Abbott by Abbott v. Burke

Decision Date21 May 1998
Citation710 A.2d 450,153 N.J. 480
Parties, 126 Ed. Law Rep. 258 Raymond ABBOTT, a minor, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Frances ABBOTT; Arlene Figueroa, Frances Figueroa, Hector Figueroa, Orlando Figueroa, and Vivian Figueroa, minors, by their Guardian Ad Litem, Blanca Figueroa; Michael Hadley, a minor, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Lola Moore; Henry Stevens, Jr., a minor, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Henry Stevens, Sr.; Caroline James and Jermaine James, minors, by their Guardian Ad Litem, Mattie James; Dorian Waiters and Khudayja Waiters, minors, by their Guardian Ad Litem, Lynn Waiters; Christina Knowles, Daniel Knowles, and Guy Knowles, Jr., minors, by their Guardian Ad Litem, Guy Knowles, Sr.; Liana Diaz, a minor, by her Guardian Ad Litem, Lucila Diaz; Aisha Hargrove and Zakia Hargrove, minors, by their Guardian Ad Litem, Patricia Watson; and Lamar Stephens and Leslie Stephens, minors, by their Guardian Ad Litem, Eddie Stephens, Plaintiffs, v. Fred G. BURKE, Commissioner of Education; Edward G. Hofgesang, New Jersey Director of Budget and Accounting; Clifford A. Goldman, New Jersey State Treasurer; and New Jersey State Board of Education, Defendants.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Peter Verniero, Attorney General of New Jersey, for defendants (Mr. Verniero, attorney; Jaynee LaVecchia and Jeffrey J. Miller, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel; Nancy Kaplen and Michelle Lyn Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs).

David G. Sciarra, Edison, and Paul L. Tractenberg, Newark, for plaintiffs (Mr. Sciarra, attorney; Mr. Tractenberg, David B. Thronson, Newark, and Richard E. Shapiro, Jersey City, on the briefs).

Douglas S. Eakeley, Roseland, for amicus curiae The League of Women Voters of New Jersey (Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan, attorneys; Stephen R. Buckingham and James C. Drury, on the brief).

Richard A. Friedman submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Education Association (Zazzali, Zazzali, Fagella & Nowak, Newark, attorneys; Mr. Friedman and Aileen M. O'Driscoll, on the brief).

Joseph Charles, Jr., Jersey City, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Legislative Black and Latino Caucus (Mr. Charles, attorney; Raul Garcia, on the brief).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

HANDLER, J.

Our Constitution mandates that the "Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years." N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 4, p 1. This decision explains the remedial measures that must be implemented in order to ensure that public school children from the poorest urban communities receive the educational entitlements that the Constitution guarantees them.

The required remedial measures incorporate many of the recommendations made by Judge Michael Patrick King pursuant to the remand ordered by this Court in Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145, 693 A.2d 417 (1997) (Abbott IV). These measures are based on a solid evidentiary record that was fully informed by the views and recommendations of the Commissioner of the Department of Education, expert and knowledgeable witnesses offered by both parties, and the Special Master. Most important, the educational programs to be implemented through these remedial measures Disputes inevitably will occur and judicial intervention undoubtedly will be sought in the administration of the public education that will evolve under these remedial standards. Nevertheless, because of the Commissioner's strong proposals for educational reform and the Legislature's clear recognition of the need for comprehensive substantive educational programs and standards, we anticipate that these reforms will be undertaken and pursued vigorously and in good faith. Given those commitments, this decision should be the last major judicial involvement in the long and tortuous history of the State's extraordinary effort to bring a thorough and efficient education to the children in its poorest school districts.

comport substantially with the statutory and regulatory policies that define the constitutional thorough and efficient education.

