| ||||||||||||
‘Abbott Is Back in Court and Beset By Questions’ njspotlight.com
‘Group asks NJ justices to restore school aid’ Star Ledger
‘Advocacy group asks New Jersey Supreme Court to block school aid cuts’ The Record
‘With Deadline Looming, Speaker Talks Budget’ Millenimu Radio/Associated Press
Latest filing prompts speculation about arguments, alliances and justices hearing the case, not to mention the eventual decision
It was always more about when Abbott v. Burke would be back before the state Supreme Court, not if.
.
With yesterday’s court filing to contest Gov. Chris Christie’s steep budget cuts to public schools, when has arrived. So let the questions begin -- not just to how the court will decide, but also who’s on what side of the argument and which justices will even hear the case.
Related Links
Delivered by courier to the court clerk in Trenton, the 25-page complaint contends that the Christie administration – with the Legislature’s apparent acquiescence -- has violated the court’s 2009 demand that the state fully fund the School Funding Reform Act of 2008.
In that unanimous decision, the justices said the new formula would be held constitutional as long as districts are provided the funds promised under the new formula.
The 2009 decision was monumental in itself for essentially ending the special treatment to the 31 urban districts that fell under the previous 20 years of Abbott rulings, and instead extending it to all districts with at-risk and special-needs students.
But then came more than $1 billion in proposed cuts for next year, close to 15 percent of all state aid to schools. Lawyers for the Abbott schoolchildren maintained in the new filing that the formula was under-funded not only for Abbott districts, but also for students in the nearly 600 districts across all of New Jersey.
“From our point of view, every district in the state has a direct and substantial impact in this application,” said David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center (ELC) in Newark, the group that has led the Abbott litigation for three decades.
“This is an unprecedented and substantial cut, and the court’s language is crystal clear that they expected aid to be provided to all districts at formula levels,” Sciarra said.
High-Stakes Decision
There is little doubt to the high stakes for the districts and for the state as a whole. If the court is to rule in the plaintiffs’ favor and orders all or part of the cuts restored, it could save districts now facing hundreds, if not thousands, of potential layoffs.
At the same time, such an order could blow a big hole in a state budget already short on cash and reportedly close to agreement between Christie and leading Democrats – opening new debate on where the money would come from.
That was the primary focus of the reaction coming out of Christie’s office late yesterday.
“This year’s budget decisions reflect the simple fact that an endless pot of money does not exist, and we cannot continue government and school funding at unrestrained levels that, until now, have been dictated by court rulings and irresponsible spending and borrowing,” said Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak in a statement.
He reiterated the governor’s longstanding criticism of the court over its Abbott rulings in general.
“For too long, lawsuits and Supreme Court rulings have driven education funding in New Jersey without the intended effect of improving education for all of our students,” Drewniak said. He added that state budgeting and education policies “cannot continue to be dictated by court edicts that don't adequately consider the realities of student performance and budgetary limitations.”
With the primary elections yesterday, there was only muted reaction out of the Statehouse and its key players. Republican legislators deferred to the governor, and Democratic leaders were enmeshed in budget talks, according to spokespeople.
Cautious Support From Advocates
Advocates for school districts were also somewhat circumspect. One suburban school organization, Dollar$ and Sense, participated in the 2009 case and backed the filing yesterday, but its leader conceded it may not have the money itself to file another amicus brief.
Like last time, several individual districts -- most of them Abbott districts -- are expected to file their own complaints alongside the ELC’s, but their lawyer would not yet comment on their cases.
The head of the state’s largest suburban group, the Garden State Coalition of Schools, hardly jumped to the ELC’s support. Lynne Strickland, the coalition’s director, questioned the timing of the filing when the budget is all but struck, and said she was unsure whether the filing would ultimately benefit her members.
A key point in the court case will hinge on whether the Supreme Court in 2009 was speaking to all school districts or just Abbott districts under its jurisdiction in the case, she said.
