, Geometry, or Algebra II;" or 3) meeting the criteria of a "portfolio
appeals process." N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(f)(1).
N.J.A.C. 6A:8-1.3 defines "[s]ubstitute competency test" as "an
alternative set of third-party assessments approved by the Commissioner,
including, but not limited to the SAT, PSAT, ACT, ACT-Aspire, ASVAB-
AFQT, or Accuplacer . . . ." The regulations define "[p]ortfolio appeals process"
as "an alternative assessment of proficiency for graduation established by the
Commissioner, utilizing techniques and instruments other than PARCC
assessments or substitute competency tests." Ibid.
Students in the 2020 graduating class must "take all applicable high school
end-of-course PARCC assessments for all courses in which they are enrolled,"
but if they do not pass both the ELA 10 and Algebra I assessments, they may
also demonstrate graduation proficiency through one of the alternative options
available in prior years. N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(f)(2). Beginning with the 2021
graduating class, students must take all applicable end-of-course PARCC
assessments for all courses in which they enroll. N.J.A.C. 6A:8 -5.1(g). A
student who does not pass the ELA 10 and Algebra I exams by the end of his or
her senior year "after multiple opportunities to take [them]," may satisfy the
A-0768-16T4
8
graduation requirements only through the portfolio appeals process; no
substitute competency tests are available. Ibid.
Efforts by the Legislature to invalidate the regulations have failed. See
Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. N.J. Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 234 N.J. 483, 493 (2018)
(describing constitutional procedure whereby the Legislature may invalidate a
rule or regulation). In November 2016, the Assembly introduced a concurrent
resolution determining that the revised regulations were "inconsistent with the
intent of the Legislature." Assemb. Con. Res. 215, Gen. Assemb., 217th Leg.
(N.J. 2016). With the Senate's concurrence, the Assembly resolved:
3. The State Board of Education, pursuant to Article V,
Section IV, paragraph 6 of the Constitution of the State
of New Jersey, shall have 30 days following transmittal
of this resolution to amend or withdraw the adopted
regulations or the Legislature may, by passage of
another concurrent resolution, exercise its authority
under the Constitution to invalidate the regulations.
[Ibid.]
Concurrent Resolution 215 passed the Assembly on March 16, 2017, and was
referred to the Senate Education Committee, which has taken no further action.
A-0768-16T4
9
See Assemb. Con. Res. 215, N.J. STATE LEG.8 The Legislature has failed in 2018
to enact legislation or adopt another concurrent resolution.
II.
Appellants argue the regulations are contrary to the Act's express language
requiring a single comprehensive assessment examination, by way of a test
administered to students in the eleventh grade, with opportunities to retake the
test and access to alternative assessments. They further contend the regulations
violate the Education Clause of the New Jersey Constitution, N.J. Const. art.
VIII, § 4, ¶ 1, and the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -
49.
We recognize that "[j]udicial review of agency regulations begins with a
presumption that the regulations are both valid and reasonable . . . ."
Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc. v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 443 N.J. Super. 293,
302 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting N.J. Ass'n of Sch. Adm'rs v. Schundler, 211 N.J.
535, 548 (2012)). "[W]e must give great deference to an agency's interpretation
and implementation of its rules enforcing the statutes for which it is
8
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/bills0001.asp (last visited Dec. 14, 2018)
(follow "Bill Number" hyperlink; then search by bill number 215; then follow
"ACR215" hyperlink).
A-0768-16T4
10
responsible." Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting In re Freshwater Wetlands
Prot. Act Rules, 180 N.J. 478, 488-89 (2004)).
"It has been a longstanding principle that 'the grant of authority to an
administrative agency is to be liberally construed . . . to enable the agency to
accomplish its statutory responsibilities.'" In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.4,
17:1-7.5 & 17:1-7.10, 454 N.J. Super. 386, 395 (App. Div.), certif. denied, ___
N.J. ___ (2018) (quoting N.J. Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers v. Long, 75 N.J.
