Story by Jessica Walker
Visuals by Adrian Tillman
Back in 1997, the N.C. Supreme Court ruled that the state must constitutionally provide a sound basic education to students. It was thought to be a victory for low-wealth school districts and families.
Three decades later, the issue is still unsettled. On Feb. 22, the education court case, known as the Leandro case, will appear before the N.C. Supreme Court for the fourth time.
Originally, the Leandro case’s focus was remedying North Carolina’s education system with recommendations and education funding. However, this month’s oral arguments will shift from state education to the separation of powers.
Based on a trial judge’s decision to allocate $677 million for education spending, the case now asks who has the power, the legislature or the courts, to allocate millions for schools statewide.
Funding’s Impact on Education
Former Chief Justice Burley Mitchell of the N.C. Supreme Court wrote the original Leandro decision in 1997. Today, he acknowledges that while education funding is important, it is not the measure by which you determine sound basic education.
“The question is not inputs, not what you put into the system, how much money or what other resources, but it’s the output — it’s the result. Are the kids learning?” Mitchell said. “It somehow got off track, as it spun up and down, up and down, and became a money case.”
In November 2021, N.C. Superior Court Judge David Lee ordered the transfer of $1.75 billion to fund the Comprehensive Remedial Plan (Leandro Plan), which nonprofit organization WestEd proposed for achieving sound basic education.
Legislative leaders appealed, but in early November of 2022, the N.C. Supreme Court ordered the state to fund parts of the Leandro plan. After that year’s elections, which flipped control of the Court to Republicans with a 5-2 majority, the Court decided to revisit that pre-election decision.
Rick Glazier, the director of the Blanchard Community Law Clinic and former state representative, said the revisit affects the integrity of the court.
“Nothing had changed other than the composition of the court between November and January of the following year,” Glazier said. “That was hardly a reason in which to look at motions that were seeking to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court that had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (school districts) after many years of litigation.”
Mitch Kokai, the senior political analyst at the John Locke Foundation, said the upcoming decision is about the proper separation of the branches of government.
“It’s not really about, ‘oh I think there should be more money spent on education, so I’m going to support the Leandro plaintiffs,’” Kokai said. “It’s really about who makes the decisions about how education policy is made.”
Kokai said he doesn’t agree with the argument that the constitutional right to sound basic education trumps the constitutional provision that the legislature has control over money.
Glazier said the current state of education funding is significantly short of what is needed to meet the constitutional requirements explained in Leandro. Although the budget has improved, North Carolina is ranked in the bottom third of per-pupil spending in the country, he said.
In 2023, North Carolina education spending per K-12 pupil was about $10,900. Nationwide, 76% of states spent more than $11,000 per pupil, according to the Education Data Initiative.
Jack Boger, former dean of the UNC School of Law, has been involved with the case since the 1990s. He said that if the state didn’t have enough in the annual budget to meet all its needs, then what to fund would be a question of priorities. But, he said, the fact that there’s a budget surplus means the state is leaving funds unspent instead of investing them where they’re needed: in the schools.
“They’re doing everything they said they want to do, and there’s still money sitting there,” Boger said. “And here are the kids, here are the teachers, here are the principals without the money they need.”
A Look at Hoke County
Hoke County is one of the original five school districts represented in Leandro v. The State of North Carolina, and it is where the namesake of the case, Robb Leandro, attended school.
In the case’s earlier years, then-Superior Court Judge Howard Manning Jr., went to Hoke County to investigate the education situation.
“He went down, sat in the schools, went to classrooms, reviewed all the students’ performances, did an exhaustive study of it, and found that the kids were not being offered an adequate education,” Mitchell said.
Using Hoke County as a sample, the original case found that the state system was not in compliance with sound basic education.
Today, there is a disparity that still exists, Dawn Ramseur, the assistant superintendent for curriculum instruction at Hoke County Schools, said.
In 2023, Hoke County was ranked 98 out of 100 counties for the county’s ability to pay for education, according to the Public School Forum of North Carolina’s finance study. For total local appropriations, Hoke County is ranked last at 100.
A majority of Hoke County students, about 71%, are on free-and-reduced lunch, Erica Fortenberry, the executive director of federal programs and school improvement at Hoke County Schools, said.
Additional funding will allow low-wealth counties to compete with their surrounding districts, whether that’s in quality teachers, leadership recruitment, upgraded facilities, or early education and preparedness programs.
“Right now, if you look at neighboring counties — such as Moore and Cumberland counties, which we border — their supplements are significantly higher than our teacher supplements, which again puts us at a disadvantage to be able to provide those same quality teachers as our neighboring county,” Ramseur said.
Federal grants have allowed Hoke County to upgrade aging facilities to create safe, modern learning environments, Ramseur said. However, it’s not something they can continue on their own.
Grants typically provide seasonal funds used for bigger projects so the impacts last longer, Ramseur said, whereas state funding is more consistent.
Hoke County needs that continuity to make change.
“We’ll see what Feb. 22 will bring to us, and we’re going to continue to fight because it’s for our students,” Peggy Owens, executive director of student support services at Hoke County Schools, said. “The students deserve the best to receive the same education that their surrounding colleagues receive. It is incumbent on us to fight for that funding for our students.”
The Future of Leandro
In January, 20 law professors — 19 from North Carolina — filed a motion to submit a friend-of-the-court brief, or amicus brief, in support of the school districts in the case. Boger and Glazier were among the 20.
The recent brief argues that North Carolina is under a judicial mandate to rectify the state of education, a constitutional right that has been violated. Therefore, both the judicial and legislative branches must ensure compliance with the law on constitutional failures.
The amicus brief may influence the court’s decision-making process by providing additional arguments and perspectives to the case.
On Feb. 22, the N.C. Supreme Court will need to first decide if the judge has subject-matter jurisdiction. If not, then the case will most likely end, Kokai said.
However, if it’s found that the court has the authority to hear this case within its jurisdictional boundaries, the focus will be whether the judge had the right to order millions of dollars for education spending, and if this transfer of funds outside of the General Assembly is constitutional.
While the Leandro case from 1997 centered on the sufficiency of education funding in North Carolina, this month’s hearing will navigate subject-matter jurisdiction, the statewide application of funds, and the power of the judicial and legislative branches.
Mitchell said he believes the case has lost sight of the target.
“We’d be a lot better off if people actually read the Leandro opinion,” Mitchell said. “Not the various ravings of different parties who are arguing what they want, rather than what the case requires.”
