Education

A lawsuit that seeks to radically change NC education is back before the state Supreme Court. Here's what you need to know

The long-running Leandro case has the potential to significantly change education in North Carolina. The court will decide to make way for statewide changes or to send back the case down for further litigation.

Posted — Updated
By
Emily Walkenhorst
, WRAL education reporter
RALEIGH, N.C. — The North Carolina Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in an unwieldy, 30-year-old lawsuit over whether the state is providing children with an adequate education.

The lawsuit, Hoke County Board of Education v. State of North Carolina, is commonly referred to as Leandro, so named for an original plaintiff who now has children of his own in North Carolina schools.

The arguments Thursday will center on scope: Should decisions in the case apply to all schools in the state? Or should they apply to schools in just five counties where school officials and families have sued: Hoke, Halifax, Cumberland, Vance and Robeson?

Lawyers are expected to focus on a lower court’s finding that $677.8 million is still owed to schools across the state as a part of a proposed remedy to the lawsuit.

The money is earmarked for salaries and programs for students with disabilities and pre-kindergarten students, among other things.

The court will ultimately decide whether the proposed remedy can be implemented statewide or if it needs to hear more evidence from more school systems.

Here’s a guide to get you up to speed:

Who is suing and what are they claiming? The 1994 lawsuit was filed by families and school boards in five lower-income counties: Hoke, Halifax, Cumberland, Vance and Robeson. The plaintiffs argued the state was not providing a sound basic education, as required by the state’s constitution, and they argued funding was the reason. They said the counties didn’t have the tax base to make up for what the state wasn’t providing, so children in those counties were getting a worse education than children in other counties.
What have courts said before about this case? The state Supreme Court found in 2004 that North Carolina wasn’t providing an adequate education — but not that the funding system was flawed or solely to blame. In 1997, the state Supreme Court said education doesn’t have to be equal among counties; it just has to be minimally adequate everywhere.
What changes has the state made since these rulings? In the 30 years since the lawsuit was filed, some things have changed: Schools have more funding and there are more programs, but some programming and personnel have been cut and many argue funding increases haven’t been enough.

The General Assembly began offering supplemental funding for low-wealth and small county districts and disadvantaged students. Those programs provide more dollars to school systems based on their tax base and how many of their students are considered economically disadvantaged. Those funding streams haven’t swayed the courts’ opinions. Orders dating back to 2004 call for a high-quality teacher in every classroom, a well prepared and competent principal in every school and adequate resources.

In 2021, defendants and plaintiffs agreed on a statewide plan to address court findings. It requires numerous policy changes, studies, new programs, salary increases and additional personnel. The total cost would be at least $5.6 billion in new, annual spending by the 2027-28 school year, with annual increases in the years leading up to that.
What’s the status of the 2021 plan? The plan agreed to in 2021 has never been cohesively implemented. State legislative leaders, who have largely not been involved in the lawsuit, don’t support the plan and are contesting orders related to its implementation. Lawmakers favor many ideas that aren’t in the plan, such as expanding private school vouchers by hundreds of millions of dollars. Legislative leaders haven’t listed parts of the plan they oppose but have said they are skeptical of the difference more money will make.
Why hasn’t the plan been fully implemented? It’s complicated, but it comes down to who has the right to authorize payments.
In 2022, the state Supreme Court ordered state executives to cut checks to implement the plan. But there’s a dispute over who can order whom to make those payments.

In the 2022 order, the Democratic majority on the Supreme Court said courts have the right to order a remedy and compared the state’s constitutional promise of a sound basic education to an appropriation. Republican lawmakers, who control the legislature, disagreed and have said that only the General Assembly can set education funding and policy. Meanwhile, the state controller has argued he is bound by the state constitution to only cut checks when specifically directed by legislation.

The appropriation-power issue isn’t the focus of Thursday’s arguments, but it’s an important aside because pending appeals on the matter have halted the plan’s implementation.

Is the court more or less likely to side with legislators now? Possibly. While the 2022 state Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the Supreme Court has changed complexion since then, flipping from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority. It’s seen as more likely to side with legislators.

Plaintiffs and the state believe Thursday’s hearing amounts to a re-hearing of the 2022 case.

So what is being debated Thursday? Scope is the name of the game on Thursday. Does the case only apply to a small handful of counties? Or is it the entire state?

In 2022, the state Supreme Court determined that court findings applied statewide.

But the issue of whether the findings applied statewide wasn’t the specific issue that had been appealed to the state Supreme Court ahead of its 2022 ruling.

The high court in October agreed to hear a claim over “subject matter jurisdiction,” which essentially concerns whether a court has the authority to make a certain decision.

Superior Court Judge James F. Ammons Jr. determined in 2023 that, based on the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, the state still owed $677.8 million toward the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years, under the plan.
Republican lawmakers appealed, arguing that Ammons didn’t have the authority to issue the order because they don’t believe the court findings involving the Leandro plan apply statewide. That’s what’s on appeal Thursday.

They contend that because other counties haven’t joined the lawsuit, the plaintiffs can’t speak for them.

Plaintiffs and attorneys for the state have argued that court proceedings have focused on a statewide problem and noted that testimony in the case has included many hours of witnesses from other school systems.
Suggest A Correction

Related Topics

• Credits 

Copyright 2024 by Capitol Broadcasting Company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Videos

Spring cleaning tips for easier dusting
watch ·
WRAL Late News
watch ·
WRAL WeatherCenter Forecast
watch ·
Daytime Pick 3 and Pick 4 Drawing
watch ·
Evening Pick 3 Pick 4 and Cash 5
watch ·