NJ Abbott Districts STILL oppressed?

While researching Abbott districts in New Jersey, I came across an article published in the Star Ledger this past fall (2007). It was provocative in offering the fine line between opportunities in urban and suburban education that still exist:



So what exactly are Abbott Districts?
(from wikipedia.org):

Abbott Districts are school districts covered by a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that found that the education provided to urban school children was inadequate and unconstitutional. The Court in Abbott II and in subsequent rulings, ordered the State to assure that these children receive an adequate - and constitutional - education through implementation of a comprehensive set of programs and reforms, including standards-based education supported by parity funding; supplemental programs; preschool education; and school facilities improvements. The Court in Abbott II explicitly limited the Abbott programs and reforms to a class of school districts identified as "poorer urban districts" or "special needs districts." In 1997, these districts became known as "Abbott districts."

The Court identified the specific factors used to designate districts as "Abbott districts." These districts 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.

Using these factors, the Court in Abbott II identified 28 districts as Abbott districts. The Court also gave the New Jersey Legislature or the Commissioner of Education the authority to classify additional districts as Abbott districts based on these factors, which would then entitle the children to the Abbott programs and reforms. In 1998, the Legislature classified 3 additional districts, bringing the present total of Abbott districts to 31.

The Star Ledger article shows that even today, needy districts are being ignored while wealthier areas are seeing improvements. Perhaps this suggests that lower-class poor families are still attached to the besmirchment of urbanization a century ago, that poor children are still in need of a basic “cure.” It also demonstrates the innate polarity of public education reform, in that there will always be people either for or opposed to reform measures. In this case, misappropriated funds prove to be a central theme, while many of the debates occurring in board of education meetings around the state attempt to alleviate this. Sciarra believes this is a “cruel irony,” while Malone sees this as a “reward for being good and having good quality schools.”

I happen to believe that the poor families are further oppressed by Malone’s claim, because white males, backed by corporate pressure, predominantly reign supreme within the hierarchy of our political affiliations controlling funding. How can we improve the quality of our needy schools by misaddressing the money so desperately needed to fund it? It is one of those “culture of power” situations where one must step out of their own culture to truly understand and accommodate others. When someone can not step out of their sphere of influence, they can not possibly see the greater picture.

For additional information on Abbott schools in New Jersey, visit HERE