Frank Libbi
Curriculum Evaluation
Dr. Jay Dugan
July 2, 2009
In a case first filed in 1981 by an advocacy group in Newark, Abbott v. Burke led to a series of state Supreme Court rulings that require the state to provide additional money and programs to the state’s 31 poorest districts. The mandates call for equal spending in the poorest and wealthiest districts. The state also must pay for full-day preschool and kindergarten, billions in school construction and repairs, and additional supplemental programs to mitigate disadvantages in the poor districts.
“Abbott” is the first-named plaintiff, but the name is now used to distinguish the 31 school districts selected by the Court and the Legislature to benefit from state financial assistance and to implement specific remedies mandated by the Court.
The Supreme Court ordered implementation of programs and reforms designed to ensure a “thorough and efficient” education to the Abbott plaintiff class, as guaranteed under Article VIII, Section IV, ¶ 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.
The Abbott "education adequacy" framework includes:
(1) Standards-based education, supported by foundation per-pupil funding equal to spending in successful suburban schools (“parity funding”); (2) universal, high quality preschool for all three- and four-year olds; (3) supplemental ("at-risk") programs to address student and school needs attributed to high-poverty, such as early literacy and drop-out prevention programs, and social and health services; (4) new and rehabilitated facilities to house all programs, relieve overcrowding, and eliminate safety violations; (5) School and district reforms to improve curriculum and instruction, and for the effective and efficient use of funds to enable students to achieve state standards; and (6) State accountability for effective and timely implementation to ensure district and school progress in improving student achievement. Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145 (1997) (“Abbott IV”); Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480 (1998) (“Abbott V”).
Abbott districts receive state aid that is calculated to provide them with the same per-pupil operating budget as would be found in New Jersey’s wealthiest school districts. Called “Abbott parity aid,” this funding is adjusted annually to reflect spending and enrollment in wealthy districts. In the fiscal year (FY) 2006, it equals about $1 billion. Districts that demonstrate educational needs for its students that cannot be financed with state formula aid and parity may apply to the Commissioner of Education for “supplemental aid” (also called Discretionary Education Opportunity Aid). In FY2006, this aid equals about $500 million. The state is financially responsible for the creation of high-quality preschool programs for all three and four year-old children residing in Abbott districts. Currently, 70 percent of approximately 55,000 eligible children are enrolled in Abbott preschools, supported by $500 million in state funds. Finally, the state is financially responsible for providing adequate facilities with priority given to health and safety projects, creation of preschool facilities, and reduction in overcrowding. As of 2005, the state has committed $6 billion for school construction. (http://www.nje3.org)
The Abbott division has given relentless and consistent focus to increasing early literacy for the obvious reason that a fourth grader who cannot read and write the English language will have great difficulty learning science, history, and mathematics required to graduate from high school. To this has been added an equally strong push on early mathematics mastery.
The goal of the Abbott programs is to give every child the opportunity to attain "his or her own place as a contributing member in society with the ability to compete with other citizens and to succeed in the economy." Abbott IV (1997).
Here is the historical timeline of Abbott v. Burke:
1981: Abbott v. Burke is filed by the Education Law Center, which claims the state has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to provide a "thorough and efficient" education to students in poor, urban school districts. The case follows Robinson v. Cahill, in which the court ruled the heavy reliance on property taxes discriminated against poor students and ushered in the state's first income tax.
1985: The first Abbott ruling is issued, ordering urban children must have an education equal to that of students in the state's wealthiest districts.
1990: After the state passed a new finance law, the state Supreme Court orders funding equalized between the richest and poorest districts, and also orders supplemental programs in the urban districts to mitigate disadvantages.
1997: The court rules a second school-funding law unconstitutional and again orders equal funding. In 1998, after nearly a year of hearings in a lower court, the Supreme Court mandates a series of specific programs, including preschool and new school construction.
2007: Gov. Jon Corzine proposes a new school funding law that would erase the Abbott distinction and provide additional resources for any districts with concentrations of disadvantaged students. The School Funding Reform Act is approved in a lame-duck session of the Legislature and signed into law by Corzine in early 2008.
March 2008: The state files a motion seeking the state Supreme Court's declaration that the new law is constitutional and earlier Abbott mandates can be eliminated.
November 2008: The court remands the case to lower court for evidentiary hearings, leaving in place the Abbott remedies.
March 2009: After hearing weeks of testimony, Bergen County Assignment Judge Peter E. Doyne, the court's special master, sides with Corzine, saying the new law "represents a thoughtful, progressive attempt to assist at-risk children throughout the state of New Jersey, and not only those who, by happenstance, reside in Abbott districts." The formula, he adds, "represents our best hope."
Today: The Supreme Court unanimously upholds the formula and rejects requests by the Abbott districts for "supplemental funding," effectively ending the case.