I

The first round of this generational struggle commenced in 1970 when students in poor urban school districts brought suit to enforce the New Jersey Constitution's educational guarantee. Robinson v. Cahill, 118 N.J.Super. 223, 287 A.2d 187 (Law Div.1972). In successive decisions, this Court found that the system of public school funding then in place was unconstitutional. See Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273 (1973); Robinson v. Cahill, 63 N.J. 196, 306 A.2d 65, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 292, 38 L. Ed.2d 219 (1973); Robinson v. Cahill, 67 N.J. 35, 335 A.2d 6 (1975); Robinson v. Cahill, 69 N.J. 133, 351 A.2d 713, cert. denied 423 U.S. 913, 96 S.Ct. 217, 46 L. Ed.2d 141 (1975). The Legislature responded by enacting the Public School Education Act of 1975 (1975 Act), L. 1975, c. 212 (codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:7A-1 to -33 (repealed)), which this Court found to be facially constitutional. Robinson v. Cahill, 69 N.J. 449, 355 A.2d 129 (1976); Robinson v. Cahill, 70 N.J. 155, 358 A.2d 457 (1976); Robinson v. Cahill, 70 N.J. 464, 360 A.2d 400 (1976).

The second round of the struggle commenced in 1981, when public school students from Camden, East Orange, Irvington, and The Legislature then enacted the Quality Education Act of 1990. L. 1990, c. 52 (codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:7D-1 to -37 (repealed)). The Court, in 1994, found that statute unconstitutional as applied to the special needs districts because it failed to ensure parity of educational spending. Abbott v. Burke, 136 N.J. 444, 451, 643 A.2d 575 (1994) (Abbott III). The Court also found that contrary to the Court's determination in Abbott II and in disregard of a specific legislative directive, L. 1991, c. 259, § 2, the Commissioner did not address the supplemental programs that were needed to assist disadvantaged students. The Court reiterated its conclusion from Abbott II that achievement of educational success in the SNDs would not occur until such supplemental programs and In response to Abbott III, the Legislature, in 1996, passed the Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act (CEIFA). L. 1996, c. 138 (codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-1 to -34). Plaintiffs challenged the new legislation. The Court found CEIFA to be facially constitutional in its adoption of substantive standards, referred to as "Core Curriculum Content Standards" (CCCS), that served to define a thorough and efficient education. Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 168, 693 A.2d 417. However, the Court found CEIFA to be unconstitutional as applied to the SNDs because the statute failed to guarantee sufficient funds to enable students in those districts to achieve the requisite academic standards, id. at 174, 693 A.2d 417; because CEIFA's supplemental programs, Demonstrably Effective Program Aid (DEPA), N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-18, and Early Childhood Program Aid (ECPA), N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-16, were not based on a study of the students' actual needs or the costs of meeting those needs, id. at 180, 693 A.2d 417; and because the statute failed to address the facilities problems of the SNDs, id. at 186, 693 A.2d 417.

                Jersey City challenged the constitutionality of the 1975 Act as applied.  The Court remanded the case for an Administrative Law Judge to develop an evidentiary record to demonstrate the existence, nature and extent of the educational deficiencies in the poor urban school districts.  Abbott v. Burke, 100 N.J. 269, 301-02, 495 A.2d 376 (1985) (Abbott I).   That hearing confirmed that the districts were not providing the constitutionally mandated thorough and efficient education and that the 1975 Act and its funding were unconstitutional as applied to those districts.  Abbott v. Burke, No. EDU 5581-88 (OAL 1988).  The Commissioner and the State Board of Education disagreed.  The Court, on direct appeal, reversed the State Board's decision and declared the 1975 Act unconstitutional as applied to the State's twenty-eight poorest urban districts (special needs districts, SNDs, or Abbott districts).  Abbott v. Burke, 119 N.J. 287, 575 A.2d 359 (1990) (Abbott II).  As a remedial measure, the Court ordered that the 1975 Act be amended or new legislation be passed to ensure substantial equality in funding between the special needs districts and the property-rich districts.  Id. at 385, 575 A.2d 359.   The Court required that the level of funding "be adequate to provide for the special educational needs of these poorer urban districts" and "address their extreme disadvantages."  Ibid.  The Court also determined that special programs and services were required in the special needs districts.  Id. at 386, 575 A.2d 359
                services were identified and implemented.  [710 A.2d 456] Abbott III, supra, 136 N.J. at 454, 643 A.2d 575
                

At that point, sixteen years after the start of the Abbott litigation, the Court found that the continuing constitutional deprivation had persisted too long and clearly necessitated a remedy. Id. at 201-02, 693 A.2d 417. While recognizing that increased funding for regular education in the SNDs was not sufficient to remedy the educational deficiencies in those districts, we mandated, as an interim remedy, that the State provide parity funding for each SND for the 1997-1998 school year. Id. at 189, 693 A.2d 417. The Court also directed that firm administrative controls accompany this increased funding to ensure the money was spent effectively and efficiently. Ibid.

