Post by admin on Dec 6, 2008 8:25:29 GMT -5
www.app.com/article/20081205/OPINION/812050305/1001/NEWSFRONT
By RICHARD J. CONNORS • December 5, 2008
Way back in 1875, the New Jersey Constitution placed a major responsibility on our state Legislature: "to 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 18 years."
This is the famous "T-and-E" clause. Neither "thorough" nor "efficient" was defined in the constitution. The Legislature didn't define the words, either. Instead, it dumped this new responsibility onto the backs of local school districts.
This meant on the backs of local property taxpayers, where — in most communities — it still remains.
In 1971, in the case of Robinson v. Cahill, state Superior Court Judge Theodore Botter said the local property tax should be abolished as the basis of school support and replaced by a state levy. He felt our inner cities, buffeted by riots, economic decline and a mass exodus to the suburbs, no longer had the property tax bases to support quality public school educations. Our state Supreme Court, two years later, refused to go along with Botter's tax proposal, but did agree with him that urban kids were being educationally short-changed.
Thus it entered the public school thicket. We were saddled with a state income tax as a result of this first judicial intrusion. Thirty-five years later, the court is still stuck in the brambles. And we are still stuck with the state income tax.
In 1981, the case got a new name, Abbott v. Burke, and a more aggressive group of justices. Ignoring the clear language of the constitution — neither the first nor the last time it has done so — the sagacious seven assumed responsibility for the term "provide" and began dictating how public education in the urban school districts should be funded.
Interestingly, the words "thorough" and "efficient" were left undefined. For the next 17 years, the court concentrated on the money game, demanding that the state Legislature pour more and more tax dollars into the coffers of these so-called "Abbott districts." Apparently they thought throwing money at the problem would solve it. The resulting waste of millions has been well documented. We are still waiting for documentation of any substantial educational results during this period.
Numerous filings by the Education Law Center kept the case alive through the next decade and a half, and we read about Abbott v. Burke II, III and IV. The state Legislature finally bestirred itself and, in 1996, passed the Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act, 45 pages of mind-numbing detail. At least it was trying to address the T-and-E problem on a statewide basis.
Our Supreme Court, however, still was focused on the woes of the "poor" districts. In 1998 came another manifesto: Abbott v. Burke V. Ignoring the separation-of-powers principle, the court assumed the roles of chief educational policymaker and of chief executive for these districts, and gave specific orders to the state Commissioner of Education. These included half-day preschool for 3-and 4-year-olds in the Abbott districts, on site-social services where requested and a massive facilities upgrade. It further mandated that the state completely fund the facility improvements in the Abbott districts.
This brought about the infamous Schools Construction Corp. and its waste of millions of dollars. So much for the state Supreme Court as super-Legislature, super-executive.
In January, Gov. Jon Corzine and the Legislature attempted to take back control of educational policy with a new school funding law. State Attorney General Anne Milgram appealed to the Supreme Court to back off and close the book on Abbott. No such luck. The Education Law Center's David Sciarra, who has built himself a nice career in litigating Abbott, refused to go along: "We opposed the formula in the Legislature, and we will continue to oppose it in court."
And so the Abbott fiasco continues. In Abbott v. Burke XIX — yes, that's the 19th version — the Supreme Court last month appointed a special master, Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, to investigate the matter and develop "a full and complete evidentiary record that addresses the factual contentions raised by the parties . . ."
Fred Burke died in 2005. It's now anyone's guess how long his case will live.
The state Supreme Court has played with this subject for almost two generations, with little to show for it. It's time to admit failure. Follow the Attorney General's advice and close the book. Back off and allow the 2008 funding law to play out. The members of the Legislature and the governor are elected by the people. Supreme Court judges aren't. Our democracy is supposed to be built around checks and balances. We can punish governors and legislators at the polls. What checks do we have on judges?
Despite its responsibility to interpret our constitution, the state Supreme Court has never really come to grips effectively with the words thorough and efficient. It should realize that a thorough education does not begin at school but in the home. Without a teaching and nurturing home environment — one that continues at least into high school — our public schools have real problems, problems that more school funds won't solve.
Again, the judges should realize that a state with 600-plus school districts cannot provide an efficient education, certainly not one based on local property taxes. Maybe they should read Judge Botter's tax ideas again.
Richard J. Connors, Avon, is professor emeritus of political science at Seton Hall University, South Orange.
By RICHARD J. CONNORS • December 5, 2008
Way back in 1875, the New Jersey Constitution placed a major responsibility on our state Legislature: "to 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 18 years."
This is the famous "T-and-E" clause. Neither "thorough" nor "efficient" was defined in the constitution. The Legislature didn't define the words, either. Instead, it dumped this new responsibility onto the backs of local school districts.
This meant on the backs of local property taxpayers, where — in most communities — it still remains.
In 1971, in the case of Robinson v. Cahill, state Superior Court Judge Theodore Botter said the local property tax should be abolished as the basis of school support and replaced by a state levy. He felt our inner cities, buffeted by riots, economic decline and a mass exodus to the suburbs, no longer had the property tax bases to support quality public school educations. Our state Supreme Court, two years later, refused to go along with Botter's tax proposal, but did agree with him that urban kids were being educationally short-changed.
Thus it entered the public school thicket. We were saddled with a state income tax as a result of this first judicial intrusion. Thirty-five years later, the court is still stuck in the brambles. And we are still stuck with the state income tax.
In 1981, the case got a new name, Abbott v. Burke, and a more aggressive group of justices. Ignoring the clear language of the constitution — neither the first nor the last time it has done so — the sagacious seven assumed responsibility for the term "provide" and began dictating how public education in the urban school districts should be funded.
Interestingly, the words "thorough" and "efficient" were left undefined. For the next 17 years, the court concentrated on the money game, demanding that the state Legislature pour more and more tax dollars into the coffers of these so-called "Abbott districts." Apparently they thought throwing money at the problem would solve it. The resulting waste of millions has been well documented. We are still waiting for documentation of any substantial educational results during this period.
Numerous filings by the Education Law Center kept the case alive through the next decade and a half, and we read about Abbott v. Burke II, III and IV. The state Legislature finally bestirred itself and, in 1996, passed the Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act, 45 pages of mind-numbing detail. At least it was trying to address the T-and-E problem on a statewide basis.
Our Supreme Court, however, still was focused on the woes of the "poor" districts. In 1998 came another manifesto: Abbott v. Burke V. Ignoring the separation-of-powers principle, the court assumed the roles of chief educational policymaker and of chief executive for these districts, and gave specific orders to the state Commissioner of Education. These included half-day preschool for 3-and 4-year-olds in the Abbott districts, on site-social services where requested and a massive facilities upgrade. It further mandated that the state completely fund the facility improvements in the Abbott districts.
This brought about the infamous Schools Construction Corp. and its waste of millions of dollars. So much for the state Supreme Court as super-Legislature, super-executive.
In January, Gov. Jon Corzine and the Legislature attempted to take back control of educational policy with a new school funding law. State Attorney General Anne Milgram appealed to the Supreme Court to back off and close the book on Abbott. No such luck. The Education Law Center's David Sciarra, who has built himself a nice career in litigating Abbott, refused to go along: "We opposed the formula in the Legislature, and we will continue to oppose it in court."
And so the Abbott fiasco continues. In Abbott v. Burke XIX — yes, that's the 19th version — the Supreme Court last month appointed a special master, Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne, to investigate the matter and develop "a full and complete evidentiary record that addresses the factual contentions raised by the parties . . ."
Fred Burke died in 2005. It's now anyone's guess how long his case will live.
The state Supreme Court has played with this subject for almost two generations, with little to show for it. It's time to admit failure. Follow the Attorney General's advice and close the book. Back off and allow the 2008 funding law to play out. The members of the Legislature and the governor are elected by the people. Supreme Court judges aren't. Our democracy is supposed to be built around checks and balances. We can punish governors and legislators at the polls. What checks do we have on judges?
Despite its responsibility to interpret our constitution, the state Supreme Court has never really come to grips effectively with the words thorough and efficient. It should realize that a thorough education does not begin at school but in the home. Without a teaching and nurturing home environment — one that continues at least into high school — our public schools have real problems, problems that more school funds won't solve.
Again, the judges should realize that a state with 600-plus school districts cannot provide an efficient education, certainly not one based on local property taxes. Maybe they should read Judge Botter's tax ideas again.
Richard J. Connors, Avon, is professor emeritus of political science at Seton Hall University, South Orange.