| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Supreme Court heard argument from the State Assistant Attorney General Robert Gilson yesterday on why the new school funding formula should be declared consitutional for all children in New Jersey. Gilson noted that moving forward the Abbott designation should no longer be mandated by the Court since enough appropriate state, local and federal program funding will reach Abbott districts based on their enrollment demographics' needs, reflected in the individual districts' adequacy budgets. David Sciarra, Esq., of the Education Law Center countered that the state has not provided evidence that the Abbott remediation is not needed in the future and thus the status quo should remain in effect for Abbotts until proven otherwise. The Court was uncomfortable with arguments that were diametrically opposed. The Court appeared to be prepared to counter with a "remand", a fact finding hearing that should clarify to the court the accuracy and support for the dueling arguments. The timing of the release of the court's decision on this case was not made known. Click on More here to see related articles on yesterday's Supreme Court hearing
Star Ledger, State Supreme Court justice questions Abbott school funding
By Dunstan McNichol, September 22, 2008 13:39PM
A state Supreme Court Justice today sharply questioned the court's aggressive role in steering billions of dollars in special state aid to New Jersey's poorest communities, as Gov. Jon Corzine's administration sought to end the long-running Abbott v. Burke lawsuit over public school funding.
"Why is it the responsibility of this court to ensure that the school boards are doing their jobs?" Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto pointedly asked David Sciarra, the attorney for the 300,000 schoolchildren in communities covered by a series of school funding mandates ordered by the court in the Abbott case.
Sciarra squared off against Assistant Attorney General Robert Gilson over the Corzine administration's request that the court declare a new school funding formula pushed through the legislature by Corzine this year meets the state Constitution's mandate to provide all students with the opportunity for a thorough and efficient public education.
Sciarra argued the state has failed to prove that the new formula will not undermine the special services and increased state aid the court has demanded in prior Abbott rulings. He said those rulings should stand until the new formula is proven to be adequate.
Over the past decade the court has steered billions of dollars in state aid to the 31 Abbott communities through rulings that required state-funded school construction in the poor communities, funding for special services like health care, security and preschool, and supplemental aid to ensure that poor communities can spend as much as the state's wealthiest suburbs.
Under questioning from Justice Barry Albin, who suggested that advocates for the poor communities are concerned "the bottom will be dropped out" of their state funding under Corzine's new plan, Sciarra could not offer specific examples of programs or services that have been cut this year due to Corzine's funding schedule.
Gilson contended the new funding formula will steer increased levels of state aid to Newark and the other Abbott communities, rendering the court's earlier orders for relief unnecessary.
The arguments took about an hour this morning. Outside the Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton, where the case was heard, protesters from Newark, Paterson and other Abbott communities demanded Corzine leave the Abbott rulings in place and provide additional funding for Abbott services.
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, Monday, September 22, 2008
Supreme Court Hears NJ School Funding Arguments
By Jonathan Tamari, Monday 9-22-08
Corzine administration lawyers sought Supreme Court validation this morning for a sweeping new method of funding schools throughout New Jersey while attorneys for urban districts, who believe they won’t get enough money under the new plan, said key elements of the old system should remain in place.
Supreme Court justices questioned New Jersey’s attorney, Robert Gilson, on why the state has taken its case directly to the top court before any lower courts had gathered facts on the impact of the new formula, which was approved in January and determined state aid levels for the school year that has just begun. Some of the questions pointed to the possibility that the case could be remanded to another venue for fact-finding.
The justices were also skeptical of the urban districts’ claim that the $7.8 billion formula could force cut backs in needed programs. Their attorney, David Sciarra, could not point to any concrete examples of cuts since the formula went into effect.
The justices reserved their decision for a later date.
The hearing put school funding, one of the most divisive issues in New Jersey, back in the Supreme Court’s hands. The state, with a new formula that officials say more fairly distributes money across the state, is hoping to vacate decades-in-the-making court mandates that required enhanced spending in 31 historically poor, urban districts. Critics have said the concentration of aid in those districts left other needy areas, the suburbs and even wealthy communities without enough money to pay for their schools and created higher burdens on local taxpayers.
