ATTAINING HIS OR HER PLACE:CLOSING NEW JERSEY’S HISTORICAL ACHIEVEMENT AND OPPORTUNITY GAP

Katelynn LucykPO360 Race & Ethnicity in Politics

December 6, 2013

2

“[The New Jersey] constitutional vision irrefutably presumes

that every child is potentially capable of attaining his or her

own place as a contributing member in society with the ability to

compete effectively with other citizens and to succeed in the

economy” –The Supreme Court of New Jersey (Keith 2013).

Relevance

Congress approved the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in a

proposed effort “to close the achievement gap with

accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left

behind” (Congress 2001, Section 1). This had the specific

intention of eliminating the gap in performance between the

socioeconomic classes and races while raising the American

standard of education as a whole (Congress 2001, Section 1001).

Under this premise, the act was to ensure widespread increase in

the proficiency of American students in reading and math by the

2013-2014 academic year. The arrival of this year has forced

policymakers to consider reassessing education initiatives as

many schools will not be able to achieve the proficiency

3

standards set by NCLB (Levin 2013). The Obama administration has

responded to this with the development of alternative programs

that involve incentives while administering waivers to states

exempting their failure in NCLB with the assurance that realistic

programs will be enacted as a replacement. This has been met with

controversy as many will not as willingly forgive this inability

of the federal and state education departments to sufficiently

increase student proficiency (Levin 2013). As America continues

to lag behind in global education rankings of reading, math, and

science, the conversation continues as to how improve the

American education system to provide an equal and efficient

education to the nation’s students.

New Jersey has faired well comparatively to the nation in

reported proficiency of its students (Brody1 2013, 1). The 2013

National Report Card created by the National Assessment of

Educational Progress found that New Jersey fourth grade students

had a 49% proficiency rating in math and a 42% proficiency in

English (“Focus” 2013, NJ). This compares to the national values

of 42% and 35% for those subjects respectively at the fourth

grade level (“What level” 2013). At the eighth grade level, New

4

Jersey students had even more exceptional scores above the

proficient mark than national figures. These reports come with

excitement for the state but also with the same apprehension held

by most of the country that less than half of students are

proficient in math and reading appropriate to their grade level.

What is more concerning about the national report card for 2013

is the report that New Jersey schools, despite overall high

achievement, maintain the same achievement gap as the nation

between white students and their African American and Hispanic

peers (“What states” 2013, NJ; McGlone 2013). On average, both

the nation and New Jersey have a 25-point difference between

white and black students and a 20-point difference between white

and Hispanic students (“What states” 2013, NJ). With the end of

the NCLB era and an evident continuation of the achievement gap

it had promised the closure of, New Jersey must consider how to

move forward to provide a proper education to all students.

Historical context

Disparities in education in New Jersey have been widely

debated and observed for over forty years through both actions in

the court and in the state capitol. This recognition was specific

5

to the evidenced inequality of urban districts that could not

provide the same funding to education as their suburban and rural

counterparts. The ability to dispute this incongruence was

supported by the New Jersey state constitution that promises an

education deemed to be “thorough an efficient” for all students

(Di Tomo 2003, 330; 328). Starting in 1970, challenges to the

adequacy of education funding across all districts began to

appear in the courts as the state struggled with devising methods

to assess and address this constitutional stature (Pas n.d., 4).

New Jersey implemented alterations to statewide education funding

as a response to these initiatives that would equalize funding

through state finance of the difference in local tax revenue

available for education. However, these statures failed to limit

the amount of revenue surplus wealthy districts could

additionally contribute to their education budgets. This

continued funding inequality and by the end of the decade there

remained strong evidence for a disproportionate education system

(Pas n.d, 4-8; Di Tomo 2003, 332-333). This resulted in the first

of what would be several trials to face the New Jersey Supreme

Court under the title “Abbott v Burke” in 1981 (Di Tomo 334).