544, 562 (1978)). "[A] challenger must 'demonstrat[e] an inconsistency between
the regulation and the statute it implements, a violation of policy expressed or
implied by the Legislature, an extension of the statute beyond what the
Legislature intended, or a conflict between the enabling act and other statutory
law that cannot be harmonized.'" Hackensack Riverkeeper, 443 N.J. Super. at
302 (second alteration in original) (quoting N.J. Ass'n of Sch. Adm'rs v. Cerf,
428 N.J. Super. 588, 596 (App. Div. 2012)). "While findings of ultra vires
actions are disfavored, '[o]ur role is to enforce the will of the Legislature'
because '[s]tatutes cannot be amended by administrative fiat.'" In re Agric.,
Aquacultural, & Horticultural Water Usage Certification Rules, 410 N.J. Super.
209, 223 (App. Div. 2009) (alterations in original) (citations omitted). "[I]f the
regulation is plainly at odds with the statute, we must set it aside." In re
A-0768-16T4
11
Freshwater Wetlands, 180 N.J. at 489. The challenging party bears the burden
of proof. Ibid.
Courts may also invalidate a regulation if it "violates . . . constitutional
principles . . . ." George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27
(1994). "[A] statute or regulation is facially unconstitutional only if the
constitution is necessarily violated every time the law is enforced. That
comports with the settled notion that a regulation or statute will be construed to
avoid constitutional defects if it is reasonably susceptible of such a
construction." Ran-Dav's Cty. Kosher, Inc. v. State, 129 N.J. 141, 174-175
(1992) (Stein, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).
A.
We first consider appellants' contentions that the regulations conflict with
the plain language of the Act, which is "the best indicator of legislative intent."
In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.4, 454 N.J. Super. at 396 (citing DiProspero
v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005)). "If the plain language of the statute is clear
and 'susceptible to only one interpretation[,]' then the [c]ourt should apply that
plain-language interpretation." Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad, 225 N.J. 373,
390 (2016) (first alteration in original) (quoting DiProspero, 183 N.J. at 492).
A-0768-16T4
12
Appellants argue that administration of the PARCC ELA 10 test, by its
nature an end-of-course exam for tenth grade students, and the Algebra I test,
which may be taken in any high school year or even earlier, 9 is contrary to the
Legislature's expressed intent that a proficiency exam be administered to all
eleventh grade pupils. DOE objects to this "purely temporal requirement" and
contends that eleventh grade, as used in the Act, means "an [eleventh] grade
proficiency level," which a given student may reach during any grade.
N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-6 mandates the graduation proficiency test "shall be
administered to all [eleventh] grade pupils and to any [eleventh] or [twelfth]
grade pupil who has previously failed to demonstrate mastery of State
graduation proficiency standards on said test." N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-6.1 further
directs the DOE Commissioner to develop "the graduation proficiency test to be
administered to all [eleventh] grade pupils . . . ." The plain language of the
enabling statute mandates the test be administered to students in the eleventh
grade.
9
The PARCC State Summary Report from the DOE indicates that a majority of
students take the Algebra I exam in eighth or ninth grade. See PARCC Spring
State Summary Report, Algebra I SY 2015-2016, STATE OF N.J., DEP'T OF EDU.,
https://www.nj.gov/education/schools/achievement/16/parcc/spring/AlgebraI.p
df (last visited Dec. 18, 2018).
A-0768-16T4
13
Any doubt of the Legislature's intent is resolved by looking at the Act's
legislative history. From its enactment in 1979 until 1988, N.J.S.A. 18A:7C- -6
explicitly required that the test be administered to students in the nint h grade.
L. 1979, c. 241, § 6. In 1988, the Legislature amended this provision to require
administration of the test in the eleventh grade. L. 1988, c. 168, § 3. "An
amendment to an act may be resorted to for discovery of legislative intent in the
enactment amended." Borough of Matawan v. Monmouth Cty. Bd. of Taxation,
51 N.J. 291, 299 (1968) (citing Wallenstein v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.,
21 N.J. Misc. 378, 384 (Sup. Ct. 1943)).
Before invalidating any regulation, however, we are obliged to look
beyond the plain language of "one provision in a large statutory scheme," and
"consider the entire enabling legislation . . . to ascertain if there is in fact
sufficient underlying authority [for a regulation]." In re Adoption of N.J.A.C.
17:1-6.4, 454 N.J. Super. at 396 (alteration in original) (quoting In re N.J.A.C.
7:1B-1.1, 431 N.J. Super. 100, 119 (App. Div. 2013)). We must also examine
the policy the Legislature sought to achieve by passing the Act. Ibid.
DOE cites N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-6.4 and -6.5, both of which the Legislature
enacted after DOE adopted the PARCC assessments. Both statutes define
"[s]tate assessment" as "an assessment required pursuant to State or federal law
A-0768-16T4
14
and administered to all students in a specific grade level or subject area and
whose results are aggregated for analysis . . . ." DOE argues the Legislature
signaled its intention to test proficiencies at grade levels, not necessarily pupils
enrolled in eleventh grade.
The argument is unpersuasive. The ELA10, administered as an end-of-
course test in the tenth grade, does not test eleventh grade proficiency. The
Algebra I test has no connection to proficiencies at a specific grade level.
Moreover, these two provisions are not inconsistent with the plain language of
the Act, i.e., that DOE administer the graduation proficiency test "to all
[eleventh] grade pupils," N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-6, and the legislative purpose of the
Act. We hold, therefore, that to the extent the regulations required testing of
non-eleventh-grade students, they are contrary to the Act and are invalid.
Appellants next assert that the amended regulations impermissibly impose
multiple end-of-course tests instead of a single graduation exam as the Act
requires. DOE counters by arguing the Act permits administration of tests "for
these subject areas when courses are completed — which may occur at different
times."
The Act does not specifically use the words "single" or "comprehensive"
to describe the required graduation proficiency test. However, N.J.S.A.
A-0768-16T4
15
18A:7C-1 directs the DOE and Board to develop "a [s]tatewide assessment test
in reading, writing, and computational skills . . . ." (Emphasis added). N.J.S.A.
18A:7C-6 states that "the State graduation proficiency test" shall be
administered to eleventh grade pupils. (Emphasis added). N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-2
similarly includes the phrase, "[s]atisfactory performance on the [s]tatewide
assessment test . . . ." (Emphasis added). The Legislature's use of these terms
suggests its intent to require one high school graduation proficiency exam rather
than multiple end-of-course exams.
Respondents assert that even the HSPA was not administered on a single
day. While that is true, prior to adopting the amendments, DOE stated that the
PARCC tests would be taken as students are taught the course's content, and that
students are allowed to take them "at their own pace." Implicitly, administering
the tests in this manner thwarts the Legislature's intent that "a" test be
administered to eleventh grade pupils.
We do not intend to micromanage the administration of the proficiency
examination mandated by the Act. What standardized test(s) DOE decides to
use, and whether local school districts must administer the examination in a
consecutive multi-day sitting, as they did with the HSPA, is not for us to decide.
A-0768-16T4
16
However, the regulations violate the Act to the extent they specifically authorize
multiple tests administered in grades other than the eleventh grade.
We also agree with appellants that for classes graduating through 2020,
the regulations do not provide for re-testing utilizing the same proficiency
examination. In addition to requiring that the test be administered to all eleventh
grade pupils, N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-6 provides that it must be administered to "any
[eleventh] or [twelfth] grade pupil who has previously failed to demonstrate
mastery of State graduation proficiency standards on said test." This evinces
the Legislature's intent that students be given more than one opportunity to pass
the same proficiency test.
N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(f)(1) and (2) do not reference any opportunity for
students graduating through 2020 to retake the PARCC ELA 10 and Algebra I
exams. Rather, students who have not taken or have failed those tests can
demonstrate graduation proficiency only through alternative methods: a
substitute test like the SAT, passing scores on other PARCC assessments, or the
portfolio review.
DOE disputes whether students who fail either of the two PARCC
examinations are unable to retake the test, citing publicly available information
demonstrating blocks of testing throughout the year. See Updated Statewide
A-0768-16T4
17
Assessments Testing Schedule 2017-2018.10 Appellants assert that the calendar
for PARCC exams lists testing dates only for first-time test takers and not for
"re-testing."
Based on the record before us, it is unclear whether re-testing
opportunities are routinely being provided for students. To the extent they are
not, the regulations on their face violate N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-6. Furthermore,
because we have already held the administration of multiple tests to pupils other
than those in eleventh grade violates the Act, N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(f)(1) and (2) as
adopted are invalid.
