childhood plans and the October 13, 2000, ASSA data, every Abbott district except for Elizabeth is serving at least 50% of its projection.¹³

At oral argument counsel for the DOE observed that while the figures gathered in December 2000 are, of course, a confirmation that there is a long way to go to reach levels commensurate with the realization of full enrollment of the projected student population, they do demonstrate progress over earlier figures.

The ELC also argues that the DOE has failed to assure that no child is denied an early childhood education due to parental status. In Abbott VI , the Court noted that allegations had been made that children whose parents had dropped out of a required Temporary Aid for Needy Families ("TANF") program could not attend Head Start. In light of this claim, the Court emphasized that "no child may be excluded from a preschool program that is part of a district plan because of parental status."163 N.J. at 117. The ELC contends that despite this determination, the DOE has not required that districts do anything to assure that such parental-status-based exclusions not occur and has neither provided nor required such guidance or training as to this holding. In response the DOE notes that it has no reason to believe that such exclusions are occurring following the Court's ruling, and points out that the situation described was a limited one. It believes that no additional regulations, safeguards or instructions are necessary.