The Star-Ledger Editorial Page is applauding Judge Peter E. Doyne’s decision that the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision Abbott vs. Burke II is obsolete. Here’s the Ledger precis:

‡¤Total state aid to the 31 Abbott districts for 2008-2009 is $4.65 billion — 55 percent of all state aid to schools.

‡¤Twenty-three percent of students are in Abbott districts; 77 percent in non-Abbotts. And 49 percent of students considered to be disadvantaged are in non-Abbott districts.

‡¤Districts in the lowest socio-economic categories that are not considered sufficiently “urban” to qualify under Abbott are deprived of the benefits.

‡¤On average, the Abbott districts are actually capable of raising more local tax money per pupil than some wealthier districts.

Judge Doyne exercised a bit caution by installing a safety net beneath the 31 poor urban districts designated as Abbott, ordering a 3-year period during which funding would continue, probably to ensure that the State D.O.E. can really pull its new funding formula off. But this was a clear win for Corzine, the Assembly, and the D.O.E. Corzine, no doubt basking in the glow, has already vowed to fight the 3-year transition. The primary advocates for the Abbott districts, the Education Law Center, are apparently sleeping it off since no one can reach them for comment.

Here’s the most interesting part of the decision: Abbott vs. Burke not only mandated that the State provide funding for the 31 urban districts to provide “a thorough and efficient education”, but mandated that the funding be at the level of our richest districts. Judge Doyne, however, overturns that definition of equity:

The State’s obligation to attain that minimum is absolute — any district that fails must be compelled to comply. If, however, that level is reached, the constitutional mandate is fully satisfied regardless of the fact that some districts may exceed it. In other words, the Constitution does not mandate equal expenditures per pupil.

Ironically, “equal expenditures per pupil,” regardless of town of residence, is the engine that drives the State Funding Reform Act, which will replace the Abbott rulings as a formula to divvy up State education aid unless the Supreme Court overturns Judge Doyne’s ruling. The D.O.E. has established “adequacy formulas” which dictate how much each district, regardless of wealth, should spend on everything from transportation to custodians to curricula. (No, it doesn’t establish adequacy for staff salaries, which account for about 80% of a district’s budget.) While the Judge has just ruled that it’s okay for one district to spend more than another as long as poor kids are taken care of thoroughly and efficiently, he’s also undermined the S.F.R.A, which uses obsolete Abbott logic: per-pupil costs should be the same throughout New Jersey.

Local districts have been apoplectic about the adequacy formulas (called QSAC, or Quality Single Accountability Continuum — catchy, huh?) and the D.O.E. has been relentless about enforcement. Will Judge Doyne’s ruling insert a valium into this dynamic? Will rich districts continue to bite their nails to the quick worrying about losing their bells and whistles? Will the Education Law Center regain consciousness and fight to regain lost ground? Will the D.O.E. surprise everyone by capably managing a funding formula that requires accuracy and timing?

Tell us what you think!