Justices hear school appeals

COLUMBIA — Attorneys for eight struggling school districts asked the state Supreme Court on Wednesday to direct the Legislature to provide those districts' students with a better opportunity to receive a constitutionally mandated, "minimally adequate" public education.

Most of the districts are along Interstate 95 and are part of the state's so-called "Corridor of Shame." They are Dillon 2, Florence 4, Orangeburg 3, Hampton 2, Jasper, Allendale, Marion 7 and Abbeville.

"You're asking us to give a blueprint of what they need to do," said Chief Justice Jean Toal. She said the General Assembly and the Governor's Office drive education standards and funding. "What is it about the (state) constitution that would require us to mandate that the General Assembly create specialized programs for poor children?" Toal said. "I understand that argument in my heart, but what I'm struggling with is what the proper role of a court is."

Much of the discussion among the justices and the plaintiffs' attorneys concerned whether it was the duty of the state to guarantee a certain level of education success or instead to provide an opportunity for an education.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. They're saying they're providing the water, but the children won't drink," Justice Donald W. Beatty said.

Plaintiffs' attorney Laura Hart said she was calling on the court to enforce the state constitution by instructing the Legislature about its role in crafting an equitable education system for the eight districts. The General Assembly has never deter-mined the meaning of a "minimally adequate" education, she said.

Toal asked Hart if she meant that the court should tell the Legislature that its school system is unconstitutional and it should submit another plan to the court?

"Yes," Hart said.

Assistant Deputy Attorney General J. Emory Smith Jr. said Gov. Mark Sanford supports the ruling of Judge Thomas W. Cooper, who in December 2005 said that school facilities in rural districts are "safe and adequate" but that the state does not adequately fund early childhood education programs.

Toal said the Governor's Office bears a large part of the responsibility for the state of public education. "The power of the purse does not reside in this chamber," she said.

Representing the General Assembly, attorney Robert Stepp said it is a mistake to determine whether the Legislature is fulfilling the constitutional mandate for "minimally adequate" education based on test scores. Most of the influence on children is from circumstances outside of school, Stepp said. What matters is the educational opportunity that the state provides, he said. He noted that Cooper had determined that schools in the eight districts were adequate and safe. Some of the plaintiffs' attorneys called for a formula based on available resources and results.

Beatty took issue with Cooper's assessment of the schools as adequate and safe. "I've seen some of the facilities with my own eyes, and I am ashamed of them," he said. "It's a touchy subject that no one wants to deal with."

Plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Morrison said that he was asking the court to determine that the education being delivered to students in the eight districts is unconstitutional, and to direct the General Assembly to take action on the issue.

"That turns the constitution on its head," Toal said.

Reach Prentiss Findlay at 937-5711 or pfindlay@post andcourier.com.