Supporters of school vouchers filing suit Top teachers union calls legal action 'a PR stunt' Thursday, July 13, 2006 • BY JOHN MOONEY • Star-Ledger Staff School voucher advocates plan today to file a class-action lawsuit against the state and at least two dozen school districts in the first major legal effort to bring the hotly contested use of vouchers to New Jersey. The lawsuit, Crawford v. Davy, will be filed in state Superior Court in Newark, they said, and will demand that the state and districts provide families of 60,000 children in 96 "failing schools" the right -- and the money -- to attend other schools of their choice, public or private. "This is about forcing through the judicial branch what is not being provided through the public schools of the state," said the Rev. Reginald Jackson, a leading black pastor and prominent backer of vouchers in the state. "Quality education is a civil right, and we can't wait any longer," he said. According to a draft of the complaint obtained by The Star-Ledger, the schools would be those where a majority of children have failed the state's proficiency tests in language arts and math for two consecutive years. Also included are schools where more than three-quarters failed either test for two straight years. The schools are mostly located in the state's large urban districts like Newark, New Brunswick, Camden and Elizabeth. But also included as defendants are districts not usually on the list of underperformers, like Englewood and Bound Brook. The lawsuit -- named after three Newark boys who are the lead plaintiffs and the state's education commissioner, Lucille Davy -- follows similar legal actions taken in other states, so far with no success. A program in Florida that is similar to what is being proposed was recently ruled unconstitutional by that state's highest court. But the advocates -- led by Jackson's Black Ministers Council of New Jersey, the Latino Leadership Alliance and a pro-voucher group known as Excellent Education for Everybody -- contend New Jersey is especially ripe for challenge. They cite its strongly worded constitution and activist courts in previous legal suits that have provided billions in additional aid to urban schools but have brought only limited improvements, if any. Among a flurry of figures and test scores, the complaint points to Newark, where more than $16,300 is spent per pupil but which still has some schools where fewer than 10 percent of students reach what it called the state's "minimal" standards. "The courts in New Jersey have taken a very active role in providing opportunity for schoolchildren, but it's clear that money alone won't solve it," said Clint Bolick, a prominent national figure in the voucher movement who is joining the advocates in announcing the New Jersey suit. "No state has tried harder to buy its way to adequacy," he said yesterday. "Clearly it hasn't been enough." The lawsuit is sure to be sharply contested by the state and the districts, as well as advocates on the other side of the hot-button issue of vouchers, including the state's predominant teachers union. Expecting the long-rumored lawsuit, leaders of the New Jersey Education Association met yesterday afternoon to start plotting their response. "It's a PR stunt," said Steve Wollmer, an NJEA spokesman. "It's an attempt to create the impression of public support that they don't have." Others said it was a clear attempt to deprive public schools of needed funds, and they said recent gains in many urban schools could be undermined. One critic pointed out that many of the state's highest-performing schools remain among its wealthiest. "Money is not the only reason they are successful, but it is certainly necessary to begin the discussion," said Junius Williams, a board member of the Education Law Center, which has led much of the state's equity cases. The plaintiffs are facing a daunting task in approaching a state court system that has committed billions of dollars to New Jersey's neediest schools through the state Supreme Court's landmark Abbott v. Burke school equity rulings. Interestingly, the new case does not contend that the Abbott rulings have failed outright, but that enough schools have fallen short that a drastic remedy is required. "This is not an abandonment of Abbott," said Bolick, an Arizona-based lawyer who has argued voucher cases in other states. "We are perfectly happy to see Abbott continue. There are some schools where it seems to be working. "But these kids don't have another five or six years," he continued. "It is clear in those schools, Abbott is not working." Bolick is a key player in the new case, providing legal assistance and some needed star power to a cause that has so far mostly languished in the state. A Linden native and graduate of Hillside High School and Drew University, he is expected to attend a Statehouse press conference today announcing the suit. But Bolick also has already begun to pitch the case to a broader audience, including in an opinion piece yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. Critics see Bolick's presence as a clear sign that this is part of a national strategy, funded by national pro-voucher groups. "This is being funded by out-of-state money and is clearly an incursion into New Jersey that (Gov. Jon Corzine's) administration needs to respond to," Wollmer said. "This is part of a much bigger movement, and this is their coming-out party in New Jersey." A spokesman for Davy -- who has been the acting commissioner for the last nine months and was given the full title by Corzine just this week -- said she wouldn't comment on the lawsuit until it is filed. John Mooney covers education. He may be reached at jmooney@starledger.com or (973) 392-1548. © 2006 The Star-Ledger. Used by NJ.com with permission.