Litigating Educational Adequacy in North Carolina: a Personal Account Ofleandro v. State, 488 S.e.2d 255 (n.c. 1997)

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina,United States
• Citation: Vol. 83
• Publication year: 2021

83 Nebraska L. Rev. 893. Litigating Educational Adequacy in North Carolina: A Personal Account ofLeandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 255 (N.C. 1997)

893

Robert H. Tiller*

Litigating Educational Adequacy in North Carolina: A Personal Account of Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 255 (N.C. 1997)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ...................................................... 893
II. Litigating Leandro ............................................. 893
III. Conclusion: Recent Developments ................................. 899

I. INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 1994, a group of school districts in North Carolina asked me and my colleagues to investigate the possibility of a lawsuit challenging the State's school finance system. In fall 2002, we received a favorable decision from the state supreme court regarding the right to a sound basic education, which was followed by a lengthy trial and a largely favorable decision from the trial court.(fn1) The State appealed, and the appeal process lasted several months. I will describe here the background and high points of the litigation and the recent July 30, 2004 ruling in the case.(fn2)

II LITIGATING LEANDRO

Our prospective clients were a small group of largely rural and poor school districts in the eastern part of North Carolina. The school superintendents in these districts felt strongly that the existing finance system was inherently unfair to the extent that it relied on local property taxes to fund education. Because of the limited tax bases in these districts, the money available for education was substantially

894

less than in wealthier districts, and the educational quality suffered accordingly.

Because of my constitutional law experience, I was asked to do the initial legal research for this possible claim. I quickly determined that an earlier decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals presented a serious roadblock.(fn3) The case had rejected a state equal protection claim based on unequal funding for a poor school district. An equal protection challenge to the existing system looked unpromising.

For this reason, I reviewed the possibility of a claim challenging the existing school finance system based on educational adequacy. The education section of the North Carolina Constitution provided a good starting point. "The people have a right to the privilege of education, and it is the duty of the State to guard and maintain that right."(fn4) "The General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools . . . wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students."(fn5) There were few cases interpreting this language. Part of the wording dated from the reconstruction era, while part of it was drafted in the 1970s. The historical evidence pertaining to the language was limited, but the language itself was strong support for a crucial proposition--that the North Carolina Constitution provided a substantive right to an adequate education. Caselaw from several other states, including Kentucky and West Virginia, also supported this approach.(fn6)

The next question was whether our clients could credibly argue that the State had denied them a right to an adequate education. To answer this question, we collected extensive data regarding our five client districts. The State had rated these districts as low-performing based on test scores and other data. Some of the specialists in the State's Department of Public Instruction were sympathetic to the plight of these poor school districts, and provided reports regarding these schools and others. Using data generated by the State and by our school districts, we compared our districts both to state averages and to wealthier districts.

We found that our poor school districts were at a disadvantage in several respects compared to the wealthier districts in the state. Even though the State provided a substantial portion(fn7) of funding for local districts, individual districts varied considerably in their ability to raise additional funds from property taxes. These funding differences

895

translated into gaps of hundreds of dollars per classroom each year. These funding differences affected teacher pay and recruitment, availability of books and other materials, the variety of program and course offerings, the quality of technology and equipment, and the maintenance of facilities. We also observed large differences in various performance indicators, including reading and math test scores...