6

The Abbott trials were named for the original plaintiff

Raymond Albert who had attended a Camden public school deficient

of science, music, art, and physical education programs (Pas

n.d., 12). The next two decades would see five cases under the

Abbott designation that would occur as disputes to the state’s

attempt to correct discrepancies experienced by students like

Raymond (Di Tomo 2003). The primary focus of Abbot litigation

through the 1990’s would be the funding inequalities that were

the presumed reason for failure in low-income districts.

Specifically, Abbott attorneys argued that the constitutional

promise of a “thorough and efficient” education was not being met

due to the evidence that socioeconomic status and geographic

location had become determining factors in success rates (Pas

n.d., 9-14). By the end of the decade it would become apparent

that money was not the defining component in education quality as

outcomes remained static despite raising investments

significantly in low-income districts. This would result in

attempts to standardize curriculums further and consider factors

such as teacher training and adequate availability of supplies in

improving school performance (Pas n.d., 15-16). Abbott litigators

7

would again refute the attempts made by state legislature with

claims that special-need districts required programs designed

with the needs of low-income students in mind (Pas n.d. 17-18).

This concept that arose in the Abbott V trial at the turn of the

millennium would require the state to implement “whole school

reform” in the most underachieving districts in the state (termed

“Abbott districts”). This reform included mandates for half-day

preschool, full day kindergarten, educational summer programs,

and investment in school infrastructure (Di Tomo 2003, 337-338)..

The emphasis in early-childhood education was supported by

research in which it was observed that students of poverty had

higher rates of academic success if they had received more

education at a younger age. Data is still being collected in

longitudinal studies today that are considering if Abbott

district students have largely benefited from these programs

(Barnett, Jung, Youn, Frede 2013, 18-19).

The inability to quickly assess initiatives presents a

foreboding concern in the ability to produce additional measures

that will effectively close the achievement gap. Even without

this data some scholars argue that these early childhood

8

education programs are the most efficient method of improving the

educational outcomes of low-income students (Biernat 2012).

However, the prominent size of the achievement gap in a state

with otherwise high achievement presents a compelling argument

for the consideration of supplemental or alternative programs

designed to eradicate this long-standing discrepancy. The

potential risk without these efforts is not only the educational

opportunity of minority and low-income students but also the

mythical “culture of poverty” that has additionally threatened

their futures for decades. Paul Gorski (2008) warns that poverty

cycles have driven misconceptions about the poor such as lack of

motivation and substance abuse. While these traits are not any

more descriptive of the poor than other social class, they

continue to be associated with low-income communities. For

students that are already in disadvantaged situations, these

wrongful discriminations present additional hurdles that they

must encounter to be successful in life. By eliminating the

achievement gap in New Jersey students will not only receive a

fair chance at an education but also the opportunity to break the

poverty cycle.

9

Supplemental and Alternative Proposals

Socioeconomic Integration

Definitive cases against New Jersey’s high courts such as

the Abbott litigations have set a precedent in the state for a

focus on the design and implementation of programs aimed to

improve education equality for students in the state’s poorest

districts. While this has created reforms that have made

significant strides to equalize education, the consistent

presence of the achievement gap has challenged advocates to

consider additional measures. In a lengthy review of what he

deems to be the most effective method of improving education,

Richard Kahlenberg (2012) suggests that the answers to closing

the achievement gap have been available for almost half a

century. What Kahlenberg refers to in this is the Coleman Report

of 1966 that was created under the U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare in which the educational equality was

assessed for over half a million students in America. One of the

major findings of this report was that the socioeconomic status

(SES) of the classroom environment was more predicative of

educational opportunity than any other factor; including a

10

student’s own SES. Subsequent studies presented by Kahlenberg

have supported this notion in finding a strong negative

correlation between the low-income concentration of a school and

the average achievement of its students. Across studies of the

matter, the SES makeup of schools has been determined by the

amount of students eligible for the free-or-reduced-price lunch

program. These findings are highly relevant in New Jersey where

it has been reported that segregation along socioeconomic and

racial lines is among the highest of such reports in the nation

(Keith 2013). This de facto segregation has created a system in

which a large percentage of the students living in poverty attend

schools where the majority of their classmates also live below

the poverty line. While state efforts have been attempting to

specifically improve the schools in these districts, Kahlenberg

believes this “separate but equal” approach to education reform

that keeps low and middle-to-high income students segregated is

not an adequate way to close the achievement gap.

