Court mulls class-action suit on Jersey school vouchers

Wednesday, April 11, 2007
BY JOHN MOONEY
Star-Ledger Staff

A class-action lawsuit asking the court to allow for private school vouchers in New Jersey came up against a fundamental question yesterday: Is it even an issue for the courts to decide?

A group of parents and school voucher proponents filed the lawsuit known as Crawford vs. Davy, asking that an estimated 60,000 students in 96 low-performing schools be able to transfer to bet ter schools -- public or private -- as a constitutional right.

But the state and affected districts have sought to dismiss the lawsuit before trial, contending the matter should be left to the executive and legislative branches.

Yesterday, the motion to dismiss came before state Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster, who ap peared sympathetic to the defendants' argument, but still asked questions of both sides.

"How does the court even evaluate what is a failing school?" Shuster asked the plaintiffs' attor ney, Patricia Bombelyn.

Heralded by national conservative groups, the lawsuit is the most aggressive foray to date by a coalition of parties that have sought for nearly a decade to bring vouchers to the state.

Several were in the Trenton courtroom yesterday, including leaders of the advocacy group known as Excellent Education for Everyone that has spearheaded the case, and the Rev. Reginald Jackson, president of the state's black clergy council.

The plaintiffs' lawyers contend the state's courts have a long history in school policy in the epic Ab bott vs. Burke school equity rulings, which have mandated the expenditure of billions of additional dollars on preschool and other programs in 31 urban districts.

And they said that leaving any further action to the Legislature without the court's edict only hurts the children in schools where a majority of students consistently fail the state's tests.

"In the meantime, the children continue to be sacrificial lambs," said lawyer Julio Gomez. "They shouldn't be required to make that sacrifice until the state figures out what to do."

But lawyers for the state and the affected districts said the Ab bott cases were in response to specific efforts by the Legislature in previous school funding formulas. They said the case should at least be heard first through administrative channels, an argument that Shuster seemed to back.

"They are seeking to displace a legislative decision with their own preferred judgment," said Richard Shapiro, attorney for eight districts, including Elizabeth, Jersey City and Perth Amboy.

"They may have basis to make those claims, but they should be down the street making the argu ment," he said from the courtroom, a short walk from the Statehouse.

Shuster said he would rule on the motion within 30 days.