Download
a copy of the judge's 90-page order (pdf file)
Read
a summary and analysis prepared by the state Department of
Public Instruction
Judge orders
schools to spend whatever it takes
to provide at-risk students with a quality education
In
his third and likely most important ruling in the Leandro
case, Superior
Court Judge Howard Manning Jr. on Monday said the public
schools must spend more money meeting the needs of
disadvantaged students, even if that means cutting funding on
programs that benefit bright students. When schools allocate
available funds, the judge ruled, they must appropriate as
much as is needed to meet the needs of at-risk children before
earmarking any money for other students. Manning gave the
state a year to come up with a plan that will satisfy his
conclusions and directed that they file quarterly progress
reports with him.
After analyzing test data from schools across the state,
Manning concluded that at-risk students are not receiving a
"sound, basic education" in poor school systems or in wealthier ones,
either. He said the problem isn't a shortage of money but that the
money is spread around on many priorities. "Palatial central offices and
high salaries for non-teaching administrators and staff are
not constitutionally mandated," Manning wrote. "The
tax money that is spent must first be spent to properly
educate the at-risk children that are failing to achieve grade
level proficiency."
Most education leaders applauded Manning's ruling, although
many worried how it would impact the ability of school systems
to serve average students. John Dornan, executive director of the Public School Forum of N.C.
said, "This is essentially a Robin Hood approach to
school finance. Is the answer to our problems curtailing or
stripping out programs for not-at-risk students to help
at-risk kids? We aren't going to lead America in education if
we dumb down our curriculum."
State Senate President Pro
Tem Marc Basnight said he did not believe that enrichment
programs such as music and computer courses should be ended so
the money can be diverted to meet the needs of at-risk children. House Speaker Jim
Black, D-Mecklenburg, said he had not read Manning's ruling,
but believes all children should have an equal opportunity to
receive a sound basic education and said he would work to
develop a plan if the decision is not appealed.
NCCBI President Phil Kirk, who also is chairman of the State
Board of Education, said, "The state will
continue to focus on under-achieving students, but I will
oppose any attempt to take money away from other programs,
such as gifted and talented." He said the amount of money
going to at-risk children has consistently increased in recent
years, citing at least $100 million in new local, state and
federal funding for remediation and intervention along with
new resources from foundations and business.
Here are some other selected comments from the judge's order:
"Taking all of the evidence into
account, the Court determined that the at-risk children in
North Carolina are not obtaining a sound basic education and
that the reason appears to be the lack of a coordinated,
effective educational strategy for at-risk children statewide.
"The Court is not convinced that the lack of a coordinated,
effective educational strategy is based on the lack of
sufficient funding by the State. Instead, the Court believes
that the funds presently appropriated and otherwise available
are not being effectively and strategically applied.
"In summary, school systems and the State must first put in
place programs that provide all children with the equal
opportunity to obtain a sound basic education and that if the
funding that is appropriated from whatever source is being
used for any other educational purpose than to meet the
constitutional mandate, then those funds must be reallocated
to satisfy the constitution.
"The State and its school systems are directed to assess the
present educational programs as they are applied to the
at-risk student group, and adopt a coordinated, uniform
strategy for improving the educational opportunities for
at-risk students and as a part of the process, re-assess and
re-allocate the available funding, if needed, to meet this
goal with respect to at-risk children within the parameters of
the Constitution. Upon completion of this task, they are to
report to the Court the results of their undertaking. Pending
this undertaking, no Final Judgment will be entered.
"In accord with the conclusions reached above and the vital
need to address these problems within the parameters of
Leandro, the Court Orders and Directs:
"I. The State of North Carolina and the plaintiff, plaintiff-intervenors,
to conduct self-examinations of the present allocation of
resources and to produce a rationale, comprehensive plan which
strategically focuses available resources and funds towards
meeting the needs of all children, including at-risk children
to obtain a sound basic education using common sense and
methods that work and are directed towards each child’s
particular need. The system and allocation should be flexible.
"The nuts and bolts of how this should be accomplished is not
for the Court to do. Consistent with the direction of Leandro,
this task belongs to the Executive and Legislative Branches of
Government and to the educators who are paid to have the
knowledge and expertise with which to conduct such a
self-examination of the present allocation of resources and to
produce a rationale comprehensive plan to strategically focus
available resources and funds consistent with the goal of
providing the opportunity for all children, including those
at-risk of obtaining a sound basic education.
