Abbeville County School District v. State, No. 31-0169 (S.C. Ct. Comm. Pl. Dec.29, 2005)
A South Carolina trial court has ruled that the State of South Carolina is failing to provide students with the opportunity to receive a "minimally adequate education" as required under the state constitution, because the state has not provided "effective and adequately funded early childhood intervention programs designed to address the impact of poverty on [students'] educational abilities and achievements." The suit was brought by a coalition of rural school districts that claimed that the state legislature's funding formula fails to recognize that rural districts lack the local tax base to provide adequate funding for public schools. The court did find, however, that the plaintiffs' instructional facilities are sufficiently safe and adequate, and the state's curriculum standards more than sufficiently rigorous, to satisfy the constitutional standard. In addition, the state's system of teacher licensing is sufficient to ensure at least minimally competent teachers. With the exception of funding of early childhood intervention programs, the court concluded, the state's funding scheme for public education passes constitutional muster.
The court relied on the definition of "minimally adequate education" established by the state supreme court in
Abbeville County School District v. State, 515 S.E.2d 58 (S.C. 1999), to determine if the funding scheme is constitutional. The most important word in the
Abbeville County standard, the court determined, is "opportunity," which "connotes availability and occasion, [but] does not mean achievement or guaranteed success." The courts stressed that the phrase "minimally adequate" creates a floor rather than ceiling for the legislature, a floor that requires: (1) the ability to read, write, and speak the English language, and knowledge of mathematics and physical science; (2) a fundamental knowledge of economic, social, and political systems, and of history and governmental processes; and (3) academic and vocational skills. A "minimally adequate education" does not require instruction in music, art, physical education, foreign languages, and extracurricular activities or sports, the court held. Applying this standard to the extensive factual evidence presented, which included breakdowns of the individual plaintiff school districts and their schools and the history of legislative enactments regarding school funding, the court concluded that the districts' instructional facilities are sufficient, as are the state's curriculum standards and teacher licensing system. However, given "irrefutable" evidence about the impact of poverty on academic opportunity and the potential of early childhood intervention programs to help offset this impact, the court concluded that the state defendants have failed in what is their constitutional responsibility to provide adequate funding for such programs.
Abbeville County School District v. State, No. 31-0169 (S.C. Ct. Comm. Pl. Dec.29, 2005)
[Link to full opinion][
Editor's Note: According to the press account below, both sides are claiming victory. "I think it is, overall, an historical day—a very positive day for all of South Carolina," says Attorney Carl Epps, who represents the plaintiffs. "It might provide us with the impetus to improve our education system." Mr. Epps adds that he sees no reason for either party to appeal the decision. Attorneys for the state say they have not yet decide whether to do so. State superintendent of education Inez Tenenbaum applauds the court's ruling as to the need for adequate pre-school programs. However, she expresses disappointment with the court's refusal to order increased funding for rural schools to replace old buildings and increase teacher salaries in order to compete with wealthier school districts. Bobby Stepp, attorney for the defendants, suggests the court overreached by finding that the state has responsibility to provided pre-school instruction. "I'm not sure the constitutional duty extends outside the school system," he says. "In that respect, the order is a significant departure from what we think are the appropriate limits of constitutional duty."]
The Columbia StateBy Bill Robinson
[Link to full story]