IN RE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO INCREASE ENROLLMENT OF CLASSICAL ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon 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-2889-18T4
IN RE AMENDMENT REQUEST
TO INCREASE ENROLLMENT
OF CLASSICAL ACADEMY
CHARTER SCHOOL.
____________________________
Argued March 4, 2020 – Decided March 18, 2020
Before Judges Haas, Mayer and Enright.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Education.
Perry L. Lattiboudere argued the cause for appellant
Clifton Board of Education (Adams Gutierrez &
Lattiboudere, attorneys; Perry L. Lattiboudere, of
counsel and on the briefs).
Fiona E. Cousland argued the cause for respondent
Classical Academy Charter School of Clifton (Riker
Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP, attorneys;
Brenda C. Liss, of counsel and on the brief; Fiona E.
Cousland, on the brief).
Laurie L. Fichera, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent Commissioner of Education
(Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Donna
Sue Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Laurie L. Fichera, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Clifton Board of Education (Clifton) appeals from a decision
by respondent New Jersey Commissioner of Education (Commissioner),
approving a request by respondent Classical Academy Charter School (Classical
Academy) to amend its charter and increase student enrollment by sixty pupils
starting in the 2019-2020 school year. Because the Commissioner's decision
was not arbitrary or capricious and was amply supported by the record, we
affirm.
Classical Academy, a charter school serving students in sixth, seventh,
and eighth grade, is located in Clifton. It received charter approval in 1998.
Maximum enrollment from 1998 until 2019 was 120 students. The school has
been the recipient of the National Blue Ribbon Award for academic excellence,
recognized as a Top Ten New Jersey School and a Title 1 Rewards School, and
ranked the highest performing middle school in Passaic County.
Classical Academy submitted a charter renewal request to the
Department of Education (Department) in September 2016. The Department
evaluated the school under a Performance Framework based on its academic
A-2889-18T4
2
performance, fiscal viability, and organizational stability.1 In accordance with
the Charter School Program Act of 1995, N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-1 to -18 (CSPA),
and implementing regulations, the Department "completed a comprehensive
review of the school including, . . . the renewal application, annual reports,
student performance on statewide assessments, a structured interview with
school officials, public comments, and fiscal impact on sending districts in order
to make a renewal decision." See N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-17 and N.J.A.C. 6A:11-
2.3(b).
Based on the Department's review, the Commissioner issued a February
28, 2017 decision, renewing the school's charter for five years with the following
maximum enrollments:
Grade 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2 022 Level
6 40 40 40 40 40
7 40 40 40 40 40
8 40 40 40 40 40
Total 120 120 120 120 120
1
The "Performance Framework" is the Department's accountability system used
to evaluate charter schools' performance and sustainability. The Performance
Framework consists of three sections: academic, financial, and organizational.
N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.2.
A-2889-18T4
3
Although the Commissioner approved charter renewal for Classical
Academy, he placed the school on "organizational probation until February 28,
2018" for failure to meet certain indicators in the organizational section of the
Performance Framework. As a condition of probation, Classical Academy was
required to, and did, submit a plan to the Department, outlining steps to remedy
the organizational deficiencies.
On May 16, 2018, the Commissioner rescinded Classical Academy's
probationary status, finding it "made significant strides in addressing the
deficiencies that lead to probation." The Commissioner concluded Classical
Academy "satisfied the conditions of probation."
On October 15, 2018, Classical Academy sought to amend its charter to
increase maximum approved enrollment from 120 to 180 students, adding one
class of twenty students at each grade level in sixth, seventh and eighth grade
for the 2019-2020 school year. In support of the application, Classical Academy
maintained it demonstrated "evidence of consistent high academic performance,
a full enrollment, a robust wait list, 2 and minimal student attrition." The school
also represented it had "fiscal stability to support an enrollment increase," and
2
Classical Academy reported an enrollment waiting list of over one hundred
students, which continued "to grow daily."