The research presented by Kahlenberg spanning the past

fifteen years has overwhelmingly supported the benefits to low-

income students that attending a SES integrated school provides.

11

In consideration of how this compares to efforts to improve low-

income schools, Montgomery County, Maryland has served as the

model for comparison in this (Kahlenberg 2012, 4-5; Keith 2013,

24-25). Montgomery’s preexisting housing initiative created

opportunities for low-income families to live in more affluent

neighborhoods and send their children to the schools there,

generating more SES integration in these schools. Montgomery

would later create programs that took the same approach as many

other states (including New Jersey) to improve the education

quality of their low-income schools by investing more funding and

allocating more resources to these schools. This allowed for

researchers to examine the outcomes of students across these two

approaches. Results from this study would find that low-income

students in the more affluent schools not only outperformed their

peers at the low-income schools but also that this approach was

more cost-effective. This improvement was able to occur for low-

income students at no detriment to the achievement of middle-to-

upper class students. This, along with other supporting research,

has presented an economic interest within the benefits of

12

socioeconomic integration as well as an argument for the general

effectiveness of the practice.

Those in support of these efforts to increase socioeconomic

integration have devised ways in which this can be accomplished

without generating significant financial burdens. Kahlenberg, who

has committed his life’s work to the study of this integration,

has devised a two-tier plan that he believes can efficiently

implement this practice while being mindful of cost

effectiveness. The first of these initiatives would be the

further development of magnet schools in low-income areas. Magnet

schools entice middle-to-upper class students to travel to these

neighborhoods to attend school and this then allows for increased

integration within these locations. The second part of his plan

involves financial incentive for more affluent schools to accept

low-income students from other districts. Kahlenberg has seen

this concept grow to dozens of school districts in the nation and

has helped it become established in districts as big as Chicago.

New Jersey has relatively low inter-district school choice

options compared to the vast majority of the country

(Tractenberg, Sadovik, and Liss 2004, 2). Magnet schools such as

13

that of Montclair that have facilitated significant integration

would have to serve as a model for the proper expansion of this

proposal (Flaxman 2013, 8).

Lauren Keith (2013) is not satisfied with Kahlenberg’s plan

as she maintains that housing policies like those of Montgomery

County are essential to the socioeconomic integration of public

schools. Keith argues that low-income housing should be mandating

in all towns to prevent the high concentrations of poverty in

urban environments that has been occurring in America. She

additionally provides an economically enticing plan in noting

that this provides private sector opportunity where there is a

current shortage in public sector affordable housing. This idea

has a historical context in New Jersey where it was ruled in a

state Supreme Court case against the town of Mount Laurel that

affordable housing must be made available in all towns on the

basis of regional need. Governor Chris Christie has openly

opposed this ruling in his tenure in office and disagrees with

that these measures are necessary (Mooney1 2013).

Despite support in research and the economic advantages

presented by integration plans, these proposals to change the

14

socioeconomic make up of the classroom have faced an adverse

reception. Kahlenberg describes the amount of negativity he has

met in his ideas as wide-reaching as both sides of the political

isle have shied away from supporting his views. Republican

rejection of SES integration has been most notable where GOP

elected officials in districts with integration plans already in

place have attempted to overturn these initiatives. Kahlenberg

notes that this has not been received well by the constituents

and that voters actively oppose these efforts when enacted. While

Democrats do not openly oppose these programs, their lack of

support shows an absence of courage to look beyond the generally

accepted methodology of focusing on improving low-income schools.

In a smaller subset of liberals, it is perceived that integration

on the socioeconomic level ignores the importance of racial

integration. This will be discussed within the next portion of

this report, however it is important to note that supporters of

socioeconomic integration agree with the importance of

integration along these lines as well and see this method as the

way this can be facilitated.

