State Supreme Court reluctant to intervene on education issue
Updated 05:10 p.m., June 25, 2008
Attorneys representing eight school districts said Wednesday that the students are being denied their constitutional right to an education meeting minimum standards, and the state Supreme Court should act to remedy the situation.
At issue was whether the state is providing a constitutionally mandated opportunity for a "minimally adequate" education.
Officials from Dillon 2, Florence 4, Orangeburg 3, Hampton 2, Jasper, Allendale, Marion 7, and Abbeville school districts appeared at Wednesday's hearing.
Although sympathetic, several justices questions whether that is their role.
"Are we supposed to be a glorified school board?" Justice Donald Beatty asked.
Chief Justice Jean Toal said public education is a matter for the legislature and the governor. She questioned whether the SC should determine whether an opportunity for a minimally adequate education ahs be en provided.
"That turns the constitution on its head," she said.
Plaintiff's attorney Stephen Morrison said the eight school districts systematically failed to provide an opportunity for an education. He said a lower court ruling that addressed the problem by mandating an early childhood intervention program was not enough. More funds should be provided for better schools and teachers, he said.
Read more in tomorrow's editions of The Post and Courier.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 0 comment(s)