“The ELC comes across as representing everybody, but really they still only represent the Abbotts,” Strickland said. “It just makes me wonder if that’s more spin than fact.”
Still, Strickland said she also didn’t want to come across as fueling the suburban vs. urban divide that has grown wider as funding has gotten tighter.
“How can we not support more school funding?” she said. “But we also want the argument to be well reasoned, appropriate and winnable as possible.”
Here Come the Judges?
Much may end up resting on who even hears the case in the court’s wood-and-glass courtroom on the top floor of the Hughes Justice Center.
The seven-member court is already down one member after Christie refused to reappoint Justice John Wallace, a move that set off its own firestorm and the Democrats’ counter-move to prevent even confirmation hearings on his replacement.
The participation of Justice Helen Hoens is also now in question, as her husband, Robert Schwaneberg, is a health policy adviser in the governor’s office.
In the 2009 case, both Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justice Virginia Long also sat out, and there is no certainty whether they would again. Rabner was former Gov. Jon Corzine’s attorney general before taking the bench and was involved in the school-funding law then under review; Long recused herself for undisclosed reasons.
Even if just one of those justices recuses him- or herself this time, it leaves just five justices to hear the case, unless an alternate is named.
When asked yesterday about whom he thought he’d be arguing in front of, and about what the lineup might mean, Sciarra responded with an answer that could apply to many questions concerning the next version of Abbott v. Burke.
“I have no idea,” he said.
‘Group asks NJ justices to restore school aid’
Published: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 Updated: Tuesday, June 08, 2010, 8:19 PM Star-Ledger Staff
TRENTON — Charging that Gov. Chris Christie’s proposed aid cuts "indisputably violated" the state’s obligation to fund schools in a manner upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court, an education advocacy group filed a motion Tuesday seeking to force the state to abide by the existing school funding formula.
The action by the Newark-based Education Law Center on behalf of children in the state’s 31 poorest districts could force the state to restore funding the governor slashed.
"This is a billion dollar aid cut that’s going to have to be addressed," said David Sciarra, executive director of the law center. "This was a clear responsibility."
School districts across the state were sent reeling by the governor’s $820 million cut in school aid. As a result, districts are planning to lay off staff and cut programs; reduce busing; and increase property taxes.
In its filing, the Education Law Center is asking the Supreme Court to stop Christie’s cuts and maintain school funding under a formula the high court upheld last year.
"The state’s action ... effectively deprives plaintiffs and their peers statewide of the resources the state itself determined were necessary," the ELC wrote in its brief.
The Education Law Center asked the Supreme Court to handle the matter quickly, "given the immediate need for districts to finalize budgets and prepare for the 2010-11 school year."
School funding is one reason Christie has said he wants to reshape the state Supreme Court.
The governor provoked a firestorm among Democrats and the legal community when he nominated attorney Anne Patterson to replace Associate Justice John Wallace. Wallace voted to uphold the retooled school funding formula but was not on the court for the original Abbott decisions.
"The people making those decisions should be the people you elect, and who you can kick out if they’re making decisions you think are bad decisions," Christie told a town-hall audience in Robbinsville last week.
Last May, the state Supreme Court upheld a new school funding formula that distributes aid to more districts based on enrollment, with extra money for those with high concentrations of students who are poor, have special needs or have limited English skills.
In its ruling, the court ordered that the formula be reviewed after three years — which the ELC says is impossible if school funding is slashed this year.
An analysis of Christie’s budget by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services found his proposal "departs significantly from the funding provisions" of the formula, crafted by then-Gov. Jon Corzine to replace a system in which aid went to 31 poor districts, known as Abbotts, to fund them on par with wealthy districts.
The ELC filed the legal challenge that led to the Supreme Court upholding the retooled formula. After the court ruled last year, the ELC called the formula a "major setback."
The Office of Legislative Services said Christie ran a modified version of the formula, then reduced all districts by up to 5 percent of their total budgets.
Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said the school aid cuts were forced by "an unprecedented budget crisis," adding that "no district was singled out for disparate treatment."
