State decides to appeal Leandro school decision
 Gov. Mike Easley said the state will ask the N.C. Court
of Appeals to overturn Superior Court Judge Howard Manning's
rulings that North Carolina must spend whatever is needed to
equalize educational opportunities for at-risk children. But
Easley said the state remains committed to a sound basic
education for all children and announced that he would convene
a study group to focus on making the schools "superior
and competitive."
"Our children deserve educational opportunities that go
far beyond the minimal constitutional standards that are the
focus of the Leandro case," Easley said in a statement.
"Our goal must be twofold: to make certain that all
students have the opportunity to pass `sound, basic' courses
and to excel in superior, competitive programs that prepare
them to meet the demands of today's knowledge-based, global
economy."
Easley said he, Attorney General Roy Cooper, legislative
leaders, the State Board of Education and the Superintendent
of Public Schools agreed to appeal Judge Manning’s decision.
Until the appeal is heard, though, the state must work on
developing a plan that will satisfy Judge Manning’s original
decision. In a ruling issued Wednesday, Manning turned down a
request by state attorneys for a stay of his ruling pending
appeal. Manning said it would not be a burden for the state to
begin the process, which he said could be down by interviewing
principals and teachers at 10 schools around the state that
were succeeding despite the economic disadvantages of many of
their students. Manning had given the state 12 months to
develop the plan.
The appeal, to be filed this week, comes about a month after
Judge Manning issued the last three rulings concluding that
the state has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to
provide all children with a "sound basic education."
That standard was established in a 1997 state Supreme Court
ruling. Manning ordered the state to develop a plan within 12
months to bolster programs for at-risk students and suggested
money could be diverted from other programs that are not
essential to a "sound, basic education."
State Board of Education Chairman Phil Kirk said the board
“is committed to a top quality education for every child in
the public schools of this state. With the support of
legislative and governmental leaders, the board is
implementing standards to ensure that all students,
particularly those who are at-risk, get the help they need to
succeed at the next level of learning. At the same time, we
must do more to challenge students to reach higher levels.
Minimum standards will not produce the world-class schools
that our citizens expect of this state.” Kirk also said he was concerned that diverting existing
resources to at-risk students “drive more of the brighter
students away from public schools into private
education."
Superintendent of Public Instruction Mike Ward said “we are
committed to taking all necessary steps to see that the needs
of every child are met by our schools. A sound, basic
education is certainly the right place to start, but our
vision for student success must be broader and more
compelling. The ABCs accountability plan has shown that if we
expect more from students, they will rise to the occasion. We
cannot expect or accept anything less of ourselves and our
schools.”
House Speaker Jim Black (D-Mecklenburg) said "I also
stand ready to help the governor's task force build on our
efforts to give all of our children a quality education,
especially those considered at risk of failure," he said.
John Dornan, executive director of the Public School Forum,
said he is encouraged by the decision to create a study
commission. "If they had simply appealed and done nothing
more I would have been really disappointed," Dornan said.
"I think this might turn out for the good. I think he
genuinely wants this group to talk about what we can do, not
just as a bare minimum, but what we can really do for our
schools. I feel that something can come out of it."
Cooper said at issue in the appeal are fundamental questions
of law that state policy makers need answered to make
decisions, including:
How best to measure the level of knowledge that equates to a
sound, basic education. In other words, whether that means
measuring success solely by standardized test scores.
Whether test scores that reflect “proficient” performance
accomplish the goal, whether a teacher’s judgment should be
a factor in measuring success, and what elements define a
sound basic education.
Whether the ruling properly ordered defendants to create a
plan for redirecting existing resources while at the same time
concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their use.
What responsibility parents and students have to take
advantage of educational opportunities.
What roles the legislative and executive branches of
government have in determining educational policies and
determining educational priorities.
Return to Page One
|