But Sciarra said the state should not be able to abandon the old mandates, which allowed urban schools to apply for “supplemental” aid if their initial state funding was deemed too small and included requirements that each district provide certain programs that have proven to be educationally beneficial.
Asbury Park Press, September 23, 2008
Abbott backers want status quo
By LISA G. RYAN
GANNETT STATE BUREAU
The state Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over the legality of the state's new formula for funding public education.
The state asserts the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 follows the state constitution, which mandates the legislature maintain and support a "thorough and efficient system of free public schools" for all New Jersey children. It wants the state's highest court to issue an order upholding the constitutionality of the new funding approach.
"The act is not a retreat. It's a step forward," said Robert Gilson, the assistant attorney general who represented the state in Monday's arguments. He described the act as innovative and said it expands the definition of at-risk children so more students are reached.
For example, the plan includes funding for an estimated 30,000 low-income 3- and 4-year-olds, who weren't attending preschool before because their families couldn't afford it, Gilson said.
But the Education Law Center, a group that advocates for increased funding for public schools in low-income areas, says the state is shortchanging children in the 31 poor, mostly urban school districts that used to be called Abbott districts. It argues the new plan, unlike the previous formula, doesn't provide the former Abbott districts with per-pupil funding that's equal to what the state's most successful suburban school districts are paying to educate their students. The plan also eliminates supplemental money for programs such as tutoring, after-school activities and health services in the at-risk districts. The center wants the Supreme Court to require the state to continue following the prior standards.
"The record shows that real progress is underway. We've got a ways to go, but real progress is underway," said David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center, which represents more than 300,000 students in the former Abbott districts. "Now is not the time to back away."
He said the center was fighting to "preserve the status quo" and argued the state failed to prove there is no longer a need for Abbott district designations.
The court could issue a decision on Monday's arguments at a later date, or it could send down the case to a lower court for a hearing to establish a more complete record of relevant facts before issuing a ruling on the new funding formula's constitutionality.
If the case is remanded to a trial judge, the Education Law Center has asked the state Supreme Court to schedule a hearing quickly, Sciarra said.
The $7.8 billion school funding formula, which was adopted in January, adds about $530 million in new spending and gives state aid increases of between 2 percent and 20 percent for every district in the state.
Under the new plan, which does away with the Abbott designations, state money is distributed based on a school district's enrollment, with extra funding for schools with large numbers of poor students or children with limited English skills. Community wealth also plays a role in the formula, with more affluent areas getting less state aid while poorer areas and those with growing numbers of needy students get more.
But most of the former Abbott school districts are getting smaller state funding increases than many other districts this year. The state asserts that's because the Abbott districts continued receiving annual state aid increases over the previous seven years, when most other school districts' aid was stagnant. However, some Abbott supporters such as James Harris, president of the NAACP's New Jersey State Conference, and Emerson Simmons, an education advocate for Trenton schools, contend the smaller funding increases are the result of public misperceptions — mostly rooted in racism — that these districts are mismanaging state money and failing to successfully educate their students.
"In most cases, Abbott districts have been increasing test scores, albeit not as fast as some would like," said James Dunkins, human resources director for the Bridgeton school district in Cumberland County, at a pro-Abbott rally outside the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex before the Supreme Court hearing. "That will come to a dead stop with this new formula."
"Our area is economically depressed and can't support from taxation the areas of funding the state is taking away," Dunkins stated. "Our kids aren't going to have a good outlook on life if they can't get a good education."
Representatives of most of the former Abbott districts attended the rally, as did people from such groups as the New Jersey NAACP, New Jersey Hispanic Directors Association of New Jersey and Dollar$ and Sense, a North Jersey organization of suburban districts that criticizes the new formula as "inadequate."
"At our school we don't have enough aides for special education students. There's supposed to be an aide in each special ed classroom, but it's not happening," said Alanda Gaines of Bonsall Elementary School in Camden, which her two children attend.