Racial Integration

15

Brown v Board of Education has served for the past sixty years as

the most significant historical moment in civil rights within

education. It marked the end of racial segregation in schools and

symbolized a change in the opportunities available to African

American students. While nothing can strip the significance of

this event, segregation is still a relevant issue across the

nation as de facto segregation continues to create divides of race

and ethnicity between towns and neighborhoods. This is a quality

that would not be assumed of New Jersey as it was one of the

first states to ban segregation (1881) and it has arguably the

most stringent legal policies pertaining to integration (Flaxman,

2013). However, a joint report from the Rutgers-Newark Institute

for Education Law and Policy and The Civil Rights Project of UCLA

displays the gravity of this situation in the New Jersey

education system that is reported to be one of the most highly

segregated in the country. Findings from the report show that one

in every four black students and one in every eight Hispanic

students in New Jersey attend “apartheid” schools with less than

one percent of white enrollment. These figures are furthered by

the report that over forty percent of both black and Hispanic

16

students attend “intensely segregated” schools with less than ten

percent white students and that over three-fourths of both

minorities attend “majority-minority” schools. These schools,

largely located within the state’s cities, are isolating

minorities from their white peers at alarming rates compared to

the vast majority of other states.

The scholars from Rutgers and the Civil Rights Project are

concerned with the effect this high segregation holds on the

competitiveness of minorities being educated in such highly

segregated environments and how society as a whole will reflect

this imbalance in diversity. A strong consideration for this is

that New Jersey has seen its amount of Hispanic students double

in the past 20 years (Flaxman, 2013). While the number of African

American students has seen a small decline, the number of

minority students in the state remains large and growing. A

future dilemma is thought to emerge from this as neighborhoods

and the workplace are not as segregated as the public school

system in New Jersey. The researchers argue through this that it

would be for the benefit of all students to not be isolated by

race or ethnicity in their educations as the purpose of an

17

education is for preparation for the future. An additional

consideration in integration is the reiteration of the sentiments

of advocates for integration based on SES as the schools that

fall into these categories of high segregation are often composed

of a large percentage of low-income students. This creates what

the report defines as “double segregation” due to the inhibition

that isolation in both race and social class present to

educational opportunity and success rates.

The ability to change the racial makeup of schools has more

limitations and faces greater adversity than the efforts to

integrate schools by socioeconomic lines. In 2007, the Supreme

Court ruled in Parents Involved that schools could not set quotas

for student populations based on race or ethnicity (Keith 2013).

This has resulted in advocates in many districts turning to

socioeconomic integration efforts due to the common overlap

between minority status and income. The Rutgers and Civil Rights

Project report makes similar recommendations to this effect as

they endorse integrated magnet and charter schools. Connecticut

is reported to be a model for this vision due to its ability to

create inter-district magnet schools in cities that draw in

18

students from the suburbs. The report additionally agrees with

SES integration plans to create inclusionary housing programs,

but it extends this sentiment to merging districts. Morristown

and the Township of Morris are the archetype for this concept in

as their district consolidation has allowed for successful

integration along the lines of both race and social class. The

large overlap of these concepts with SES integration due to the

inability to set racial quotas provides the much of the same

cost-effective defense as well as the same promise of economic

opportunity. Response to the report has differed between both

major parties. A representative of a conservative think tank told

The Record that the results of the report exhibit the need for

school choice programs such as vouchers to send students affected

by this discrepancy to private schools (Brody2 2013, 2).

Kahlenberg represented the view from the left in The Record by

applauding the realizations and recommendations of the report. NJ

Spotlight points out that, despite these sentiments on either side,

the evidence for lack of support for these initiatives lies in

the lessening of efforts by the state department of education to

monitor desegregation in schools (Mooney1 2013).

