Supreme Court Abbott Funding Decision/Syllabus -  May 28 2009

To: GSCS Board of Trustees 5-28-09

Fr: Lynne Stickland, Executive Director

Re: Supreme Court Decision on Abbott and SFRA, just released at 10 a.m., this court syllabus below descibes the decision.

Go to the Supreme Court website at   http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/M-969-07%20Abbott%20v%20Burke.pdf     to see the pdf of the syllabus and the full decision (138 pages).

The State 'won' in the decision. The Court granted the State's motion that the SFRA is consitutional and denied the Education Law Center's motion "seeking an order preserving and continuing the status quo concerning enforcement

of the Court’s prior remedial orders addressing funding to Abbott districts." 

The 'Held' part of the decision means that under the SFRA those Abbott districts that should receive more than 5% for FY10 must get that funding in full, per the formula for the next couple of years. This was suggested by Attorney General Anne Milgram when arguing before the Court; it was put forth as a way to keep the formula unitary, yet provide a certainty for the former Abbott districts for the first 3 years of the formula. This method was also offered as a counter to Judge Doyne's suggestion that those districts be allowed 'supplemental' funding for the same time period.

According to the SFRA law, there is to be a full review of the implementation and operations impact of the SFRA after the first 3 years, where adjustments to the law will be made as deemed necessary.

 _____________________________________________________

Supreme Court Abbott Funding Decision/Syllabus -  May 28 2009

The Special Master recommended that SFRA be found constitutional. He recommended further thatsupplemental funding continue to Abbott districts during and until a three-year look-back review of SFRA because he could not predict its immediate and practical effect on the educational services provided in Abbott districts.

HELD: To the extent that the record permitted its review, SFRA is constitutional and may be applied in Abbott districts subject to the State continuing to provide school funding aid during this and the next two years at the levels required by SFRA’s formula each year, and subject further to the mandated review and retooling of the formula’s weights and other operative parts after three years of implementation.

1. For several decades, the Court has superintended the ongoing litigation that carries the name Abbott v. Burke. The Court’s one goal has been to ensure that the constitutional guarantee of a thorough and efficient system of public education becomes a reality for those students who live in municipalities where there are concentrations of poverty and crime. Every child should have the opportunity for an unhindered start in life -- to become a productive and contributing citizen to our society.

2. The legislative and executive branches of government have enacted a funding formula designed to achieve a thorough and efficient system of public education for every child, regardless of where he or she lives. The political branches are entitled to take reasoned steps to address the pressing social, economic, and educational challenges confronting the state, without being locked in a constitutional straightjacket.

A costing-out study such as that engaged in by the State is rife with policy choices that are legitimately in the legislature’s domain. In the record below, each value judgment attacked was demonstrated to have been made in good faith, and on the basis of available factual data informed by advice from experts whose testimony revealed that they had the interests of the pupils in mind. The Court sees no reason or basis for it to second-guess the extraordinarily complex education funding determinations that went into the formulation of the many moving parts to this funding formula. The Court recognizes, however, that it does not have the ability to see ahead and to know with certainty that SFRA will work as well as it is designed to work. Although there is no absolute guarantee that SFRA will achieve the intended results of its design, the Court concludes that SFRA deserves the chance to demonstrate in practice that, as designed, it satisfies the requirements of the State Constitution.

3. On the basis of the record developed in the proceedings below, the Court holds that SFRA is a constitutionally adequate school funding scheme and that it may be implemented in the Abbott districts.

Furthermore, the Court recognizes that SFRA is meant to be a state-wide unitary funding system. Because continuation of supplemental funding may undermine or distort the effectiveness of SFRA, and because the Abbott districts will be the recipients of a considerable amount of federal and other non-SFRA funds during the period of time until the look-back review occurs, the Court declines to order the continuation of supplemental funding until SFRA’s review occurs.

The State’s motion seeking declarations that SFRA satisfies the requirements of the thorough and efficient education clause of Article VIII, section 4, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution and that the funding formula may be implemented in the Abbott districts, and further seeking an order relieving the State from the Court’s prior remedial orders concerning funding to the Abbott districts, is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ cross-motion seeking an order preserving and continuing the status quo concerning enforcement of the Court’s prior remedial orders addressing funding to Abbott districts is DENIED.