1. Which children have a right to early childhood education?

2. Why does Abbott require early childhood education programs?

3. What is the minimum preschool program mandated by Abbott?

4. Must Abbott districts offer more than a half-day program if their children need it?

5. How should Abbott districts decide whether to offer a half-day or a full- or extended-day or year program?

6. Does Abbott V specify the requirements for all programs, whether a half-day or more?

6a.Does Abbott require high quality programs?

6b.Does Abbott require early childhood education to be linked to whole school reform?

6c. Does Abbott require instruction by certified teachers?

6d. Does Abbott require small classes?

6f. Does Abbott require adequate facilities?

8. Can community-based providers receive Abbott funding to expand and, where needed, upgrade their early education programs?

10. What is the standard of review of Abbott district plans by the Commissioner?

12. Can the Supreme Court be asked to intervene directly to resolve disputes?

1. Which children have a right to early childhood education?

Abbott mandates "intensive" education programs for all three and four year old children in the poorer urban (Abbott or Special Needs) districts so that these children are "education-ready" when they enter kindergarten. For urban children, Abbott includes intensive early education, beginning at age three, as a part of their right to a thorough and efficient education under our state constitution.

2. Why does Abbott require early childhood education programs?

The Supreme Court gives several reasons for ordering early education programs for urban children: (1) "the earlier education begins, the greater the likelihood that students will develop language skills and the discipline necessary to succeed in school;" (2) "one-third of children entering elementary school lack basic school-readiness skills;" (3) "children in low income families suffer greatly in language development;" (4) opportunities for poor children to develop language skills "are lost" if early education does not begin at ages three and four; and (5) "poor areas suffer from a scarcity of quality, publicly-funded early care and early education for three- to five- year olds."

3. What is the minimum preschool program mandated by Abbott?

The Supreme Court directs the Abbott districts to provide "well-planned, high quality" half-day education programs for all three- and four- year old children as an "initial reform" or minimum program.

Yes. The Court said that half-day preschool programs are acceptable only as "an initial reform." Ultimately, the Abbott preschool program for each district must serve the "particularized needs" of its children. If the actual children in an Abbott district require more than the minimum half-day program to meet their "particularized needs," the district must provide more. The Supreme Court, therefore, directs the Abbott districts to provide full- or extended- day programs or year-round programs to their three and four year old children if necessary "to reverse the educational disadvantages" of those children.

According to the Supreme Court, once a district "demonstrates the need for programs beyond those recommended by the Commissioner" – the minimum half-day program – the Commissioner is required to "approve such requests and, when necessary, shall seek appropriations to ensure the funding and resources necessary for their implementation."

5. How should Abbott districts decide whether to offer a half-day or a full- or extended-day or year program?

To comply with Abbott, each Abbott district must conduct a comprehensive assessment of the needs of its own children for early education. The Supreme Court stresses the importance of having "the particularized needs of these children drive the determination of what programs should be developed." The only way a district can determine what program to offer its children is to conduct a thorough assessment of the "particularized needs" of these children. With this information and data, each district can then decide whether to offer its children the minimum half-day program or, instead, to provide a full- or extended-day program, and/or a program that operates year-round.

In July 1998, twenty-two of the twenty-eight Abbott districts formed a Consortium with the Center for Early Education at Rutgers to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the need for early education programs under Abbott. The Consortium was formed as a way of making sure the Abbott districts fulfilled their responsibility under Abbott to develop their preschool programs based on the "particularized needs" of their children.

6. Does Abbott V specify the requirements for all programs, whether half-day or more?

Yes. Whether a district offers the minimum half-day program, or a full- or extended-day or year program, all programs must meet certain indicators of quality established by the Supreme Court.

6-1. Does Abbott require high quality programs?