A-2889-18T4
4
"recently relocated to a new facility to accommodate the continued academic
success" of its students.
On November 18, 2018, Classical Academy provided the following
additional information in support of its request:
Our decision to expand is grounded in providing a
stellar educational option for the families of Clifton
who are seeking public-school choices. Many Clifton
parents often call our school requesting to enroll their
children. However, as a result of reaching our
maximum capacity at only 120 students, on numerous
occasions, we have had to turn them down for the
current school year. Moreover, several parents whose
children's names are on the waiting list call in
periodically to check for the possibility that a seat is
available . . . .
We currently have students still on the waiting list from
the lottery we hosted this past school year who are still
interested in attending Classical Academy. In addition,
we also have new parents who have made inquiries
about enrolling their children for the upcoming school
year. There is a strong and positive demand on behalf
of the families in the Clifton community to send their
children to Classical Academy.
As further support for its request, Classical Academy described proactive
measures taken since the Department's visit to the school in April 2017,
including: relocating to a larger, renovated school facility with the capacity to
provide additional programs; designing a new curriculum aligned with core
curriculum standards; increasing professional development opportunities;
A-2889-18T4
5
developing interim and formative assessments to inform student performance;
implementing a quality individualized education program (IEP) to address
students' behavioral, social, and academic needs; effecting an English Language
Learners (ELL) policy; and establishing a "school operations coordinator" to
further strengthen organizational capacity. The school also represented its
curriculum maps were near completion in math, English, social studies, and
science.
In the area of academic performance, Classical Academy reported its
students outperformed middle school students statewide on the PARCC
standardized tests in English and math. In addition, Classical Academy reported
that 56% of its eight grade students scored "advanced proficient" on the NJASK
science assessment for the 2016-2017 school year.
Clifton opposed Classical Academy's application in a December 20, 2018
one-page letter authored by the Superintendent of the Clifton School District
(Superintendent). The Superintendent urged the Commissioner to deny the
application for several reasons. He challenged Classical Academy's
organizational stability because certain promised improvements had yet to be
implemented and the school was still operating under an improvement plan. He
also questioned Classical Academy's academic performance, contending
A-2889-18T4
6
students struggled in mathematics upon entering Clifton High School. The
Superintendent further claimed Classical Academy's students entering the
district's high school did not reflect the district's demographic profile,
particularly ELL and special education students. The Superintendent also
contended the proposed "increase in student population would remove an
additional $750,000 from [Clifton's] proposed 2019-2020 budget, forcing the
possible elimination of some key programs."
However, no supporting documents accompanied the Superintendent's
objections to Classical Academy's request to amend its charter. Specifically, the
objection letter lacked any details regarding the claimed financial impact to the
district if Classical Academy's request to increase student enrollment was
approved.
On February 1, 2019, the Commissioner issued a final decision, granting
Classical Academy's application to increase its maximum enrollment. The
Commissioner stated the Department reviewed Classical Academy's academic,
organizational, and fiscal standing based on the Performance Framework, and
considered the public comments, demand for seats, and fiscal impact of the
expansion on the district.
A-2889-18T4
7
Based on preliminary statewide assessment test results for the 2017-2018
school year, the Commissioner concluded Classical Academy "continues to be
a high-performing charter school, outperforming the Clifton Public Schools and
state averages in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics," thus meeting
the academic section of the Performance Framework.
In the category of fiscal performance, the Department assessed the
school's financial viability based on measures of near-term financial health,
longer term financial sustainability, and fiscal-related compliance, and
considered "the fiscal impact of the expansion on sending districts." According
to the Commissioner, "[r]eview of the fiscal standing of Classical Academy
indicates that it is fiscally sound and there are no foreseen financial issues with
the granting of this amendment request."
In assessing organizational performance, the Commissioner found "[t]he
amendment request describes the administrative capacity, performance
management, and strategic plans for the expansion. After review of Classical
Academy's request and annual report submissions, the Department has
determined that Classical Academy has the capacity to support the requested
amendment to the charter."
