STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COEETQNEION
COUNTY OF WAKE - 95-Cv3i1 158HOKE COUNTY BOARD- OF 20233?3?33 @3351?? i
HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD ROBESON COUNTY BOARD OF 
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ?t
VANCE COUNTY BOARD OF
RANDY L. HASTY, individually
and as Guardian Ad Litem of RANDELL B.
STEVEN R. individually and
as Guardian Ad Litem Of ANDREW J. 
LIONEL WHIDBEE, individually and as Guardian
Ad Litem of JEREMY L. TYRONE T.
WILLIAMS, individually and as Guardian Ad
Litem of TREVELYN L. D.E.
LOCKLEAR, JR., individually and as Guardian Ad
Litem of JASON E. ANGUS B.
THOMPSON II, individUally and as Guardian Ad
Litem Of VANDALIAH J. MARY
ELIZABETH LOWERY, individually and as
Guardian?Ad Litem of LANNIE RAE LOWERY,
JENNIE G. PEARSON, individually and as
Guardian Ad Litem of SHARESE-D. 
BENITA B. TIPTON, individually and as Guardian
Ad Litem Of WHITNEY B. DANA
HOLTON JENKINS, individually and as Guardian
Ad Litem of RACHEL M. LEON R.
ROBINSON, individually and as Guardian Ad
Litem of JUSTIN A. ROBINSON,

Plaintiffs,
and .

BOARD OF
EDUCATION,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,
and

RAFAEL CLIFTON JONES, individually
and as Guardian Ad Litem Of CLIFTON
MATTHEW DONNA JENKINS
DAWSON, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem
SHEMAY DAWSON and TYLER
ANTHONY HOUGH-JENKINS, DENISE

 

 

 

HOLLIS JORDAN, individUally and as guardian ad
litem of SHAUNDRA DOROTHEA JORDAN and
BURRELL JORDAN, TERRY DARNELL
BELK, individually and as guardian ad litem of
KIMBERLY SHANALLE SUSAN

ANNETTE STRONG, individually as guardian ad
litem of TRACEY ANNETTE STRONG and
ASHLEY CATHERINE CHARLOTTE
BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED

 

PEOPLE, .
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and the STATE
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants,
and
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Realigned Defendant.

 

CONSENT ORDER REGARDING NEED FOR REMEDIAL, SYSTEMIC ACTIONS
FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF LEANDRO COMPLIANCE

At issue in this long?running matter is one of the most important rights enumerated in our
State Constitution: the fundamental right of every child in North Carolina to have the opportunity
to receive a sound basic education in a public school. As this Court has found, this constitutional
right has been denied to many North Carolina children.

The State of North Carolina, North Carolina State Board of Education, and other actors
have taken signi?cant steps over time in an effort to improve student achievement and students?
opportunity to access a sound basic education. Many of these efforts have made a positive impact
on the lives of public school students and improved public schooling in the State.

However, historic and current data before the Court show that considerable, systemic work
is necessary to deliver fully the-Leandra right to all children in the State. In short, North Carolina?s
public education system leaves too many students behind especially students of color
and economically disadvantaged students. As a result, thousands of students are not being
prepared for full participation in the global, interconnected economy and the society in which they
will live, work, and engage as citizens. The costs to those students, individually, and to the State
are considerable and if left unattended will result in a North Carolina that does not meet its vast
potential.

 

The educational obstacles facing the State?s at?risk students are real, steep, and require
urgency. The Court is encouraged that the parties to this case Defendants State of North
Carolina (?State?) and the State Board of Education (?State Board?) (collectively, the ?State
Defendants?), as well as the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff?Intervenors (collectively, ?Plaintiffs?) are
in agreement that the time has come to take decisive and concrete action immediate, short
term actions and the implementation of a mid-term and long-term remedial action plan) to bring
North Carolina into constitutional compliance so that all students have access to the opportunity
to a obtain a sound basic education.

The Court is also encouraged by Governor Cooper?s creation of the Governor?s
Commission on Access to Sound Basic Education and the Commission?s work thus far and is
hopeful that the parties, with the help of the Governor, can obtain the support necessary from the
General Assembly and other public institutions to implement and sustain the necessary changes to
the State?s educational system and deliver the constitutional guarantee of Leandra to every child
in the State.

At this critical moment and in years ahead, the Parties and the Court shall proceed with
bene?t of the detailed ?ndings, research, and recommendations of the Court?s independent non-
party consultant, Westh. These ?ndings are collected in WestEd?s comprehensive report entitled,
?Sound Basic Education for All: An Action Plan for North Carolina? and its underlying studies
(collectively, the ?WestEd Report?). The WestEd Report con?rms what this Court has previously
made clear: that the State Defendants have not yet ensured the provision of education that meets
the required constitutional standard to all school children in North Carolina. See March 18, 2018
Order (?The court record is replete with evidence that the Leandra right continues to be denied to
hundreds of thousands of North Carolinachildren [and that the actions the State has taken so far
are] wholly inadequate to demonstrate substantial compliance with the constitutional mandate of
Leandra measured by applicable educational standards?).

The WestEd Report offers detailed ?ndings about the current state of Leandra compliance
in North Carolina, as well as important, comprehensive short? and long?term recommendations for
a path forward to achieve constitutional compliance. These ?ndings and recommendations are
rooted in an unprecedented body of research and analysis, which will inform decision-making and
this Court?s approach to this case.

Our Supreme Court recognized that a sound basic education is one that, among other
things, ?enable[s] the student to function in a complex and rapidly changing society . . . and
compete on an equal basis with others in further formal education or gainful employment in
contemporary society.? North Carolina continuously changes and a Leandra-conforming
educational system must take this into account. North Carolina continues to grow. Our student
body is larger, more diverse, and more economically disadvantaged today than it was 25 years ago.
Advances in science and technology have re?set expectations for the skills and competencies our
students must have in order to be ready for the future. The Parties agree that brain science and
research show that new approaches are required for the provision of early learning and pre-K
education with broader access for young children?s participation. Our education system must
adjust to and keep pace with the major ongoing technological, social, and economic changes in
our society. 

 

To prepare its schoolchildren to compete in the future, the Parties have agreed that North
Carolina must do more to meet these changes and challenges. As the original Leandra decision
affirmed, education that does not serve the purpose of preparing students to participate and
compete in the society in which they live and work is devoid of substance and is constitutionally
inadequate? Leandra v. State, 346 NC. 336, 345, 488 249, 254 (1997).