Curriculum Evaluation
Dr. Jay Dugan
July 2, 2009
In a case first filed in 1981 by an advocacy group in Newark, Abbott v. Burke led to a series of state Supreme Court rulings that require the state to provide additional money and programs to the state’s 31 poorest districts. The mandates call for equal spending in the poorest and wealthiest districts. The state also must pay for full-day preschool and kindergarten, billions in school construction and repairs, and additional supplemental programs to mitigate disadvantages in the poor districts.
“Abbott” is the first-named plaintiff, but the name is now used to distinguish the 31 school districts selected by the Court and the Legislature to benefit from state financial assistance and to implement specific remedies mandated by the Court.
The Supreme Court ordered implementation of programs and reforms designed to ensure a “thorough and efficient” education to the Abbott plaintiff class, as guaranteed under Article VIII, Section IV, ¶ 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.
The Abbott "education adequacy" framework includes:
(1) Standards-based education, supported by foundation per-pupil funding equal to spending in successful suburban schools (“parity funding”); (2) universal, high quality preschool for all three- and four-year olds; (3) supplemental ("at-risk") programs to address student and school needs attributed to high-poverty, such as early literacy and drop-out prevention programs, and social and health services; (4) new and rehabilitated facilities to house all programs, relieve overcrowding, and eliminate safety violations; (5) School and district reforms to improve curriculum and instruction, and for the effective and efficient use of funds to enable students to achieve state standards; and (6) State accountability for effective and timely implementation to ensure district and school progress in improving student achievement. Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145 (1997) (“Abbott IV”); Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480 (1998) (“Abbott V”).
Abbott districts receive state aid that is calculated to provide them with the same per-pupil operating budget as would be found in New Jersey’s wealthiest school districts. Called “Abbott parity aid,” this funding is adjusted annually to reflect spending and enrollment in wealthy districts. In the fiscal year (FY) 2006, it equals about $1 billion. Districts that demonstrate educational needs for its students that cannot be financed with state formula aid and parity may apply to the Commissioner of Education for “supplemental aid” (also called Discretionary Education Opportunity Aid). In FY2006, this aid equals about $500 million. The state is financially responsible for the creation of high-quality preschool programs for all three and four year-old children residing in Abbott districts. Currently, 70 percent of approximately 55,000 eligible children are enrolled in Abbott preschools, supported by $500 million in state funds. Finally, the state is financially responsible for providing adequate facilities with priority given to health and safety projects, creation of preschool facilities, and reduction in overcrowding. As of 2005, the state has committed $6 billion for school construction. (http://www.nje3.org)
The Abbott division has given relentless and consistent focus to increasing early literacy for the obvious reason that a fourth grader who cannot read and write the English language will have great difficulty learning science, history, and mathematics required to graduate from high school. To this has been added an equally strong push on early mathematics mastery.
The goal of the Abbott programs is to give every child the opportunity to attain "his or her own place as a contributing member in society with the ability to compete with other citizens and to succeed in the economy." Abbott IV (1997).
Here is the historical timeline of Abbott v. Burke:
1981: Abbott v. Burke is filed by the Education Law Center, which claims the state has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to provide a "thorough and efficient" education to students in poor, urban school districts. The case follows Robinson v. Cahill, in which the court ruled the heavy reliance on property taxes discriminated against poor students and ushered in the state's first income tax.
1985: The first Abbott ruling is issued, ordering urban children must have an education equal to that of students in the state's wealthiest districts.
1990: After the state passed a new finance law, the state Supreme Court orders funding equalized between the richest and poorest districts, and also orders supplemental programs in the urban districts to mitigate disadvantages.
1997: The court rules a second school-funding law unconstitutional and again orders equal funding. In 1998, after nearly a year of hearings in a lower court, the Supreme Court mandates a series of specific programs, including preschool and new school construction.
2007: Gov. Jon Corzine proposes a new school funding law that would erase the Abbott distinction and provide additional resources for any districts with concentrations of disadvantaged students. The School Funding Reform Act is approved in a lame-duck session of the Legislature and signed into law by Corzine in early 2008.
March 2008: The state files a motion seeking the state Supreme Court's declaration that the new law is constitutional and earlier Abbott mandates can be eliminated.
November 2008: The court remands the case to lower court for evidentiary hearings, leaving in place the Abbott remedies.
March 2009: After hearing weeks of testimony, Bergen County Assignment Judge Peter E. Doyne, the court's special master, sides with Corzine, saying the new law "represents a thoughtful, progressive attempt to assist at-risk children throughout the state of New Jersey, and not only those who, by happenstance, reside in Abbott districts." The formula, he adds, "represents our best hope."
Today: The Supreme Court unanimously upholds the formula and rejects requests by the Abbott districts for "supplemental funding," effectively ending the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment