South Carolina Trial Court Rules State Must Develop and Fund Early Childhood Programs

In a December 29, 2005 decision, Judge Thomas Cooper ruled that South Carolina’s schoolchildren were being denied their right to an education under the South Carolina Constitution because of the State’s failure to develop and fund early childhood intervention programs "designed to address the impact of poverty on children’s educational abilities and achievements." The plaintiffs in Abbeville County Sch. Dist. v. State of South Carolina—eight largely rural school districts with a high percentage of low-income students, and parents and students from these districts—challenged the State’s public school funding system. With the exception of early childhood programs, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ requested relief, finding no evidence that increased resources, an improved teacher licensure system, greater funding for teacher retention, and better school facilities would improve student achievement.

The South Carolina Supreme Court had remanded the Abbeville case in 1999 for a trial on whether the State was meeting its duty under the State Constitution to provide "the opportunity for each child to receive a minimally adequate education." Following a lengthy trial, Judge Cooper found this to be "a very low standard which, by definition, does not require the best policies and practices." Aside from early childhood programs, the trial court found that the State provided sufficient funding to meet this constitutional standard.

Applying the standard to early childhood, however, the trial court found the State’s failure to adequately fund programs "to deal with specific needs of children in poverty in their early childhood years" deprives those children of their right to an education. In the court’s view, other educational inputs come too late to ameliorate the effects of poverty on student achievement, while high quality early childhood programs have been proven to prepare low-income children for success in school. Citing the testimony of educators, legislators and the State’s own witnesses on the learning deficits with which low-income children begin school and the benefits of high quality preschool programs and interventions, the trial court concluded that unless the impact of poverty is addressed "at an early age, in the educational process," there would be no constitutionally mandated "opportunity for a minimally adequate education."

The trial court stated that "effective early childhood intervention from prekindergarten through grade 3 is essential…," although it did not specify the types of programs the State should provide. It did, however, refer to the benefits of high quality preschool and full-day kindergarten, as well as the State’s under-funded First Steps to School Readiness Program, a comprehensive early childhood development and education program.

For more information on case law and litigation strategies relating to state-funded prekindergarten programs, visit www.startingat3.org, or contact Ellen Boylan, Esq., at eboylan@edlawcenter.org; (973) 624-1815, ext. 18.