Leandro Case:
Lawsuit brought in 1994 by 5 school districts
against the state of NC
Findings:
1.
Judge
Manning ruled that every child in the state has a constitutional right to a
“sound basic education” that quality of education – not equal opportunity
or funding -- should determine whether
that right has been violated.
A sound basic
education will give students:
· -Sufficient ability to read,
write, and speak English, and a sufficient knowledge of fundamental mathematics
and physical science to enable a student to function in a complex and rapidly
changing society.
· -Sufficient fundamental
knowledge of geography, history, and basic economic and political systems to
enable a student to make informed choices on issues that affect the student
personally.
· -Sufficient academic and
vocational skills for a student to successfully engage in postsecondary
education or vocational training.
· -Sufficient academic and
vocational skills for a student to compete in further education or work in
contemporary society.
Judge Manning ruled (October 2000):
1.
The
state's curriculum, testing program and overall system of funding meet the
Leandro standards for constitutionality.
2.
State's
system of certifying and licensing teachers is constitutionally sufficient.
3.
Students
not performing at grade level on the state's ABC tests are not meeting the
Leandro standard for receiving a sound basic education.
4.
System
of funding schools was sound, but the question of whether there are sufficient
resources available is a different matter.
Manning
identified a “Cycle of At Risk”:
·
“Of
the hundreds of criminal defendants that this Court has dealt with in Superior
Court who have pleaded guilty, the overwhelming majority are high school
dropouts, regardless of race. 82% of the prison population is made up of high
school dropouts.”
·
“Children
in families with incomes below the poverty line are nearly twice as likely to
be retained in a grade as children in more affluent families.”
Manning found that the state has two constitutional
obligations:
1.
To provide at risk young people with early education beginning at age
four, so
that they can have the opportunity to start kindergarten on a level close to,
if not equal to those children who are not at-risk.
(This ruling has major implications for the state. While Smart Start
has now been extended to all 100 NC counties, it is serving only a fraction of
those who arguably fall into an at risk category.)
2.
To ensure that every child has access to a sound basic education - if poor districts cannot provide their students with a sound
basic education, then the state has a constitutional responsibility to help
those poorer districts to do so.
Response
from Mike Ward and Phil Kirk to Manning's mandate (July 2002)
(Full response included a 3 page,
35 bullet response. 3 bullets listed below)
Assistance to Hoke County and Other
Plaintiff-Party LEAs
Judge Tells State to
"Fish or Cut Bait" (August 2002):
Manning
said, "the State of NC is the principal and is ultimately responsible to
ensure that children have the opportunity to receive the sound basic education.
The State of NC cannot sit back and do nothing but carp about the ineffective
use of resources by Hoke County School System(HCSS) or any other LEA when the
ineffective use of those resources negatively impacts on the children's
opportunity to receive a sound basic education."
"On
that date [August 26], you are requested to respond in clear and plain English
as to what course of conduct the State of North Carolina intends to take with
respect to providing the leadership and guidance to HCSS so that HCSS can
reallocate and focus its existing resources to assist the children of HCSS in
being provided with the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education. You may
no longer stand back and point your fingers and deny responsibility when an LEA
is ineffective. As the old saying goes, 'it's time for the State of North
Carolina, acting through the DPI and the State Board of Education, to fish or
cut bait.'"
Quality
of Life In NC: NC State University
Volume 2, number 1
In
1994 the top 10 counties spent $1294 more per child than bottom ten counties.
If
spending in all school districts were brought up to the national average of the
high spending districts, our children's educational achievement would be above
the US average, at least as measured by standardized test scores.
That
variation in school funding, reflecting local variations in the property tax
base and rate, influences student achievement means that our current practice
of funding schools primarily through property taxes at the local level prevents
every school district in the state from equally providing a sound basic
education to the children of NC.
SAT
scores 1996:
8
counties 1013 to 2000
40
counties 962 to 1012
52
counties 700 to 961
Counties
in eastern NC tended to have scores below 961, the average for Georgia, the
poorest performing state in the nation.
Higher
per-pupil expenditures tend to raise standardized test scores for a number of
reasons. More money can lead to smaller class sizes, attract better qualified
teachers, and increase the overall school environment.
The
effects of spending on student achievement are evident even when researchers
take into account family resources such as the parents' education, the family's
income, the number of parents and the like.
The Public School Forum's
Friday Report (September 2002)
School
funding sources: state 70%, federal 8%, local 22%
Local
funding is generated by property tax revenue: wealthy counties generated 4
times more than the poorest counties.
Since
the 1997 ruling of the Leandro case, the gap between top and bottom spending
counties has grown from $1,625 to $2,643 per child.
Poorest
counties tax themselves at 1.6 times the rate of the wealthiest counties, but
only generate $238,788 per child v. wealthiest counties at $939,331 per child
The
Public School Forum's Friday Report. "Finance
Study Results Show Growing Disparities." Volume 4, Issue 10. September
27, 2002. Retrieved from: http://www.ncforum.org/2002/092702.pdf
NC
State University. "School Funding and the Quality of Education in North
Carolina." Quality of Life in North Carolina, vol 2, number 1.
Retrieved from:
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/sociology/pub/qol/
Heise,
M. (2002) "Educational Jujitsu." Education Next. Retrieved
from: