Quality Public Education for All New Jersey Students

 

 
     Pre 2012 Announcement Archives
     2012-13 Announcement Archives
     2013-14 Announcement Archives
     2014-15 Announcement Archives
     Old Announcements prior April 2009
     ARCHIVE inc 2007 Announcements
     2009 Archives
     2008 Archives
     2007 Archives
     2006 Archives
     2010-11 Announcements
     2005 through Jan 30 2006 Announcements
5-25-11 Supreme Court ruling in the News
GSCS Initial Thoughts: 'The Court stated in its May 2009 ruling on the SFRA’s constitutionality that “We cannot give an advisory opinion on SFRA’s statewide constitutionality. The Abbott v. Burke litigation does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to address the statute’s applicability to students not before the Court.”

Even prior to the 2009 decision, GSCS held the belief that the Court would be bound by its own rules of precedence and standing, thus their decision than and now would apply to the 31 Abbott districts only. Disregarding the 'how much' factor, the larger issue that rises to a high level of concern is that the decision now becomes a political explosion with ramifications that will go far beyond what is good for NJ students across all districts. For too long this state has been divided over education funding...the decision will serve to underscore division and real education needs will likely get lost in the fallout. It is our hope that realistic citizens and state leaders will take the positive lead by keeping quality education for all children as the focus in school funding.

Njspotlight.com - Abbott v. Suburbs, the Next School Funding Struggle?

The Record - N.J. Supreme Court: Boost funding for poor schools; Christie says he will comply with order

Star Ledger - N.J. high court's Abbott ruling means other school districts will still be short funding

Asbury Park Press/Gannett - Court decision sets off budget battle

GSCS Initial Thoughts:  The Court stated in its May 2009 ruling on the SFRA’s constitutionality that “We cannot give an advisory opinion on SFRA’s statewide constitutionality. The Abbott v. Burke litigation does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to address the statute’s applicability to students not before the Court.”

Even prior to the 2009 decision, GSCS held the belief that the Court would be bound by its own rules of precedence and standing, thus their decision than and now would apply to the 31 Abbott districts only.  Disregarding the 'how much' factor, the larger issue that rises to a high level of concern is that the decision now becomes a political explosion with ramifications that will go far beyond what is good for NJ students across all districts. For too long this state has been divided over education funding...the decision will serve to underscore division and real education needs will likely get lost in the fallout. It is our hope that realistic citizens and state leaders will take the positive lead by keeping quality education for all children as the focus in school funding.

Njspotlight.com - Abbott v. Suburbs, the Next School Funding Struggle?

The Record - N.J. Supreme Court: Boost funding for poor schools; Christie says he will comply with order

Star Ledger - N.J. high court's Abbott ruling means other school districts will still be short funding

Asbury Park Press/Gannett - Court decision sets off budget battle

 

 

 

Njspotlight.com - Abbott v. Suburbs, the Next School Funding Struggle?

Supreme Court orders more funding for high-poverty schools but suburbs look for help, too

By John Mooney, May 25 in Education

The ghost of three decades of Abbott v. Burke litigation hovered over the state Supreme Court’s 21st Abbott ruling yesterday. It was evident in the divided and defiant ruling that strictly addressed only the 31 original Abbott districts. And it was equally evident in the tensions that almost immediately surfaced concerning other urban and suburban districts that are also calling for financial relief.

In fact, the fate of "non-Abbott" districts may well represent the real challenge of the next five weeks run-up to the budget vote. They don’t want to be left out, and the court has made it clear that money won't be coming from the latest Abbott decision.

Moving quickly, Senate President Stephen Sweeney has already indicated that he is committed to finding the money "that will ensure proper funding for the state's 205 underfunded districts."

But Gov. Chris Christie has gone on record as saying that he will not raise taxes to fund the Abbott decision, leaving less chance that he will do so to help out other underfunded districts.

 

The Court's Decision

In a narrowly divided 3-2 opinion, the court’s majority ruled that the Christie administration and the legislature had violated schoolchildren’s constitutional rights to a "thorough and efficient" education when they cut $1 billion in state aid this year.

