Over the past 30 years, The Star-Ledger has strongly supported a series
of decisions by the New Jersey Supreme Court intended to provide ade
quate funding, programs and facilities for disadvantaged children
in urban school districts. In a recent editorial, however, The Star-Ledger
implies that the public's patience, and the paper's, is wearing thin
be cause of spending irregularities and insufficient proof of academic
progress in the Newark, Paterson, Jersey City and Camden districts.
A little history may encourage more patience. More than 50 years
ago, the best schools in New Jersey were in the largest cities because
the tax base in those days was suf ficient to support excellent teachers,
reasonable class sizes and sound facilities. After World War II, the
exodus from the cities to the suburbs eroded the cities' tax base
and resulted in a steadily diminish ing level of support for city
schools. Neither the executive nor legislative branches of state government
took corrective action.
When urban education advo cates filed the Robinson vs.
Cahill suit in 1970, the disparity in funding between wealthy suburban
and poor urban districts was enormous. Nor was that disparity promptly
remedied despite resort to the courts. In the more than 30-year history
of the Robinson vs. Cahill and the subsequent Abbott vs. Burke litigation,
four state statutes providing for state funding of pub lic education
-- each enacted by the Legislature and signed by a governor -- were
held to be unconstitutional. As the court stated in a 1990 decision,
the state had failed to supply a level of funding "ade quate to provide
for the special educational needs of these poorer urban districts,
and address their extreme disadvantages."
The judiciary's response was cautious and restrained. The Supreme
Court repeatedly urged the other branches of government to take action
to remedy the vast inequity between suburban and urban school resources.
Finally, in 1997, 16 years after the Abbott litigation commenced
and 27 years after Robinson vs. Ca hill was filed, the New Jersey
Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to provide funding parity between
urban and wealthy suburban districts for the 1997-98 school year.
The court also directed that "firm administrative controls accompany
this increased funding to ensure the money was spent effectively and
efficiently."
Although severe funding disparities were allowed to continue for
at least 50 years, funding parity is only eight years old, and there
is a lot of catching up to do.
The state also defied and ig nored demands that it identify necessary
supplemental programs for disadvantaged children. In 1991, implementing
the Supreme Court's direction, the Legislature ordered the state education
commissioner to undertake a study of essential supplemental programs
for urban students. No such study was undertaken.
After years of state inaction, the court intervened again in 1998
to order full-day kindergarten, high- quality preschool programs,
a reform plan designed to improve reading and mathematics skills,
and other enhancements, including substantial facilities improvements,
all designed to address and eventu ally remedy deficiencies caused
by years of inadequate funding and failed programs.
Even those initiatives met continued resistance from the state.
Initially, the state attempted to substitute day care programs for
the court-ordered preschool, re quiring repeated recourse to the court
to rectify inexplicable lapses by state officials in implementing
the court's decisions.
By 2002, only 50 percent of the eligible preschool population was
being served. This extremely im portant and highly promising program
is now in its early stages and warrants an adequate opportunity to
prove its value to urban schoolchildren.
In that context, the warning in The Star-Ledger editorial that urban
school advocates "cannot expect things to go on forever as they have"
appears to ignore the state's 50-year history of urban school neglect.
Reasonable urban school advocates understand the need for greater
contribution by cities whose financial condition has improved, and
no urban school ad vocate is unconcerned about financial irregularities
in preschool administration or school facilities construction.
But we ignore the past at our peril. Urban school reform efforts
deserve a fair chance and sufficient time to prove their value. After
50 years of neglect, there is no justifi cation for abandoning or
diluting reforms that hold the promise of remedying the educational
defi ciencies that dashed the hopes of hundreds of thousands of children
whose chances of success were diminished by a second-rate education.
Never again should New Jersey turn its back on its urban schoolchildren.