"Our streets are dangerous. We need to keep the children off the streets and in their schools," said Asbury Park parent Carla Larsen, who feared the loss of afterschool sports and tutoring programs.
Gilson argued the prior funding formula wasn't sustainable and said school districts, like teen-agers with an allowance, must live within their means and decide what's essential and nonessential to meeting core education standards.
"The state talks about efficiencies, but there's no research on what efficiencies can be done," Sciarra said.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia inquirer, Posted on Tue, Sep. 23, 2008
School funding debate at N.J. Supreme Court
By Jonathan Tamari
Inquirer Trenton Bureau
Corzine administration attorneys sought Supreme Court approval yesterday for the state's new method of doling out support to New Jersey schools, but attorneys for urban districts said key elements of the old system should remain in place.
Robert Gilson, of the Attorney General's Office, argued that the new funding plan was thorough, efficient and equitable, and should be considered constitutional on its face, allowing the state to throw off decades of education mandates from prior Supreme Court cases.
Critics, led by the Newark-based Education Law Center, said the new plan sought to replace past court decisions and proven educational mandates with a system whose educational impacts were still unknown.
Justices questioned why the state went directly to the top court with its plan rather than building a record in lower courts. Some of their questions raised the possibility that the case could be remanded to another venue for fact-finding.
But the judges also appeared skeptical toward the urban districts' claim that the $7.8 billion formula could force cutbacks in needed programs. Their attorney, David Sciarra, could not point to any concrete examples of cuts since the formula went into effect.
Pressed for specific details on "what's really happened," Sciarra said, "we don't have a record of that."
"That's a problem," said Justice Barry Albin.
The justices reserved their decision for a later date.
The hearing put school funding, one of the most divisive issues in New Jersey, back in the Supreme Court's hands. By taking the unusual step of bringing its own school-funding plan to court, state attorneys were essentially trying to reset the debate.
"It's not just another step. This is a new chapter in school funding in New Jersey," Gilson said.
The state, arguing that its new formula more fairly distributes aid, is hoping to end court mandates that required enhanced spending in 31 historically poor, mostly urban districts. Critics have said the focus on those districts left other needy areas, the suburbs and even wealthy communities without enough money to pay for their schools, and increased the burdens on local taxpayers. The new formula would treat all districts the same, the administration argues.
But the justices questioned why they should turn away from years of court rulings meant to help those districts without first seeing factual arguments on the formula.
"Are you saying, 'Just forget what's gone on for the last 25 years?' " Albin asked. He later added, "This court, as much as we'd like to take your word, normally we'd have to refer to some kind of fact-finding."
Gilson said the new law was created with the help of expert studies and approved after legislative hearings. The plan includes $7.8 billion in broad-based support for all districts and $544 million for preschool programs, providing enough money to meet old requirements, he argued.
But Sciarra said the educationally sound mandates, such as after-school programs, tutoring, and health and social-service staffing, were not required by the new law, and he said districts would lose the right to appeal for more funding if they found state aid came up short.
"The state presents no evidence that the circumstances in the Abbott districts have changed," since the court-imposed standards took hold in those schools, Sciarra said.
Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto questioned why those mandates were needed, if the state provided the same amount of money as in the past.
"Why should it be the responsibility of this court to ensure that school districts are doing their jobs?" Rivera-Soto asked.
Sciarra said the state could implement the formula for the rest of the state, but that the protections for the 31 Abbott districts should remain in place.
Leaders from a number of those districts, including Camden, protested the new funding formula outside of Trenton's Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex.
Martha Wilson, a Camden School Board member, said the new formula had hurt the city.
"We have problems putting in teachers," Wilson said.
Two of the court's seven justices recused themselves from the case. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, Corzine's former attorney general, and Justice Virginia Long, did not participate.
Kathleen Witcher, a member of the education committee of the New Jersey NAACP and a retired teacher, compared yesterday's hearing to the Garden State version of Brown v. Board of Education.
"We're fighting for equal education," Witcher said.
Contact staff writer Jonathan Tamari at 609-989-9016 or jtamari@phillynews.com.