But in what may be the biggest surprise of the 59-page opinion written by Associate Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, the court ordered money only be restored -- in the amount of about $500 million -- to the 31 high-poverty districts that until 2009 had long been the center of the case.

In the 2009 ruling, the court had upheld the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA), which all but eliminated the Abbott designation and extended funding to all districts with low-income and other special-needs students.

LaVecchia maintained that the court’s majority felt that it only had jurisdiction over the original Abbott districts, including Newark, Camden and Paterson.

"Only they have the historic finding of constitutional deprivation and only they were the beneficiaries of the remedial orders that the State asked us to switch for the SFRA funding," LaVecchia wrote.

But there was no consensus as to who should be covered, even within the three-member majority. Associate Justice Barry Albin agreed with the overall ruling but wrote a concurring opinion to extend the remedy to all districts that fell short of the state’s model for "adequacy," or roughly 200, by last count.

“The at-risk children in the… underfunded non-Abbott districts suffer from the same disadvantages of poverty as the children in the former Abbott districts,” Albin wrote.

That sentiment may prove prescient, at least politically, since the court’s Abbott focus immediately sparked old urban-suburban tensions and became the center of attention for Democrats and the target of criticism for Republicans.

Another $500 Million

The Democrats, led by Sweeney, came out quickly to say additional money should be applied to all 205 districts that are deemed spending less than "adequate" amount as deemed by the SFRA model. That would add approximately $500 million on top of the $500 million ordered by the court.

"As Senate President, I am committed to bringing all underfunded districts up to the adequacy standard," Sweeney said in a statement.

The Republicans, led by Christie, cited the court's Abbott-centric ruling as yet another in a long line from the court that he said were based on "bad education policy, bad fiscal policy and I believe an unconstitutional breach into legislative prerogative."

"The idea that this $500 million is going to make any marked difference in a system where we are already spending $4.5 billion to the Abbott districts," he said. "Another half-billion will put them over the top? It just doesn’t make sense to me," he added.

The ruling in some ways served Christie well. It didn’t break the bank, and it provided him more fodder for his case against what he has termed an activist court -- one to which he could be naming three new justices during this term. (The lone sitting judge up for reappointment, Associate Justice Helen Hoens, did little to hurt her own chances, providing one of the two dissenting votes.)

He was also quick to pass the next move to the legislature, saying the "constitutional ball was in their court." Still, his deferring to the legislature is sure not to last long, as what happens next provides steep challenges to both the Democrats and Republicans, especially during an election year.

At a hastily called press conference in the Statehouse, Christie did say -- several times -- that he will comply with the order, something that was not always a certainty. But he also repeated there and especially later in a Cherry Hill town hall meeting that he would not support a tax increase to pay the bill.

There is room with the latest revenue estimates for the additional $500 million, if it even comes to that much, but adding on the full list of 205 districts that Sweeney is talking about starts getting expensive.

Those districts include suburban, rural and urban alike, from both Republican and Democratic enclaves. They include poor schools and blue-collar ones like Rahway and Carteret, as well as more affluent districts in Bernards Township, Westfield and Middletown.

Mounting Tensions

In the meantime, the tensions were already surfacing yesterday from non-Abbott districts. One dissent came from a superintendent who had been part of the Abbott case in the hope that that court would extend protections to beyond just the Abbott districts.

Piscataway superintendent Robert Copeland had been a witness for both the state and the plaintiffs before a fact-finding hearing, saying that cuts had led to reductions in the programs that targeted at-risk students.

About a third of his Middlesex County district is students who are poor enough to qualify for subsidized lunch, and Piscataway is a district ripe for more aid under SFRA. But by mid-afternoon yesterday, Copeland was incredulous: “It’s official. Now all three branches of government do not want to do what is right and sensible.

“I just don’t get it,” he continued. “I can’t understand the logic that the court upholds SFRA and the concept that there are at-risk student who need help separate from the Abbotts, and then in the next breath they say, ‘It’s not our problem.’ ”

And when told of the Sweeney’s pledge – and from others as well -- to provide additional funding to districts like his own, Copeland was not ready to celebrate.

“This Legislature has shown no taste for supporting adequacy,” he said. “Now we are leaving it up to them to try again?”

Others in suburban districts showed a mix of reactions, some lamenting the state of school funding in general and others the court’s decision in particular.

“While I believe that every child in New Jersey deserves a good education, we need to make the districts that receive the lion’s share of state aid more accountable,” Westfield Board of Education member Ann Cary told Patch.com. “We need to see results in those districts.”

It was more resignation from Frank Calabria, president of the Parsippany-Troy Hills Board of Education, also in an interview with Patch.com: “I wish some of the money would come to districts like ours, but that is the way it goes.” The chief lawyer for the Education Law Center, the Newark-based advocacy group that led the Abbott litigation, said the state needs to address these suburban concerns quickly.

“There is room to maneuver outside the Abbotts to target the funding to where it is needed most,” said David Sciarra, the ELC’s executive director who argued the case before the court.

Sciarra said he was not surprised that the court limited the decisions to the Abbott districts, not after the oral arguments when the issue of exactly whom Sciarra represented was the first question from LaVecchia and Albin.

 

"We tried everything we could to try to get them to stick to the 2009 decision (that extended beyond Abbott), but the court decided it was legally constrained by the four corners of the Abbott case," he said.

 

 

The Record - N.J. Supreme Court: Boost funding for poor schools; Christie says he will comply with order

Monday, May 23, 2011  Last updated: Tuesday May 24, 2011, 10:45 PM

By Leslie Brody   Statehouse Bureau and STAFF WRITER

Read the NJ Supreme Court ruling

Tuesday’s New Jersey Supreme Court ruling brought relief and satisfaction to the 31 poor cities now ordered to get $500 million more in state aid for schools next year, but disappointed many other districts hoping for a boost.

Many education advocates said they were frustrated that the court’s ruling did not require the state to fully fund its aid formula for all the state’s roughly 600 districts, but focused only on helping the districts of the original plaintiffs in a case that has been litigated for three decades.

Governor Christie and fellow Republicans, meanwhile, expressed aggravation that the court was forcing more money to be funneled to urban schools he has long bashed for “failing” their students.

“The court should not be dictating how tax dollars are spent,” he said at a news conference in Trenton. “Money does not equal quality results. And there is now nearly 30 years of evidence that just throwing money at the problem is not the answer.”

The Newark-based Education Law Center launched the latest legal challenge last summer when it argued that Christie’s roughly $1 billion in school aid cuts violated the state’s obligation to fully finance its 2008 school funding law. The Christie administration countered that the recession had dried up tax revenues, making it impossible to balance the budget without those reductions.

The court found that the state’s failure to fully fund the formula caused “instructionally consequential and significant” harm to at-risk students in districts across the state, and a “real substantial and consequential blow” to their right to a decent education. Weeks of testimony by superintendents described teacher layoffs, program eliminations and reduced tutoring.

The court said it was ordering more aid only for the original plaintiff class of children from Abbott districts, because they were the group specifically protected by past court decisions, and treated akin to “wards” of the state. Previous rulings had found these students had been denied their constitutional rights to a “thorough and efficient” system of education, and had required more money as a remedy.

These former Abbott districts, including Paterson, Passaic and Garfield, have 21 percent of the state’s 1.4 million school children.

In Paterson, one of the districts that stands to gain millions in aid from the ruling, school board President Willa Mae Taylor said she was “overjoyed.” The district has had hundreds of layoffs over the past year, and she said its schools needed money for new technology, electrical upgrades and support services. Other officials said they hoped to use more aid to expand art, music and remedial programs. Taylor said if the money is used “properly and effectively, there can be a real difference for children in the classroom.”

In Garfield, another district that will benefit, a delighted Superintendent Nicholas Perrapato likened his situation to being in a game show because he wasn’t sure yet exactly how much additional aid there would be.

