## Facts

- Public-school children from poor, urban districts (later known as “special-needs” districts) challenged New Jersey’s method of financing K–12 education under the state constitutional requirement of a “thorough and efficient system of free public schools.”
- In an earlier decision (*Abbott I*), the New Jersey Supreme Court remanded the case for administrative fact-finding on whether the then-governing Public School Education Act of 1975 (PSEA) and its funding mechanisms provided a constitutionally adequate education in those districts.
- After extensive hearings, an administrative law judge developed a record on spending levels, educational programs, and conditions in the poor urban districts compared with property-wealthy suburban districts.
- The Commissioner of Education concluded that the PSEA satisfied the “thorough and efficient” clause; the State Board of Education adopted that determination.
- The plaintiffs appealed; the Appellate Division largely sustained the administrative result, and the plaintiffs sought review in the New Jersey Supreme Court.
- The record showed major differences in per-pupil expenditures and educational offerings between poor urban districts and affluent districts; the Court described the urban districts as facing severe disadvantages associated with concentrated poverty and related conditions that increased educational needs.
- The case reached the New Jersey Supreme Court on review of the administrative record and the constitutionality of the PSEA as applied to the poor urban districts.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey’s school-finance scheme under the PSEA violated the state constitution’s “thorough and efficient” education clause as applied to poor urban (“special-needs”) districts.
2. Whether large interdistrict disparities in per-pupil funding and educational opportunity denied children in special-needs districts the constitutionally required level of education.
3. Whether constitutional compliance for special-needs districts required regular-education funding that was substantially equivalent to funding in property-rich districts.
4. Whether the State must provide additional compensatory or supplemental programs and services in special-needs districts beyond simple dollar parity because of concentrated disadvantage.
5. What remedial direction the Court should give, given the Legislature’s primary role in designing and funding the public-school system.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the PSEA financing scheme, as implemented, violated the “thorough and efficient” clause as applied to the poorer urban, special-needs districts.
- The Court found that funding levels in those districts were not sufficient to give students a realistic chance to receive the constitutionally required education, particularly when compared with students in property-wealthy districts.
- The Court required the State to assure that funding for regular education in special-needs districts would be substantially equivalent to that in the more affluent (property-rich) districts.
- The Court also held that, because of the special disadvantages faced by students in poor urban districts, constitutional compliance required more than equalized regular-education dollars: the State had to provide additional programs and services aimed at addressing those disadvantages.
- The Court did not draft a new finance statute itself; it remanded to the Legislature and Executive to create and implement a constitutionally acceptable remedy, while making clear that future judicial review would remain available if the political branches failed to satisfy the constitutional command.

## Legal Principles

- The “thorough and efficient” clause imposes a substantive state obligation to provide an education that equips children for citizenship and effective participation in the workforce.
- The constitutional duty is statewide and applies equally to children in poor and rich districts; it is not satisfied when the State’s finance structure leaves children in certain districts without the resources needed to reach the required educational level.
- A school-finance law may be unconstitutional “as applied” when its operation produces major resource disparities that deny students in disadvantaged districts an equal educational opportunity measured against what the Constitution requires.
- For special-needs districts, the Constitution requires regular-education funding that is substantially equivalent to that provided in property-rich districts.
- Because concentrated poverty and related conditions increase educational need, constitutional compliance for special-needs districts can require additional compensatory programs and services beyond parity in regular-education spending.
- The Legislature bears primary responsibility to design and fund a constitutional system, but courts must declare when the enacted approach fails the constitutional standard and may direct the State to cure the deficiency.

## Conclusion

*Abbott v. Burke* (1990) held that New Jersey’s school-finance scheme under the PSEA failed the state constitution’s “thorough and efficient” requirement as applied to poor urban districts, because those districts lacked funding and educational opportunity comparable to property-rich districts; the Court required substantial equivalence in regular-education funding plus additional compensatory measures for special disadvantages, and it remanded to the political branches to implement a compliant remedy subject to further review.


Abbott v. Burke, 119 N.J. 287, 575 A.2d 359 (1990)