Educational Equity on Hold: The 30-Year Struggle of Leandro vs. NC

Captured at a protest that took place outside the NC Supreme Court in support of Leandro. Photo courtesy of Pragya Upreti

In its 30th year as an ongoing landmark education case, oral arguments for Leandro vs. North Carolina took place at the North Carolina Supreme Court on February 22, 2024. Back in 1994, the Leandro case started when families in five low-wealth rural counties– Hoke, Halifax, Robeson, Vance, and Cumberland– filed a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina, arguing that their children were receiving an unequal education compared to their wealthier counterparts. Even though their counties faced higher-than-average tax rates, their schools experienced lower-than-average tax revenues. The plaintiffs argue that disparities in areas such as teacher pay, educational resources, and school administration violated their students’ North Carolina Constitutional right to “equal opportunities…for all students”.

For thirty years, the plaintiffs have been locked in a back-and-forth with the State of North Carolina. The State of North Carolina first appealed the lawsuit in 1997, and the NC Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that North Carolina violated students’ right to a “sound, basic education” as outlined in the North Carolina Constitution. The case was appealed again in 2004, but the NC Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. Despite the affirmative ruling in their favor, Leandro plaintiffs alleged that for the next 12 years, the State of North Carolina failed to take adequate remedial action in the form of a thorough financial plan to improve under-resourced school districts. The State of North Carolina attempted to dismiss the case but was denied by Superior Court Judge David Lee.

The State and the plaintiffs filed a joint request to have an independent agency provide recommendations on how to meet the provisions of the Leandro case. A report by the non-profit WestEd laid the groundwork for the 2022 multi-billion dollar Comprehensive Remedial Plan, which required the state to address various areas, including school budgets, faculty training, early education programs, post-secondary/career readiness, and student performance assessment and accountability.

Just as there was an end in sight for the extended stalemate between Leandro plaintiffs and the State, the case took a recent turn. Rather than appealing the decision within 30 days of the ruling, as is standard, attorneys representing Republican leaders Senator Phil Berger and Speaker of the House Tim Moore requested the halting of Leandro funds and another hearing after the 2022 election that turned the NC Supreme Court majority from Democrat to Republican. 

The new Supreme Court, which now includes Senator Berger’s son, Justice Phil Berger, Jr., agreed to halt the transfer of Leandro-related funds to school districts. They argued that judges did not have the right to order the spending of state funds, as that power is given exclusively to state lawmakers in the NC constitution. Along party lines, the NC Supreme Court voted not to have Justice Berger recuse himself from the case despite the judicial code of conduct requesting justices to remove themselves from matters involving family members. The oral arguments for these proceedings took place on February 22nd.

The intentional post-election steps taken by Congressional Republicans to request a rehearing after a tide-turning election and the Republican-majority Supreme Court’s failure to abide by the judicial code raise a glaring issue of heightened politicization within this landmark educational spending case. With the recent political turn this case took, there is a high likelihood that the new court will roll back its prior decision to increase school funding. 

Halting funding to the remedial education plan may have been acceptable if educational disparity gaps had closed in the thirty years since Leandro was first filed. However, in a measure of college readiness, the 2023 NC School Report Card found that only 41.1% of students met or exceeded the required minimum composite ACT score. More alarmingly, only 22.7% of economically disadvantaged students, 18.7% of black students, 25% of Hispanic students, and 19% of indigenous students achieved this requirement. In grades 3-5, only 35.5% of economically disadvantaged students, 33.4% of black students, 38.9% of indigenous students, and 42.9% of Hispanic students are at grade-level proficiency in mathematics. 

What was argued by Leandro in its conception in 1994 still rings true today: Black and brown students and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds in North Carolina are not being served the sound, basic education that the State owes them. Despite years of fighting and abundant evidence of the school system’s failure, the new political landscape of North Carolina, in all probability, means that the State will not carry out the necessary remedial steps. With all the ongoing and uncertain factors influencing this case, only one thing is clear: Leandro vs. North Carolina is sure to alter the educational landscape of North Carolina drastically.