"This year’s budget decisions reflect the simple fact that an endless pot of money does not exist and we cannot continue government and school funding at unrestrained levels," he said in a statement. "Our state budgeting and education policies cannot continue to be dictated by court edicts that don’t adequately consider the realities of student performance and budgetary limitations."
By Jeanette Rundquist/The Star-Ledger and Claire Heininger/ Statehouse Bureau
‘Advocacy group asks New Jersey Supreme Court to block school aid cuts’ Wednesday, June 9, 2010 BY LESLIE BRODY The Record STAFF WRITER
The Education Law Center asked the New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday to block impending state aid cuts to schools, saying they violate students' rights to a thorough and efficient education.
The Newark-based advocacy group claimed Governor Christie's proposed budget for 2010-11 ignores the funding formula approved by the court last year, and would deprive children of $1.08 billion in school aid they deserve.
"We're in court really on behalf of every student, to make sure every student from Paterson to Ridgewood to Oradell, and every school, receives the funding they need and they're entitled to," said David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center.
Christie proposes reducing aid to districts by $820 million for the next school year, saying tough steps are necessary because of the revenue crisis and loss of $1 billion in one-shot federal stimulus money. The aid cuts — worth up to 5 percent of each district's budget — have brought outcries from parents and educators across the state, and districts have dismissed teachers and cut tutoring and reduced sports and other programs for the fall.
The governor's spokesman, Michael Drewniak, defended the cuts Tuesday.
"For too long lawsuits and Supreme Court rulings have driven education funding in New Jersey without the intended effect of improving education for all of our students," he said in a release. "Our state budgeting and education policies cannot continue to be dictated by court edicts that don't adequately consider the realities of student performance and budgetary limitations. It is time to stop pouring hundreds of millions of dollars annually into underperforming schools and instead focus on real, long-term reform."
The Education Law Center's court motion was filed in the name of Abbott v. Burke, a landmark state Supreme Court case that sought to win fair education funding for disadvantaged city children. After decades of Abbott litigation, the state Legislature passed a new formula known as the School Funding Reform Act of 2008. It gave support to districts based on their numbers of poor and special needs children, rather than focusing mainly on the poorest cities.
The Education Law Center asked the New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday to block impending state aid cuts to schools, saying they violate students' rights to a thorough and efficient education.
The Newark-based advocacy group claimed Governor Christie's proposed budget for 2010-11 ignores the funding formula approved by the court last year, and would deprive children of $1.08 billion in school aid they deserve.
"We're in court really on behalf of every student, to make sure every student from Paterson to Ridgewood to Oradell, and every school, receives the funding they need and they're entitled to," said David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center.
Christie proposes reducing aid to districts by $820 million for the next school year, saying tough steps are necessary because of the revenue crisis and loss of $1 billion in one-shot federal stimulus money. The aid cuts — worth up to 5 percent of each district's budget — have brought outcries from parents and educators across the state, and districts have dismissed teachers and cut tutoring and reduced sports and other programs for the fall.
The governor's spokesman, Michael Drewniak, defended the cuts Tuesday.
"For too long lawsuits and Supreme Court rulings have driven education funding in New Jersey without the intended effect of improving education for all of our students," he said in a release. "Our state budgeting and education policies cannot continue to be dictated by court edicts that don't adequately consider the realities of student performance and budgetary limitations. It is time to stop pouring hundreds of millions of dollars annually into underperforming schools and instead focus on real, long-term reform."
The Education Law Center's court motion was filed in the name of Abbott v. Burke, a landmark state Supreme Court case that sought to win fair education funding for disadvantaged city children. After decades of Abbott litigation, the state Legislature passed a new formula known as the School Funding Reform Act of 2008. It gave support to districts based on their numbers of poor and special needs children, rather than focusing mainly on the poorest cities.
‘With Deadline Looming, Speaker Talks Budget’Milleniium Radio/ Kevin McArdle Reporting | |
|
| |
|
|
