Will Plaintiffs Appeal South Carolina “Minimally
Adequate” Decision?
Ruling that South Carolina is failing to provide an
adequate education to its schoolchildren but declining
many of plaintiffs’ specific requests for relief,
Judge Thomas Cooper denied both plaintiff and defendant
motions to reconsider his December
2005 trial court ruling in South Carolina’s
Abbeville v. State lawsuit. While the plaintiffs
have not yet decided whether they will appeal, Carl
Epps, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The State,
“I don’t see where [the] order provides
enough relief to avoid appeal.” Bobby Stepp, an
attorney for the state, has said the state will not
appeal
In his July
12 decision, Judge Cooper reiterated his finding
that South Carolina was constitutionally required to
provide early childhood through third grade intervention
programs to the state’s neediest students, citing
their importance in overcoming the effects of poverty.
Providing these programs is necessary for meeting the
constitutional standard of “minimally adequate
education” that the state supreme court set out
in its 1999 ruling in the case, he ruled. However, the
court rejected plaintiffs’ claims that other educational
“inputs” – such as school facilities
and teacher training programs – were inadequate,
saying the evidence was not sufficient to support findings
of constitutional violations in these areas.
A Mixed Ruling
Judge Cooper’s 2005 ruling, while mixed, was
hailed as an example of the strong remedies that courts
can order in school funding litigation. In his ruling
this month, Judge Cooper reiterated his finding of the
necessity of high quality early childhood education
for the state’s poorest children.
The facts adduced at trial showed well beyond a preponderance
of the evidence that early intervention programs are
required to educate children in poverty…. Without
early intervention programs, the opportunities for children
in poverty to acquire a minimally adequate education
are illusory.
In denying relief to plaintiffs on a number of other
claims of educational inadequacy, Judge Cooper said
that “many aspects of the system cry out for improvement.”
Nonetheless, he also noted that “this case has
never been about what is best for the children
of the State,” but only to establish, based on
the evidence, what elements satisfy the state’s
obligation to provide a “minimally adequate education.”
Plaintiffs, the court ruled, did not show that the state
was failing to meet that low standard in the other areas
and also did not demonstrate that their suggested remedies
would significantly improve student achievement.
Taking the Fight “on the Road”
The refusal of the court to order more relief for South
Carolina’s under-funded schools was a disappointment
to education advocates, and Education First, a coalition
of educators and other education stake-holders, chose
a novel way to express their displeasure. Billboard
advertisements along I-95 in South Carolina, paid for
by Education First, will now welcome motorists to the
“home of ‘minimally adequate education,’”
criticizing the low constitutional standard the state’s
courts have set (see story at The
State). The billboards also call on lawmakers
to “fund education equity now!”
Prepared by Matthew Samberg, July 26, 2007
|
