| 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.”
Last updated: December 2009
| 