By contrast, N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(g) states that for classes graduating in
2021 and beyond, a student who has not passed the ELA 10 and Algebra I tests
by the end of twelfth grade "after multiple opportunities to take the assessments"
may demonstrate proficiency through a portfolio review. (Emphasis added). In
this case, the regulation implies an opportunity for retesting using the designated
PARCC exams beginning with the 2021 class, and, if that practice is actually
followed, the regulation would not violate the Act, assuming re-testing involves
"a" proficiency test originally administered to eleventh-grade pupils.
10
STATE OF N.J., DEP'T OF EDU.,
https://www.state.nj.us/education/assessment/20172018TestingCalendar.pdf
(last visited Dec. 18, 2018).
A-0768-16T4
18
Lastly, appellants assert that the regulations fail to provide access to
mandated alternative assessments for students in the 2020 graduating class and
beyond. They contend that N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(f)(2) permits only students who
participate in PARCC end-of-course testing to demonstrate proficiency through
alternative means. According to appellants, conditioning "alternative pathways"
to graduation "on participation in PARCC" violates the Act.
The plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-3 establishes that any twelfth
grade student who has not passed the graduation proficiency exam, but who has
satisfied all other "credit, curriculum and attendance requirements shall be
eligible for" an alternative proficiency assessment "utilizing techniques and
instruments" adopted by DOE "other than standardized tests . . . ." We do not
construe the Act as prohibiting DOE's adoption of PARCC testing; rather, the
Act compels DOE to provide for alternative methods of assessing proficiency
other than through PARCC testing or any other standardized testing process.
III.
Our conclusion regarding these specific provisions of the regulations
strips the entire regulatory scheme contained in N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1, "Graduation
Requirements," of any meaningful enforcement. We therefore decline the
opportunity to address appellants' constitutional argument as to whether DOE's
A-0768-16T4
19
use of "substitute competency tests" administered by private third parties as
alternative options to demonstrate proficiency violates our Constitution. Our
courts have "time and again . . . held that [we] 'should not reach a constitutional
question unless its resolution is imperative to the disposition of litigation.'"
Comm. to Recall Robert Menendez From the Office of U.S. Senator v. Wells,
204 N.J. 79, 141 (2010) (quoting Randolph Town Ctr., L.P. v. Cty. of Morris,
186 N.J. 78, 80 (2006)).
Appellants' LAD claim is premised on the assumption that permitting the
use of any fee-based alternative standardized test will have a disparate impact
upon minority students and English language learners (ELLs), defined by the
regulations as "person[s] who [are] in the process of acquiring English and
[have] a first language other than English." N.J.A.C. 6A:8-1.3. Appellants rely
upon publicly available data that African-American, Latino and ELL students
are more likely to be eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. They reason that
these lower income minority or ELL students are less likely to be able to afford
the costs associated with these third-party examinations.
To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, a party "must show
that a facially neutral policy 'resulted in a significantly disproportionate or
adverse impact on members of the affected class.'" Gerety v. Atl. City Hilton
A-0768-16T4
20
Casino Resort, 184 N.J. 391, 399 (2005) (quoting United Prop. Owners Ass'n of
Belmar v. Borough of Belmar, 343 N.J. Super. 1, 47 (App. Div. 2001)). The
party "must establish actual discriminatory impact; raising an inference is
insufficient." United Prop. Owners, 343 N.J. Super. at 47 (citing Pfaff v. U.S.
Dep't of Hous., 88 F.3d 739, 745 (9th Cir. 1996)). On the sparse record before
us, we cannot conclude appellants have met their burden.
IV.
We hold N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(6), -5.1(f) and -5.1(g) are contrary to the
express provisions of the Act because they require administration of more than
one graduate proficiency test to students other than those in the eleventh grade,
and because the regulations on their face do not permit retesting with the same
standardized test to students through the 2020 graduating class. As a result, the
regulations as enacted are stricken. To avoid disruption in any ongoing
statewide administration of proficiency examinations, we sua sponte stay our
judgment for thirty days to permit DOE to seek further review in the Supreme
Court. See, e.g., In re N.J.A.C. 12:17-2.1, 450 N.J. Super. 152, 173 (App. Div.
2017).
A-0768-16T4
21
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