North Jersey former Abbott districts

Garfield
Paterson
Passaic

Timeline

The Abbott case sparked three decades of legal battles and a series of state funding initiatives.
1981: The Education Law Center files Abbott v. Burke, arguing that students in New Jersey’s least-affluent districts are not receiving a “thorough and efficient” education.
1990: The New Jersey Supreme Court requires that school funding be equalized around the state and mandates extra programs to “wipe out” disparities in less-affluent districts.
1997: The court says existing funding plans are unconstitutional and orders state officials to provide more money to the Abbott schools.
1998: The court orders an unprecedented series of entitlements and reforms for the Abbott districts, including full-day kindergarten and preschool, and major building and technological upgrades.
2008: Gov. Jon Corzine signs a new aid-distribution formula called the School Funding Reform Act to help middle-income districts with rising numbers of at-risk children.
March 2009: A state judge agrees with the Corzine administration that its new school funding formula fairly shares aid among all school districts, eliminating the need for the special Abbott designation. The judge recommends a three-year trial period to ensure that former Abbott districts get enough money under the new rules.
July 2010: Education Law Center files legal challenge to Governor Christie’s nearly $1 billion in cuts, saying they violate children’s right to a “thorough and efficient” education system. Christie counters that recession makes cuts necessary.
March 2011: A “special master” appointed by the state Supreme Court concludes that aid cuts had harmed children, especially in poor districts.

Related stories

Excerpts from the N.J. Supreme Court school ruling

Options before Christie, N.J. Legislature in finding education aid

Op ed: Christie: A disappointing, but not surprising decision

“It’s like Door No. 1 is going to open and we’ll see what money we’ll get,” he said. He hoped to use funds for more remedial services, enrichment programs, security and building maintenance. A recent report by the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services noted that if the formula got full funding, Garfield would get $9 million more than the governor’s budget proposal of $45.5 million in aid, and Paterson would get $38.5 million more than his plan of $371 million in aid.

For schools that are not in so-called Abbott districts, the ruling was deflating, especially for those with rising concentrations of at-risk students who face similar hurdles. “The whole thing is a shame,” said Letizia Pantoliano, superintendent in Bogota. “We have more and more low-income students and we don’t get enough money to support all their needs.”

The 3-2 ruling marks the latest twist in battles over how to fairly pay for New Jersey education. The state relies heavily on local property taxes to pay for schools, with extra infusions of state aid to bolster struggling communities with weak tax bases. How to distribute that help fairly has been at the heart of the conflict.

Bergenfield Superintendent Michael Kuchar said the lopsided ruling underscored the urgency of revamping the whole way New Jersey pays for schools; although he wished his district got more resources, he said fully funding the formula for all districts wasn’t realistic and would have “bankrupted the state.”

The state has to move away “from overreliance on the property tax, maybe with combinations of sales taxes, income taxes or sin taxes,” he said. “I’m not going to be a moaner or a crier,” he added, but the ruling was like “trying to patch holes in a ship that is sinking.”

David Sciarra, attorney for the plaintiffs, applauded the ruling for the sake of the children in Abbott districts, but he called on the governor and Legislature to work together to fully fund the aid formula for all districts statewide. The 2008 formula aimed to boost aid for children facing poverty, disabilities and challenges learning English as a second language, no matter where they lived.

“We are pleased with this ruling because it creates an extraordinary opportunity for elected representatives to step up to the plate and do what’s right for public school children,” Sciarra said

The decision comes as the governor tries to pass his $29.4 billion budget by July 1. The Office of Legislative Services estimates the Christie administration’s proposed budget for 2012 underfunds the state’s school aid law by $1.7 billion. The court could have ordered the state to pay that whole sum.

Christie, who had said in recent weeks that he might defy a court mandate to pay more aid, said he will comply with the order, but said it is up to the Legislature to find the money and present him with a balanced budget by June 30. “New Jerseyans are already incredibly overtaxed,’’ he said. “As I have repeatedly stated, I do not believe raising taxes is the answer.”

Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, called for full funding for all the 205 districts deemed to have fewer resources than the sum deemed “adequate” by the 2008 formula. This month the state discovered a rise in recent tax revenues due to the recovering economy.

“Using the state’s windfall, we should provide additional funding for all inadequately funded districts across New Jersey,” Sweeney said. “This will render the court’s decision a moot point. Adequate funding and quality education are not urban versus rural or suburban issues. Education is a New Jersey issue.”

Republicans, meanwhile, echoed Christie in saying more money won’t fix schools; they pushed for changing tenure and seniority rules to reward the best teachers and remove the worst.

