Table Of ContentWhat is an Abbot?
Abbott districts are school districts in New Jersey that are provided remedies to
ensure that their students receive public education in accordance with New
Jersey’s state constitution.
Abbott Districts
● must be those with the lowest socio-economic status,
● "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 Assessment (HSPA);"
● have a large percentage of disadvantaged students who need "an
education beyond the norm;"
● existence of an "excessive tax [for] municipal services" in the locality
where the district is located
History
In 1981, the Education Law Center filed a complaint in Superior Court on behalf
of 20 children attending public schools in the cities of Camden, East Orange,
Irvington, and Jersey City. The lawsuit challenged New Jersey’s system of
financing public education under the Public School Education Act of 1975
(Chapter 212).
This was the first aggressive act in the historic case, Abbott v. Burke, which is
widely recognized as the most important education litigation for poor and
minority school children since Brown v. Board of Education.
History
Beginning in 1981, ELC argued that the State's method of funding education
was unconstitutional because it caused significant expenditure disparities
between poor urban and wealthy suburban school districts, and that poorer
urban districts were unable to adequately meet the educational needs of their
students.
Ruling
The case eventually made its way to the NJ Supreme Court, which, in 1985,
issued the first Abbott decision (Abbott II) transferring the case to an
administrative law judge for an initial hearing.
Subsequent Rulings
In 1990, in Abbott II, the NJ Supreme Court upheld the administrative law judge’s ruling, finding
the State’s school funding law unconstitutional as applied to children in 28 “poorer urban”
school districts. That number was later expanded to 31.
The Court’s ruling directed the Legislature to amend or enact a new law to “assure” funding for
the urban districts: 1) at the foundation level “substantially equivalent” to that in the successful
suburban districts; and 2) “adequate” to provide for the supplemental programs necessary to
address the extreme disadvantages of urban schoolchildren. The Court ordered this new
funding mechanism be in place for the following school year, 1991-92.
In response to the Abbott II decision, the Legislature approved the Quality Education Act
(QEA), which modestly increased foundation aid levels for the Abbott districts, but failed to
provide parity funding.
Subsequent Rulings
In 1994, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the
remand judge. The Court then entered its second remedial order, Abbott III,
directing the Legislature to adopt another funding law by September 1996 that
would assure “substantial equivalence” in per pupil foundation funding with
suburban districts and provide the necessary supplemental programs.
In December 1996, the Legislature enacted its second funding law – the
Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act or “CEIFA” – in
response to the Court’s 1994 decision. In January 1997, the Abbott plaintiffs
asked the Court to declare CEIFA unconstitutional for failing to achieve
compliance with the Court’s prior orders. The Court acted quickly on the motion
and in Abbott IV found CIEFA unconstitutional as applied to the urban districts.
Subsequent Rulings
On review of the trial court’s decision, the Supreme Court in Abbott V accepted many of
the supplemental programs and reforms, and a plan to fund capital facilities
improvements, recommended by the remand judge. The Court also modified several
recommendations and established a unique process whereby urban districts were
afforded the right to seek additional funding for supplemental programs and capital
improvements if they could demonstrate the need. Districts were also afforded the right to
seek administrative and judicial review of decisions by the State Education Commissioner
denying requests for supplemental funds.
Taken together, the 1997 Abbott IV and 1998 Abbott V rulings directed implementation of
a comprehensive set of remedial measures, including high quality early education,
supplemental programs and reforms, and school facilities improvements, to ensure an
adequate and equal education for low-income schoolchildren.
Overall Summary
- The Abbot vs. Burke case is a litigation to improve public education for
poor children and children of color.
- The rulings for this case covers 31 low-wealth, urban school districts
- It ensures that the children in these schools are provided a “thorough and
efficient” education, as required by the New Jersey Constitution.
- The rulings from the Abbot case directed implementation of a
comprehensive set of improvements, including adequate K-12
foundational funding, universal preschool for all 3-4 year old children,
supplemental or at-risk programs and funding, and school-by-school
reform of curriculum and instruction. Even today this case is being
reformed and enforced in the 31 high-need, urban districts.
Connection To This Class
This case is very similar to the movie we saw on Thursday 9/11 as both deal
with education struggles.
Hispanic population makes up 18% of NJ’s population
Some cities are dominated by Hispanics - Union City 84%, Newark 61%.
Description:This was the first aggressive act in the historic case, Abbott v. Burke, which is widely recognized as the most important education litigation for poor and.