A-2889-18T4
8
Based on these findings, the Commissioner approved the following
maximum enrollment for Classical Academy:
Grade 2018-19 2019-2020 2020-2021
Level (current maximum)
6 40 60 60
7 40 60 60
8 40 60 60 Total 120 180 180
Clifton appealed the Commissioner's determination. After Clifton filed
its appeal, we permitted the Commissioner to submit an amplification of reasons
in support of his February 1, 2019 decision.
In a June 14, 2019 amplification letter, the Commissioner addressed, in
more detail, Clifton's concerns regarding Classical Academy's satisfaction of the
Performance Framework. The Commissioner wrote:
Each charter school amendment is holistically reviewed
on its own merits, and Classical [Academy]'s request
was no exception. Many factors are considered in
rendering a final decision in accordance with N.J.S.A.
18A:36A et seq., with primary consideration given to
the charter school's potential to improve pupil learning
and ability to increase educational options available to
New Jersey families. My decision to approve Classical
[Academy]'s amendment request was informed by a
review of student performance on statewide
assessments, [organizational] stability, fiscal impact,
demographic data, and public comment.
A-2889-18T4
9
In addressing the Superintendent's comment regarding the fiscal impact
on the district if enrollment at Classical Academy was increased, the
Commissioner stated the Department considered both the financial viability of
the school and the "fiscal impact of the expansion on sending districts." Because
Clifton did not submit any "documentation demonstrating an adverse fiscal
impact on the district," the Commissioner was unable to conclude "that there
would be any such impact based on a detailed review of the record."
Regarding the Superintendent's statement addressed to Classical
Academy's required organizational improvements, the Commissioner found the
two items yet to be completed (curriculum maps and aligned assessments), were
undergoing continual revision year-to-year, and that fact did not undermine his
decision to approve the charter amendment, "especially in light of the school's
academic performance."
In reviewing academic performance, the Commissioner reiterated
Classical Academy achieved a Tier 1 rank during the years that were evaluated
as part of the school's requested amendment. While Tier ranks for 2017-2018
had yet to be published, preliminary statewide assessment results suggested
Classical Academy "continues to be a high-performing charter school."
A-2889-18T4
10
In addressing Clifton's claim that Classical Academy students did not
reflect the district's demographic profile, the Commissioner found the school
demonstrated its admission policy, to the maximum extent practicable, sought
to enroll "a cross-section of the community's school age population including
racial and academic factors" in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-8(e). He
further determined Classical Academy demonstrated compliance with N.J.S.A.
18A:36A-7, requiring a charter school be open to all students, on a space
available basis, and prohibiting discrimination in admission policies or practices
on the basis of intellectual or athletic ability, status as a handicapped person,
and proficiency in the English language.
Clifton moved to accelerate its appeal.3 In a certification in support of
accelerating the appeal, the Business Administrator and Board Secretary for the
Clifton Board of Education (Business Administrator) provided additional
information regarding the financial impact to the district if the Commissioner
approved Classical Academy's charter amendment to increase enrollment.4
3
We granted Clifton's motion to accelerate the appeal in a July 19, 2019 order.
4
The Business Administrator failed to explain why the information contained
in his certification was not provided to the Commissioner as part of Clifton's
objections to Classical Academy's request to amend its charter.
A-2889-18T4
11
According to the Business Administrator, Clifton operated two
preschools, fifteen elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school,
serving over 10,965 students in the district. He explained revenue from the local
tax levy, the main source of its general fund, totaled $131,825,892 in 2017-2018,
and $133,094,682 in 2018-2019, and was projected to yield $134,259,260 in
2019-2020. Additionally, Clifton received $30,054,160 in state aid from the
Department for the 2017-2018 school year, and $31,556,868 for the 2018-2019
school year. He stated that during this period, costs associated with Clifton's
contractual obligations for employee benefits increased significantly.