19

Increasing Accountability in Teachers and Curriculum

It has become apparent through legislative history that

spending is not a stand-alone factor that affects education

quality. As New Jersey attempts to move forward with more

substantial and effective programs intended to close the

achievement gap, the debate remains as to how this can be

accomplished. The current efforts of Governor Chris Christie have

highlighted this need within the state educational department in

his more generalized education reform to improve education

throughout New Jersey (“The Christie Reform” n.d.). When Christie

was initially elected into office he made drastic budgetary cuts

to state education funding. Wildly criticized for this,

predominantly by the teachers unions, Christie has disputed his

opposition with the argument that funding was not the true

hindrance to education. His administration has displayed ways in

which the school districts improperly allocated funding and that

this had been contributing significantly to the detriment of New

Jersey education (“Chris Christie tells” 2013). The reform

implemented by Christie has introduced evaluations of teachers

and schools for what he believes will increase accountability

20

through incentive. Critics have cited this effort as avoiding the

achievement gap specifically as it is intended for all New Jersey

schools (Bryant 2013). This argument has continued through the

recent reelection of the governor as his education policies

remain highly debated by New Jersey residents.

The programs that the governor has supported and signed into

effect are a two-tier approach in which teachers are held highly

accountable for performance as curriculum standards are raised.

The former effort has been one of Christie’s most discussed

initiatives in his time in office. The governor has been

particularly vocal about his support for increasing teacher

accountability by holding their tenure in the balance of

evaluations for effectiveness. This initiative was signed into

law in August of 2012 by Christie and has become known as

TEACHNJ. An appendage to this act was ratified in March of 2013

entitled AchieveNJ with the tagline, “Teach. Lead. Grow.” Both

efforts aim to severely restructure the tenure system and the

methods of evaluating teachers in a way that can be meaningful to

one another. Under TEACHNJ, teachers will receive shorter, more

cost-effective tenure hearings based primarily on their

21

effectiveness determined through a new multi-measure assessment

(TEACHNJ Guide 2012). These evaluations were specified under

AchieveNJ to be reliant on several measures of student outcome as

well as classroom observations (“AchieveNJ” 2013, 1). With the

future of their jobs on the line, Christie and his supporters

contend that teachers will have more incentive to increase the

achievement of their students.

The second approach the governor has supported to improve

education for all New Jersey students is through the Common Core

State Standards that Christie signed on to in 2010. New Jersey

became the 44th state along with Washington D.C. and the Virgin

Islands to agree to adhere to the curriculum guidelines

determined by the Council of Chief States School officers and the

National Governors Organization (“Core Curriculum” n.d.). This

initiative was developed to create standards for education and

testing measures to assess successful implementation and has been

supported by the Obama administration (Chiaramonte 2013, 1). This

hopes to raise the academic achievement of all of the state’s

students, including the poor performing low-income districts.

22

Reception of Christie’s programs has been mixed within the

state as his programs make drastic changes in some areas of

education while arguably ignoring others. Supporters of Christie

have lauded his tenure reform and programs to hold teachers and

schools accountable for student achievement. In one opinion

column from the Times of Trenton, this approach is honored for its

ability to identify not just ineffective teachers but also the

“superstars.” This column argues that TEACHNJ as a “major step

forward” and includes recommendations for further initiatives

that should be made holding teacher preparation institutions

responsible as well (Duffy 2013). Opposing this view is an

opinion piece in The Record that agrees that teachers should be

held accountable but contends that TEACHNJ presents too much

protocol that distracts from the classroom. The article argues

that efforts should be more concentrated on using more accurate

data to ensure steady improvement and not focus so much on

eliminating the few ineffective teachers (Coppola, Freedman, and

Fletcher 2013).

The Common Core programs have received similar mixed

perceptions by educators and policymakers due to confusion about

23

costs and uncertainty of teachers about its effectiveness.