The Court then remanded the case to the Superior Court, Chancery Division, to determine what judicial relief was necessary in order to address the need for supplemental programs and facilities improvements in Abbott districts. Id. at 224-26, 693 to initiate a study and to prepare a report with specific findings and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Ex parte James
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 31 Mayo 2002
    ... ... perhaps I could reach judicially the results reached in some of the decisions that led to Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480, 710 A.2d 450 (1998), which the New York Times declared "may be the most ... ...
  • N.J. Republican State Comm. v. Murphy
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 12 Agosto 2020
    ... ... 606 Abbott v. Burke , 153 N.J. 480, 710 A.2d 450 (1998), and because the act furthered the education provision ... ...
  • DeRolph v. State
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 6 Septiembre 2001
    ... ... v. Governor (1997), 142 N.H. 462, 703 A.2d 1353; Abbott ... v. Governor (1997), 142 N.H. 462, 703 A.2d 1353; Abbott v. Burke ... ...
  • Gannon v. State
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 2 Marzo 2017
    ... ... See Abbott by Abbott v. Burke , 153 N.J. 480, 558, 710 A.2d 450 (1998) (smaller class sizes provide higher ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Safeguarding the right to a sound basic education in times of fiscal constraint.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 75 No. 4, June - June 2012
    • 22 Junio 2012
    ...v. Burke, 751 A.2d 1032, 1035 (N.J. 2000); Abbott ex rel. Abbott v. Burke, 748 A.2d 82, 96 (N.J. 2000); Abbott ex rel. Abbott v. Burke, 710 A.2d 450, 474 (N.J. 1998); Abbott ex rel. Abbott v. Burke, 643 A.2d 575, 582 (N.J. 1994); Abbott ex rel. Abbott v. Burke, 575 A.2d 359, 412 (N.J. 1990)......
  • HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 97 No. 4, April 2020
    • 1 Abril 2020
    ...last resort NJ 1993 1993 WL 379818 Trial court NJ 1994 136 N.J. 444 Court of last resort NJ 1997 149 N.J. 145 Court of last resort NJ 1998 153 N.J. 480 Court of last resort NJ 2000 163 N.J. 95 Court of last resort NJ 2000 164 N.J. 84 Court of last resort NJ 2002 170 N.J. 537 Court of last r......
  • William S. Koski & Rob Reich, When "adequate" Isn't: the Retreat from Equity in Educational Law and Policy and Why it Matters
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 56-3, 2007
    • Invalid date
    ...III), 643 A.2d 575 (N.J. 1994); Abbott by Abbott v. Burke (Abbott IV), 693 A.2d 417 (N.J. 1997); Abbott by Abbott v. Burke (Abbott V) 710 A.2d 450 (N.J. 1998); Abbott by Abbott v. Burke (Abbott VI), 748 A.2d 82 (N.J. 2000); Abbott v. Burke (Abbott VII), 751 A.2d 1032 (N.J. 2000); see also A......
  • Footing the bill for a sound basic education in New York City: the implementation of Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 32 No. 5, September 2005
    • 1 Septiembre 2005
    ...436-37 (N.J. 1997)). (55.) Id. (56.) Abbott IV, 693 A.2d at 456. (57.) Greif, supra note 47, at 615. (58.) Abbott v. Burke ("Abbott V"), 710 A.2d 450, 515 (N.J. (59.) Greif, supra note 47, at 615-16. (60.) Id. at 626. (61.) Id. at 628. (62.) Id. at 628-43. (63.) Id. at 638, 640-41. (64.) Id......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 provisions

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT