April 5, 2002
Livingston Campus Center, Rutgers University

Herb Green invited me to discuss our advocacy at Education Law Center (ELC). He asks: how did we accomplish so much, and where are we going?

ELC has been advocating on behalf of poor students, students of color, and students with disabilities in New Jersey to improve the education they receive for almost 30 years. We've learned, often the hard way, that there are only two ways advocates can bring about change in state education policy. We can build political will to push the legislature and governor to make the needed change. This is done primarily by mobilizing grass roots citizens and organizations (as the Association for Children of New Jersey does so well), or by mobilizing organized interest groups involved in the system (e.g., the Garden State Coalition, New Jersey Education Association, Principals and Supervisors Association). Or we can go to court and win decisions that will push the other branches of state government to make needed changes. This is how ELC has worked since 1973 in the Robinson and Abbott cases.

What have we learned since we began advocating in 1973 to end educational disparity in New Jersey?

First, the courts have been indispensable in bringing about essential changes in educational programs, funding, capital resources and reforms needed to assure a level educational playing field for our State's disadvantaged children. Our long struggle for equal educational opportunity is a story of the inability of advocates to muster enough political will to move the executive and legislative branches to respond, but the ability of advocates to utilize the courts as the engine for change and reform.

Second, our courtroom success has required an extraordinary high level of organizational capacity and expertise. The Abbott case has involved the in-depth analysis of issues, data and problems, and the presentation of complicated facts and legal arguments. Communication not only to judges but also to broad stakeholder groups, and building strong coalitions to support the effort, has been essential as well. And we have had to sustain our capacity to undertake these tasks over the long haul because, as we know so well, it has taken many trips to the courthouse to achieve results for the Abbott children.

ELC's advocacy continues to be guided by these lessons - the court is indispensable; and we must maintain, and expand, our organizational expertise and capacity in order to be effective.

Why Has ELC Agreed to Work with the New Administration on Abbott Compliance?

We recently accepted an offer from Governor McGreevey to bring the parties to the Abbott case - ELC and the State -- together. The offer was a simple one: join in an effort to secure compliance with the Abbott rulings by working through problems together first, thus avoiding litigation wherever possible. I know some are surprised by our decision to participate on an Abbott Compliance Council. Let me explain our reasons for doing so.

1) We won! After 8 rulings, the Supreme Court has fashioned the most comprehensive framework of programs and reforms for the education of disadvantaged children anywhere in the nation, and has directed the State to implement them.

2) In 2000 and 2002, the Supreme Court rejected our plea for a special master to oversee State implementation. Instead, the Court has made it clear it wants the Abbott programs and reforms implemented through cooperation and collaboration of the parties and among key stakeholders.

3) Governor McGreevey has publicly pledged to abide by the Abbott rulings, and has committed his administration to working with ELC and key stakeholders to meet the letter and spirit of those rulings.

4) The framework established for ELC to work with the State - the Abbott Council - facilitates the establishment of collaborative work groups of stakeholders (teachers, parents, superintendents, etc.) to fix the flawed implementation of whole school reform, preschool, school construction and other elements of the Abbott rulings.

5) ELC retains its right to return to court at any time should a major breakdown occur and we are unable to get the administration to comply.

While ELC may use different strategies given the new context we find ourselves in, our advocacy with the State remains the same - to ensure full, effective and timely implementation of the Abbott programs and reforms so urban children receive an education that enables them to compete with their suburban peers.

What Advocacy Capacity is Required to Assure Abbott Results in Improved Student Achievement?

We advocates must recognize that the Abbott rulings are about removing professional excuses for educating poor and disadvantaged children at levels comparable to suburban children. The historic 1997 and 1998 rulings wiped away most of those excuses, for the first time anywhere in our nation. Abbott districts and schools are now adequately funded; all three and four year olds can attend preschool; every school must undergo standards based reform of curriculum and teaching; and every school building will be replaced or renovated.

Since 1998, ELC has fought with the State over poorly designed and badly flawed implementation of the Abbott rulings. If our new collaborative effort with the State bears fruit, we will begin to eliminate the last remaining excuse for improving student achievement - State resistance to making needed changes in the Abbott implementation framework.

As the State begins to exert leadership, we advocates will face our most daunting and urgent challenge in these 30 long years - to engage parents and community leaders in a sustained campaign to hold districts and schools accountable for sustained progress in student achievement.

We must start now to build the capacity of the Abbott communities to be fully engaged in this effort. We need an "Abbott Community Engagement Campaign" that will (1) train "Abbott Advocates" in every district; (2) give school management teams technical assistance and support; (3) assist parents in analyzing diagnostic data and to dialogue with principals and teachers on how curriculum and instruction can be improved; (4) providing information on school construction plans to enable parents and community organizations to have a voice in the design of new and renovated schools; and (5) provide investigative and legal resources to pursue complaints against schools and districts resistant to change.

It is essential that our friends in philanthropy and business understand the importance of community engagement in Abbott implementation and make investments to support these, and other, community capacity building activities.

This new challenge for us Abbott Advocates was aptly stated by the Court in closing the historic Abbott V decision in 1998. Justice Handler wrote:

It is not enough, however, that the three branches of government, sometimes working together and sometimes at apparent odds, have each responded to the challenge to carry out the Constitution's command of a thorough and efficient education. We must reach the point where it is possible to say with confidence that the most disadvantaged school children in the State will not be left out or left behind in the fulfillment of that constitutional promise. Success for all will come only when the roots of the educational system -- the local schools and districts, the teachers, the administrators, the parents, and the children themselves - embrace the educational opportunity encompassed by these reforms.

Thank you.