The Governor says he supports the "concept," but not the "execution."

The Education Commissioner says it’s "a label" that has led to "inequities."

The president of the NJ Senate says schools that depend on it "need to learn to live with less."

And the communities that need it most worry it will disappear.

What is it? Abbott.

Abbott is shorthand for the landmark NJ Supreme Court decisions – Abbott v. Burke -- on school funding and educational opportunity for the state’s most disadvantaged schoolchildren. The Abbott rulings require that students in the poorest 31 urban districts get the same per pupil funding as students in the wealthiest and most successful districts (also known as "parity"). Abbott also requires the state to fund supplemental programs, like pre-K, full-day kindergarten, reading tutors and after-school programs, to help close achievement gaps and overcome the effects of poverty.

Abbott is the best school funding decision in the nation for poor, urban schoolchildren. The New York Times has called it "the most significant education case" since Brown v Board of Education outlawed school segregation.

Yet Abbott has never received the full support of a State administration in Trenton. For decades, the State contested Abbott in the courts, and then refused to comply with orders to equalize funding and implement needed reforms to address the decades-long record of neglect and inequality that compelled the Supreme Court to act. Only after the Court issued unequivocal directives in 1997 (Abbott IV) and 1998 (Abbott V) did the State equalize funding and begin providing preschool and other critical supplemental programs. (See more on Abbott history here.)

Today the fate of Abbott and the equity commitments it represents again hangs in the balance. As the State moves to develop a new school funding formula, a central question is whether a new formula will preserve Abbott programs and funding and extend such supports to all "at risk" students and districts, or whether budgetary pressures will produce a new formula that dilutes support for urban schools, undermines quality in successful suburban communities, and pits districts against each other in competition for an inadequate pool of funds. If that happens, all of NJ’s school children and citizens will be losers.

There is good reason to be concerned and confused about the current Administration’s attitude towards Abbott. During his gubernatorial campaign, candidate Corzine told audiences across the state that he supported Abbott and would work to increase state support for public education. He was rewarded with overwhelming electoral support in urban areas and won over 80% of the black and Hispanic vote.

But since taking office in January 2006, there have been repeated indications that the Administration, the NJ Department of Education (NJDOE) and the state legislature are retreating from Abbott commitments and mandates. These indications include:

• Going to Court last spring to suspend supplemental aid and freeze Abbott budgets
• Calling for a new formula that funds "students not districts," implying that the Court-mandated remedies ordered for Abbott districts should be replaced or somehow reduced.
• Failing to include required Abbott supplemental programs in the NJDOE’s education cost study released in December, 2006
• Dissolving the NJDOE’s Abbott Division and replacing it with an "Office of Abbott Services" with an, as yet, unspecified list of services, fewer resources and fewer personnel
• Using NJDOE audits and heavy-handed budget review procedures to discourage urban districts from submitting supplemental requests for needed programs
• Failing to seek legislative action on funding to resume stalled school construction projects
• Failing to follow through on Court and legislative mandates to evaluate the effectiveness of Abbott reforms
• Referring to Abbott as merely "a label," rather than an historic set of State constitutional rights and obligations to urban school children and their communities
• Failing to engaging stakeholders and parents on key Abbott issues, such as developing the Abbott regulations, and involvement in district level reform efforts
• Lack of sustained support for key Abbott reforms, such as early literacy and secondary reform
• Persistent lack of leadership to build political and public support for Abbott and the equity commitments it represents

Make no mistake: what happens with Abbott and the new school funding formula will be a key factor in shaping NJ’s future. If the state increases investment in public education for all NJ communities and pays a larger share of local school costs, educational quality will rise, achievement gaps will close, and pressure on local property taxes will ease. If the state retreats from Abbott commitments and puts budget politics over children’s needs, we’ll get program cuts in both urban and suburban districts, divisive annual budget battles, more inequality and more lawsuits.

Abbott is part of the solution, not the part of the problem. Since Abbott funding finally started to flow in the late 1990s, after decades of separate and unequal NJ schools, there has been real progress. Today, over 40,000 three- and four-year-olds attend high-quality, early childhood programs. The math and language test score gap between urban and suburban 4th graders has been reduced significantly. NJ boasts the highest high school graduation rates in the country, including the highest rates for African American and Hispanic students, (though significant gaps among groups and communities remain.) Much remains to be done, but these are not small accomplishments.

The problem is not too much funding for poor schools, but inadequate support for all schools at the state level. Right now, New Jersey ranks near the top in overall per pupil spending on education and #1 in support for poor, urban schoolchildren. But it is #42 out of 50 in the share of school costs picked up by the State—about 40%. This is well below the national average of over 50% and the primary reason for NJ’s high property tax rates.

This is the problem that needs to be fixed. Turning back the clock back on Abbott won’t get it done, and retreating from education equity is the wrong direction for our children, our schools and our state.

Prepared: May 8, 2007