Sometimes it takes a detailed policy argument to debunk an Abbott myth, but not in this case. The myth that Abbott schools have not improved despite court-mandated increases in State aid can be blown out of the water by facts and figures. Abbott detractors love to throw the "no improvement" myth around in the press and at legislative hearings. But a funny thing happens when you

We can thank officials at the NJ Department of Education for propagating this myth: the 31 Abbott districts are not as poor and racially segregated as they used to be. In trying to sell the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA), State Education Commissioner Lucille Davy and her staff often repeated that a large number of at-risk children now live outside the poorer, urban Abbott

How many times have you heard this one: "Abbott districts serve less than a quarter of the state’s students so they shouldn’t get 50% of all state school aid." People who toss this myth around seem to think taxpayers should only pay for schools in their own communities. But school funding hasn’t worked that way in New Jersey for decades, nor should it now. Public education in

Is your district not getting enough school funding? Join the chorus: blame it on the Abbott districts! That’s what legislators, State education officials and media outlets do. Almost daily we hear the refrain: the NJ Supreme Court’s Abbott rulings are the reason why students in poor and middle-income districts don’t receive the funding they need. State Education Commissioner Lucille Davy often makes this claim, most recently telling

We’re sure you’ve heard this one: "Abbott districts spend the most per pupil in New Jersey, even more than wealthier suburban districts." Here are some recent examples: State Education Commissioner Lucille Davy last month told the NJ Supreme Court that Abbott districts are spending $16,407 per pupil, but the wealthy suburban districts are only spending $13,703 per pupil, just slightly above the state average of $13,209. Or