Law Byte:
Leandro and Sound Basic Educators, Pt. 1
Lex-IS Services
Legal Instruction and Support for School Leaders
Forward this to colleagues, board members, and friends
|
|
May 1, 2009
|
Law Byte, Vol. B09-04
|
|
|
|
LEANDRO AND SOUND BASIC EDUCATORS - PT. 1
[This article is the first in a series on the recent developments and legal implications of Leandro v. State as they pertain to personnel issues.]
Recent Happenings
On April 28, Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning, currently presiding over the 15-year trial of the Leandro v. State case, heard from state education officials and parents regarding problems and plans involving the Halifax County Schools. Previously, Judge Manning declared that students in that system were victims of "academic genocide" due to chronic academic failures. [See Lex-IS Special Update, March 17, 2009 for specific details.] State test results show, for example, that only one-third of Halifax high school students are proficient on end-of-year tests (compared to 68% statewide) and the district has regularly failed to meet federal "Adequate Yearly Progress" goals.
In response to Judge Manning's recent findings and prior to the hearing, Governor Bev Purdue issued a statement on April 22 [LINK] announcing a state intervention plan to provide "support, direction and accountability" for Halifax County and other North Carolina schools. At the April 28 hearing, state officials presented more details of a three-year plan. It includes several weeks of intensive professional training this summer for teachers and administrators along with ongoing coaching and support. Professional assistance will be provided by twelve "master educators" hired by the Halifax Schools to help classroom teachers, three NCDPI "school transformation coaches," and one NCDPI "district transformation coach." The state will also continue to support and monitor ongoing changes.
Below are additional legal and practical considerations of the Leandro case and recent proceedings.
[Note: The next article in this series
will address, more extensively, the legal and practical issues arising
from Leandro's personnel implications, particularly in relation to the state's
Teacher Tenure Act (G.S. 115C-325) and Administrator Contract law (G.S.
115C-287.1)]
|
|
Leandro's Constitutional Right to Effective Teachers and Leaders
This week's hearing and the state plan focused significantly on professional development and competence. As one state official testified, "[i]f teachers, principals or central office staff don't meet expectations, they [will] exit the system."
In the first Leandro decision in 1997 by the State Supreme Court ("Leandro I"), the court declared the right of every child to receive a "Sound Basic Education." This means, in essence, that every student who graduates should be sufficiently educated in math, science, language arts, civics and economics to be adequately prepared to enter the arenas of higher education, work, and civic and business affairs.
The court sent the case back to Judge Manning for further proceedings to determine if students in the plaintiff school systems were receiving a Sound Basic Education. In 2004, the state Supreme Court issued its second opinion in Hoke v. State ("Leandro II"), having reviewed Judge Manning's preceding findings of fact and legal rulings following Leandro I. The court, in an opinion written by Justice Robert Orr and issued on his last day before retiring from the court, upheld most of Judge Manning's rulings.
Regarding teacher and administrator competence, the court agreed with Judge Manning's determination that,
"A sound basic education requires...at a minimum, that every classroom be staffed with a competent, certified, well-trained teacher who is teaching the standard course of study by implementing effective educational methods...[and] that every school be led by a well-trained competent principal with the leadership skills and the ability to hire and retain competent certified and well-trained teachers...".
Based on such rulings, it can now be said that students in North Carolina's public schools have a constitutional right to competent teachers and leaders. In other words, hiring and retaining only effective educators is no longer just an aspiration or ethical duty; it is a legal obligation, the neglect of which may subject schools, school officials, and even the state to future liability. By implication, school officials are thus constitutionally required to implement effective hiring, supervision, retention, and dismissal practices.
The principle of legal obligation for professional competence is federally recognized as well. For example, the Purpose of Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act is
"To increase student academic achievement [by]... increasing the number of highly qualified teachers...and highly qualified principals and assistant principals."
President Barack Obama, in a March 10, 2009 speech, declared,
"If a teacher is given a chance but still does not improve, there is no excuse for that person to continue teaching...I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences."
|
Pending Legal Questions
In light of this constitutional right to competent teachers and administrators, numerous legal issues remain unanswered:
- Will there be a specific Leandro standard for determining if a teacher or administrator fails to fulfill the legal duty of competence? What are the specific measures? For example, to what extent will North Carolina courts consider test scores or other criteria? (The State Supreme Court has upheld Judge Manning's ruling that students performing below Level III on state tests are not receiving a Sound Basic Education; if students in a teacher's class fall below that standard, do they have a right to assert a legal claim?)
- To what extend should and will courts consider "mitigating factors" such as children's economic status, degree of parental responsibility (or irresponsibility), limited financial resources, and the difficulty in some low-wealth school systems (e.g., Halifax County) to attract and retain quality educators.
- What are the legal claims and remedies available to parents if students in a particular classroom, school, or district are not receiving a Sound Basic Education due to poor teaching and/or leadership? How long must such a condition exist, and what kind and how much educational harm must be suffered before a plaintiff has a viable claim?
- Does Leandro provide another route for plaintiffs to assert what, in essence, is an educational malpractice claim under the state constitution? (Courts have typically rejected traditional educational malpractice claims. Does Leandro open the door?)
- Who would be the primary defendants defending such claims: the teacher, the teacher's supervisor(s), the superintendent, the school board, the State Board, the State of North Carolina? (The State Supreme Court has previously upheld Judge Manning's ruling that the state-the legislative and executive branches-is ultimately responsible for providing a Sound Basic Education.) Because of the various institutional roles and levels, will such a lawsuit lead to multiple cross- and counter-claims?
