Judge: S.C. Fails to Fund Poor Schools

AP via HoustonChronicle.com ^ | Dec. 29, 2005 | JOHN C. DRAKE

[Ninian Dryhope]

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A judge ruled the state's system of funding poor schools unconstitutional Thursday, saying it fails to provide adequate education by not offering early childhood programs.

Circuit Judge Thomas W. Cooper said the state's previous spending to improve achievement in poor schools failed because those efforts did not address the early impact of poverty on children's lives.

"The expenditure of those monies has been largely ineffective because they come too late," Cooper wrote.

If the ruling stands, lawmakers will have to find a way to provide free preschool to low-income students.

Both sides indicated they likely will appeal the decision.

The lawsuit was brought by eight districts that claimed they did not have enough money to adequately teach children. The schools argued that the funding system relies too much on local property taxes and not enough on state dollars.

The judge did not require districts to fix dilapidated school buildings or raise teacher pay, as many had hoped.

Cooper ruled that facilities in the eight rural districts were "safe and adequate" and that curriculum standards and the system of teacher certification were sufficient.

The trial began in July 2003 and saw more than 100 days of testimony from lawmakers, school administrators and education experts.

[Ninian Dryhope]

The state may decide that it is unconstitutional for parents to raise their own kids.

[nyconse]

I am so sick of these judges legislating from the bench. There is no constitutional right to an education-early or late. The courts have no armies...one of these days the other branches are going to have to defy these judicial dictators.

[cinives]

Geez - to think our predecessors did the job with McGuffy Readers and Webster's Blue-Backed Speller and Mom at home or the spinster in the one room schoolhouse.

[HostileTerritory]

Well, while I disagree with the judge--try getting a job in 2005 with a "McGuffey Reader" level of education vs. getting a job in 1960 or earlier.

[davisfh]

"Judge: S.C. Fails to Fund Poor Schools"

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

[JusticeForAll76]

I am pretty sure that almost all states have a "right to education" in their constitutions.

[Ninian Dryhope]

A "McGuffey Reader" level of education, if one read all the way through the series, would give one a better education in English and morals than the typical college graduate of today.

We home schooled out daughter and used the McGuffey Reader as part of her education. She is now a senior at Rice University majoring in Chemical Engineering and she already has a job offer with a nice signing bonus waiting for her as soon as she graduates in the spring.

[cinives]

When Hertz Rent A Car hires college graduates to staff its front rental desks then we know the value of even a college education is vastly overrated compared to earlier years.

I maintain that if you completed a 4th grade education in 1850, you'd have more book learning than 70% of high school graduates today. Most importantly, you'd know how to read.

Read this article: http://www.mises.org/story/1425

do some additional research, then tell me what you think.

[cinives]

Exactly. I did the same, and my 16yo will graduate high school this year with exceptional scores.

[hispanichoosier]

Let's take a breather here. The issue was decided by a state court judge (not federal) on state constitutional grounds. While we may not like the decision, I would argue that this process reflects the idea that states should be "laboratories of democracy."

For too long, the emphasis within the bar (and in law schools, for that matter) has been on federal rights and courts. State constitutional jurisprudence has been sorely lacking. Developments such as this may revive state constitutional jurisprudence. Now it will be up to the SC legislature to decide whether to craft a legislative alternative to funding state schools or to amend the state constitution to render the judge's decision moot.

[Ninian Dryhope]

Great! My daughter graduated at 15, spent three years at a community college and three years at Rice ans she will still graduate at 21.

She could have spent less time at the community college, but she was taking classes she liked such as music and voice lessons and it gave her the chance to grow up a little more before heading to Rice. At Rice, there are many classes that are required to get a Chemical Engineering degree and they have to be taken in sequence, but she was able to only take 13 credit hours some semesters rather than having to take 16 or 17 credit hours every semester. 13 credit hours of chemical engineering classes is enough to keep her busy and challenged.

[hispanichoosier]

There is no constitutional right to an education-early or late.

There is no federal right to education. The SC constitution, however, specifically provides as follows:

The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable.

Article XI, section 3. Judge Cooper's opinion applies state constitutional law to this case. Indeed, he dismissed the federal constitutional equal protection claim alleged by the plaintiffs.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"Now it will be up to the SC legislature to decide whether to craft a legislative alternative to funding state schools or to amend the state constitution to render the judge's decision moot."

Or get a higher state court to throw out this stupid ruling.

Texas Robin hood legislation also came about due to similar state court challenge to the state's educational funding mechanism. This sort of challenge is, I think, becoming fairly common.

A big reason people live in certain neighborhoods and pay high property taxes is because they want their kids to get good educations at good neighborhood schools. Lawyers want to change the funding of schools from local property taxes to state income taxes so that the amount of money spent per student is equal regardless of the school or neighborhood. If the lawyers are successful in getting rid of the link between property taxes and schools, well off parents will probably send their kids to private schools.

[Ninian Dryhope]

The General Assembly has found that preschool is not desirable, so what is unconstitutional?

[joebuck]

This isn't jurisprudence. It is literaly dictating public policy from the bench.

[308MBR]

Obviously, the majority of "poor" parents didn't do a few basic things in their life (finishing high school, not getting married as a teenager, and not having kids until after marriage, getting a job) that practically insure escaping poverty. Their kids see this and that the government has kept them up pretty well by stealing money from the people in society who actually produce something besides problems, and they know they won't have to do those things either. This guarantees employment for bloated law enforcement agencies, people with degrees in things like Social Work etc. so they can "help" the next generation of turds.

[celejrm313]

The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable.

They should take out General Assembly and replace it with hard working taxpayers. That would be a little more accurate.

[308MBR]

Back then, the families had to BUY their own school books and the school marm would bust the cases of the miscreants if it was needed.

They weren't sitting around playing games to increase their self esteem and learning about Heather's Two Mommies. Recycling was done when the next kid inherited the McGuffey Reader and wore their hand-me-downs.

The real problems of public school are lazy teachers, no discipline except when the cops are called, and a curriculum consisting of about 85% social engineering BS.

[celejrm313]

good analysis. Spot on!

[Amelia]

Part of the problem in South Carolina is an extreme amount of "local control". In each county in the state, there are several school districts, each with its own school board, school superintendent, and associated bureaucracy. Also, there are some extremely poor and some extremely weathy areas in the state, sometimes within the same county.

Even some of the smaller counties may have anywhere from 5-10 school districts. And, South Carolina doesn't seem to have the public accountability of other states - citizens aren't necessarily allowed to speak or have other input at public meetings.

Please note that on most measures of educational progress (SAT scores, etc) South Carolina is in the bottom 5 of states in the country.

A good first step would probably be consolidating the smaller districts so that less money went to administration and more went to educating children but the bureaucrats don't want to give up their jobs and power, and the people are convinced they are better served with extreme local control, so unless the legislature acts, nothing much seems likely to happen.