If the Abbott list were updated, who would be on it? Who would be off it?

What if the Abbott list were updated?  

The list of Abbott districts is based on poverty in 1984, not 2015.  Alas, even though a lot has changed in New Jersey and the world since 1984, the Abbott list has been almost totally constant.  Since the big Abbott II decision came out in 1990, the only change to the Abbott list was the addition of 1400-student Salem City in 2004.

I think the "Abbott Remedy" is very bad public policy in the first place. Since school districts have a continuum of need and local resources, there should be a continuum of state assistance.  Since the "Abbott Remedy" has always and only applied to Abbott districts, each successive court-ordered expansion of Abbott district privileges and aid and their denial to equally poor non-Abbotts has been more and more unfair.  If the New Jersey Supreme Court believes that a court cannot demand a comprehensive, unitary funding formula that would apply to all districts, then it should not have become involved in school funding in the first place.

The New Jersey Supreme Court thought it was righting suburban/urban "savage inequalities" based on property wealth, but in applying its remedy to the Abbotts and only the Abbotts, it has created another system of odious savage inequalities caused by differences in state aid.

Compounding the problem is that the Abbott list has never been updated.  Except for Salem City, no district has been added since 1990 and no district has ever been removed.  This post is for an alternate reality where the governor, legislature, NJ Supreme Court, and Education Law Center existed in the present and sought to use a list of specially protected districts that was up to date.

How the Abbott list was made in the first place

According to Other Peoples' Children, the NJ Supreme Court created the Abbott list by taking districts in DFG A or B that were classified as "urban" in a 1984 Kean administration report. Non-urban districts in DFG A and B were intentionally excluded, as was Atlantic City, because at the time it had such a high tax base.

Although the New Jersey Supreme Court should be criticized for Abbott, the failure to update the Abbott list is the fault of the New Jersey legislature and governor, since now the legislature and governor have the power to change the list.


Many people have said it is unfair to only apply the Abbott remedy to urban districts.  I concur.

Therefore I have a simple, although strict, conception of what an Abbott district should be:

1) among the lowest in property wealth as measured by Local Fair Share per student
2) among the highest for the percentage of students who are FRL-eligible.

There are have been 30-31 Abbott districts, so I will concentrate first on the 30 poorest in tax base and student poverty and then the 60 poorest in tax base and student poverty.

The thirty districts with the weakest tax bases are:


(Bolded means it is already an Abbott district.)

FAIRFIELD TWP	CUMBERLAND	$5,006
LINDENWOLD BORO	CAMDEN	$4,908
PLAINFIELD CITY	UNION	$4,795
EGG HARBOR CITY	ATLANTIC	$4,734
RIVERSIDE TWP	BURLINGTON	$4,644
PINE HILL BORO	CAMDEN	$4,525
NEW BRUNSWICK CITY	MIDDLESEX	$4,444
PEMBERTON TWP	BURLINGTON	$4,438
PAULSBORO BORO	GLOUCESTER	$4,375
MILLVILLE CITY	CUMBERLAND	$4,361
EAST ORANGE	ESSEX	$4,264
GLOUCESTER CITY	CAMDEN	$4,219
CITY OF ORANGE TWP	ESSEX	$4,191
BELVIDERE TOWN	WARREN	$4,126
UNION CITY	HUDSON	$4,112
NEWARK CITY	ESSEX	$3,834
ELIZABETH CITY	UNION	$3,813
BURLINGTON CITY	BURLINGTON	$3,794
PROSPECT PARK BORO	PASSAIC	$3,747
PERTH AMBOY CITY	MIDDLESEX	$3,689
PATERSON CITY	PASSAIC	$3,483
WOODLYNNE BORO	CAMDEN	$3,289
PLEASANTVILLE CITY	ATLANTIC	$3,288
TRENTON CITY	MERCER	$3,251
PHILLIPSBURG TOWN	WARREN	$3,209
PASSAIC CITY	PASSAIC	$3,193
NORTH HANOVER TWP	BURLINGTON	$2,883
SALEM CITY	SALEM	$2,463
SPOTSWOOD (HELMETTA)	MIDDLESEX	$1,869
CAMDEN CITY	CAMDEN	$1,782
BRIDGETON CITY	CUMBERLAND	$1,705

The 30 districts with the highest rates of students getting Free and Reduced Lunch are.