In his final order issued on March 17, 2015 before retiring, The Honorable Howard
Manning concluded that ?a de?nite plan of action is still necessary to meet the requirements and
duties of the state of North Carolina with regard to its children having equal opportunity to obtain
a sound basic education.? See 3/17/2015 Order (?in way too many school districts across the state,
thousands of children in the public schools have failed to obtain and are not now obtaining a sound
basic education as de?ned by and required by the Leandra decision?). That remains true today.
As outlined in greater detail below and in accordance with the Court?s prior rulings, the Court
orders the Defendants, in consultation with each other and the Plaintiffs, to work expeditiously
and without delay to create and fully implement a de?nite plan of action to achieve Leandra
compliance.

Based upon WestEd?s ?ndings, research, and recommendations and the evidence of record
in this case, the Court and the Parties conclude that a de?nite plan of action for the provision of
the constitutional Leandra rights must ensure a system of education that at its base includes seven
components as described below. The Parties stipulate that the following components are required
to implement the Leandra tenants as set forth in prior holdings of the Supreme Court and this
Court?s prior orders. The Parties further stipulate that these components are necessary to address
critical needs in public education and to ensure that the State is providing the opportunity for a
sound basic education to each North Carolina child, and further holds itself accountable for doing
so:

1. A system of teacher development and recruitment that ensures each classroom is staffed
with a high- quality teacher who IS supported with early and ongoing professional learning
and provided competitive pay;

2. A system of principal development and recruitment that ensures each school is led by a
high?quality principal who is supported with early and ongoing professional learning and
provided competitive pay;

3. A ?nance system that provides adequate, equitable, and predictable funding to school
districts and, importantly, adequate resources to address the needs of all North Carolina
schools and students, especially at-risk~students as de?ned by the Leandra decisions;

4. An assessment and accountability system that reliably assesses multiple measures of student
performance against the Leandra standard and provides accountability consistent with the
Leandra standard;

5. An assistance and tuina1ound function that provides necessary support to low-performing
schools and districts;

 

6. A system of early education that provides access to high-quality pre-kindergarten and other
early childhood learning opportunities to ensure that all students at-risk of educational
failure, regardless of where they live in the State, enter kindergarten on track for school
success; and

i 7. An alignment of high school to postsecondary and career eXpectations, as well as the
provision of early postsecondary and workforce learning opportunities, to ensure student
readiness to all students in the State.

It is the State?s duty to implement the ?scal, programmatic, and strategic steps necessary
to ensure these seven components are in place and, ultimately, to achieve the outcomes for students
required by the Constitution.

The Parties agree that the constitutional rights at issue implicate the mission and require
the work of the State?s numerous institutions and agencies, which all share 1n the responsibility for
ensuring that every child receives the opportunity for a sound basic education. As a constitutional
actor, however, the State Board of Education must play a signi?cant role in delivering the Leandra
right to all students. N.C. Const. art. IX, 5 (?The State Board of Education shall supervise and
administer the free public school system and the educational funds provided for its support, except
the funds mentioned in Section 7 of this Article, and shall make all needed rules and regulations
in relation thereto, subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly?)

This Court will issue a Subsequent order or orders regarding the de?nite plan of action and
its critical components, including the identi?cation of speci?c concrete, de?nitive actions
(preliminary short-term actions and mid-term and long?term action plans) that will be taken to
implement the above seven components and to correct the constitutional de?ciencies, so that the
State may ?nally meet its constitutional obligations to North Carolina?s children.

At the outset, the Court reviews its previous rulings, the Leandra tenets and recent
procedural history.

The Court?s Rulings and Leandra ?s Tenets
Leandra v. State, 346 NC. 336, 488 249 (1997) (Leandra I)

More than twenty??ve (25) years ago, in May of 1994, Plaintiffs initiated this action and
alleged that certain guaranteed educational rights conferred by the North Carolina Constitution
were being denied to North Carolina?s school?aged children. The Court denied the State
Defendants? motion to dismiss and a unanimous Supreme Court af?rmed these constitutional
obligations. Leandra I, 346 NC. 336, 488 249 (1997).

Leandra I contained three principal holdings: (1) the State Constitution does not require
equal funding of public school systems, and consequently the challenged system of funding was
not unconstitutional, id. at 349, 488 at 256; (2) the State Constitution does not require
students in every school system to receive the same educational opportunities, id. at 350, 488

 

 at 256; but (3) the State Constitution does require that each student in all school systems
have the ?opportunity to receive a sound basic education in our public schools,? id. at 347, 488
at 255. The Supreme Court de?ned a sound basic education as:

one that will provide the student with at least: 1) suf?cient ability to read, write,
and speak the English language and a suf?cient knowledge of fundamental
mathematics and physical science to enable the student to function in a complex
and rapidly changing society; (2) suf?cient fundamental knowledge of
geography, history, and basic economic and political systems to enable the
student to make informed choices with regard to issues that affect the student
personally or affect the student?s community, state, and nation; (3) suf?cient
academic and vocational skills to enable the student to successfully engage in
post-secondary education or vocational training; and (4) suf?cient academic or
vocational skills to enable the student to compete on an equal basis with others in
further formal education or gainful employment in contemporary society.

346 NC. at 347, 488 at 255 (internal citations omitted).

The Supreme Court also held that the Constitution requires the State to ensure that each
and every child, regardless of age, need, or district, has access to a sound basic education in a
public school. 346 NC. at 345, 488 at 254 (holding that ?an education that does not serve
the purpose of preparing students to participate and compete in the society in which they live and
work is devoid of substance and is constitutionally inadequate?).

The Supreme Court indicated that there were at least three potentially relevant, but not
dispositive, factors that may be weighed by a trial court in determining whether the opportunity
offered students was constitutionally suf?cient. These were: (1) educational goals and standards
established by the General Assembly, id. at 355, 488 at 259, which were presumably
suf?cient to provide-stUdents an opportunity to obtain a sound basic education; (2) student
performance on standardized achievement tests, id. at 355, 488 at 260; and (3) the level of
State educational expenditures to support the public school system, id. at 355, 488 at 260.
The Court recognized ?that the value of standardized tests [was] the subject of much debate.
Therefore, they may not be treated as absOlutely authoritative? on the issue of the opportunity for
a sound basic education. Id. at 355,488 S. E. 2d at 260. Stated differently, test scores are only one
of several factors to be weighed in determining whether the State is meeting its constitutional
obligations to North Carolina children.

Finally, the Supreme Court held that educational standards established by the State were
presumptively suf?cient to provide students the opportunity for a sound basic education and
expressly imposed on plaintiffs the burden to prove their claims by clear showing,? id. at 357,
488 at 261, for only such a showing ?will justify a judicial intrusion into an area so clearly
the province. .of the legislative and executive branches.? Id. The Supreme Court remanded the
case for a determination as to whether the State was, in fact, denying this fundamental
constitutional right to the children:

 

If on remand of this case to the trial court, that court makes ?ndings and
conclusions from competent evidence to the effect that [the State Defendants]
are denying children of the state a sound basic education, a denial of a
fundamental right will have been established. It will then become incumbent
upon [the State] to establish that their actions denying this fundamental right
are ?necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.? If [the State
Defendants] are unable to do so, it will then be the duty of the court to enter a
judgment granting declaratory relief and such other relief as needed to correct
the wrong while minimizing the encroachment upon the other branches of
government.

