From WolfWikis

Leandro vs. State of North Carolina

Leandro vs. State of North Carolina, commonly referred to as "The Leandro Case," was a law suit filed in 1994 on behalf of students and parents from five low wealth North Carolina counties. These citizens argued that their school districts were unable to raise adequate funding and that the state was failing to provide equal education to all students by providing equal funding, as they argued was assured in the State Constitution.

The case made it to the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1999 and was heard by Judge Howard Manning Jr. Ultimately Manning ruled that the State has not been providing a "sound, basic education" to the students in these low wealth counties, which every student in the state is assured to have according to the State Constitution. Although equal quality of education is guaranteed, equal funding is not a part of this according to the Constitution and the court's ruling.

Since the case, more attention has been given to the funding in these low wealth schools and many counties have received extra funding from the state in an effort to achieve a "sound, basic education" for all students. More pressure is being put on policy makers to ensure that at risk students are provided with pre-kindergarten programs, each school be staffed with competent and well trained teachers and principals, and that every school have the resources needed to provide an equal opportunity for a sound basic education to every child.

Although this court case shows promise for great change, test results for all K-12 schools for the 2005-2006 school year showed that in one out of six schools only 60% of students scored at or above proficient on end-of-grade and end-of-course test.

Terms to Know

At Risk Students

Those who, due to circumstances such as an unstable home life, poor socio- economic background, and other factors, either enter or continue in school from a disadvantaged standpoint, at least in relation to other students who are not burdened with such circumstances.

The students who are considered to be among those “at-risk” students raise distinct and separate concerns from other students. Certainly, like all students, “at-risk” students also face the risk of academic failure.¹⁰

Achievement Gap

The achievement gap is a persistent, pervasive and significant disparity in educational achievement and attainment among groups of students as determined by a standardized measure. When analyzed according to race and ethnicity, achievement disparities negatively impact educational outcomes for poor children and children of color on a consistent basis.³

Per Pupil Funding

Also referred to as "amount per student" is how much money a school, county, or district receives per student from state, local, and federal resources.¹¹

Property Taxes

A tax assessed on real estate by the local government. The tax is usually based on the value of property (including the land) you own.¹³

Public School Fund of North Carolina (PSF)

Provide monies to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and Public Charter Schools for the basic education, enrichment and strengthening of educational opportunities for the children of the State of North Carolina.

The PSF is administered through the State Board of Education (SBE) and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). Allotments in the form of dollars are provided to the charter schools by DPI based on their first month average daily membership (ADM) of student population. Each charter school receives an amount equal to the State per pupil allocation for the LEA in which the charter school resides, multiplied by thier first month ADM. State funds for children with special needs are also included in the State allotment.¹⁶

How Are Schools Funded?

Public schools in North Carolina are funded by Federal, State, and local property tax. The local school district(county or city) funds school building and facilities. State funds go towards buying books and paying teachers. Local funds in some locations also go to supplementing teacher salaries, sometimes up to 15%.

In 2007 North Carolina allotted over 7 billion dollars to fund education. This is about 2/5 of the State's overall budget. Schools get about 2/3(~66%) of the their funding from the state. Counties and cities contribute 1/4(~25%) of the budget, with the Federal government paying the remaining 10%.⁴

"North Carolina's new precollegiate education budget includes $323 million in new spending for teacher-salary increases of about 8 percent, and another $90 million for bonuses for teachers in schools that improved sufficiently under the state's education accountability program.

Low-wealth districts will get $42 million over their per-pupil allocation, and another $27 million has been set aside for support programs for disadvantaged students.

Some $10 million will go toward expanding the Learn and Earn program to more than 19 campuses. The program allows students to earn credits toward a high school diploma and a college degree simultaneously. The program currently includes 13 campuses."⁶

The Case

During May of 1994 the state of North Carolina was sued by school boards from Hoke, Cumberland, Robeson, Halifax, and Vance counties. Their suit stated that they believed their systems were not receiving the same educational opportunities as districts with more funding.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit in April of 1996, stating that according to the state constitution public schools were not guaranteed the similar quality in education.

July 1997, the ruling of the Appeals Court was overturned by the state Supreme Court on the basis that every child had a right to a “sound, basic education”.

The trial began in the Superior Court with Judge Howard Manning Jr. in September of 1999.

October 12, 2000 Manning concluded that the state funding of schools was adequate but left open the question of additional funding to the poorer districts. On October 26th Manning decided that the state must provide pre-K programs for at risk 4-year olds.

March of 2001 Manning ordered the state to formulate a plan to serve students that were at risk of academic failure within the next year.

April 2002, Manning ruled that it was the responsibility of the state to provide an equal education to all its students. He ordered that the state “remedy the Constitutional deficiency for those children who are not being provided the basic educational services” of competent teachers, good principals and sufficient funding.

Later in July of 2002, the state challenged every part of Manning's ruling, appealing the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

On August 15th of the same year Manning gave the state 10 days with which to formulate a plan that would state how in it would give the children of Hoke County a sound, basic education. On August 22nd the state dispatched an assistance team to Hoke County.

January 13th 2003, lawyers from the state challenged a court ruling that stated students who performed poorly on achievement tests were not receiving a sound, basic education. The lawyers attempted to overturn Manning's April 2002 ruling.²

The Plaintiffs

The plaintiffs in the case were students and parents or guardians from poor school systems in Cumberland, Halifax, Hoke, Robeson, and Vance Counties and the boards of education for these countries. There were also plaintiff-intervenors, students and parents from larger, wealthy school systems of the City of Asheville and of Buncombe, Wake, Forsyth, Mecklenburg, and Durham Counties. ¹⁰

The plaintiffs argued that their school systems were not receiving sufficient funding to supply their students with the same educational opportunities as students in wealthier districts of North Carolina. They alleged that their districts lack the necessary resources to provide fundamental educational opportunities for their children due to the nature of the state's system of financing education and the burden in places on local governments. ¹⁰

In short, the poor schools systems argued that they had insufficient funds, facilities, technology, staff, and opportunities needed to provide an equal and sound basic education to their students and this insufficiency was caused by the state's system for providing funds to schools. The tax base in these schools systems were too small to provide a proper education.

The plaintiff-intervenors alleged that the state's funding system did not provide sufficient resources to handle the burdens found specifically in urban school districts, specifically ESL instruction, special education, and academically gifted programs. These schools systems argued that under the state's funding system they had to reallocate substantial resources from their regular education programs in order to meet all their needs. ¹⁰

Both the plaintiffs and the plaintiff-intervenors both find fault in North Carolina's system of funding public schools and believed that they should get supplemental aid from the State in order to meet the needs of all their at-risk students. Although the rural and the urban school districts both argued that the other was treated more fairly, both showed the diversity of problems that can be found in differing school environments.

The Defendant

The State of North Carolina and the North Carolina State Board of Education

The Ruling

Judge Manning made four main rulings: ¹⁵

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 also identified a "Cycle of At Risk" and found that the state has two constitutional obligations:¹⁵

1. To provide at risk young people with early education begining 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.

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.

The NC Supreme Court also ruled that equal opportunity does not mean equal funding, but that each child does have the right to an equal, sound, basic education guaranteed in the North Carolina State Constitution.

There were six major directions the court wanted to go with the first two rulings. The court decided not to require a major overhaul of North Carolina’s education system or funding system, finding that much of the system met or exceeded constitutional requirements and that the system provided the flexibility to accommodate any new requirements. In identifying the critical responsibilities of the state and the means for measuring whether the state met those responsibilities, the court significantly limited the scope of potential constitutional issues. The ABCs accountability program is a critical component of the state’s constitutional obligations. The court aligned constitutional standards with the ABCs by setting grade-level proficiency as a clear benchmark for whether a child is on track to receive a sound basic education. The court set a requirement that local school districts must use all available resources first to provide all children with an equal opportunity to receive a sound basic education. The state is constitutionally obligated to provide preschool for at-risk four-year olds: the executive and legislative branches must determine how to implement the program at a reasonable and deliberate pace.*¹

• Note: The preschool program was overruled in a later decision.

Effects

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.⁹

References

1. Action for Children: North Carolina. (2007). What Stands Between North Carolina Students and a Sound Basic Education. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2008, from http://www.elpueblo.org/docs/Education/WHATSTANDSBW.pdf

2. Bigelow, S. (2003). Leandro Case 'not over' Manning tells UNCP Audience. The University of North Carolina at Pembroke University Newswire website: http://www.uncp.edu/news/2003/howard_manning.htm

3. Department of Public Instruction. Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2008, from http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/racg/resources/strategies/movement/definition

4. Eisley, M. (2007). The News & Observer: News for Newcomers| Paying for Public Schools. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2008, from http://www.newsobserver.com/674/story/576288.html

5. Lange, G. & Wood, C. (2006). Education Finance Litigation in North Carolina: Distinguishing "Leandro". Journal of Education Finance, 32(1), 36-70.

6. Manzo, K. K. (2006). New Spending On Schools Targets Variety of Needs. Education Week, 26(5), 19.

7. McColl, A. (2001). Leandro: The Merging of Adequacy and Standards-Based Reforms. Serve Policy Brief, 1-12.

8. Moyer, J. & Bruton, G. (2006). State Public School Fund (Charter Schools). North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 115C-238.29, 1-9.

9. National Access Network. (2008). Litigation: North Carolina. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2008, from http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/nc/lit_nc.php3

10. North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports. (2004). Retrieved Nov. 30, 2008, from http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2004/530-02-1.htm

11. North Carolina School Report Cards.. (n.d.). How to Read Your K-8 School Report Card. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2008, from http://www.ncreportcards.org/src/k8g.pdf

12. NC Atlas Revisited. (2004). Public Education: Current Issues and Challenges. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2008, from http://www.ncatlasrevisited.org/Education/eduTitle3.htm

13. property tax. (n.d.). Investopedia.com. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/property tax

14. Rolle, A., Houck, E. A., & McColl, A. (2008). And Poor Children Continue to Wait: An Analysis of Horizontal and Vertical Equity among North Carolina School Districts in the Face of Judicially Mandated Policy Restraints 1996-2006. Journal of Education Finance, 34(1), 75-102.

15. Schafield, R. (2003). The Leandro Case: Where are we and where do we go from here? NC Policy Brief, 1(4), 1-4.

16. Tomaskovic-Devey, D. & Roscigno, V. School Funding and the Quality of Education in North Carolina. Quality of Life in North Carolina, 2(1).