State suit puts Abbott system in the balance
The names atop New Jersey Supreme Court Docket No. 42170 have become synonymous with the controversial debate over the funding of public education that has raged in New Jersey for 30 years.
Raymond Arthur Abbott was a poor child from Camden. Fred G. Burke was a state education commissioner. And when advocates sued, their names were immortalized in a series of Abbott vs. Burke court rulings that sought to close the gap between the state's richest and poorest schools.
Today may be the day the names start to fade into obscurity.
The Corzine administration and lawyers for children in some of New Jersey's neediest schools will square off before the court to argue whether the epic rulings should remain intact.
Gov. Jon Corzine has asked the court to essentially remove Abbott from the state's laws and mandates, including court-ordered requirements in the 31 so-called Abbott districts for preschool, instructional reforms and extra services such as counselors and tutoring.
In place of that system, he and the Legislature last summer enacted laws that spread billions in aid to all schools with high concentrations of needy kids. They argue state money needs to follow poor children no matter where they attend school, otherwise working-class districts without the designation will struggle and children will get hurt.
The advocates who first brought this case under a different name in the winter of 1970 counter that Abbott's work has been groundbreaking in lifting the quality of education for more than 300,000 poor children in districts such as Newark, Elizabeth and Trenton.
Yet the work remains unfinished, they argue, and Corzine's plan would only gut schools that need the help the most.
The implications in the widely watched case go beyond education, spanning issues such as property taxes, state budgets, even race and class.
"Abbott is always a big case -- we have 600 school districts and everyone is always worried about where the money is going and how much they're getting," said Benjamin Dworkin, director of the Rider Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University.
But he said it is especially touchy this year beyond the schoolhouse, with the state budget stretched to the maximum and Corzine resting much of his financial acumen on his new school funding formula.
"To have the Supreme Court throw out one of your signature accomplishments could be a real political blow heading into the election year," Dworkin said.
Corzine is explicitly asking the Supreme Court to endorse his plan -- the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 -- as meeting "the requirements of the thorough and efficient clause of the New Jersey Constitution" and to find the Abbott remedies "no longer necessary," according to the state's legal papers.
Under the reform, a mathematical formula allots a base amount for every student, with extra money added if a child is disabled, low income or has limited English skills. More money is added for preschool in all districts with low-income students.
The state determines how much the local district could afford of that total, and state coffers would pick up the rest. State officials maintain they are not abandoning the Abbott mandates, rather expanding their approaches to all districts.
"The state has accomplished what had long eluded it -- the enactment of a school funding formula that ensures all children in New Jersey, including those in poor urban districts, the opportunity to receive a thorough and efficient education," the legal briefs read.
Led by the Education Law Center in Newark, lawyers for the Abbott schoolchildren have contested the state's process from the start, contending it was always about reducing state aid to the Abbott districts.
In its legal briefs, the law center pointedly argues the state has failed to provide any evidence the Abbott mandates have been ineffectual or that the new method would meet districts' needs. The papers are replete with references to the state's case as providing "no evidence," "no study" and "rehashed and repackaged data."
"The state fails to offer a scintilla of evidence that the (Abbott) supplemental programs and reforms, under implementation since 1999, have proven ineffective or inefficient in improving the education of Abbott children," according to the papers.
The justices hearing the case today will mostly be new faces, another test for Abbott supporters who have swayed the court time and time again over the decades, and a barometer of whether the court is still the activist and liberal court critics decry and supporters praise.
The court will have two fewer members than usual, with Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Associate Justice Virginia Long both recusing themselves. Neither gave reasons, but Rabner previously served in the Corzine administration.
Former Justice Peter Verniero, who as state attorney general argued earlier Abbott cases before the court, said the remaining justices will prepare for today's arguments like all other cases.
But he said they also know full well that Abbott stands nearly alone in the state's legal annals. "This is a historical case, and any time Abbott is argued, it is a historical time," he said.
John Mooney may be reached at jmooney@starledger.com or (973) 392-1548.