346 NC. at 357, 488 at 261 (internal citations omitted).

The Supreme Court recognized that, while making such determinations, ?the courts of the
state must grant every, reasonable deference to the legislative and executive branches when
considering whether they have established and are administering a system that provides the
children of the various school districts of the state a sound basic education.? Id.

Liability Judgment and Hoke County Bd. of Educ. v. State, 358 NC. 605, 599 365
(2004) (Leandra II)

The trial proceedings continued for over a year, involved more than 40 witnesses, and
included hundreds of exhibits. The trial court issued four memoranda of decision collectively
totaling over 400 pages of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

On April 4, 2002, the trial court found that the Plaintiffs had met their burden of
demonstrating constitutional non-compliance and entered a liability judgment against the State
(incorporating the previous memoranda of decision) (collectively, the ?Liability Judgmen 
?nding continuing constitutional violations. With some modifications, the Liability Judgment was
unanimously af?rmed by the Supreme Court in Leandra II.

The Court found, and the Supreme Court unanimously af?rmed, that the State was
constitutionally obligated to provide each and every child the opportunity to attend a public school
with access to the following:

First, that every classroom be staffed with a competent, certi?ed, well?trained
teacher who is teaching the standard course of study by implementing effective
educational methods that provide differentiated, individualized instruction,
assessment and remediation to the students in that classroom.

Second, that every school be led by a well-trained competent Principal with the
leadership skills and the ability to hire and retain competent, certi?ed and well-
trained teachers who can implement an effective and cost-effective instructional
program that meets the needs of at?risk children so that they can have the
opportunity to obtain a sound basic education by achieving grade level or above
academic performance.

 

Third, that every school be provided, in the most cost effective manner, the
resources necessary to support the effective instructional program within that
school so that the educational needs of all children, including at-risk children, to
have the equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education, can be met.

Liability Judgment, pp. 109-10; Leandra II, 358 NC. at 636, 599 at 389.

The trial court also found, and the Supreme Court unanimously af?rmed, that the State had
not provided, and was not providing, competent certi?ed teachers, well-trained competent
principals, and the resources necessary to afford all children, including those at-risk, an equal
opportunity to obtain a sound basic education, and that State Defendants were responsible for these
constitutional violations. See Liability Judgment, p. 110, Leandra II, 358 NC. at 647?48, 599

at 396.

Further, the Court found, and the Supreme Court unanimously af?rmed, that at?risk
childrenl require more resources, time, and focused attention in order to receive a sound basic
education. Leandra II, 358 NC 641, 599 at 392. Speci?cally,





(0)



?At~risk children need adequately targeted remediation services.? Liability
Judgment at p. 50.

?Enabling at?risk children to perform well in school requires more time and more
resources.? Memorandum of Decision, Sect. Two, p. 10. 

?From this review, it became clear to the Court that there are two distinct
groups attending the public schools in North Carolina - those children at risk of
academic failure that are not obtaining a sound basic education and those children
who are not at risk of academic failure and who are obtaining a sound basic
education. The major factors which can be used to identify those children at-
risk and those not at?risk, are (1) socio?economic status (2) level of parental
education and (3) free and reduced price lunch participation, all of which are
inextricably intertwined with each other.? Memorandum of Decision, Sect. Three,
p. 64.

?at-risk? student is generally described as one who holds or demonstrates one
or more of the following characteristics: (1) member of low?income family; (2)
participate in free or reduced-cost lunch programs; (3) have parents with a low-
level education; (4) show limited pro?ciency in English; (5) are a member of a
racial or ethnic minority group; (6) live in a home headed by a single parent or
guardian.? Leandra II, 358 NC. at 389, 599 at 635, n. 16.

Regarding early childhood education, the Supreme Court af?rmed the trial court?s findings
that the ?State was providing inadequate resources? to ??at-risk? prospective enrollees? (?pre-k?
children), ?that the State?s failings were contributing to the ?at?risk? prospective enrollees?

 

Children who are ?at-risk? of academic failure are discussed at length in this Court?s Memorandum of Decision,
Sect. Two of October 26, 2000.

 

subsequent failure to avail themselves of the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education,? and
that ?State efforts towards providing remedial aid to ?at-risk? prospective enrollees were
inadequate.? Id. at 641-42, 599 at 392-33. While the Supreme Court did not uphold the
trial court?s speci?c remedy of pre?K at that time, the Court af?rmed the ?ndings that ?there
was an inordinate number of ?at-risk? children who were entering the Hoke County school district?
each year, (ii) ?such ?at-risk? children were starting behind their non ?at-risk? counterparts,? and
?such ?at?risk? children were likely to stay behind, or fall further behind, their non ?at-risk?
counterparts as they continued their education.? Id. at 641, 599 at 392.

In addition, the trial court found, and the Supreme Court unanimously af?rmed, that ?the
State of North Carolina is ultimately responsible for providing each child with access to a sound
basic education and that this reSponsibility cannot be abdicated by transferring responsibility to
local boards of education.? Liability Judgment, p. 110; Leandra II, 358 NC. at 635, 599 
at 389. It is ultimately the State?s responsibility to ensure that each child has the opportunity to a
Leandra?conforming education.2 The Supreme Court has held that the State may not shift
responsibility for constitutional violations onto the local districts. Id.

The Supreme Court remanded the case for the trial court to oversee the implementation of
a remedial framework to correct and addreSs the constitutional de?ciencies. From 2004-2015,
more than 20 hearings were held on this issue, the nature and scope of which are set out in the
previous orders of this Court, all of which are in the record.

In 2013, the Supreme Court con?rmed that the Liability Judgment and the mandates of
Leandra I and Leandra II remain ?in full force and effect.? On November 8, 2013, the Supreme
Court dismissed an appeal by the State concerning legislative enactments about pre-kindergarten
programming on mootness grounds. In the dismissal order, the Supreme Court held, ?Our
mandates in Leandra and Hoke County [Leandra remain in full force and effect.? Hoke County
Bd. ofEd. v. State, 367 NC. 156, 160, 749 451, 455 (2013).

Recent Procedural History and Appointment of the Court?s Non-party, Independent
Consultant WestEd

In July 2017, the State Board ?led a Motion for Relief pursuant to Rule 60 and Rule 12,
requesting that the Court relinquish jurisdiction in this case. The State? Board asserted that
programs implemented in the State, changes in factual circumstances, and changes in state and
federal law had resulted in an education system wholly different than the one that was the subject
of the original action such that these circumstances support relief under Rule 60. The Court denied
the State Board?s motion on March 7, 2018.

In its March 2018 Order, the Court reiterated the ?evidence before this Court upon the SBE
[State Board] Motion is ?wholly inadequate to demonstrate that [enactments by the State
Defendants] translate into substantial compliance with the constitutional mandate of Leandra
measured by applicable educational standards.? See Order, p. 5,1] 12.

 

2 See also Silver v. Halifax Cry. Bd-ofCamm ?fs, 371 NC. 855, 821 755 (201 8) (af?rming that the constitutional
responsibility of providing the opportunity to a sound basic education resides with the State speci?caliy the
legislative and executive branches 5 rather than with a local governmental unit).

9

 

In January 2018, the State and the Plaintiffs ?led a joint motion for case management and
. scheduling order in which the parties proposed to nominate, for this Court?s consideration and
appointment, an independent, non-party consultant to assess the current status of Leandra
compliance in North Carolina for the Court and to make detailed, comprehensive, written
recommendations for speci?c actions necessary to achieve sustained compliance with the
constitutional mandates articulated in the Leandra case. 

On February 1, 2018, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order setting
forth, among other things, the parameters for the consultant?s work and a detailed timeline for
completion of such work should the Court choose to appoint the nominated non-party as the
Court?s consultant. In the Case Management and Scheduling Order, this Court took judicial notice
of Executive Order No. 10 dated July 21, 2017, superseded and replaced by Executive Order No.
27 dated November 15, 2017, which created the Governor?s Commission on Access to Sound
Basic Education (?Commission?).

Thereafter, on March 13, 2018, this Court issued an Order appointing WestEd to serve as
the Court?s independent, non-party consultant pursuant to the terms of the Case Management
Order issued on February 1, 2018. Prior to the appointment, the Court thoroughly reviewed
WestEd?s extensive quali?cations, experience, expertise, and background information (including
the resumes of the WestEd team members to lead this project) regarding educational research and
innovation, as well as WestEd?s submission regarding their proposed scope of work.

The Court charged WestEd with submitting ?nal recommendations to the Parties, the
Commission, and the Court within twelve months from the date of appointment3. WestEd?s
recommendations were to ?consist of the consultant?s conclusions as to detailed and
comprehensive actions that the State should take to achieve sustained compliance? with
constitutional mandates to provide every child with an equal opportunity to a sound basic
education in North Carolina. 

All Parties agree that WestEd is, and was, quali?ed to serve in this capacity.
WestEd?s Process and. a Sound Basic Education for All: An Action Plan for North Carolina

WestEd is a non-pro?t, non?partisan, educational research, development, and service
organization with more than 650 employees in 17 of?ces across the nation and more than 50 years
of experience. WestEd?s work centers around providing research, recommendations and sustained
professional services to improve public education systems, student achievement, educator
effectiveness, and educational leadership. WestEd has extensive experience in working with
numerous states and state education agencies in multiple areas, including: developing
and evaluating assessments and standards, development of educator evaluation systems, providing
quality professional development to a wide range of education professionals, developing strong
school turnaround leaders to close the achievement gap, and researching and advising on school
?nance policy. In addition, WestEd leads the US. Department of Education?s National Center on

 

3 This deadline was subsequently extended for, among other reasons, the devastation wrought by Hurricanes Matthew
and Florence, which delayed WestEd?s data collection and visits to certain districts.

10

 

School Turnaround Whose work addresses a number of factors relevant in this case, including:
developing SEA staff capacity and SEA organizational structures, building school and district
capacity by providing leadership training to ensure leaders have the skills to produce positive
outcomes for all students, and creating policies and practices to ensure a pipeline of turnaround
leaders.

In support of its work, WestEd also engaged the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation
at North Carolina State University and the Learning Policy Institute (LPI), a national education
policy and research organization with extensive experience in North Carolina.

Under WestEd?s leadership, these three organizations also collaborated to conduct 13
studies4 to better identify, de?ne, and understand key issues and challenges related to North
Carolina?s education system and to offer a framework of change for the State. The researchers
developed and carried out a comprehensive research agenda to investigate the current state and
major needs of North Carolina public education, including in the following overarching areas: (1)
access to effective educators, (2) access to effective school leaders, (3) adequate and equitable
school funding and other resources, and (4) adequate accountability and assessment systems.

After more than a year of extensive research, evaluation, and analysis, WestEd?s work on
behalf of the Court culminated in its submission of its draft report to the Court on June 18, 2019,
and a final report on October 4, 2019 (?WestEd Report?).

A detailed description of WestEd?s work and analysis is set out in the WestEd Report.
Among other things, WestEd:

- Analyzed educational data at the North Carolina Education Research Data Center at
Duke University, which includes data on students, teachers, schools and districts in the

state.

- Analyzed data from Education Policy Initiative at the University of North Carolina.

 

4 The study report titles are: (1) Best Practices to Recruit and Retain Well-Prepared Teachers in All Classrooms
(Barking-Hamilton et 2019); (2) Developing and Supporting North Carolina?s Teachers (Minnici, Beatson, Berg-
Jacobson, Ennis, 2019); (3) Educator Supply, Demand and Quality in North Carolina: Current Status and
Recommendations (Darling-Hammond et al., 2019); (4) How Teaching and Learning Conditions A?ect Teacher
Retention and School Performance in North Carolina (Berry, Bastian, Darling-Hammond, Kini, 2019); (5)
Retaining and Extending the Reach of Excellent Educators: Current Practices, Educator Perceptions, and Future
Directions (Smith Hassel, 2019); (6) Attracting, Preparing, Supporting, and Retaining Education Leaders in North
Carolina (Koehler, Peterson Agnew, 20} (7) A Study of CastAdequacy, Distribution, and Alignment of Funding
for North Carolina ?s K-IZ Public Education System (Willis et al., 2019); (8) Addressing Leandra: Supporting Student
Learning by Mitigating Student Hunger (Bowden Davis, 2019); (9) High-Quality Early Childhood Education in
North Carolina: A Fundamental Step to Ensure a Sound Basic Education (Agnew, Brooks, Browning, Westervelt,
2019); (10) Leandra Action Plan: Ensuring a Sound Basic Educatianfar All North Carolina Students Success Factors
Study (Townsend, Mullennix, Tyrone, Samberg, 2019); (11) Providing an Equal Opportunity for a Sound Basic
Education in North Carolina?s High-Poverty Schools: Assessing Needs and Opportunities (Oakes et al., 2019); (12)
North Carolina?s Statewide Accountability System: How to Effectively Measure Progress Toward Meeting the
Leandra Tenets (Cardichon, Darling?Hammond, Espinoza, Kostyo, 2019); and (13) North Carolina?s Statewide
Assessment System: How Does the Statewide Assessment System Support Progress Toward Meeting the Leandra
Tenets? (Brunetti, Hemberg, Brandt, McNeilly, 2019).