The Business Administrator also indicated the Department allocated
$3,786,448 in charter school aid in Clifton's general appropriations fund for the
2017-2018 school year, $6,074,332 for the 2018-2019 school year, and
$8,076,553 for the 2019-2020 school year. As a result of the increased
allocation of aid to charter schools for the 2019-2020 school year, the Business
Administrator claimed Clifton would experience a net loss of $2,002,221 in total
funding. He calculated Classical Academy's requested enrollment increase
would remove approximately $800,000 from the district's proposed budget. The
Business Administrator maintained the Department's "preliminary budget,
including the portion of the budget accommodating Classical Academy's
A-2889-18T4
12
requested enrollment increase, will therefore have immediate and significant
repercussions for the [d]istrict's costs."
On appeal, Clifton argues the Commissioner's decision approving
increased student enrollment at Classical Academy was arbitrary, capricious,
and unreasonable because the Commissioner failed to consider the fiscal impact
the expansion would have on the school district's budget, disregarded Classical
Academy's failure to meet performance standards, and failed to consider
whether the school's demographics were representative of the district.
Our review of a final decision of the Commissioner on a charter school
application is limited. In re Proposed Quest Acad. Charter Sch. of Montclair
Founders Grp., 216 N.J. 370, 385 (2013). We may reverse only if the
Commissioner's decision "is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Ibid. In
making that determination, our review is generally restricted to three inquiries:
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or
implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency
follow the law; (2) whether the record contains
substantial evidence to support the findings on which
the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying
the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly
erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably
have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.
[Id. at 385-86 (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J.
22, 25 (1995)).]
A-2889-18T4
13
"[T]he arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard . . . subsumes the
need to find sufficient support in the record to sustain the decision reached by
the Commissioner." Id. at 386. "[A] failure to consider all the evidence in a
record would perforce lead to arbitrary decision making." Ibid. However,
"[w]hen the Commissioner is not acting in a quasi-judicial capacity," and is
instead acting in his legislative capacity, as he was doing here, he "need not
provide the kind of formalized findings and conclusions necessary in the
traditional contested case." In re TEAM Acad. Charter Sch., 459 N.J. Super.
111, 140 (App. Div. 2019), certif. granted, ____ N.J. ____ (2020) (quoting In re
Grant of Charter Sch. Application of Englewood on the Palisades Charter Sch .,
320 N.J. Super. 174, 217 (App. Div. 1999), aff'd as modified, 164 N.J. 316
(2000)). Although the arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard demands
"that the reasons for the decision be discernible, the reasons need not be as
detailed or formalized as an agency adjudication of disputed facts; they need
only be inferable from the record considered by the agency." Ibid. See also In
re Red Bank Charter Sch., 367 N.J. Super. 462, 476 (App. Div. 2004) (holding
reasons need not be detailed or formalized, but must be discernible from the
record).
A-2889-18T4
14
Nor is there any statutory or regulatory provision requiring the
Commissioner to include reasons for granting an application to amend a charter.
TEAM Acad., 459 N.J. Super. at 140 (citing Englewood, 320 N.J. Super. at 217).
Only in cases where an application to amend a charter is denied must the
Commissioner provide detailed findings in support of the denial. See id. at 146.
Here, the record supports the Commissioner's decision to approve
Classical Academy's request to amend its charter. The Commissioner
considered Classical Academy's organizational and academic performance
standards, and the school's demographics in comparison to the demographics of
the district. Clifton's concerns regarding Classical Academy's deficiencies were
adequately addressed in the Commissioner's June 14, 2019 amplification letter.
Classical Academy was continuing to improve, as shown by the school's strong
academic performance and removal from probationary status, which the
Commissioner determined carried more weight under the Performance
Framework analysis.
Clifton failed to provide any statistical evidence to support its position
that students attending Classical Academy struggled in math upon returning to
the district's schools. The Commissioner's initial decision and amplification
letter concluded Classical Academy students out-performed students attending
A-2889-18T4
15
district schools in standardized testing. He further noted that students enr olled
in Classical Academy performed better on mathematical testing compared to
students statewide.
