Updated: Friday, 03/08
Abbott Program Information
1   Position Paper
2   Rutgers Communication
3   DHS Comparisions
4   Poor Marks
5   Boosting Pay

Rutgers Communications

> t 01:26 PM 7/2/01 -0700, you wrote: 
>
To: W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D, Director of Rutgers University
Center for Early Education Research; Cecilia Zalkind, Esq., Executive Director of Association for Children of New Jersey
Re: "GETTING PRESCHOOLING RIGHT IN NEW JERSEY"
 ******************************** 
Your advocacy for children is much admired by anyone in our field. Thus we read your op-ed piece with great interest. We do have some concerns.

Better Beginnings started as a volunteer nursery school in 1967 for the precise purpose of giving poor children the same (preschool education) advantage as their more affluent neighbors. Many were not doing well in school, having started off a few steps behind.

Since then we have expanded to include affordable child care for the working poor but proud, and to fill other gaps between the haves and the have-nots in our community.

Thus, we have observed with great interest and growing alarm the saga of the Abbott Districting. We fear that, like affordable housing, it is going somewhat offtrack. 

The following is our position paper:

Position Paper
"Abbott District Plan ignores pockets of poverty in so-called “rich” districts. Thus, a plan that purports to create equality is having the opposite effect for some. In fact, in the process of designating “rich” districts and “poor” districts, ignoring the individual needs of families and children, a new form of segregation has crept in. The intentions of the Abbott plan would be better served if the planning and funding follow the needs of the children and families.

Presently, “poor” districts are determined by the number of children receiving reduced or paid lunches in each district.

A four-year-old child from some sections of Mercer County, for instance, is left out of the Abbott planning. Because she lives in a district where the number of children who receive free and reduced lunches is less than that designated by the plan, she is NOT eligible for the widely touted Abbott year of preschool learning. In fact, she will not even have a full day of Kindergarten.

Further, the working poor parents of the same four-year-old, will continue to pay for child care. If they lived in one of the “Abbott districts,” such as nearby Trenton, they would pay nothing, regardless of income.

Thus, the child is not being treated “fairly and equally”, and the parents are also slighted. In fact, one effect of the planning could be a that working poor will be drawn to the Abbott districts from other parts of the county. Thus, cities like Trenton, striving to rebuild and diversify its economic base, will actually be drawing more poor families into the city and out of the suburban municipalities.

Think about it.  The Plan is having some significant effects that are opposite of the good intentions of the planners."

We are concerned.  We have a growing population that will be seriously underserved, especially if Better Beginnings is unable to survive the effects of the "Plan".  Adding to the difficulty of community centers in Non-Abbott Districts is the growing inability to attract and retain staff.  There is no way without added funding that we will be able to compete with the salaries and signing bonuses that have been mentioned.

In addition to affordable child care, we offer a dual-immersion, biliteracy program for the children, digital inclusion program, resource and referral, peaceful problem solving, substance abuse prevention, adult workshops. None of these are required of us and are offered simply because they are needed. Our families, children and community need the services we offer.

We would like to hear from you. We are on the same side with similar objectives. Your thoughts would be valuable to us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 03 July 2001, "W. Steven Barnett" wrote:

> Bettie:

> Thank you for your thoughtful position paper.  I think that we all agree that good early education programs of the type ordered by the Court in Abbott should be available to all children from low-income families wherever they live. To understand what is happening now, it helps to recognize the basic reasons that children in some districts benefit from Abbott while children in low-income families in others districts do not.  These are:
   (1) other districts have not sought rememdy through the legal system;
   (2) other districts have greater capacity to assist their low-income populations;
   (3) neither legislators nor the governor have sought to extend Abbott-type remedies to lower income children in other districts, with the exception that the ECPA law extends preschool services to over 100 other districts;
   (4) early childhood advocates have not supported the extention of Abbott-type preschool to others.

 To be fair, it must also be recognized that children living in high-poverty neighborhoods face greater difficulties than those who live in better surroundings even if they have the same family incomes.  Having said this, I also believe that all young children deserve a good education and that poor children should have priority for public funding for a good education no matter where they live. Early childhood educators and others who recognize the value of programs such as yours should organize to advocate for state funding building out from the Abbott decision and ECPA law so that all low-income children in NJ can receive a good early education.  Supporting Abbott is part of this effort, and I think that Abbott supporters could be rallied to support young children throughout the state.
>  
> Steve
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: wbarnet@rci.rutgers.edu
From: Bettie Witherspoon <bbcdc@altavista.com>
Date: 03 Jul 2001 12:24:33 PDT
Subject: Re: Abbott Districting

Thank you for responding.  Until now, I have felt that I have been strenuously throwing cotton balls into the wind as hard as I could.  My arm was beginning to wear out, and I was getting nowhere.

