On May 15, OC/OS distributed a statement entitled "Our Children/Our Schools Calls for Accountability, Not Posturing, on School Spending". The statement was circulated to New Jersey press and legislators, as well as members and supporters.

Several reporters quoted from the statement in articles that appeared the following day about the May 15 Senate Education Committee hearing on the Abbott audits (See: Wasteful School Spending Angers Legislators and Panel Urges Effort to Reclaim Misspent Abbott Aid).

In the weeks since, the furor that erupted over the presumed waste of taxpayer money by the Abbott districts —based in large part on inaccurate press coverage of the audits and political posturing on the part of legislators—has not died down. In fact, fuel has been added to the fire in the form of news stories about severance packages negotiated with superintendents in Keansburg and Hoboken.

Months of mudslinging at the Abbotts by the press and the legislature begs the question: Is the timing of the latest attack against the poor, urban districts simply a coincidence? With the State and Education Law Center (ELC) squaring off again before the NJ Supreme Court—this time over the constitutionality of the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 and the future of the Abbott designation—the answer appears to be "no."

As noted in its statement, OC/OS "supports full and open examination of all public spending, including the items flagged by the DOE’s auditors." The same can be said of superintendent "buyouts" and other contracts entered into by districts. The goal of any such investigation must be to ensure that resources reach the classroom and the needs of children are met.

But schoolchildren are not being well-served when journalists and political leaders label district spending as "waste" solely as an excuse to cut school budgets instead of redirecting resources to student needs or improving accountability for public spending. It is important to note that KPMG, the firm that conducted the audits, called many of these very same expenditures "inconclusive" or "discretionary." In some cases, legitimate spending was classified in this way simply because purchase orders or other documentation wasn’t readily available.

In fact, out of $4 billion in total Abbott spending, only $83 million was flagged by KPMG’s audits. That’s just 2%. Of course, all public funds must be accounted for. But to broadly characterize Abbott districts’ spending as rife with examples of rampant waste is irresponsible and damaging and clearly serves a political, rather than an educational, purpose.

To counter assertions like these, the Education Law Center has begun a series of news releases entitled Busting the Abbott Myths:

Myth #1: Abbott Districts Spend the Most Per Pupil.

Myth #2: Abbott Robs From Other Schools Districts.

Myth #3: Abbott Districts Waste Taxpayer Money.

Prepared: July 1, 2008