Nationwide, Common Core standards have proven to be a nonpartisan

issue as the most unlikely of political and moral combinations

have been accumulating the support for this initiative (Elliot

2013). Recent reports have shown the discontent of some teachers

in New Jersey with the program that they believe hinders their

freedom in the classroom. Additional teacher concerns include the

apprehension that Common Core promotes “teaching to the test”

instead of assuring proper instruction (Chiaramonte 2013, 1). New

Jersey legislators are also concerned with the program due to the

lack of clarity that has been provided to them about the costs

and benefits of its implementation. A motion has been put forward

to suspend the program’s testing start date by a year so that

policymakers can better understand the full effect of enforcing

the Common Core (Mooney2 2013). Supporters of the program have

cited its ability to improve student critical thinking and argue

that it is a needed update in the way students should learn. This

has been observed in its implementation at some schools where

educators have seen a significant change in student expectations

(Pappas 2013).

24

School Choice

In a more direct approach to tackling the achievement gap,

Governor Christie has introduced the further development of

charter schools and implementation of voucher programs to improve

the degree of school choice in the state. Despite passing School

Choice policies in 1996 paving the way for charter schools and

other options, New Jersey has relatively low levels of public

school choice compared to many others states (Tractenberg,

Sadovnik, and Liss 2013). Christie has been a large proponent in

recent years to improving this choice for students in the state’s

most under-achieving districts. He was again met with opposition

on this agenda due to criticism that it does not help improve the

existing low-income schools and that it is limited in the amount

of students it can assist (Tractenberg, Orfield, Flaxman 2013).

Specific controversy pertaining to voucher programs has risen due

to the consideration of state funds for public education being

provided for students attending private schools, as an

overwhelming amount of these schools are religious. However,

school choice is not limited simply to vouchers and this is

something the governor has presented in his support for

25

increasing inter-district and intra-district school choice

(Tractenberg, Sadovnik, and Liss 2013). This interest has

specifically peaked with charter schools that the governor would

like to see increase in prominence.

Charter schools have experienced a substantial growth under

Christie’s time in office through his strong support of expanding

opportunity in School Choice districts. One of the biggest

proponents of these options is Newark superintendent Cami

Anderson who has driven an increase in charter school prominence

to the extent that a fourth of Newark students now attend such

schools (Moran 2013). Despite success in raising student

achievement, Anderson is beginning to struggle with maintaining

her mission to improve education for low-income students. Many of

the charter schools have recently been cited for not admitting

enough students below the poverty line or students with

disabilities (Moran 2013). Anderson has responded to this by

forcing integration in the charter schools as to keep the

traditional public schools from being primarily filled by the

students facing the most adversity. While Newark attempts to

prevent problems from arising in their School Choice initiatives,

26

other such districts in the state have presented limited data on

these issues. It is argued that this should be considered as the

program has grown significantly in cost with an unprecedented $39

million increase in expenditures since 2010 (Moran 2013). On the

opposite end of this is charter network CEO Nihat Guvercin who

contends that charters need more funding to cover facility costs.

Guvercin argues the state should cover these expenditures so that

the school budgets can focus on classroom investment (Guvercin

2013). The issues being expressed in this system primarily arise

due to the youth of the expansion and the neglect by state

efforts to track funding (Moran 2013). Should stronger efforts be

made to properly monitor charter schools, proponents of racial

and SES integration initiatives see an opportunity in school

choice availability to improve education and narrow the

achievement gap.

Recommendation:

Critical analysis of all supplemental or alternative

proposals to close the achievement gap cannot exist without

consideration for the overlap between concepts. The presence of

commonalities suggests that no individual solution can succeed on

27

it’s own and that a balance of compromises is necessary for

success. School choice is a primary example of this due to its

prevalence in the various arguments. The governor should elect to

include provisions for socioeconomic diversity within the choice

schools as a mandate for their ability to collect state funding

or vouchers. The data supporting the benefits of SES integrated

schools is overwhelmingly positive in its ability to close the

achievement gap and create greater chances of future success for

low-income students. Additionally, due to the relatively strong

correlation between minority status and income in New Jersey,

this would promote integration along lines of race and ethnicity.

