Leandro v. State
346 N.C. 336, 488 S.E.2d 249, 1997 N.C. LEXIS 486 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The North Carolina Constitution guarantees every child the opportunity to receive a "sound basic education," but its "equal opportunities" clause does not require the state to provide substantially equal funding or educational advantages across all school districts.
Facts:
- Students and school boards from five relatively poor, rural counties (plaintiffs) and five relatively wealthy, urban counties (plaintiff-intervenors) challenged North Carolina's public school funding system.
- The state's system relies on a combination of state revenue and local government funding, which is responsible for capital expenses and approximately 25% of current school expenses.
- The poor counties alleged their students were denied a minimally adequate education, citing inadequate facilities like leaking roofs and poor lighting, outdated books, and an inability to compete for high-quality teachers due to lower local salary supplements.
- The poor counties alleged that despite levying higher local tax rates than many wealthy counties, they could not overcome their smaller property tax bases to reduce disparities in educational resources.
- The wealthy, urban counties alleged the state funding system failed to account for the higher costs associated with educating their large populations of students with special needs, such as those requiring special education or English language instruction.
- The wealthy, urban counties also alleged that supplemental state funds were arbitrarily directed only to certain poor, rural districts, ignoring comparable financial needs in their large urban districts.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed suit against the State of North Carolina in Halifax County Superior Court, the trial court of first instance.
- On the defendants' motion, the case was transferred to Wake County Superior Court.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Defendants, the State of North Carolina, appealed the denial of their motion to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ruling that the constitution only guarantees equal access to education, not a certain quality, and ordered the plaintiffs' claims dismissed.
- The Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the North Carolina Constitution, which guarantees a right to education and equal opportunities, require the state to provide every student with a qualitatively adequate education and ensure substantially equal funding and educational advantages across all school districts?
Opinions:
Majority - Mitchell, Chief Justice
No. The North Carolina Constitution requires the state to provide every student with a qualitatively adequate education, defined as a 'sound basic education,' but it does not require the state to ensure substantially equal funding and educational advantages across all school districts. The constitution guarantees a right to an education with qualitative substance, sufficient to prepare students to participate in society. However, the 'equal opportunities' clause does not mandate equal funding, primarily because Article IX, Section 2(2) of the constitution explicitly authorizes local governments to supplement their school funding with local revenues. This provision inherently permits funding disparities based on local wealth, and one part of the constitution cannot violate another. Therefore, while every child must be afforded the opportunity for a 'sound basic education,' inequalities resulting from local supplementation do not violate the constitution.
Dissenting - Orr, Justice
Yes. The North Carolina Constitution's 'equal opportunities' clause requires the state to provide substantially equal educational opportunities across all districts, a mandate the current funding system, with its gross disparities, fails to meet. The state holds the ultimate and non-delegable constitutional duty to provide a 'general and uniform system' with 'equal opportunities.' The provision allowing local funding does not absolve the state of this primary responsibility. The plain language of the 'equal opportunities' clause, added in 1970, applies to all students, not just in a racial context, and requires substantial, if not identical, equality in resources. The vast disparities alleged by plaintiffs—such as students learning in hallways while others have modern science labs—demonstrate a clear failure to provide substantially equal opportunities.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established an 'adequacy' theory for school finance litigation in North Carolina, shifting the legal battleground from pure funding equality to ensuring a minimum constitutional floor of educational quality. By defining a 'sound basic education' as a fundamental right, the court created a new, justiciable standard for judicial oversight of the state's education system. While foreclosing claims based solely on funding disparities between districts, the ruling empowers plaintiffs to challenge the substantive quality of the education being provided, forcing courts to evaluate educational outcomes and resources against the newly established constitutional benchmark.
