|
In Hoke County Board of Educ. v. State (Leandro
II) (2004),70 the North Carolina
Supreme Court reversed a 2000 trial court decision
requiring the state to provide preschool education
to low-income students at risk of school failure. The
Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s finding
that the state’s efforts towards providing assistance
to “at-risk” pre-kindergarten children were constitutionally
inadequate. However, it refused to order comprehensive
preschool as a remedy, stating there was inadequate
foundational support in the trial record for
such an order. The Court found “the suggestion
that pre-kindergarten is the sole vehicle or,
for that matter, a proven effective vehicle…is,
at best, premature.”71 Instead, the
Court deferred to the expertise of the legislative
and executive branches on public education and
left it to them to design appropriate remedial
steps for disadvantaged preschoolers.
In response to the trial court order in Hoke
County, the legislature enacted a statewide
preschool program before the Supreme Court’s
2004 decision. The program, More-at-Four, funds
a high quality prekindergarten program for approximately
11,000 disadvantaged four-year-olds in the state.
North Carolina’s governor has successfully pushed
for expansion of the program each year since
its enactment in 2001, citing the litigation
in support.
Article I of the North Carolina Constitution provides that “the People have
a right to the privilege of education.”72 Article IX states, “The
General Assembly shall provide…for a general and uniform system of free public
schools…wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students.”73 The
constitution does not contain an age limitation, and in fact requires the General
Assembly to provide a public education to “every child of appropriate age.”74
The Hoke County case builds on an earlier challenge to the state’s
school finance system, Leandro v. State (1997).75 In Leandro,
low-income school districts sued the state, charging that children in their
districts had been denied an adequate education because the state’s system
of funding public education failed to provide adequate resources to the low-income
districts. Contrary to the plain language of the Constitution, the North
Carolina Supreme Court held that the Constitution “does not require that equal
educational opportunities be afforded students in all of the school districts
in the state.”76 At the same time, the Court did find that the state
was responsible for providing adequate funding and services to ensure that
all students receive a “sound basic education.”77 The Court spelled
out a ‘sound basic education’ as one that would provide the student with at
least:
- (1) sufficient ability to read,
write, and speak the English language and a sufficient knowledge of fundamental
mathematics and physical
science
to enable the student to function in a complex and rapidly changing society;
- (2) sufficient fundamental knowledge
of geography, history, and basic economic and political systems to enable
the student to make informed
choices with regard to issues that affect the student personally or affect
the student's community, state, and nation;
- (3) sufficient academic and vocational
skills to enable the student to successfully engage in post-secondary education
or vocational
training;
and
- (4) sufficient academic and vocational
skills to enable the student to compete on an equal basis with others in
further formal education
or gainful
employment in contemporary society.78
The Supreme Court remanded the plaintiffs’ claim that the state’s educational
funding system did not provide a sound basic education back to the lower court
for trial. The remand proceeding is known as Hoke County Board of Education
v. State of North Carolina.
The trial court examined the state’s education system in light of the Leandro mandate,
which requires that every North Carolina child have access to a sound basic
education. The trial court found, among other things, that:
- (1) the state’s curriculum guidelines
exceeded the Leandro standards
for an adequate education, when properly implemented;
- (2) the state’s standards
for teacher certification were valid and sufficient to ensure qualified
teaching;
- (3) the schools’ accountability
program was appropriate for measuring and improving the academic performance
of public school children;
and
- (4) the state’s tests provided
adequate evidence of whether students were receiving a sound basic education.79
When it came to at-risk children, however, the trial court came to different
conclusions. The court found that those students were not being provided with
a sound basic education, because they did not have access to the same resources
as their peers in more affluent districts. The trial court ordered the state
to ensure that such students are given competent teachers “with high expectations,” sufficient
funding, and early intervention.
In its original complaint, the plaintiffs limited their case to at-risk children
of school age. The trial court raised -- on its own motion -- the issue of
the rights of pre-kindergarten age children. Specifically, the court asked
whether the constitutional rights enumerated in Leandro extended to
certain at-risk children before they reach the age of five. The plaintiffs
then filed amended complaints alleging the need for pre-kindergarten programs
in order to prepare “at-risk” children to be able to take advantage of the
opportunity for a sound basic education. The trial court held:
Under the North Carolina Constitution as interpreted by Leandro, the
right of each child to …a sound basic education … is not to be conditioned
upon age, but rather upon the need of the particular child, including, if necessary, …early
childhood pre-kindergarten education prior to reaching the age of five and
prior to entering five-year old kindergarten. . . .80
The trial court limited its preschool ruling to at-risk children as necessary
to “permit them to take advantage of, and have an equal opportunity to receive,
the sound basic education to which they are entitled in North Carolina under
its Constitution."81
Accordingly, the trial court ordered the state to expand pre-kindergarten
education for all children who did not arrive in kindergarten ready to learn,
and were therefore at risk for school failure. In two subsequent decisions,
the trial court again found that the state had failed to provide a sound basic
education to at-risk children.82
In July 2004, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision in Hoke
County that affirmed the trial court’s finding that the state had violated
the fundamental rights of children in the plaintiff school districts by not
providing an opportunity to receive a sound basic education.83 On
the issue of preschool, however, the Court reversed the trial court ruling.
The Court found that the North Carolina Constitution granted the General Assembly
sole authority to establish an appropriate school age, and any trial court
ruling infringing on the legislative prerogative was in error. Notwithstanding
the legislature’s exclusive authority, however, the Court ruled that the state
has a constitutional obligation to address the needs of at-risk children prior
to the time they enter school: “[w]e conclude that because the evidence presented
showed that "at-risk" students in Hoke County were being denied their
right to an opportunity to obtain a sound basic education, the trial court
properly admitted additional evidence intended to show that preemptive action
on the part of the state should target those children about to enroll, recognizing
that preemptive action affecting such children prior to their entering the
public schools might well be far more cost effective than waiting until they
are actually in the educational system.”84
The Court acknowledged the state’s constitutional duty to address the needs
of disadvantaged preschool children, stating “even the State concedes that “at-risk” prospective
enrollees in Hoke County are in need of assistance in order to avail themselves
of their right to the opportunity for a sound basic education.”85 However,
the Court refused to impose a specific remedy for the constitutional violation
at this time, citing the fact that public education is the shared province
of the legislative and executive branches. The Court found that the trial court
order requiring pre-kindergarten for all at-risk children was “premature, and
its strict enforcement could undermine the state’s ability to meet its educational
obligations for “at-risk” prospective enrollees by alternative means.”86 The
Court stated that while the judiciary has the power to order remedies when
another branch fails to meet its duties, it should do so only when the state
has been consistently unable or unwilling to act. Here, the Court noted
that the state has begun to take action to address the needs of disadvantaged
preschoolers. Therefore, it refused to enforce a specific remedy, instead deferring
to the expertise of the other branches to design appropriate corrective action.
In addition to principles of separation of powers, the Court cited "inadequate
foundational support"87 for the preschool remedy. The fact
that the record before the Court did not include expert testimony on the research-based
evidence of the effectiveness of preschool education clearly played a part
in the Court’s decision not to order implementation of a pre-kindergarten program.
The Court found a clear obligation on the part of the state to take meaningful
action to prepare “at-risk” children to receive a sound basic education. Accordingly,
this decision leaves the door open for plaintiffs to seek preschool as a remedy
in future proceedings should the state fail to adequately address the needs
of at-risk preschoolers. Significantly, the litigation has already resulted
in the implementation of North Carolina’s More at Four pre-kindergarten program,
which serves a large segment of the at-risk preschool population.
|
