June 21, 2005 - Newark, New Jersey

The NJ State Board of Education is set to rule that students in 16 rural districts are not receiving a "thorough and efficient" education under the state school funding law, known as the Comprehensive Education and Improvement Financing Act (CEIFA). The conclusion is the main ruling in the State Board’s Legal Committee Report on the districts’ appeal challenging CEIFA under the Education Clause of the NJ Constitution. The districts are also seeking the additional funding, preschool and other "Abbott" remedies provided to students in 31 poor urban or "Abbott" districts under the NJ Supreme Court’s rulings in the landmark Abbott v. Burke case.

The Legal Committee Report will be acted on by the full State Board in July. The Report overturns an April 2003 ruling by the Commissioner upholding CEIFA as applied to all of the districts, except Salem City which became an Abbott district in 2004.

The 16 districts covered by the ruling are: Cape May County – Woodbine; Cumberland County -- Commercial Township, Maurice River, Fairfield, Lawrence and Upper Deerfield; Atlantic County – Buena Regional, Egg Harbor City, Hammonton; Ocean County – Ocean Township, Little Egg Harbor Township, Lakehurst, Lakewood; Salem County – Quinton Township; Bergen County – Wallingford; Gloucester County – Clayton Borough.

Based on the record developed before an administrative law judge, the Report cites numerous deficiencies in these districts including: low academic performance on the state assessments; high suspension rates; large class sizes; limited programming and teachers with advanced degrees; insufficient art, music, world language and science classes; a lack of services and programs for students with disabilities; and inadequate libraries and media centers. The Report also finds that, although the conditions of rural poverty "mirror" those in urban communities, the rural districts can only offer limited, half-day preschool programs, and lack funding for alternative education, counseling, special education and other supplemental or "at-risk" programs.

The Report concludes that the education provided to rural students "simply cannot be considered adequate" by any measure. The Report also concludes that, like their urban counterparts, the rural districts receive insufficient funding under the CEIFA funding law, particularly because the Legislature has not followed the law in four years.

The Report, however, does not recommend providing the Abbott remedies to address education inadequacies in the districts. Instead, the Report directs the Commissioner to assess the needs of each district, and propose a remedy to the State Board by December.

"We are pleased that the State Board has concluded that CEIFA does not work for rural students and districts, the same way it fails urban students," said Fred Jacob, the districts’ attorney. "We are disappointed, however, that the Board is unwilling to apply the Supreme Court’s Abbott remedies to our districts. We need additional aid, preschool and the other Abbott programs now, not later," he added.

"We will be urging the State Board to provide immediate relief to rural students and schools," said David Sciarra, ELC Executive Director and Abbott counsel. ELC participated in this case before the State Board in support of the rural districts and their students. "There is no reason to delay providing parity foundation funding, preschool for all three and four year olds, and school facilities improvements. These remedies are working for urban students and schools, and should be expanded to cover our state’s neediest rural communities."