Record: Fixing Abbott

Sunday, March 29, 2009
Last updated: Sunday March 29, 2009, 8:38 PM

NorthJersey.com

WHATEVER else the Abbott rulings did or did not do in recent decades, they were a well-intentioned and necessary attempt to correct a grave economic and racial disparity: the fact that New Jersey had some of the best and worst school districts in the nation.

When the case was first heard in court almost 30 years ago, the best districts were spending far more money than the worst. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that it was the state’s responsibility to remedy that inequity. The Abbott districts, the poorest in New Jersey, were given enough state aid so that their spending would equal the wealthiest.

We may never know exactly how much of those billions of dollars reached the classrooms of Paterson, Passaic, Garfield and the other Abbott districts and how much of that money did not. Suffice it to say that many children in New Jersey are still denied their constitutional right to a good education — and not all of them are in the Abbott districts.

That’s why we support Governor Corzine’s reform of the state school funding formula to allocate aid by individual student rather than by district. And we agree with the finding last week of a Superior Court judge that this reform is constitutional and fair.

Judge Peter Doyne’s opinion is eminently reasonable and clear. He notes that almost half of the low-income students in the state do not attend Abbott schools; their districts did not benefit from the increased state aid — which paid for things like new teachers, social services, libraries and computers — or the court-ordered preschool.

He notes that the spending disparities no longer exist in the Abbott districts: They spend an average of $17,151 per student, while the wealthiest districts spend an average of $14,117.

He notes that, contrary to the claim from Abbott educators that none of the aid has been extraneous, "To argue there are no inefficiencies within a district and that every dollar spent currently is necessary to provide a thorough and efficient education is simply unreasonable."

Doyne’s opinion concludes: "The time for reform is now."

That does not mean that Abbott districts will not continue to receive large amounts of state aid, since most of their students are low-income. The judge also recommends that Abbott districts continue to receive additional aid for three years, as part of a transition and evaluation period. The governor disagrees with that finding and plans to challenge it. But given the judge’s careful analysis and support for the new formula, we agree with his conclusion that it’s best to err on the side of caution and extend the safety net temporarily.

If the Abbott era is over, it will not be missed by its opponents — those who always felt the money was being wasted by a bleeding-heart court.

But the court was right to hold the neediest districts in the state to high standards and to give them the resources to provide a quality education to their students. Some dramatic improvement has been visible: in smaller classes, in widespread access to quality preschool, in magnet schools and in increases in test scores, particularly in the early grades.

In some districts, however, the court could not overcome the entrenched power of cronyism, corruption and poverty itself. Those battles still continue.

But now, instead of more than half of all state aid going to the 31 districts that enroll only one-quarter of the state’s students, that aid is being distributed more evenly. Hundreds of other districts with substantial numbers of low-income students are being helped. They are breathing a sigh of relief.

As Doyne correctly described it, Corzine’s new funding formula is a "thoughtful, progressive attempt to assist at-risk children throughout the state."