Despite Clifton's failure to provide any statistical evidence to support its
concerns regarding Classical Academy's demographic profile related to ELL and
special needs students, in his amplification letter, the Commissioner determined
the school complied with all statutory and regulatory requirements to ensure its
admissions practices were non-discriminatory. The Commissioner found
Classical Academy complied with charter school admissions policies and
demonstrated an increased enrollment of disadvantaged and special needs
students.
Having reviewed the record, the Commissioner thoroughly evaluated
Classical Academy's application to increase enrollment and considered Clifton's
objections to the requested enrollment increase. We are satisfied the
Commissioner's decision was not contrary to his legislative authority and is
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
We next consider Clifton's argument that the Commissioner failed to
consider the fiscal impact on the district associated with an increase in
enrollment of students at Classical Academy. Funding for charter schools is
A-2889-18T4
16
provided by the school district of residence, which directly pays the charter
school 90% of its program budget per pupil for each of its resident students
enrolled in the school. N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-12(b). Despite this statutory limit on
funding, case law requires that
if the local school district "demonstrates with some
specificity that the constitutional requirements of a
thorough and efficient education would be jeopardized
by [the district's] loss" of the funds to be allocated to a
charter school, "the Commissioner is obligated to
evaluate carefully the impact that loss of funds would
have on the ability of the district of residence to deliver
a thorough and efficient education." [5]
[Quest Acad., 216 N.J. at 377-78 (quoting Englewood,
164 N.J. at 334-35).]
However, the district "must be able to support its assertions" regarding
any fiscal impact. Englewood, 164 N.J. at 336. The Commissioner does not
have "the burden of canvassing the financial condition of the district of residence
in order to determine its ability to adjust to the per-pupil loss upon approval of
the charter school based on unsubstantiated, generalized protests." Ibid. "[T]he
Commissioner is entitled to rely on the district of residence to come forward
5
Our State Constitution imposes an obligation on the Legislature to "provide
for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public
schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the age s of
five and eighteen years." N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 4, ¶ 1.
A-2889-18T4
17
with a preliminary showing that the requirements of a thorough and efficient
education cannot be met." Id. at 334. "The legislative will to allow charter
schools and to advance their goals suggests our approach which favors the
charter school unless reliable information is put forward to demonstrate that a
constitutional violation may occur." Id. at 336. See also TEAM Acad., 459 N.J.
Super. at 142 (holding the district failed to "make any showing, much less a
preliminary showing, on which the Commissioner could rely as to the effect the
expansions would have on the District's budget").
Here, Clifton posited no specifics as to how district students would be
deprived of a thorough and efficient education by the proposed expansion of
students enrolled at Classical Academy. The Superintendent argued, without
supporting documentation or financial data, that the increase in Classical
Academy's student population would "remove an additional $750,000" from the
district's proposed 2019-2020 budget, "forcing the possible elimination of some
key programs."
Even if Clifton provided such information in objecting to Classical
Academy's charter amendment, Clifton failed to demonstrate the requirements
of a thorough and efficient education could not be met as a result of sixty
additional charter school seats in a district that serves over 10,965 students. Nor
A-2889-18T4
18
did Clifton establish how an estimated loss of $800,000, from a total budget of
$170 million, would deprive district students of a thorough and efficient
education. The Commissioner was not required to evaluate the loss of funds to
the district. Clifton failed to satisfy its burden by demonstrating how expansion
of enrollment at Classical Academy by sixty students would prevent delivery of
a thorough and efficient education.
In sum, we affirm the Commissioner's decision allowing Classical
Academy to amend its charter and increase student enrollment by sixty students
for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years. The decision was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, promoted the legislative intent of the CSPA, and
was amply supported by the record.
Affirmed.
A-2889-18T4
19
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.
