Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=9494
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:37:55+00:00

Document:
This class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in 1981 on behalf of 20 children attending public schools in the cities of Camden, East Orange, Irvington, and Jersey City. The Plaintiffs, represented by counsel from the Education Law Center, claimed that the State's system of financing public education under the Public School Education Act of 1975 (Chapter 212) unconstitutionally favored students in rich communities over those in poorer communities. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants' system of funding public education left a disparity in funding between schools in poor, urban communities and their more wealthy, suburban counterparts, which left the school districts in poorer communities without sufficient funds to properly educate their students.
Somewhere between 1985 and 1990, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Defendants' system of funding public education was unconstitutional. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on June 5, 1990. In this order, the Court directed the New Jersey Legislature to enact a new law aimed at giving greater funding to poor, urban school districts such that they would have adequate funds to provide for necessary services. This new law was to be enacted before the 1991-92 school year. Abbott v. Burke, 575 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1990).
The Legislature responded with the Quality Education Act ("QEA"), which allowed for some increased funding, but not enough to satisfy the Plaintiffs. The case wound up back before the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1992 to be remanded to the trial court. After an extensive trial, the trial judge ruled that the QEA did not meet the expectations of the 1990 New Jersey Supreme Court order. The Judge recommended that the QEA be ruled unconstitutional, which was affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court on July 12, 1994. The Court then directed the State Legislature to enact another law to address the funding issues by September of 1996. Abbott v. Burke, 643 A.2d 575 (N.J. 1994).
This ruling prompted the Legislature to pass the Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act ("CEIFA") in December of 1996. In January of 1997, however, the Plaintiffs returned to the Supreme Court of New Jersey to have CEIFA declared unconstitutional. The Court agreed with the Plaintiffs, and then gave the State Legislature specific goals for new legislation. These goals included parity in funding between wealthier and poorer school districts, and an immediate increase of $246 million in state aid to poorer school districts. Abbott v. Burke, 693 A.2d 417 (N.J. 1997). This ruling and another ruling on May 21, 1998 required a complete overhaul of the Defendants' funding procedures, and also allowed for poorer school districts to apply for increased funds, and an appeals process for those who were denied funding. Abbott v. Burke, 710 A.2d 454 (N.J. 1998); Abbott v. Burke, 693 A.2d 417 (N.J. 1997).
This case made New Jersey the first state in the United States to assure parity in educational resources to all children, regardless of economic background.
Over the past 14 years, this case has continued to show up in court due to delays in the implementation and execution of the Courts' 1997 and 1998 orders. The most recent New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion was released on May 24, 2011, declaring that the Defendants' failure to fund the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) of 2008 was a "substantial and consequential blow" to students' right to education. Abbott v. Burke, 20 A.3d 1018 (N.J. 2011).
As of this writing, the case is ongoing.
Plaintiff Description Students in poor minority communities who were adversely affected by finance provisions of the state statutory system of elementary and secondary public education.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.