"In directing this be done, the Court is showing proper
deference to the Executive and Legislative Branches by
allowing them, initially at least, to use their informed
judgment as to how best re-allocate and strategically apply
funds, modify or change existing programs and, if needed,
create new programs and approaches to remove the barriers to
an equal opportunity to a sound basic education. Throwing
money, either local or state, at the problem without strategic
and effective planning accompanied by accountability for
results will not be acceptable.
"II. This process should be accomplished without undue delay
and certainly it can be done within twelve months. This is not
an overwhelming task given the amount of educational experts
and staff available to the DPI, the Legislature, and the fact
that some schools have already found the key to success.
Consider going to Clay and Cherokee Counties and find out what
they are doing to achieve such success. Go observe the five
examples set out in this Memorandum of Decision.
"The Court encourages the parties to entertain input from
excellent resources as The Public School Forum and other
non-profit organizations interested in the welfare of all of
North Carolina’s students.
"III. The Court would like progress reports on a quarterly
basis as this case is still active and a work in progress as
the work directed is undertaken."
Summary
and analysis of the decision prepared
by the state Department of Public Instruction
On
October 12, 2000, the Court entered Section One of its
decision. At the outset, the Court charted a course in which
there would be at least three (3) separate Memoranda of
Decision, each addressing different aspects of the case.
In the first Memorandum of Decision, the Court analyzed
separate components of the North Carolina Educational Delivery
System and determined that, as a system, it was sound, valid
and constitutional when measured against the sound basic
education standard of Leandro. The Court also found that a
student who was performing at Level III or above on the ABCs
EOC and EOG tests was obtaining a sound basic education under
Leandro.
The second Memorandum of Decision was entered on October
26,2000. In that decision, the Court analyzed the educational
needs of at-risk children, and determined for at-risk children
to have an equal opportunity for a sound basic education, the
State should provide quality pre-kindergarten pro-trams for
at-risk children.
The third Memorandum of Decision was originally intended to
focus on two issues relating to the Hoke County Schools.
First, whether children in Hoke County are receiving a sound
basic education? Second, if children are not receiving a sound
basic education, is it because of lack of sufficient funding
as the plaintiffs contend, or for some other reason(s)?
In analyzing whether or not Hoke County students were
obtaining a sound basic education, the Court examined the Hoke
County students' performance and compared Hoke with other
school systems student performance.
This comparison showed that there were at-risk students
failing to achieve a sound basic education statewide, as well
as in Hoke County, and that the low performance of at-risk
students was similar regardless of the wealth and resources of
the school system attended.
Taking all of the evidence into account, the Court determined
that the at-risk children in North Carolina are not obtaining
a sound basic education and that the reason appears to be the
lack of a coordinated, effective educational strategy for
atrisk children statewide.
The Court is not convinced that the lack of a coordinated,
effective educational strategy is based on the lack of
sufficient funding by the State. Instead, the Court believes
that the funds presently appropriated and otherwise available
are not being effectively and strategically applied so as to
meet the following principles from Leandro:
1. All children have an equal opportunity to receive a sound
basic education and an equal opportunity is all the State is
required to provide.
2. The sound basic education is qualitatively defined and an
appropriate educational strategy to provide children with the
opportunity to receive a sound basic education is required.
3. In the event that children are not being provided the equal
opportunity to obtain a sound basic education because of
inadequate educational programs and strategy, the educational
programs and strategy must be changed to accomplish the
constitutional mandate.
4. In the event there is not sufficient funding to provide the
educational programs, more funding must be appropriated to
meet the constitutional mandate.
5. Funds appropriated and applied to education, from whatever
source, are first to be used for the purpose of providing
children with the equal opportunity to receive a sound basic
education.
6. In the event of a deficit in the sound basic education
component, funds that are being used for the purpose of
providing educational programs not part of the sound basic
education must be re-allocated and applied to the sound basic
education until any deficit in that program is abolished.
In summary, school systems and the State must first put in
place programs that provide all children with the equal
opportunity to obtain a sound basic education and that if the
funding that is appropriated from whatever source is being
used for any other educational purpose than to meet the
constitutional mandate, then those funds must be reallocated
to satisfy the constitution.
The State and its school systems are directed to assess the
present educational programs as they are applied to the
at-risk student group, and adopt a coordinated, uniform
strategy for improving the educational opportunities for
at-risk students and as a part of the process, re-assess and
re-allocate the available funding, if needed, to meet this
goal with respect to at-risk children within the parameters of
the Constitution. Upon completion of this task, they are to
report to the Court the results of their undertaking. Pending
this undertaking, no Final Judgment will be entered.
Return to Page One
|
