Abbott V. Burke
Abbott v. Burke are cases about education where the board of education fails to provide adequate education to the urban children. Their claim is that all students should have a right to an equal education regardless of where they are from and how much money they have. There have been a few times that this case has been re opened and wouldn’t surprise me if you hear about it being revisited again. With the recent budget cuts and everything going on in this country it will be only a matter of time before it gets revisited.
Abbott v. Burke is a complex case that takes place throughout over two decades. The decisions of the New Jersey Supreme court have led to better and more progressive educational policies and funds in to poor school districts. Initially the case centered on whether or not the poor school districts should be compared to wealthier districts when it comes to considering educational funding, however now it centers on various ways of improving the school systems in the poorer communities.
In 1981 on the 5th day of February the education law center, the attorneys for the state of New Jersey’s public school children in the four most needy or poor cities in the state of New Jersey, filed a complaint against several state officials. The complaint was that they were demanding that a thorough and efficient education should be given to those children in these areas as well.
Abbott is a model for conducting successful state reform litigation. He conducted interviews with various people in the case as well as the school administrators. It is noted that it is necessary for cases like this that it should be at the highest level of the judiciary system, also noted that educational reform couldn’t be successful without the Supreme Court. Abbott success was highly dependent on the courts commitment to the reform. The task of the plaintiff was easier due to the progressive history of the court.
“Despite its progressive history, the Court's instinct for self-preservation prolonged the case. The Court's notions of self-preservation led to its continued deference to the other branches, notwithstanding repeated failures to follow the court's directives. As a result, the court exercised great restraint in ordering any specific remedies, refraining from doing so for a number of years. When the court did engage in remedial action, it did so with much hesitance and as a last resort”. (Clearing House)
Abbot as well as the court dealt with many concerns of the reform litigation. “These issues are encompassed within general concerns surrounding the institutional reform litigation, due to the differences of such litigations to traditional forms of litigation. Institutional reform litigations, also known as structural reform cases, are distinguishable from traditional litigation in various ways. First, the institutional reform litigation focuses on social wrongs instead of isolated wrongdoings. Second, the institutional reform litigation addresses the concerns of a class or group, not individuals. The group's primary connection is the institution which they are challenging. Third, such litigations seek prospective relief, that is, relief that substantially changes ("reforms") the challenged institutions. Such litigations also appeal to an activist judicial role”. (Clearing house)
Abbott focused primarily on the disparities of the funding for the districts in low poverty school districts and the problems of adequacy of public school education for less privileged communities. I feel that everyone should have a right to an education regardless of where you live. Especially in the younger grades like k through 12 you should be able to go to school and get the same education as everyone else does because who knows in the future they can come back and become teachers or lawyers or anything and help that low poverty city become better. No one should be denied an education. In 1985 the first ruling came out that ordered urban children must have the same education as wealthy children. Also in 1985 Abbott districts were made due to this ruling. “Abbott Districts are school districts in New Jersey covered by a series of New Jersey Supreme Court rulings, begun in 1985,that found that the education provided to school children in poor communities was inadequate and unconstitutional and mandated that state funding for these districts be equal to that spent in the wealthiest districts in the state”.(wiki) the constitution states that legislature should provide for the maintenance and support of an efficient public school system for the instructions of children between the ages of 5 and 18.
In 1990 the state passed a new finance law and the Supreme Court ordered funding is equalized for the poor and rich districts. Also in 1990 they stated what is considered an Abbott district and they are: * “must be those with the lowest socio-economic status, thus assigned to the lowest categories on the New Jersey Department of Education's District Factor Groups (DFG) scale;

* 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.” (wiki)
By using these few factors the courts identified 28 districts which will be known as Abbott districts. The courts also gave authority to the New Jersey legislatures or the commissioner of education to add additional districts if they fit the criteria that was listed above. Some of the districts are Newark public schools, Passaic city public schools, Patterson public schools, as well as many more.
In 1997 the court ruled a second funding law that is unconstitutional and they once again demand equal funding. After nearly a year of hearings the Supreme Court ruled that they need to have preschools as well as new school construction. The ruling foundation for the 1997, 1998 hearing framework included the following criteria:

* “Rigorous content standards-based education, supported by per-pupil funding equal to spending in successful suburban schools * Universal, well-planned and high quality preschool education for all three- and four-year olds * Supplemental ("at-risk") programs to address student and school needs attributed to high-poverty, including intensive early literacy, small class size and social and health services * New and rehabilitated facilities to adequately house all programs, relieve overcrowding, and eliminate health and safety violations * School and district reforms to improve curriculum and instruction, and for effective and efficient use of funds to enable students to achieve state standards * State accountability for effective and timely implementation, and to ensure progress in improving student achievement” (edlawcenter)
In the recent years there have been few new hearings and laws passed in 2007 Gov. Jon Corzine proposes a new school funding law that would erase the Abbott districts that would provide any district with additional funding for under privileged students. The school funding reform act is approved and signed in 2008. Also in 2008 the state filed a notion in March that the new law is constitutional and that the old Abbott laws should be eliminated. In November of 2008 the court sends the case to the lower courts for evidence hearings and leaving in place the Abbott remedies. Today the Supreme Court upholds the formula and rejects any requests by the Abbott districts and it would seem to end the case. I still think that although it says it ended the case if the laws by Corzine do not work I wouldn’t be surprised if they bring this back to court again.
In conclusion after learning about this case I was happy that some people actually do care about education. Growing up in the Newark public school system I can say that I have gotten a decent education and if this case was never brought up I may have never had the decent education that I have today.

Work cited page http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/studies/STUDY_SF-NJ-0001-Gayle.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_District http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2009/05/the_history_of_abbott_v_burke.html http://www.edlawcenter.org/ELCPublic/AbbottvBurke/AboutAbbott.htm