Yes. Abbott requires high quality early education programs. In all of the Abbott decisions, the Court emphasizes that "well planned, high quality" and "intensive" preschool programs are needed to "reverse the educational disadvantages" of poor children. The May 1998 ruling gives even more detail about the type of programs that the Court wants in Abbott districts. The Court cites: (1) Dr. Robert Slavin’s opinion that "the programs that have shown the greatest success are ones that provide more intensive services...;" (2) the High/Scope Perry Preschool and Abecedarian studies’ showing of "a strong correlation between the intensity and duration of pre-school and later educational progress and achievement;" (3) the Carnegie Report’s recommendation of "high quality learning opportunities" for three and four year old children; and (4) the New Jersey Goodstarts program’s demonstration of the educational "value" of full-day preschool programs.

The specific preschool programs cited in Abbott, such as Goodstarts, are all high quality, intense programs that have rigorous standards for a "developmentally appropriate" curriculum, staff certification and training, professional development and other essential program components. These programs also provide nutrition, health, parent involvement and other related programs. To comply with Abbott, preschool programs must have standards similar to Goodstarts, Perry Preschool and other comparable programs in order to satisfy the Court’s mandate for "high quality."

Yes. In addition to early education, Abbott requires whole school reform, as proposed by the Commissioner. His proposal includes the "Success for All" program as the presumptive model but also allows districts to use other instructional improvement models. Whole school reform must be implemented in all Abbott elementary schools over the next three years. Success for All, developed by Dr. Robert Slavin, has its own reading, writing, language arts, science and mathematics curriculum, and teachers are specially trained to use this curriculum and other specific instructional methods. Success for All begins in kindergarten.

Abbott mandates that early education be an "integral component" of whole school reform. According to the Court, the objective of early education is the "year-by-year" improvement of language, discipline and other skills so that children are "education ready" to take full advantage of whole school reform when they enter kindergarten. Under Abbott, the Abbott districts must make certain that the preschool curriculum and instructional program are directly linked to the instructional improvement program and the whole school reform required for the primary grades.

Yes. Although Abbott does not address this question directly, the Supreme Court gives clear guidance on this issue. The programs cited by the Court as examples of high quality, such as Goodstarts and Perry Preschool, require instruction by certified teachers. The Commissioner’s proposed preschool program -- the basis for the Court’s "initial" early childhood education remedy -- includes teachers working directly in Abbott (public) schools at public school salary levels. Abbott requires preschool teachers who are well-trained and able to receive additional training with elementary school teachers to assure curricular and instructional alignment from preschool through the early grades. However, Abbott districts using community-based providers must carefully consider the qualifications and status of current, non-certified teaching personnel.

Yes. The Supreme Court adopts the Commissioner’s preschool program which is based upon a maximum class size of fifteen children per classroom, with one teacher and one assistant teacher for each class.

Yes. The Commissioner’s preschool program encompasses a wide array of services – "instructional, medical, dental, parent involvement and training, etc." – to "close the gap between the home and school environments and the educational expectations that lead to academic success." In accepting this program, the Supreme Court directs the Commissioner to "assist" the Abbott districts "in meeting the need for transportation and other services, support, and resources related to [quality pre-school] programs."

Yes. The Supreme Court includes preschool in its order requiring the State to eliminate overcrowding and code violations and to provide adequate facilities in the Abbott districts. The Abbott districts are required to determine the need for adequate preschool classrooms -- at a class size of no more than 15 children -- and other essential spaces for preschool programs in their Five-Year Facilities Management Plans. In addition, the Court accepted the Commissioner’s commitment "to prioritize construction projects that will facilitate the full implementation of early childhood programs" in the state-funded construction program that must begin in the Abbott districts by Spring 2000. Finally, the Court accepted the Commissioner’s representation that the State "is prepared to move immediately to ensure the availability of adequate temporary facilities" to implement preschool "in all Abbott schools by the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year." Any temporary facilities "should be in buildings free of Code violations, should be at least 600 square feet, and should contain toilet rooms visible to the teacher."

Yes. Without a district-by-district needs assessment, the Supreme Court could not determine how much additional funding would be required to provide early childhood programs in the Abbott districts. However, the Court recognizes that "funding remains a critical element" in implementing these programs. Under Abbott, the State must ensure that each Abbott district has the funding necessary for quality, intensive preschool programs that meet the particularized needs of its children, whether provided by the district itself or through collaborative agreements with community-based providers. The Court accepted the Commissioner’s commitment that if an Abbott district needs "additional funds" – Early Childhood Program Aid or funding for temporary and permanent facilities – the Commissioner will provide and secure the "needed funds" by seeking supplemental appropriations from the Legislature.

8. Can community-based providers receive Abbott funding to expand and, where needed, upgrade existing early childhood education programs?

Yes. Abbott districts have the primary responsibility to assure the provision of early education under Abbott. To meet this responsibility, districts may cooperate with or use existing early childhood and day care programs in the community. In considering collaboration, the Abbott districts must evaluate community-based programs carefully to determine whether these programs currently meet, or can meet, the standards of quality for early education established by the Supreme Court and discussed in Question 6(a)-(f) above. Abbott district plans may also include requests to the Commissioner for additional funding and facilities on behalf of community-based programs if such programs need more resources to satisfy the quality standards established in Abbott.

The Supreme Court established September 1999 as the deadline by which the Abbott districts must offer high quality early education programs for all three and four year old children. The Commissioner has set November 2, 1998 as the date for the Abbott districts to submit an early childhood plan for his review.

Any relaxation of the September 1999 deadline must be approved by the Supreme Court. If the Abbott districts need more time to implement the high-quality early education required by the Court, Education Law Center, as counsel for the Abbott children, would join with the Commissioner in seeking appropriate extensions.

Under Abbott, the Commissioner reviews the plans for early education submitted by the Abbott districts. Although the Court requires each district to demonstrate in its plan the particularized need for its program, the Commissioner must review these plans with "deference" because "local educators are in the best position to know the particularized needs of their own students." Under Abbott, therefore, the Commissioner’s review is limited and deferential, and he cannot arbitrarily override the decisions made by the Abbott districts, provided those decisions are needs-based.

Yes. The Supreme Court anticipates that disputes may arise between the Commissioner and the Abbott districts in implementing early education and the other Abbott reforms. As the Court states, these disputes "will involve issues arising from the implementation, extension, or modification of existing programs, the need for additional supplemental programs, the allocation of budgeted funds, the need for additional funding, and the implementation of the standards and plans for the provision of capital improvements and related educational facilities."

The Supreme Court has designated these Abbott disputes as "controversies" under the School Laws. The district must, first, file an appeal with the Commissioner and seek to have the dispute resolved by an Administrative Law Judge. The Law Judge would conduct a hearing in which the Commissioner would be required to defend his decision to override the needs-based decisions of Abbott school officials. A decision can then be appealed directly to the Appellate Division and then to the Supreme Court. As the Court states in Abbott V, "[i]n this way, districts and individual schools will be accorded full administrative and judicial protection in seeking the demonstrably-needed programs, facilities, and funding necessary to provide the level of education required by... the Constitution."

12. Can the Supreme Court be asked to intervene directly to resolve disputes?

Education Law Center will continue to make every effort to work closely with State officials to help them to anticipate and solve problems with implementation of Abbott early education. ELC, on behalf of the Abbott children -- can utilize a procedure – a Motion in Aid to Litigants’ Rights – to ask the Supreme Court to address disputes over State policies that cannot be resolved through administrative or legislative action. The Supreme Court indicates that it "remains cognizant of the interests of the parties, particularly those of plaintiffs who speak for and represent the at-risk children of the special needs districts." According to the Court, "[t]he lessons of the history of the struggle to bring these children a thorough and efficient education render it essential that their interests remain prominent, paramount, and fully protected."

Abbott Opinions are written and distributed by the Education Law Center on specific issues pertaining to Abbott v. Burke. This opinion is part of ELC's on-going effort to assure effective and full implementation of the remedies ordered by the Supreme Court.