The educational future of NJ’s poorest urban schoolchildren is once again in the hands of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which has set a September 22 date for oral arguments in the next round of legal battles around school funding. The question before the Court: should the landmark Abbott remedies guaranteeing funding equity and required supplemental programs for some 300,000 poor urban students be replaced by the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA)?

The case pits the State of New Jersey, through the Attorney General’s Office, against Education Law Center (ELC), representing the students and families in NJ’s 31 poor urban or "Abbott" school districts.

By the end of June, both the State and ELC had filed lengthy documents with the Court setting forth their arguments. (See links below.) The documents lay out sharply different assessments of whether the SFRA, passed by the slimmest of margins in a lame duck holiday session of the NJ legislature last winter, meets the Constitutional standards set by the state Supreme Court during several decades of Abbott rulings.

An impressive list of organizations has asked for amicus ("friend of the court") status in support of ELC’s position. These include the Urban Mayors Association, the Association for Children of NJ, a coalition of special education advocates, the Black Issues Convention, the Hispanic Directors Association, and the NJ Education Association. Fifteen Abbott districts also filed amicus briefs along with certifications from district superintendents detailing the cuts to existing programs and staff that their districts will have to make if SFRA is upheld by the Court, and the Abbott remedies are ended.

The latest addition to the amicus list is a brief from a group of nonAbbott districts challenging the SFRA’s "adequacy budget" calculations and other features which the districts argue will lead to chronic underfunding and "leveling down" of high quality education programs. This challenge, initiated by the organization Dollar$ & Sense on behalf of some 35 nonAbbott districts, is especially significant given the State’s explicit request that the Court uphold SFRA, not just for the 31 Abbott districts, but for all school districts in NJ.

The State’s brief, filed in March, asserts that the SFRA provides a "thorough and efficient" education for all New Jersey children as required by the State Constitution. The State goes on to argue that, because of SFRA, there is no longer a need for Abbott "parity" funding and supplemental programs – remedies mandated by the Court for the Abbott students and schools to make up for decades of unequal school funding.

ELC, on behalf of the Abbott students, argues that the State has failed to show that the significantly lower per-pupil costs established by the SFRA are adequate to deliver a thorough and efficient education in the Abbott districts. ELC also argues that the State offers no evidence that mandated Abbott supplemental programs— such as tutoring, social and health services, afterschool and summer school programs— should be eliminated because they are no longer needed or ineffective. In addition, ELC argues that SFRA shifts too much of the burden for school funding away from the State and onto over-taxed urban communities.

Once the Court hears oral argument now set for Sept. 22, the justices could issue a decision or "remand" the case to a lower court for trial to create a more complete record of relevant facts before issuing a ruling.

For more information about the Abbott case, please see ELC’s press release Poor Children Still Need Court Protection.

See also the OC/OS press release featured in the last issue of the newsletter: OC/OS Supports Court Challenge To SFRA.

Prepared: July 1, 2008