State Reveals Arguments on Appeal in Leandro

In the "Assignments of Error" filed July 10, the State outlined the components of its appeal from Superior Court Judge Howard Manning's orders in the Leandro lawsuit. The State's list of arguments makes it clear that the State flatly rejects the basic premises of Judge Manning's decision. Unfathomably, in spite of the 1997 Supreme Court ruling that under the North Carolina State Constitution, all children are entitled to an equal opportunity to a sound basic education, the State argues that Judge Manning erred in holding that all children have an equal opportunity to a sound basic education. The State also finds error in Judge Manning's ruling that the State has the ultimate responsibility for providing every child that equal opportunity, arguing that Judge Manning cannot hold the State responsible for the failure of local school systems to provide students with a sound basic education. According to the State, delegating the responsibility for educating North Carolina's children to local school boards absolves the State of any liability if their delegates don't do a good job. In more common language this practice is known as passing the buck.

The State also argues that the evidence did not prove that any students were not receiving an equal, opportunity to receive a sound basic education; the substantial number of minority students who fail to pass the end-of-grade exams in math and reading each year were insufficient evidence to persuade the State otherwise. The State further proposes that four-year-old children do not have a constitutional right to an opportunity for a sound basic education and that the evidence did not prove that any child's education was harmed by the State's failure to provide such children with such opportunity. In addition, the State argues that Judge Manning erred in ruling that children who perform below Level III on the ABCs tests are not receiving a sound basic education; paradoxically, the State's ABCs policy requires that a student make a minimum of Level III to meet grade level requirements. Students who score less than Level III on end-of-grade tests may be retained. According to the State, students performing at Level I demonstrate "insufficient mastery of knowledge and skills in the subject matter" to be promoted to the next grade, and students performing at Level II demonstrate "inconsistent mastery of knowledge and skills in the subject matter" and are "minimally prepared to be successful" in the next grade. Throughout the Leandro hearings, the State has argued that students who achieve Level II are receiving a sound basic education.

The State's litany of arguments that challenge Judge Manning's most significant holdings belie the avowed pro-education platform of our governor and legislative leadership. A successful challenge of the Leandro decision would mean a return to the business as usual policy of public education in North Carolina, a policy that has resulted in tens of thousands of children being denied their constitutional right to a sound basic education. The most significant error in the Leandro lawsuit was the State's filing an appeal of Judge Manning's decision.

by Sheria Reid,
Education and Law Project Director