This would contribute to ending the embarrassingly high isolation

of minorities that has occurred in the state’s public school

system. It would be of interest for Christie to take this

approach, as his opponents are correct in their criticism that he

has not done enough to specifically aid low-income students in

accessing equality in education. Critics have also justifiably

attacked the governor’s choice programs for their strong support

of charter schools and voucher programs that fund the private

sector. An increase in support for magnet schools would be a

28

beneficial tactic for Christie to display a true allegiance to

effective education reform.

Disregarding his school choice proposals, the governor’s

efforts to make teachers and principles more accountable and to

renovate curriculums are of a subtle, high importance to closing

the achievement gap. This program does not specifically designate

efforts that cater to the needs of the low-income districts but

it does help to increase the quality of education that will be

expected of these schools. However, these programs should be

considered as within beta stages as opposed to imperfect. Just as

early Common Core test results should not be indicative of school

failure, preeminent teacher evaluations should be critically

evaluated for accuracy. It is of the utmost importance that New

Jersey takes steps towards closing its achievement gap. This is

not only for the sake of the low-income and minority students who

have been too long neglected, but for the overall benefit of

society within the state moving forward.

29

Bibliography

“AchieveNJ: Educator Evaluation and Support in New Jersey.” State of New Jersey Department of Education. 6 Mar. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.state.nj.us/education/AchieveNJ/intro/guide.pdf

Barnett, S.W., Jung, K., Youn, M., and Frede, E.C. “Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth Grade Follow-Up.” National Institute for Early Education Research. 20 Mar. 2013. Web. 6 Dec 2013. http://nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/APPLES%205th%20Grade.pdf

Biernat, Len. “Reducing the achievement gap: There is only one real solution.” Widener Journal of Law, Economics, & Race 3, (2012): 55-102. Accessed on December 6, 2013. http://blogs.law.widener.edu/wjler/files/2012/05/biernat.pdf

Brody1, Leslie. “NJ students surpass many countries in rankings of test scores across world.” The Record. 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.northjersey.com/news/NJ_eighth-graders_pass_global_test.html

Brody2, Leslie. “Rutgers study compares racial divide in N.J. schools to ‘apartheid.’” The Record. 11 Oct. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.northjersey.com/news/bergen/Rutgers_study_compares_NJ_schools_racial_divide_to_apartheid.html?c=y&page=2

Bryant, Jeff. “What Chris Christie is hiding behind his rage at school teachers.” Campaign for America’s Future. 6 Nov. 2013. Web.6 Dec. 2013. http://ourfuture.org/20131106/what-chris-christie-is-hiding-behind-his-rage-at-school-teachers

Chiaramonte, Perry. “Teacher’s complain common core-linked lessons little more than scripts to read.” Fox News. 8 Dec. 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/08/teachers-

30

complain-common-core-linked-lessons-little-more-than-scripts-to-read/

“Chris Christie tells teacher school funding is highest its ever been.” The Star Ledger, PolitiFact. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2013/nov/10/chris-christie/chris-christie-tells-teacher-school-funding-highes/

Coppola, J., Freedman, R.S., and Fletcher, P.J. “Opinion: The burden of new education mandate.” The Record. 8 Dec. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/234932691_Opinion__The_burden_of_new_education_mandate.html

“Core Curriculum Content Standards – Content Areas.” State of New Jersey Department of Education. n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/

Di Tomo, John. “Does New Jersey’s solution to its education crisis run afoul of the United States Constitution?” Journal of Constitutional Law 6, no. 2 (2003): 328-348. Accessed on December 6, 2013. https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume6/issue2/DiTomo6U.Pa.J.Const.L.328(2003).pdf

Duffy, Janellen. “Opinion: TEACHNJ reforms are major step forwardto evaluate, reward, support teachers.” Times of Trenton. 12 Oct. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/10/opinion_teachnj_reforms_are_ma.html

Elliott, Philip. “Common Core yields odd political allegiances.” New Jersey Herald. 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.njherald.com/story/24129947/common-core-yields-odd-political-allegiances

Flaxman, Greg. “A status quo of segregation: Racial and economic imbalance in New Jersey schools 1989-2010.” The Civil Rights