“Quality education is about holding the system accountable for student outcomes,” said Senate Republican leader Tom Kean Jr., R-Union, in a statement. “We should not turn to spending as a remedy until accountability measures are in place.”

New Jersey Education Association President Barbara Keshishian said she welcomed the court ruling while also calling for more aid for all districts.

“While we are disappointed that the remedy ordered by the court only extends to children in the 31 Abbott districts,” Keshishian said, “nothing in the ruling prevents the state from honoring the spirit of the ruling and restoring funding for all children in all public schools across the state.”

Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote the opinion, with Justice Barry Albin and temporary Justice Edward Stern in agreement.

Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens dissented. They argued that three votes were insufficient because a minimum of four votes was needed to grant a substantive motion. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justice Virginia Long did not participate.

Staff Writers John Reitmeyer and Hannan Adely contributed to this report

E-mail: brody@northjersey.com

 

Star Ledger - N.J. high court's Abbott ruling means other school districts will still be short funding

Published: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 7:15 AM Updated: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 10:11 AM

By Star-Ledger StaffThe Star-Ledger

TRENTON — Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling means the state’s 31 poorest districts get to share $500 million in additional state aid.

But it also means some 550 districts will go without.

"Once again, districts like Woodbridge and Piscataway have been left out in the cold," said John Crowe, the superintendent in Woodbridge. He said it is "disheartening to think a student who is born into poverty in Woodbridge somehow requires less assistance than a student born into poverty in another district."

Crowe, along with other suburban superintendents, said Tuesday’s ruling short-changed their district despite the fact they, too, may educate at-risk children.

"It is one of those decisions that is not purely logical," said Earl Kim, superintendent of the Montgomery School District in Somerset County. "It’s OK to violate the constitutional right to a thorough and efficient education for some students, meaning the districts like ours or other suburban districts, but not violate the rights of others."

In its latest ruling in the decades-long Abbott v. Burke case, the state’s highest court ordered that more money go to poor school districts next year under the state School Funding Reform Act but failed to increase funding for all districts statewide.

Full funding would have cost $1.7 billion, with 71.3 percent of the money going to non-Abbott districts, according to a budget analysis by the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services.

The 3-2 ruling came as something of a surprise to some experts, who noted that the court in 2009 ordered that money should go to poor students regardless of where they live, and seemingly did away with the designation of "Abbott districts."

"It seems like a peculiar twist," said Bruce Baker, an associate professor at the Rutgers Graduate School of Education, and an expert on school finance.

David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center, the Newark-based school advocacy group that brought the legal challenge, said he had argued "vigorously" that more funding should have been ordered for at-risk students statewide.

After the court ruled otherwise, however, he said the governor and Legislature "still have a responsibility and duty under the law to ensure a thorough and efficient education for all children."

"We understand (school districts’) disappointment that the court did not extend the full-funding directive across the state. We’re ready to work with the governor and legislature to make sure the formula is fully funded for all school children, as it was designed," he said.

Clearly, some districts were happy with Tuesday’s ruling, however.

Though saying all students are deserving of state aid, Irvington Superintendent Ethel Hasty said she is excited the court will return money to the 31 Abbott districts, including hers.

Hasty said poor students in suburban districts have access to higher quality services than poor students in urban school systems.

View full size

"Although money is not a panacea, our children have certain needs," Hasty said. "What’s fair is money going back to the Abbott districts."

Several districts called on the governor and Legislature to rework school funding.

Edison Superintendent Richard O’Malley said he was not expecting any additional aid, but noted his district educates at-risk students who are also deserving of additional state aid.

He said he expects the governor and Legislature to work together on a "fair and sustainable" school funding system.

At least one legislator, Senate President Stephen Sweeney, said he plans to try.

Sweeney (D-Gloucester) said his primary goal will be increasing funding for 205 districts that spend below "adequacy," the amount that the state considers necessary to deliver a thorough and efficient education.

"All 205 should be brought up," Sweeney said. "There is a $913 million windfall that we’ve seen and, looking within the budget, for the remainder to get a billion to fund all schools."