Your points are very interesting and well-taken.  Your advocacy for the needs of poor children is more than admirable:  your efforts have made and will make a huge difference in their lives and futures. 

We will be pleased if we can continue to correspond with you as to action planned and/or taken.   The points you make are well taken and give us an idea of how to proceed.  We need that kind of expert information.

Thank you again.

Return to top of page
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS Comparisions
A comparison of the "Abbott" preschool requirements to the Department of Human Service requirements (for contracted centers like Better Beginnings).  You will also find a plethera of other "Abbott" information.

                            http://www.edlawcenter.org/

Return to top of page

Poor marks for state on preschools

09/26/01

By MARK PERKISS
Staff Writer

TRENTON -- New Jersey has not done enough to ensure that preschool children in the state's 30 "special needs" districts have adequate academic programs and classrooms, lawyers for students in those districts told the state Supreme Court yesterday.

"There has not been guidance, procedures or direction from the Department of Education," attorney David Sciarra, executive director of the Newark-based Education Law Center, told the justices. "We ask the court for the mechanism to hold the state accountable."

In the latest courtroom battle of the 20-year-old Abbott vs. Burke landmark school funding lawsuit, Sciarra and other attorneys argued that the state has failed to carry out a 1998 Supreme Court order to provide quality preschool programs for all 3- and 4-year-olds in the 30 "Abbott districts," which include Burlington City, Pemberton Township and Trenton.

They asked the justices to appoint a "special master," to oversee the Education Department's efforts to provide preschool programs and facilities in the Abbott districts.

Education Commissioner Vito Gagliardi Sr., who attended yesterday's hearing, vehemently objected to that idea. "The commissioner of education, either I or whomever it may be, has the competent staff to get this done without adding another layer of bureaucracy," he said.

During the hearing Deputy Attorney General Nancy Kaplen defended the Education Department and told the justices the preschool program is moving forward.

"There has been a lot of progress made," Kaplen said. "We are seeing more children enrolled. Districts are doing things that they have never had to do before -- identify and recruit children to the programs."

Still, she conceded, "This is a work in progress."

Kaplen and education department officials said there are approximately 28,000 3- and 4-year-old children enrolled in Abbott preschool programs this school year. Many of those students are attending class in trailers that serve as temporary classrooms.

Sciarra, along with lawyers for the Elizabeth, Passaic and Perth Amboy school districts, complained to the justices that districts have been frustrated in their efforts to renovate or build facilities for preschool classes, despite last year's passage of an $8.6 billion school construction program.

"Not one permanent preschool facility has been erected" three years after the Supreme Court ordered the state to provide preschool programs in the Abbott districts, Sciarra said.

In many cases, they said, district proposals for facilities have gone unanswered by the Department of Education.

Justice Gary Stein repeatedly questioned Kaplen about the process the education department uses to evaluate proposals by districts for preschool programs and facilities.

"Either the department comes up with a plan that works or the court does," he said. "The districts say, `We're being stonewalled. We get no answers.' That's concerning."

Kaplen said most Abbott districts have had their programs approved and the few that have had problems have submitted plans that were incomplete and needed more information.

While the justices and lawyers were focused on preschool issues, more than 300 people, many carrying signs saying "All Children Count," marched, chanting "No Funding, No Votes" from the courthouse to the State House to urge faster state action to fund school renovation or construction projects in Abbott districts.

Assemblyman Craig Stanley, D-Irvington, said the rally was part of a grassroots campaign to force the state to abide by previous Abbott decisions. He has introduced legislation establishing a special office in the Department of Education to implement the school construction program.

According to Joyce Harley of the Coalition for Our Children the state had identified in July $650 million worth of improvements that needed to be made to comply with the Abbott school construction decision.

"As of today not one cent has been spent addressing the deplorable situations that exist in these schools," she said.

Return to top of page

Boosting Pay
http://www.connectforkids.org/content1554/content_show.htm?attrib_id=321&doc_id=70726

This message is brought to you by Connect For Kids located at  http://www.connectforkids.org/
 

Return to top of page              Return to Index