[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-273987-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-273987-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","supreme-court-syllabus-abbott-v-burke-a-155-97-court-decision-summary","SUPREME COURT SYLLABUS - Abbott v. Burke (A-155-97) - Court decision summary","","Supreme Court syllabus summarizing the Court’s 1998 decision in Raymond Abbott, et al. v. Fred G. Burke, et al., regarding school financing reforms. The case remanded key aspects to a Superior Court judge to conduct hearings and make findings about supplemental programs and facilities improvements in Abbott school districts. The held reforms require whole-school change, full-day kindergarten, technology and accountability programs, alternative schools, school-to-work and college-transition support, and funding and managerial oversight for life-cycle and infrastructure deficiencies.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/supreme-court-syllabus-abbott-v-burke-a-155-97-court-decision-summary/273987/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/supreme-court-syllabus-abbott-v-burke-a-155-97-court-decision-summary/273987.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Terk","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the purpose of the 1997 remand in Abbott school financing?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The Supreme Court remanded aspects of the school financing case to gather evidence and make findings on the need for supplemental programs and facilities improvements in Abbott school districts.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What major reforms does the Court require the Commissioner of Education to implement?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The Commissioner must implement whole-school reform and full-day kindergarten and preschool programs, deploy technology and accountability programs, create alternative education options, and support school-to-work and college transitions, along with procedures for supplemental programs and funding and managerial oversight for facilities deficiencies.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why does the syllabus emphasize Success For All (SFA) for elementary schools?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The Court describes SFA as the Commissioner’s recommended whole-school reform version, notes that the proposal exceeds a prototypical SFA school, and concludes it aligns with the broad statutory powers under the 1996 financing act, supporting timely implementation and evaluation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},273987,1789473954,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1099525198933,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","SUPREME COURT SYLLABUS  \n(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized) .  \nRaymond Abbott, et al. v. Fred G. Burke, et al. (A-155-97)  \nArgued March 2, 1998--Decided May 21, 1998  \nHANDLER, J., writing for a unanimous Court.  \nIn 1997, the Supreme Court remanded aspects of the school financing case to Superior Court Judge Michael Patrick King to conduct hearings and make findings and recommendations on the need for supplemental programs and facilities improvements in Abbott school districts. With the Court's approval, Judge King designated Dr. Allan Odden, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, as Special Master.  \nBoth the Commissioner and the Abbott plaintiffs submitted reports and recommendations to Judge King. Dr. Odden reviewed the proposals of the parties and issued a report (Appendix II to this opinion) . Judge King issued his report and recommendation on January 22, 1998 (Appendix I to this opinion) . The Supreme Court now addresses the recommended reforms and other proposed remedial measures.  \nHELD: The Commissioner of Education shall: 1) implement whole-school reform and full-day kindergarten and halfday pre-school programs for three-and four-year olds as expeditiously as possible; 2) implement technology programs on the request of a school or district, or as he shall otherwise direct; 4) authorize accountability programs, as may be deemed necessary and appropriate, and to coordinate them with whole-school reform; 5) implement alternative schools or comparable education programs; 6) implement school-to-work and college-transition programs in secondary Abbott schools at the request of individual schools or districts or as the Commissioner shall otherwise direct; 7) prescribe procedures and standards to enable individual schools to adopt additional or extended supplemental programs and to seek and obtain the funds necessary to implement these programs, but only when the school has demonstrated a particularized need; 8) secure funds to cover the complete cost of remediating identified life-cycle and infrastructure deficiencies in Abbott school buildings, including making available necessary temporary facilities; and 9) initiate promptly effective managerial responsibility over school construction, including necessary funding measures and fiscal reforms as may be achieved through amendments to the Educational Facilities Act.  \n1. The Commissioner's recommended version of whole-school reform for elementary schools is Success For All (SFA) . The administration, supervision, and implementation of SFA is multifaceted, with success dependent on obtaining support and approval of teachers, staff, and parents. The Commissioner and the Department of Education (DOE) have made it clear that the DOE will exercise its \"essential and affirmative responsibility\" to ensure the necessary changes take place. (pp. 9-15)  \n2. The Commissioner's proposal exceeds the requirements of a prototypical SFA school. The proposal recognizes the acute educational needs of the Abbott districts. The State's plan indicates that SFA can incorporate the Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS) . The Court concludes that the Commissioner's proposal is consistent with the broad powers given him under the Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act (CEIFA) of 1996. Whole-school reform is a remedial measure that can create the opportunity to achieve a thorough and efficient education. It is consistent with both legislative and executive educational policy and comports with the intended effect of the Court's last decision in this matter. Implementation of SFA should proceed on the schedule proposed by the Commissioner, who is to implement a comprehensive evaluation program as soon a","cbCaiel8BA28WmVw","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiel8BA28WmVw","pdf",337920,65,"English","# Key Background and Remand\n## Special Master and Reports\n# Court’s Held Reforms\n## Whole-school reform and early childhood programs\n## Technology, accountability, and alternative education\n## Transition programs and supplemental support\n## Facilities funding and construction management\n# Whole-school Reform: Success For All (SFA)\n## Program scope and schedule\n# Kindergarten and Preschool Requirements\n## Implementation timeline and statutory basis\n# Social Services and Security Needs","[{\"question\":\"What was the purpose of the 1997 remand in Abbott school financing?\",\"answer\":\"The Supreme Court remanded aspects of the school financing case to gather evidence and make findings on the need for supplemental programs and facilities improvements in Abbott school districts.\"},{\"question\":\"What major reforms does the Court require the Commissioner of Education to implement?\",\"answer\":\"The Commissioner must implement whole-school reform and full-day kindergarten and preschool programs, deploy technology and accountability programs, create alternative education options, and support school-to-work and college transitions, along with procedures for supplemental programs and funding and managerial oversight for facilities deficiencies.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the syllabus emphasize Success For All (SFA) for elementary schools?\",\"answer\":\"The Court describes SFA as the Commissioner’s recommended whole-school reform version, notes that the proposal exceeds a prototypical SFA school, and concludes it aligns with the broad statutory powers under the 1996 financing act, supporting timely implementation and evaluation.\"}]","SUPREME COURT SYLLABUS - Abbott v. Burke (A-155-97) - Court decision summary | PDF",164]