Abbott Ex Rel. Abbott v. Burke

Rule of Law:

A legislatively enacted, statewide, weighted-student funding formula that is rationally designed to provide sufficient resources for all students, including at-risk students in poorer districts, to achieve state-mandated educational standards satisfies the New Jersey Constitution's 'thorough and efficient' education clause and can replace prior court-ordered remedial funding schemes.

Facts:

• The New Jersey Constitution requires the Legislature to provide a 'thorough and efficient system of free public schools.'
• For nearly twenty years, the New Jersey Supreme Court had found the state's method of funding public schools to be unconstitutional as applied to students in poorer, urban districts, known as 'Abbott districts.'
• As a remedy, the Court had ordered the State to fund Abbott districts at parity with the state's wealthiest districts and to provide additional supplemental funding to address the unique needs of disadvantaged students.
• Over time, demographic changes resulted in nearly half of the state's at-risk students residing in non-Abbott districts, which did not receive the benefit of the court-ordered remedies.
• In response, the State of New Jersey engaged in a multi-year, expert-led process, known as the Professional Judgment Panel (PJP) process, to determine the actual costs of providing a constitutionally adequate education based on state curriculum standards.
• Following this process, the Legislature enacted the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA), a unitary, statewide formula designed to replace the previous dual system of funding.
• SFRA establishes a base per-pupil cost and adds extra funding ('weights') for students with additional needs, such as being at-risk (low-income), having Limited English Proficiency (LEP), or requiring special education.

Procedural Posture:

• In a series of prior decisions, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared the state's school funding system unconstitutional as applied to poorer urban districts ('Abbott districts') and imposed remedial orders, including funding parity with wealthy districts and supplemental aid.
• The New Jersey Legislature enacted the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA) to create a new, unitary funding system for all districts.
• The State of New Jersey filed a Motion for Review of the Constitutionality of SFRA directly with the New Jersey Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the new law was constitutional and relief from the prior judicial remedies.
• The plaintiffs, representing students in the Abbott districts, opposed the State's motion and filed a cross-motion to maintain the status quo of court-ordered funding.
• The Supreme Court determined the record was inadequate for a summary decision and remanded the case to a Special Master to conduct a plenary hearing, develop an evidentiary record, and provide findings and recommendations.
• Following extensive hearings, the Special Master submitted a report to the Supreme Court, recommending that SFRA be found constitutional but that supplemental funding for Abbott districts continue for a transitional period.
• The case is now before the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the Special Master's report and rule on the constitutionality of SFRA.