Asbury Park Press/Gannett - Court decision sets off budget battle

6:51 AM, May. 25, 2011 |

Written by

Jason Method | Statehouse bureau

TRENTON — An opinion by a divided state Supreme Court on Tuesday sets up a state budget confrontation between a Republican governor who vows not to raise taxes and a Democratic-controlled state Legislature seeking to funnel even more money to local schools.

The state Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, ordered New Jersey to provide full funding for 31 school districts that have long received massive state aid under previous court orders.

The ruling presents the state with a much smaller bill — estimated to be $500 million — than it would have if the court had ordered New Jersey to provide full state aid, some $1.75 billion more, to all school districts.

But the decision also marks a rebuke for Gov. Chris Christie, who has criticized the court over the school funding issue since he was a gubernatorial candidate.

Christie, who had broached the idea of defying the court in a radio appearance, said in a press conference that he would comply with the order. Christie said the Legislature should now determine the state budget that takes effect July 1, but he said he did not want to see new taxes.

Christie also castigated the decision.

“As a fundamental principle, I do not believe it is the role of the state Supreme Court to determine what programs the state should and should not be funding, and to what amount,” he said in a news conference. “The Supreme Court is not the Legislature. It should not dictate policy…and it should not have any business deciding how tax dollars are spent.”

State Democratic leaders called for the state to find additional money for local school districts. State Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney, D-Gloucester, wanted some $500 million more for lower and middle-income school districts.

The decision was the latest hearing in the state's long-running school funding case. Advocates for children in 31 low-income school districts had asked the court to enforce a state aid formula agreed to in a 2009 ruling that provided additional funds to districts across the state.

The ruling then had finally moved the state from protecting the 31 districts and allocating aid on a statewide basis. Tuesday's decision moves New Jersey back to the prior position of having select school districts protected by the court and those that are not.

In the majority opinion, Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote that the court could only order funding for the Abbott districts because of the precedent set by prior rulings.

The 2009 formula had determined how much money was expected to be spent educating various types of students and required the state to provide full funding after the school district’s “fair share” of property taxes was raised.

For example, that formula then determined the base cost of a general elementary student’s education was $9,649.

More money was allocated to educate students from low-income families, as well as for students who had trouble speaking English or who suffered with physical or educational disabilities or speech problems.

The Supreme Court decisions in the case, beginning in 1990, have been highly controversial because they have directed tens of billions over the years into large urban districts like Newark and Trenton, as well as poorer small districts, such as Keansburg and Asbury Park.

Even now, more than half of the state’s $7 billion in local state aid goes to those districts. But in many cases, test scores have remained low and dropout rates have held high, which has prompted criticism of the program.

In legal arguments, the Christie administration had said it planned on fulfilling the school funding formula, but had to cut state aid last year because of declining tax revenues amid the financial crisis.

Yet Christie often publicly criticized the court’s long-running decisions on school funding.

He had said that the notion that more money can lead to better results is “failed legal theory.’’

Christie had refused last year to reappoint Justice John Wallace and cited the court’s previous decisions as a reason, though he did not name the school funding case specifically as the reason Wallace was not reappointed.

The court has operated short-handed on the school funding case. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, who was an Attorney General for then Gov. Jon S. Corzine, had worked on the school funding formula and has recused himself from the case.

Justice Virginia Long recently had recused herself from the case.

The reason was not announced.

LaVecchia was joined by Justices Barry T. Albin and Judge Edwin H. Stern, who was appointed to temporarily fill Wallace’s seat.

Justices Roberto A. Rivera-Soto and Helen E. Hoens dissented in the opinion.

“Like anyone else, the State is not free to walk away from judicial orders enforcing constitutional obligations,’’ LaVecchia wrote in her opinion.

She later added “the state may not use the appropriations power as a shield from its responsibilities.”

Rivera-Soto called the court’s school funding decisions, stretching back to the 1970s, a “well-intentioned but now fundamentally flawed and misguided approach.’’

Rivera-Soto questioned how the court could order full funding for children in some districts, while allowing others not to receive funding that met the state’s constitutional requirement.

Hoens, in a separate opinion, said the state’s budget cuts were necessary and showed no defiance of the court.

She questioned the finding in March by a special master that Christie’s budget cuts had violated the constitution.