COURT FINDS THAT THE STATE MUST ENSURE THAT ALL CHILDREN HAVE ACCESS TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION

All of North Carolina's children may be on the road to receiving the quality education to which they are entitled. In Leandro, a case that stands to be a historic marker in education reform in North Carolina, Superior Court Judge Howard Manning decreed, "… the State of North Carolina is ultimately responsible for providing each child with access to a sound basic education and that this ultimate responsibility cannot be abdicated by transferring responsibility to local boards of education." Citing the North Carolina Constitution the Judge found that the "…State's denial of responsibility fails as a matter of law." This was Judge Manning's fourth and final ruling in the nearly eight-year-old lawsuit. The ball is now in the hands of the State, which must decide if it will gracefully accept its constitutional responsibility to ensure that every child has an equal opportunity to a sound basic education, or if it will appeal the court's order and condemn the children of North Carolina to hanging in miseducation limbo while it drags the case through the appeals process.

The History of Leandro

In May 1994, parents, school boards and students from five low-wealth counties [Cumberland, Halifax, Hoke, Robeson and Vance) filed a lawsuit naming the State Board of Education and the State of North Carolina as defendants. The low-wealth counties said that the State did not provide enough money for them to provide their children with a quality education. [The lawsuit is commonly known as Leandro, after a named plaintiff in the case.]

Six urban school districts also asked to be parties to the Leandro lawsuit, stating that the state funding formula did not provide them with sufficient money to educate their at-risk students and students for whom English is not their first language. [Asheville City, Buncombe County, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Durham County, Wake County, and Winston-Salem-Forsyth]

The State's response to the lawsuit was to dispute whether or not the counties had any legal basis to bring the lawsuit before the courts. Litigation of this issue began and eventually the matter was heard by the North Carolina Supreme Court. In 1997, the Supreme Court breathed new life in the case by finding that our state constitution guarantees "every child of this state an opportunity to receive a sound basic education in our public schools." The case was sent back to Superior Court with instructions for the lower court to assess whether or not the State had met its constitutional obligation to provide an equal opportunity for a sound basic education.

In September 1999, Superior Court Judge Howard Manning began hearing evidence in the case. Prior to the most recent ruling, the court has issued three prior opinions that concluded among other things that:

• The minimum academic performance level under Leandro is Level III or above.
• Every school in North Carolina is capable of having 90% of its students at Level III or above.
• At-risk students are entitled to pre-kindergarten programs to provide them with the educational resources necessary to obtain a sound basic education.
• Students who drop out of school are not receiving a sound basic education.

The final decision specifically incorporates Judge Manning's three prior decisions. This means that the Judge's rulings in his previous three Memorandums of Decision are a part of his fourth and final ruling.

An Overview of the Fourth Ruling

The final ruling, issued April 4, 2002, flatly rejects the State's contention that the constitutional mandate for an equal opportunity to a sound basic education was met as long as a student receives a minimally sufficient education. The State has consistently maintained that under the State ABCs system, a student who achieves Level II on state tests has been provided with a sound basic education. However, under the State's own guidelines, a student scoring Level II on the End-of-Grade, End-of-Course or Writing Tests is judged to be below grade level. In his final ruling, Judge Manning adamantly reiterates that the minimally acceptable level of academic performance under Leandro is Level III, designated under the ABCs as meeting grade level academic performance.

It is those students who are unable to make Level III on the state tests that are the focus of Judge Manning's ruling. He asserts that it is these students "…who are not being provided with the minimal educational resources necessary for them to have the equal opportunity to receive a sound basic education." Judge Manning places the responsibility for a remedy squarely on the shoulders of the State, specifying that the "…solution lies first in the hands of the General Assembly and the State Board of Education." However, he also specifies that the State should work with Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to find a solution to the problems of students receiving less than a sound basic education. He further orders that the State provide written reports every 90 days informing the Court of the steps it has taken to show ineffective schools and/or school districts how to provide all students, including those at-risk of academic failure, with a sound basic education.

Perhaps one of the most significant findings of the court is that "[a]t risk children can learn with effective, individualized and differentiated instruction delivered by a certified, well-trained, competent teacher with high expectations." The court also calls for well-trained Principals to provide effective school leadership and recruit and retain quality teachers.

There is no direct requirement in the decision for the State to supply additional funding to the LEAs; however the Judge allows for additional funding as a distinct possibility if that is what it takes to provide every student with an equal opportunity for a sound basic education. Judge Manning writes, "The solution may or may not require the expenditure of additional funds so long as the Leandro mandate is followed." Throughout the decision he stresses that the State must require LEAs to implement cost effective educational programs in their schools to provide all children with an equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education and asserts that if necessary the State must seek out additional resources to accomplish this goal.

It is too early to say what the Leandro rulings will look like in their application. However, it is clear that the State may not simply go on with business as usual when it comes to the public school system. It has taken almost eight years to get to this point, but it may well prove worth the wait.

Click here for a full copy of the opinion.

by Sheria Reid,
Education and Law Project Director