31

Project. Oct. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/a-status-quo-of-segregation-racial-and-economic-imbalance-in-new-jersey-schools-1989-2010/Norflet_NJ_Final_101013_POSTb.pdf

“Focus on individual state results - NJ.” The Nation’s Report Card, National Assessment of Educational Progress. n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/comparison-graphs?st0=NJ

Gorski, Paul. “The Myth of the ‘Culture of Poverty.’” Educational Leadership 65, no. 7(2008): 32-36. Accessed on December 6, 2013. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx

Guvercin, Nihat. “Opinion: How we can improve charter school regulations.” The Record. 2 Dec. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/charters_120313.html?c=y&page=1

Kahlenberg, Richard D. “From all walks of life: New hope for school integration.” American Educator, Winter 2012-2013. Accessed on December 6, 2013. http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter1213/Kahlenberg.pdf

Keith, Lauren E. “Creating Racially and Socioeconomically Integrated Public Schools: Education and Housing Policy Matter.” Student Scholarship. 1 May 2013.Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://erepository.law.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=student_scholarship

Levin, Dan. “Education.” CQ Researcher. 15 June 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://library.cqpress.com.libraryproxy.quinnipiac.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqr_ht_education_2013&source=home#.UqVGnGSVmQQ

32

McGlone, Peggy. “Analysis of ‘Nation’s Report Card’ shows some New Jersey students lag behind.” The Star Ledger. 11 Nov. 2013.Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/analysis_of_nations_report_card_shows_some_new_jersey_students_lag_behind.html

Mooney1, John. “Fine print: Reports detail racial segregation in New Jersey public schools.” N.J. Spotlight. 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 6Dec. 2013. http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/10/14/fine-print-reports-detail-racial-segregation-in-new-jersey-public-schools/

Mooney2, John. “Common Core standards, online testing continue togain ground in NJ.” NJ Spotlight. 26 Nov. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/11/25/common-core-standards-online-testing-continue-to-gain-ground-in-nj/

Moran, Tom. “Newark’s big play on charter schools: Moran.” The Star Ledger. 1 Dec. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2013/12/post_15.html

“No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 – Section 1.” One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America. 3 Jan. 2001. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/beginning.html#sec1

“No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 – Section 1001.” One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America. 3 Jan. 2001. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html

Pappas, Tina. “School districts working to implement Common Core State Standards.” The Record. 28 Nov. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.northjersey.com/news/233717481_School_districts_working_to_implement_Common_Core_State_Standards.html?c=y&page=1

33

Pas, Emily. “Thorough and Efficient? Education Reform in New Jersey.” Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/lovely/teach/thorough.pdf

“TEACHNJ Guide.” State of New Jersey Department of Education. 6 Aug. 2013.Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.state.nj.us/education/AchieveNJ/intro/TeachNJGuide.pdf

“The Christie Reform Agenda: Putting New Jersey’s Children First by Challenging the System.” State of New Jersey Department of Education. n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://www.state.nj.us/education/reform/

Tractenberg, P., Orfield, G., and Flaxman, G. “New Jersey’s apartheid and intensely segregated schools: Powerful evidence of an inefficient and unconstitutional state education system.” Rutgers-Newark Institute on Education Law and Policy and the Civil Rights Project of UCLA. Oct. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://ielp.rutgers.edu/docs/IELP%20final%20report%20on%20apartheid%20schools%20101013.pdf

Tractenberg, P., Sadovnik, A., and Liss, B. “Tough Choices: Setting the stage for informed, objective deliberation on school choice.” Rutgers-Newark Institute on Education Law and Policy. 2004. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://ielp.rutgers.edu/docs/schoolchoicereport.pdf

“What level of knowledge and skills have the nation’s students achieved?” The Nation’s Report Card, National Assessment of Educational Progress. n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/what-knowledge

“What states are closing achievement gaps? – NJ.” The Nation’s Report Card, National Assessment of Educational Progress. n.d. Web. 6 Dec.

34

2013. http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/state-gaps