Raymond Abbott v. Burke (Abbott V)
New Jersey Supreme Court
153 N.J. 480 (1998)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Families and school officials within several poor urban school districts, known as Abbott districts (plaintiffs), filed suit against the New Jersey government (defendant) for failing to supply the funding and resources needed for a thorough and efficient education, in violation of the New Jersey State Constitution. The Abbott districts lacked publicly funded preschool options, and initial research linked this lack of options to the districts’ children falling behind their peers upon starting elementary school. The case traveled through the court system four times, leading to a final decision that reviewed the remedial measures recommended by the lower court and required the state to guarantee the Abbott districts’ children their constitutional right to a thorough and efficient education. The measures discussed included expanded kindergarten and preschool programs and whole-school reform, a reform style focused on simultaneous institutional change of the schools’ culture, instruction, curriculum, and assessment rather than on sporadic change of one institutional piece at a time. Whole-school reform specifically emphasized early educational initiatives and listed early education as an integral component of the program. The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the recommended measures.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Handler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