CAMDEN CITY	95%
UNION CITY	95%
SEASIDE HEIGHTS BORO	94%
ASBURY PARK	93%
BRIDGETON	93%
WOODLYNNE	93%
PASSAIC	91%
PATERSON	90%
TRENTON	89%
SALEM CITY	89%
ATLANTIC CITY	89%
RED BANK BORO	89%
PLAINFIELD	88%
NEW BRUNSWICK	88%
EAST NEWARK	88%
CITY OF ORANGE	86%
LAKEWOOD (B)	86%
PLEASANTVILLE	85%
PERTH AMBOY	85%
ELIZABETH CITY	85%
WILDWOOD CITY	85%
PROSPECT PARK	85%
FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP (B)	83%
HARRISON	81%
COMMERCIAL TOWNSHIP	81%
LONG BRANCH	79%
EGG HARBOR CITY	79%
GUTTENBERG	78%
FAIRVIEW	77%
FREEHOLD BORO	77%
EAST ORANGE	76%

I will not include the bottom 60 for tax base and FRL-eligibility.  See "The Poorest Districts in NJ" for tax base and this post on Hoboken's demographics for the 96 highest in FRL-eligibility.

Districts That Should/Could Be Abbotts if the NJ Legislature and Education Law Center Existed in 2015
Indisputable Abbotts: In the 30 poorest in tax base and in demographics.	Good Claim Abbotts: In the 30 poorest demographically, 60 poorest in tax base	Good Claim Abbotts: In the 60 poorest demographically, 30 poorest in tax base	Borderline Abbotts: 60 poorest demographically, 60 poorest in tax base
Bridgeton, Camden, East Orange, Egg Harbor City (B), Elizabeth, Fairfield (B), Newark, New Brunswick, Orange, Passaic, Paterson, Perth Amboy, Plainfield, Pleasantville, Prospect Park, Salem City, Trenton City, Union City, Woodlynne.	Commercial (B), East Newark, Freehold Boro,	Burlington City, Gloucester City, Lindenwold, Millville, Paulsboro	Clementon, Dover, Garfield, Haledon, Irvington, Keansburg, Lawrence (B) Vineland, Woodbury,

Who should be added to the Abbott list?

• Definitely Egg Harbor City, Fairfield, Prospect Park, and Woodlynne.
• Probably Commercial Township, East Newark, and Freehold Boro.
• Probably Lindenwold and Paulsboro.
• Maybe Clementon, Dover, Haledon, Lawrence, and Woodbury.

I've been very critical of the Bacon case in the past and remain so, even though this analysis shows that Egg Harbor City and Fairfield have legitimate rights to being Abbotts and Commercial Township and Lawrence have decent claims.

Since there are sixteen Bacon districts, this underscores the wrongness of the claims of the other twelve Bacon districts.  Also, although Egg Harbor City  and Fairfield should be Abbotts, they are not remotely among the most underaided districts in New Jersey.

Who should be off?

• Harrison.  Not even close economically and is becoming a heavy PILOT user.  
• Hoboken.  Is the richest district in NJ economically and not even close demographically either.  Also heavy PILOT user.
• Jersey City.  In the poorest 40 in FRL-eligibility, but not even close economically, also the state's worst PILOT abuser.
• Long Branch.  Not even close economically.
• Neptune Township.  Not even close economically or demographically. (52% FRL-eligible)
• Pemberton Township.  Not even close demographically.  (44% FRL-eligible)
• Phillipsburg.  It has the same tax base as Trenton, but is not even close to qualifying demographically.  (53% FRL-eligible)

The passage of SFRA in 2008 was a way to avoid a contentious battle over delisting any Abbott districts.  At the time, Abbott districts strongly resisted giving up a dime, as Hoboken's superintendent, Jack Raslowsky, beautifully said in 2007, “The governor should not assist other districts at the expense of Hoboken or any of the other Abbott districts."

SFRA's solution was to Abbottize all poor districts in New Jersey, but with new state funding, not redistribution.

SFRA passed at NJ's revenue peak and since then there has been no new money for education.  Thus, the unjust aid distribution with its Abbott/non-Abbott disparities persists.  Thus SFRA has been a total failure.  

Since we can't Abbottize all poor districts in New Jersey, maybe we could change the Abbott list?