North Carolina

Trial Court Decisions | Recent Events

Historical Background

In 1987, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in Britt v. North Carolina State Board of Education, 361 S.E.2d 71, denied review of an appellate court decision dismissing plaintiffs' case, which had claimed that the state's education finance system violated the state constitution because it caused disparities in school programs and facilities. Ten years later, however, the state's supreme court distinguished the Britt "equity" decision, in Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997), and remanded plaintiffs' "adequacy" claims for trial. The court declared that the right to education in the state constitution "requires that all children have the opportunity for a sound basic education," echoing the same constitutional standard articulated by New York's highest court in CFE v. State in 1995.

Trial Court Decisions

The Leandro trial court decided to hear rural plaintiffs (Hoke County) and urban plaintiffs separately and began with the Hoke County plaintiffs. Beginning in October 2000, the trial court issued a series of opinions, in Hoke County v. State, 95 CVS 1158; the court linked the state's learning standards to "sound basic education" and required funding for pre-K for all at-risk four-year-olds.

North Carolina's State Board of Education has developed learning standards - and a curriculum and assessments aligned with those standards - based on the skills that students will need in order to be informed citizens and be gainfully employed in contemporary society. The court held that performance "at or above grade level" according to the state standards is the minimum performance standard for demonstrating that students are receiving a sound basic education. The defendant State had argued that performance one level below grade level in elementary and middle school and passing an eighth-grade level examination in high school should be adequate to demonstrate that students were receiving a sound basic education.

At-Risk Question

The court conducted additional evidentiary hearings in 2001 and, in early 2002, had the parties brief and argue the question whether "the failure of at-risk children to obtain a sound basic education" is due to insufficient state funding or lack of implementation of successful, cost-effective programs. Plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that recruitment of sufficient numbers of quality teachers is critical to children's educational success, while the State continued to contend that students are already receiving the opportunity for a sound basic education.

Final Order and Appeal

In April 2002, the court issued its fourth and final order, which held that at-risk students can learn with effective instruction delivered by "a certified, well-trained, competent teacher with high expectations" and that the State is responsible for ensuring that there is a qualified teacher in each classroom. (More on the court's conclusions).

The State appealed the decision, which went directly to the state supreme court. On July 30, 2004 the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision agreeing with the trial court’s holdings that the state was ultimately responsible “to meet the needs of ‘at-risk’ students in order for such students to avail themselves of their right to the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education,” and that the State must provide services to such children “prior to their enrolling in the public schools.” Nevertheless, the court held that the trial court’s order mandating pre-kindergarten classes for all “at-risk” prospective enrollees was not supported by a sufficient record. “At this juncture” of the case, the court concluded that such a “narrow” remedial order was “premature” and deferred to the expertise of the legislative and executive branches in matters of education policy to determine what types of services should be provided to at-risk students to prepare them for school.

Recent Events

The 2006-2007 budget included a 9.6% increase in K-12 education spending. The budget included more money for low-wealth districts and a salary increase for teachers and administrators, and funded a state-wide expansion of a pilot program for disadvantaged students. An additional $17.9 million in lottery proceeds were also earmarked to expand the More at Four pre-kindergarten program.

In the aftermath of the economic downturn, however, the FY 2009-2010 budget included significant cuts to and elimination of many programs important to compliance with the court’s requirements that every child be provided a competent teacher, a competent principal and adequate resources. On October 22, Judge Howard Manning convened a “non-adversarial” hearing to assess the impact of North Carolina’s fiscal crisis on the implementation of the remedy. In his notice of hearing, the judge noted the seriousness of the state of the economy and its impact on revenue streams for the state’s executive and legislative branches. Nevertheless, he emphasized that “The financial crisis notwithstanding, the basic educational assets guaranteed to the children in North Carolina public schools must remain in place.”

Early this year, Judge Manning ordered the State to appear before the court on May 4, 2010 and report on “exactly what immediate steps they are going to implement to ensure that there is quality classroom instruction, competent leadership and resources” in all of the elementary and middle schools.

The basis for this order was the judge’s finding, on the basis of a prior hearing, that “the proper application and use of K-2 Assessments….. in reading and mathematics should result in all children being able to perform in reading and mathematics at grade level or above...” He further determined that an elementary or middle school where the children were reading at 50% or less of proficiency “is a school where the equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education is simply not happening.”

On May 10, 2011, plaintiffs in Hoke filed a request for a hearing on the state’s reduction of pre-kindergarten services for at-risk children, elimination of End of Course testing, and defendants’ general compliance with North Carolina’s constitutional requirements. Even though the Judge has still not responded to their prior motion, the plaintiffs are pressing ahead to deal with the impact of budget cuts on pre-school and other educational services mandated in Leandro. The motion was filed in reaction to the bienniel budget adopted by the North Carolina House of Representatives, which cuts education spending and, among other things,  reduces the at-risk student services allotment by 12 percent in the next two fiscal years, and curtails pre-kindergarten services for at-risk children, including cutting 20 percent of funding from More at Four and Smart Start, two state-run pre-K programs.

Last updated: May 2011