- What are the remedies available to successful plaintiffs? Do they include
- the right to a new teacher, principal, or other school leaders? And how soon and in what manner must they be corrected or replaced?
- the right to transfer to another classroom, school, or school district?
- the right to choose other educational alternatives, public or private, if a public school system fails to offer adequate alternatives?
- pecuniary remedies?
|
Practice Points
- School personnel policies, practices and standards-regarding background checks, hiring, supervision, and evaluation-must be reassessed and revised to reflect the rigor and quality necessary to uphold Leandro standards.
- The criteria for deciding when to renew teacher and administrator contracts or to grant tenure to a teacher should be based on high performance standards. (For instance, some school boards apply a low performance standard when they renew teachers and administrators; i.e., renewing or granting tenure as long as the performance is not "bad" or is minimally acceptable).
- Avoid moving teachers from school to school when their performance is poor or otherwise inadequate, simply to avoid conflict or legal challenge. (Often such practice results in such teachers working in schools more heavily populated by at-risk students because their parents typically are not as involved and/or do not object as vociferously to poor teacher quality.)
- Courts generally defer to board decisions to nonrenew or to dismiss teachers and administrators as long as such decisions do not reflect an abuse of discretion, are properly documented, and procedurally adequate.
- School systems must ensure that decisions makers at all levels-Principals, central office supervisors and executives, and school board members-uniformly commit to high performance standards and uniformly understand their legal duties and discretion to uphold high performance standards. System-wide, consistent, and regular legal instruction and dialogue among decision-makers is imperative.
|
Supplemental Information
(Published in previous Lex-IS Updates)
|
| Brief Leandro Chronology
1994: Leandro v. State lawsuit first filed in state superior court. Plaintiffs include numerous low-wealth and, eventually, urban systems, challenging the state's funding of schools.
July 24, 1997: The North Carolina Supreme Court issues its first opinion (Leandro I), declaring that the state constitution guarantees all children the right to an equal opportunity to receive a "sound basic education." The court rejects the notion that the plaintiffs' rights can be addressed strictly by changing the state's funding of schools. The court sends the case back to the trial court and appoints Superior Court Judge Howard Manning to preside over the entire case to determine if the plaintiffs are receiving a sound basic education and to make other necessary findings.
1999-2002: Judge Manning holds numerous hearings and issues a series of rulings, focusing primarily on whether at-risk students in Hoke County Schools are receiving a sound basic education.
April 4, 2002: Judge Manning issues his Final Judgment on the "liability phase."
July 30, 2004: The North Carolina Supreme Court issues its second ruling in the case of Hoke v. State ("Leandro II"), upholding most of Judge Manning's findings and legal conclusions based on Leandro I (see Leandro Principles below). This includes the ruling that at-risk students in the Hoke County Schools have been denied a sound basic education.
May 24, 2005: Judge Manning files a "Report from the Court" regarding the problem of poor performing high schools throughout North Carolina.
August 2005: Former Governor Easley directs the State Board of Education to send "turnaround teams" to the state's 44 high schools scoring below 60% proficiency on EOG tests.
March 3, 2006: Judge Manning issues a letter to then State Board Chairman Howard Lee concerning "The High School Problem - Consequences," threatening to close down continually-failing high schools beginning in the fall of 2006 if leadership changes are not made at such schools.
March 16, 2009: Judge Manning schedules a hearing on the Halifax School problem and sends letter to State Board Chairman and CEO William Harrison and State Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson.
April 29, 2009: "Non-adversarial" hearing scheduled to address the Halifax problems.
|
The Law of Leandro: What Students Are Entitled To
1. The North Carolina Constitution (Arts. I, §15 and IX, §2) guarantees every child an equal opportunity to receive a "sound basic education." This means, in sum, being prepared with sufficient knowledge and skill in English, math, science, civics and economics, history, geography and vocational training to adequately participate, compete, and engage in the spheres of post-secondary education and training, work, and civic life. [Leandro I]
2. Regarding minimum educational resources ("Leandro Compliant Prerequisites") a sound basic education requires that every child has an equal opportunity to attend a public school that
- has a "competent, certified, well-trained teacher who is teaching the standard course of study by implementing effective educational methods that provide differentiated, individualized instruction, assessment and remediation...."
- is "led by a well-trained competent principal with the leadership skills and the ability to hire and retain" competent teachers to implement an effective instructional program that meets the needs of at-risk children by "achieving grade level or above academic performance."
- is "provided, in the most cost effective manner, the resources necessary to support...the educational needs of all children...." [Leandro II]
3. Failure of a student to achieve Level III (i.e., is below grade level) on the State's ABC, EOG, and EOC tests demonstrates the failure to obtain a sound basic education in the respective subject area(s) and is a student "at-risk." Level III proficiency or above demonstrates Leandro compliance. [Leandro II]
4. The State is responsible for and must correct educational methods and practices that contribute to the failure to provide a sound basic education.
5. The State must sufficiently fund local school systems so they can provide students with the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education.
|
|
ABOUT US: Lex-IS Services provides legal counsel for North Carolina schools and school officials, retainer plans, local workshops and academies, policy and document preparation, and other support services to help school leaders strategically comply with the law.
DISCLAIMER: This publication is for information purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice. When addressing actual legal issues, readers are encouraged to seek formal legal counsel, due to the fact that unique circumstances require carefully tailored legal analysis.
Contact information: 815-301-3931 / Services@LEX-IS.com / www.Lex-IS.com
Note: Lex-IS Services is not affiliated in any way with Lexis/Nexis or its parent company, Reed Elsevier.
|
|
|
