Goodbye Minimally Adequate: Support the Constitutional Amendment for a High Quality Education in South Carolina

The obligation was personal because I know who Poverty is; I met him early in my life and experienced his devastating and penetrating effects. It was professional for me because I am an educator and I continue to observe Poverty’s effects on children in nearly every part of the state.

Thirty-six poor, rural school districts are asking the Supreme Court to order the Legislature to provide the necessary resources to ensure that all children in the state, no matter where they live, receive educational opportunities that will prepare them to become productive citizens and useful participants in the economic and civic structures of society.

The request is sound. I know of no other remedy to the devastation of poverty than a high-quality education. The five justices were quick to acknowledge this point. They all want what is best for children, and they all know the power of a good education.

I was impressed with the justices’ challenges to the attorneys on both sides. The most provocative question, raised by Chief Justice Jean Toal, was this one: What constitutional role can the Supreme Court play in telling the General Assembly what to do? Has the General Assembly violated the constitutional rights of the children in the contending school districts to a minimally adequate education?

This question set the tone for the verbal interchange that played out between the justices, the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the state’s attorneys for the two-hour hearing. It was the right question. And the justices were not being legalistic in posing it. I sensed that they really struggled with their proper role, and really want a constitutional way to address the educational needs of the districts. Several of the justices have historical perspectives on educational improvement efforts in the state.

It is with this in mind that I humbly put forth the following argument: The state constitution provides a right for all S.C. children to a free public education. The Legislature has set forth very high standards as to what this education should be (as it should). Some children will need to have their education delivered differently if they are to access their opportunity, and meet these high standards. Such difference may require additional resources.

If some students, for various reasons, cannot access the opportunity, then the education is not free. There lies the constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to order the General Assembly to fix this problem. That is my non-legal-minded opinion. The fact that some in similarly poor environments can benefit from the opportunity does not prove that the opportunity is accessible for all, as the state’s attorneys would suggest. There may be non-school variables that are producing or influencing these results.

I sat next to Dr. Al Reid, a retire surgeon from Columbia and native of North Carolina. He raised this question to me: Why are we here in court arguing whether children in poor areas of the state need the opportunity to become successful and productive members of society? I replied that this is an argument that belongs in the 1800s.

Why shouldn’t we tap the potential of all of South Carolina’s children, whether they are in Dillon or Clarendon? The state would be the richer as a result. We all know what an educated citizenry does for the economy at both the state and national levels.

Webster’s defines “opportunity” as “a combination of circumstances favorable for the purpose.” The constitutional right and opportunity for some children to a free public education does not fully exist in South Carolina. The circumstances are not favorable for some children. The highest court has a constitutional basis and obligation to have the General Assembly apply a minimally adequate remedy to fix this problem. And the court should retain jurisdiction until such remedy has been applied.

I believe that under the current school funding structure, we are at the precipice of another lawsuit, petitioning the highest court for a statewide remedy to adequately operate schools to ensure the same opportunity for a free public education. But the next time, the petition will come from “wealthy” districts.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites: