|
In
the Abbott II (1990) decision, the NJ Supreme Court found the education
provided to urban school children inadequate and unconstitutional.
In this and subsequent rulings, the Court ordered remedies to assure
these children a constitutional education. The remedies include
standards-based education supported by adequate foundation funding;
supplemental K-12 programs; universal preschool education; school
facilities improvements; and accountability measures.
The
Abbott II ruling limited these remedies to a class of school districts
identified as "poorer urban districts" or "special needs districts."
In 1997, these districts became known as "Abbott districts." Abbott
II also identified the specific factors used to designate districts
as "Abbott districts." These districts:
- are
classified by the NJ Department of Education as urban;
- are
in the lowest socio-economic status on the NJDOE District
Factor Group (DFG) scale;
- have
"evidence of substantive failure of thorough and efficient education;"
including "failure to achieve what the DOE considers passing levels
of performance on the High School Proficiency Test (HSPT);"
- have
a large percentage of poor students who need "an education beyond
the norm;"
- are
in communities with an "excessive tax [for] municipal services;"
and
- have
a large percentage of students of color.
Using
these factors, the Court designated 28 districts as Abbott districts,
but gave the Legislature and/or the Commissioner of Education authority
to classify additional districts as Abbott based on these factors,
thereby entitling the districts’ students to the Abbott remedies.
In 1998, the Legislature added 2 more districts to the Abbott class.
In
Abbott VII
(2000), the Court clarified its prior rulings by expressly authorizing
the Legislature and/or the Commissioner to not only add districts
to the Abbott class, but also remove them upon a finding that the
Abbott factors were no longer present.
Rural
Districts and Abbott: Bacon v. NJDOE
In
2000, 17 rural districts sued to become Abbott districts, alleging
they meet all the Abbott factors and are unable to provide their
students a constitutional education without the Abbott remedies.
The key developments in the case, Bacon v. NJDOE, are:
- An
initial
decision (2002) by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
recommended 5 of the 17 districts be classified as Abbott districts.
They are Woodbine (Cape May County), Commercial and Fairfield
(Cumberland County), Buena Regional (Atlantic County) and Salem
City (Salem County).
- A
decision
(2003) by the Commissioner of Education rejected the ALJ decision,
recommending only Salem City for Abbott status.
-
Legislation was enacted in 2004 designating Salem City as the
31st Abbott district.
- The
Legal Committee of the State Board of Education issued a report
(June 2005) reversing the Commissioner’s ruling, finding
the education in all remaining 16 district unconstitutional. The
case awaits a final ruling by the State Board.
ELC
filed a "friend of the court" brief before the State Board, and
exceptions to the Legal Committee report calling for the Abbott
remedies to be immediately implemented in these 16 districts.
Additional
Resources:
State
Board Finds Rural Districts Can't Provide "T & E"
Under School Funding Law
|