11

 

 Analyzed demographic, economic, social and other North Carolina data from the
American Community Survey of the United States Census Bureau.

- Analyzed data regarding North Carolina principals obtained from surveys administered
to all principals statewide in the fall of 201 8.

0 Analyzed data from the North Carolina Teacher?Working Conditions Survey.

0 Analyzed data on teacher effectiveness and experience from the National Center for
Education Statistics.

0 Analyzed the State?s Every Student Succeeds (ESSA) Consolidated Plan.
- Conducted site visits across North Carolina.

0 Conducted interviews and focus groups with teachers, principals, superintendents,
other district and state professionals across North Carolina.

0 Conducted interviews and focus groups with public-sector leaders, as well as
interviews with and local school board members.

0 Conducted interviews with several State Board of Education members and North
Carolina Department of Public Instruction staff.

Facilitated in-person professional judgment panels to collect data on the effective
allocation of resources to meet student needs in North Carolina.

0 Conducted a cost-function analysis using data housed at Duke University?s NCERDC,
National Center for Education Statistics, US. Bureau of Labor Statistics, US.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the US. Census Bureau.

- Analyzed data from a variety of other sources, including: an independent operational
assessment of NCDPI commissioned by the General Assembly; the North Carolina
Plan to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators; Outcomes for Beginning
Teachers in a University-Based Support Program in Low?Performing Schools; Race-
to?the-Top Professional Development Evaluation Report; Valuation reports on teacher
and leader preparation programs and educational innovations; presentations made to
the North Carolina Governor?s Commission on Access to a Sound Basic Education;
manuals and reports published by multi-year data from the NCDPI on district
allotments, expenditures, student demographics, and school characteristics; and North
Carolina education legislation.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The Current State of Leandra Compliance

12

 

. viti

Based on a thorough review and consideration of WestEd?s Report, of the evidence of
record in this case, items for which the Court has properly taken judicial notice, and the consent
of all Parties, this Court hereby makes the following ?ndings of fact and conclusions of law
regarding the current status of Leandra compliance and the challenges and barriers to the State
Defendants achieving constitutional compliance.

A. North Carolina Has Substantial Assets To Draw Upon .To Develop A
Successful Education System That Meets The Leandra Tenets.

The State Defendants recognize there is a moral and constitutional imperative for North
Carolina to ful?ll the promise of its Constitution and provide a PreK?12 public
education system that provides every child with the opportunity for a sound basic education.

Throughout the State?s history, North Carolina leaders have recognized that a strong public
education system serves both the economic and the social progress of the State. WestEd presented
research studies supporting the wisdom of a commitment to and investment in public education.
For each high school graduate, society gains a number of economic bene?ts, including higher tax
revenue and lower government spending on health, crime, and welfare costs. For example, one
cost analysis estimated that each new high school graduate yielded a public bene?t of $209,000 in
higher government revenues and lower spending, compared with an investment of $82,000 to help
each student achieve graduation. According to this analysis, the net economic bene?t is 2.5 times

greater than the cost. [WestEd Report, p. 12 (citing Bel?eld Levin, 2007)].

North Carolina has tremendous assets to draw upon in undertaking the systemic work of
educating its school children, including a strong state economy, a deep and long?standing
commitment to public education to support the social and economic welfare of its citizens, and an
engaged business community that sees the value and economic bene?ts of the public education
system. The State Defendants can leverage many of these assets and build on North Carolina?s
strong history of leadership for education to transform the public education system to ensure access
to a sound basic education for all students. [WestEd Report, pp. 167-68].

Historically, the State and the State Board of Education have shown leadership in public
education and made wise investments in strategies and initiatives. For example, during the 19803
and 19903, North Carolina moved its education system forward in many ways. Advancements
included establishing a new system of curriculum standards and assessments, strengthening the
teaching profession, increasing funding for education, and implementing other initiatives that led
to substantial increases in students? achievement. [WestEd Report, pp. 11?12].

During the 19903, North Carolina posted the largest student achievement gains of any state
in mathematics, and it realized substantial progress in reading, becoming the ?rst southern state to
score above the national average in fourth grade reading and math, although it had entered the
decade near the bottom of the state rankings. [WestEd Report, pp. 12-13]. Of all states during the
1990s, it was also the most successful in narrowing the minority-White achievement gap. [Id
(citing National Education Goals Panel, 1999)]. As a result, North Carolina became widely
recognized nationally as a leading state for educational innovation and effectiveness. 

13

 

In the early 2000s, North Carolina continued its efforts to improve educational outcomes
after the Leandra rulings. [WestEd Report, pp. 14?15]. For example, the State launched a
statewide expansion of its Pre-K program (More at Four) and reduced class sizes in grades 
through 3. The State developed 125 Cooperative Innovative High Schools and numerous early
college highs schools, which were designed to make college possible for young adults who
otherwise have few opportunities to continue with higher education. During this time, the State
expanded the services of the North Carolina Teacher Academy and increased North Carolina
Teaching Fellows from 400 to 500 students annually. The State also revised standards for reading
and math to better align with college and career readiness on multiple occasions and implemented
new statewide systems of teacher and principal evaluations to align with improving student
outcomes in the classroom. [WestEd Report, p. 17]. Further, during that time, the Department of
Public Instruction developed its Division of District and School Transformation and provided
signi?cant support and assistance in 135 school and six districts, including support in the State
Board?s intervention in Halifax County Schools within the context of this case. [WestEd Report,

p.16].

During this time, North Carolina implemented statewide efforts in an attempt to support
the public education system. Those efforts included deployment of the ?Home Base? and
PowerSchool technology platforms; creation of the North Carolina Virtual Public School
implementation of the Read to Achieve program; implementation of the Race to the
Top grant programs; and the Whole Child framework; and supporting the North Carolina Teacher
Working Conditions Survey.

More recently, the State Board approved a new Strategic Plan setting forth the agency?s
mission ?to use its constitutional authority to guard and maintain the right to a sound, basic
. education for every child in North Carolina Public Schools.? The Strategic Plan describes three
overarching goals that the State Board has determined will be its focus for the period August 8,
2019 through September 30, 2025. Those goals are: (1) eliminating opportunity gaps by 2025;
(2) improving school and district performance by 2025; and (3) increasing educator preparedness
to meet the needs of every student. For each of those goals, the State Board has developed
strategies and initiatives to achieve success.

Although education improvement efforts have continued, resources committed to
education decreased during the Great Recession and some valuable programs were discontinued.
As a result, the challenges of providing every student with a sound basic education increased.
Cutbacks that began during the recession after 2008, along with much deeper legislative cuts over
the last few years, have eliminated or greatly reduced many of the programs that were put in place
and have begun to undermine the quality and equity gains that were previously made. Declines in
achievement have occurred since 2013 in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), and achievement gaps have widened. [WestEd Report, pp. 12-14,
22-29].

As the Westh Report discusses, other promising initiatives, along with many other
statewide, regional, district, community, and school efforts, were put in place. Many of these
efforts, however, were neither sustained nor scaled up to make a sustained impact. Accordingly,
these efforts were insufficient to?adequately address the Leandra requirements. [WestEd Report,

14

 

p. 17]. The Defendants have not yet met their constitutional duty to provide all North Carolina
students with the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education.

B. Despite Numerous Initiatives, Many Children Are Not Receiving A
Leandra-Conforming Education; Systemic Changes And Investments
Are Required To Deliver the Constitutional Right To All Children.

As the WestEd Report and the record in this case demonstrate, the State Defendants have
implemented numerous ambitious programs and initiatives over the last 20 years, but the Leandra
mandate remains unmet. Many of these programs, however, have not endured or have not been
expanded statewide as needs dictated. The Court finds and concludes that North Carolina faces
greater challenges than ever in meeting its constitutional obligations, many children across North
Carolina are still not receiving the constitutionally-required opportunity for a sound basic
education, and systemic changes and investments are required for the State Defendants to deliver
each of the Leandra tenets.

1. The State Defendants Face Greater Challenges Than Ever.

WestEd found, and the Parties do not dispute, that many children across North Carolina,
especially at-risk and economically?disadvantaged students, are not now receiving a Leandra-
conforming education.

The State faces greater challenges than ever in meeting its constitutional obligation to
provide every student with the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education. [WestEd Report, p.
17].

In the last two decades, North Carolina?s public school student population has grown by
about 25% overall, and the number of children with higher needs, who require additional supports
to meet high standards, has increased by 88% in the last 15 years. [WestEd Report, p. 20].

North Carolina has 807 high-poverty district schools and 36 high-poverty charter schools;
this represents one third of all the State?s districts and more than 20% of the State?s charter
schools.5 [WestEd Report, p. 246]. More than 400,000 students?over a quarter of the students
in North Carolinanattend a high?poverty school. [Id at 245]. This is significant because, among
other things: 

HPSs serve a disproportionate number of students with other academic risk factors,
including students who have parents with low education levels, who have limited
pro?ciency in English, who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group, and who
have families headed by a single parent. [WestEd Report, pp. 96-97, 246].

0 There is a strong negative relationship between at-risk students attending HPSS and the
attainment of a sound basic education. [WestEd Report, p. 97, 247-48]. This is in large

 

5 High?poverty schools are schools in which 75% or more of the students are eligible for federally subsidized
free or reduced-cost school meals because of their families? low income.

15

 

part due to less access to quali?ed teachers, quali?ed principals, and suf?cient
educational resources. [WestEd Report, pp. 98?100; 248?52].

0 Students of color comprise 77% of students attending district HPSs and 93% of those
attending charter HPSs far greater percentages than their 52% representation
statewide. White students 49% of the student population statewide comprise only
23% of students in district HPSs and 7% in charter HPSs. The communities in which
HPSs and low-poverty schools are located display racial patterns with nearly
all LPSs in maj ority?White communities and with HPSs in majority-minority
communities at twice the rate one would expect given residential patterns. [WestEd
Report, p. 246].

0 Students? opportunity for a sound basic education is limited in high?poverty schools by
a lack of supports and services to help mitigate barriers to learning associated with
adverse out-of?school conditions in communities of concentrated poverty. [WestEd
Report, pp. 252?54].

The number of economically?disadvantaged students (those eligible for free or reduced-
price lunch programs) in public schools has grown from 470,316 in 2000?01 to 885,934 in 
16, an 88% increase over 15 years. [WestEd Report, p. 20]. In fact, more than 475,000 children
in North Carolina, or 21% of all the state?s children, are in families below the federal poverty level
$24,600 for a family of four). About one third of those families are at the deep poverty level,
with family incomes of less than half of the poverty level. Child poverty is most concentrated in
the counties in the northeast, north central, and Sandhills regions of the state. [WestEd Report, p.
96]. However, even in higher wealth counties, low-wealth students are concentrated in high
poverty schools, and recommendations to address the challenges these students face must focus on
high poverty schools, not only high poverty school districts. [WestEd Report pp. 103?106]. In
2016?17, approximately 60% of North Carolina?s public school students were eligible for free or
reduced?price lunch. [WestEd Report, p. 96].

The proportion of economically-disadvantaged students is especially high in many of the
economically?distressed rural districts. [WestEd Report, p. 20]. Over half of the high poverty
schools in the state are in rural communities; the next highest concentration, nearly a third, are in
urban communities. [WestEd Report p. 96 

Large achievement gaps between subgroups of students continue unabated, with, on
average, the achievement of black, Hispanic, and Native American students lagging far behind that
of white and Asian students and the achievement of economically-disadvantaged students lagging
far behind that of their more advantaged peers. [WestEd Report, pp. 21?3 

The pro?ciency gap between black and white students was 29.9% in 2013, the ?rst year
the current standards were implemented, and was at 30.2% in 2018. The pro?ciency gap between

Hispanic and white students has also increased (rather than decreased) during this period, from
22.8% in 2013 to 24.6% in 2018. [WestEd Report, p.23].

Presently, only 32% of EDS students meet college?and-career-readiness benchmarks on
North Carolina?s end?of?course tests, compared to 61% of non-EDS students. Similarly, only 39%

16

 

of EDS students meet the UNC system?s minimal standard on the ACT college?readiness exam,
compared to 69% of non-EDS students. [WestEd Report, pp. 27-28].

In addition, the number of students who are English learners more than doubled over 15
years, increasing from 44,165 of all students) in 2000 to 102,090 of all students) in 2015
[WestEd Report, p. 20 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017)]. The increased diversity
of the student population and the increased number of English learners drive? the need to invest
further in developing an educator workforce that is racially and ethnically diverse and employs
culturally responsive teaching approaches in order to successfully educate all of the state?s
students. [WestEd Report, pp. 20, 64, 141, 203].

State funding for education has not kept pace with the growth andneeds of the preK-12
student body. The State does not currently provide adequate resources to ensure that all students
have the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education, as well as to meet higher standards and
become college-and-career ready. [WestEd Report, p. 21]. There is inadequate funding to meet
student needs, especially among economically-disadvantaged students and students in high-
poverty schools. [WestEd Report, p. 41]. A

As of ?scal year (FY) 2016, the most recent year for which national rankings are available,
North Carolina?s per?pupil spending was the sixth lowest in the nation [WestEd Report, p. 21 (US.
Census Bureau, 2018)]. When adjusted to 2018 dollars, per~pupil spending in North Carolina has
declined by about 6% since 200940. [WestEd Report, p. 21].

The result con?rmed by WestEd for each Leandra tenet (discussed below)? across multiple
data sets and after extensive research and analysis is that the State of North Carolina and the
State Board of Education are not providing and administering a Leandra?compliant PreK-12 public
education system.6

In sum, the State and the State Board of Education have yet to achieve the promise of our
Constitution and provide all with the opportunity for a sound basic education. For the State and
State Board of Education to make necessary progress in the provision of the Leandra right, the
Parties agree that three signi?cant areas require immediate attention:

(1) the initiatives and infrastructure for PreK? 12 education supplied by the Defendants must
be bolstered in order to address the expanding educational needs of a growing, increasingly diverse
North Carolina student body;

(2) important additional state-level investments in education are needed to assure students?
constitutional rights; and

 

6 Herein, the Court has not articulated every ?nding or conclusion that couid be made based upon the data and reporting
provided by WestEd. As a general matter, the Court takes full notice of the WestEd Report, inciuding its satellite
studies and accepts the data presented as true and correct. The Parties have consented to the entry of this Order and
stipulate to the ?ndings and conclusions expressly set forth herein. With regard to matters addressed in the WestEd
Report not expressly set forth herein, the Parties have reserved the right to challenge those as needed, in future
proceedings and/or in connection with the submission of subsequent ?lings that will follow in this matter.

17

 

(3) the implementation of a comprehensive, de?nite plan supported by coordinated
governance systems - that addresses the critical needs that must be met in order to serve every
North Carolina student and, in particular, economically-disadvantaged and minority students.

2. Systemic, Action And Investments Are Necessary to
Successfully Deliver the Leandra enets

Systemic, sustained approaches deployed by the State and the State Board of Education to
increase the capacity of North Carolina?s Pre-K?12 public education system are necessary to
ensure every child receives the opportunity for a sound basic education. Across numerous areas,
the present (sometimes piecemeal) approaches utilized by the State are insuf?cient to address the
critical needs of all students and growing challenges across North Carolina. The WestEd Report
and the record evidence in this case illuminate North Carolina?s systemic deficiencies and identify
critical needs across a number of interrelated areas. These are addressed below in turn.

Teacher Quality and Supply

North Carolina can never succeed in providing the opportunity for a sound basic education
to all children without vastly improved systems and approaches for recruiting, preparing,
supporting, developing, and retaining teachers. A framework for placing and retaining highly-
effective teachers where they are most needed to foster the academic growth of at?risk students
must be created and sustained. The current teacher shortages and high turnover particularly in
high-poverty schools and districts are a function of uneven preparation and mentoring,
inadequate compensation, and poor working conditions. [WestEd Report, p. 62].

North Carolina has invested in building a strong core of teacher-leaders, piloted models to
leverage teacher leadership, and launched innovative programs for preparing teachers and
principals. [WestEd Report p. 168]. However, North Carolina has gone from having a highly-
quali?ed teacher force as recently as a decade ago to having one that is uneven in terms of the
number of candidates, the quality of teacher preparation (particularly in hi gh?poverty schools and
districts), the extent to which teachers have met standards before they enter teaching, and teachers?
growth and development once they enter the classroom. [WestEd Report, p. 53].

Social and economic changes are impacting the education workforce, leading both to fewer
young people choosing teaching as a profession and to fewer of those who do enter teaching
remaining in the profession past the ?rst few years. For example, enrollment in traditional teacher
education programs declined by more than 50% between 2008?09 and 2015?16. Likewise, the
number of teacher credentials issued between 2011 and 2016 declined by 30%. [WestEd Report,
pp. 17-18].

The North Carolina teacher supply is shrinking, and teacher shortages are widespread.
[WestEd Report, p. 53].

The total number of teachers employed in North Carolina has decreased by 5% from 2009
to 2018, even as student enrollments have increased. [WestEd Report, pp. 18, 53]. The annual
teacher attrition rate in North Carolina is which is higher than the national average. [WestEd
Report, p. 47]. 

18

 

Salaries and working conditions in?uence both retention and school effectiveness of
teachers. Even after years of increases in teacher salaries, North Carolina lags behind numerous
other states in average pay and is not paying salaries at a competitive level. [WestEd Report, pp.
56-57].

Multivariate statistical analyses of the predictors of teacher retention Show that the size of
the teacher salary supplement (118., additional funds provided by some local education agencies to
account for variances such as geographic location, market conditions, and school demographics)
is a signi?cant predictor of retention. Low?wealth districts have limited, if any, means to offer
signi?cant salary supplements to retain effective teachers. [WestEd Report, p. 58].

The proportion of teachers in North Carolina who are not fully licensed has doubled since
2011, from 4% to and in high-poverty schools, as many as 20% of teachers are unlicensed.
[WestEd Report, pp. 54, 98]. WestEd found that attrition, vacancies, and the hiring of unquali?ed
teachers are-significantly higher in high?poverty communities. [WestEd Report, p. 54].

Enrollment in traditional teacher education programs declined by more than 50% between
2008?09 and 2015-16. [WestEd Report, pp. 17-18].

The source of teacher supply has dramatically shifted in recent years, with 25% of
candidates now entering through alternative routes (11a, lateral entry) without pre-service
preparation. Presently, only about 35% of the state?s teachers are entering through North Carolina
colleges and universities?a share that was as high as 60% in 2001 and 50% in 2010. Changes in
the sources of teacher supply are important because researchers have found that teachers prepared
at North Carolina schools of education are generally signi?cantly more effective than those
prepared out of state and they stay in North Carolina schools at much higher rates than their peers
who enter teaching through other pathways. [WestEd Report, p. 54].

Professional development programs enhance the professional skills of educators, including
the New Teacher Support Program for teachers during their first three years in the profession; the
many programs for experienced teachers provided by the North Carolina Center for the
Advancement of Teaching, the Distinguished Leadership Practice, and the Future~Ready
Leadership programs for current and future principals provided by North Carolina Principals and
Assistant Principals? Association and other statewide, regional, and district
programs. However, existing professional development programs operate on a small scale.7 The
New Teacher Support Program, for example, supports fewer than 10% of beginning teachers, a
much smaller proportion than the statewide mentoring program that reached all beginning teachers
in the 19903. [WestEd Report, pp. 15, 66]. Likewise, the effective Teaching Fellows program,
which recruits and prepares talented individuals to teach in content areas and in geographic parts

 

7 NCPAPA, not the NCDPI, has developed and delivers many of these professional learning opportunities. Since Race to
the Top (RttT), North Carolina has not taken a leadership role in providing professional development to school administrators
as the NCPAPA has. Researchers suggest that North Carolina would be wise to study its current priorities and better allocate
resources, information, and models to give principals more access to high?quality professional development. [WestEd sub?
report, Attracting, preparing, supporting and retaining educational leaders in North Carolina (Koehler, P., Peterson, M.
(2019)), pp. 15-16].

19

 

of the state in which there are shortages of quali?ed teachers, is operational again, but not as large
as it once was. [WestEd Report, p. 56].

Access to effective, diverse, and experienced teachers is critical for students? academic
success and well?being, especially for economically-disadvantaged students and students of color.
[WestEd Report, pp. 59-60]

Recruiting and retaining quali?ed teachers in high?poverty schools is a signi?cant
challenge, with some of the rural districts losing more than 20% of their teachers in a single year.

 

Exhibit 5. Teacher turnover in K42 traditions! public schools. by district (2016?17)

 

13.5% State Ax'erage Teacher Turnover la 2016?17

Source: North Carolina anzirtmen: of Public instruction (2933:!

 

-. 

[WestEd Report, pp. 17?18, Exh. 

Teachers of color are an important resource, as recent research much of it conducted in
North Carolina has found a positive impact of having a same?race teacher on the long-term
education achievement and attainment of students of color, particularly for African American
students [WestEd Report, p. 59 Dee, 2004; Gershenson, Hart, Lindsay, Papageorge,
2017)]. North Carolina?s current teacher workforce, however, has only about 20% teachers of
color, although more than half of the state?s students are students of color. [WestEd Report, p.
59]. Between 2011 and 2016, teacher education enrollments in minority?serving institutions,
including historically black colleges and universities, declined by more than 60%. [WestEd
Report, pp. 51-52]. 

There is an inequitable distribution of quali?ed teachers in North Carolina public schools.
High-poverty schools have far more beginning teachers and far more lateral?entry teachers.
[WestEd Report, pp. 18-19 (Exhibits Teachers who are insuf?ciently prepared are more
likely to leave teaching, and more of these teachers are hired into high-poverty schools, which
most need a stable, experienced workforce. [WestEd Report, pp. 17?18]. This inequitable
distribution negatively impacts students in high-poverty schools. [WestEd Report, p. 18]. High-
poverty schools have nearly double the one?year teacher turnover rates of low-poverty schools
[WestEd Report, p. 99]. The proportion of teachers in North Carolina who are not fully licensed
has doubled since 2011, from 4% to and in high?poverty schools, as many as 20% of teachers
are unlicensed. [WestEd Report, p. 47]. 

20

 

Access to, and the quality of, professional learning opportunities vary across schools and
districts, and state?level efforts to support teacher growth and development are inadequate and
inequitable. The once?extensive infrastructure and funding for professional learning in North
Carolina has been greatly reduced. There has been a signi?cant decrease in funding and support
for professional learning for teachers over the last decade. This has resulted in a reduced capacity
to provide adequate professional development for teachers in recent years, especially in low-wealth
districts. Low-wealth districts especially have few resources to ?nd substitute teachers so that
teachers can attend any professional development sessions that are provided, and they have limited
money to pay for teachers? time outside of school hours or for travel to conferences. [WestEd
Report, p. 60].

The North Carolina educator workforce is highly committed and working diligently every
day to meet the needs of at-risk children, even contributing their own resources whenever they can
to ?ll needs. [WestEd Report, p. 168] Unfortunately, their effort and commitment is not enough
to address the issue. In order to improve the quality of the teaching workforce, North Carolina
must implement wide-scale infrastructure for professional learning at the State, district, and school
levels. [WestEd Report, pp. 68?69].

Principal Quality and Supply

School leadership is the second most important factor in?uencing student learning, after
teacher effectiveness. [WestEd Report, p. 70 (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, 
2004)]. Since effective principals are critical for recruiting and retaining excellent
teachers and ensuring they have supportive working conditions and opportunities for professional
growth, the importance of the principal to students? success goes well beyond What is found in the
statistical analyses. [WestEd Report, p. 70].

In 2018?Hl9, North Carolina had 2,389 state-funded principal positions, 1,987 assistant
principal positions, and 226 charter school principals, for a total of 4,602 school administrators
[WestEd Report, p. 70 (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2019a)].

While North Carolina has developed effective programs to recruit and retain effective
principals, these programs are far too limited in scale. Consequently, many districts, especially
low-wealth districts, lack meaningful resources to recruit and retain quali?ed and well-trained
principals. [WestEd Report, pp. 72, 78].

There has been a signi?cant reduction in the numbers of candidates entering principal
preparation programs over the past decade; many schools are led by inexperienced principals with
fewer than three years of experience; and the current principal compensation structure may be a
disincentive to becoming a principal, particularly for becoming a principal in a low?performing
school. In addition, changes to the context within which schools operate advances in
technology, changes in the conditions and characteristics of children, and higher levels of
accountability for student achievement) have increased demands on what principals need to know
and be able to do. [WestEd Report, p. 72].

While North Carolina has adopted appropriate standards for principals (North Carolina
Standards for School Executives) and evaluation procedures that re?ect those standards, models

21

 

of high?quality pre?service training in the Northeast Leadership Academy and
Transforming Principal Preparation programs, these programs need to be scaled to reach
aspiring principals in all regions and schools of the State, especially those in high-poverty areas.
[WestEd Report, pp. 78-80].

In North Carolina, principals of high-poverty schools, on average, do not have the
longevity in their schools necessary to make sustainable changes. A survey of the state?s principals
conducted by WestEd showed that 64% of respondents who are principals in high-poverty schools
have been the principal in their current school for three or fewer years and only 5% have been in
place for 11 or more years. Data from 2016 and 2017 show that about 30% of principals in the
highest?p0verty schools left their school each year, as compared with about 17% in other schools,
resulting in many high?need schools having a new principal each year. [WestEd Report, pp. 70?
71]

For principals to become more effective and grow in their profession, they need ongoing
professional learning opportunities. Even the most effective administrator preparation programs
cannot prepare principals for all the necessary knowledge typically obtained over time at different
schools throughout their careers. [WestEd Report, p. 79 (Matlach, 2015)]. Ensuring that principals
have access to job-embedded, ongoing, and customized professional development and coaching
can increase their competence and improve retention. [WestEd Report, p. 79 (Goldring Taie,
2014)]. 

The need for effective leaders is especially important in persistently low-performing
schools and high?poverty schools. Compared with other schools, these schools tend to have less?
prepared and less?experienced teachers, much higher teacher turnover rates, students with
additional needs, and fewer resources while also being faced with pressure to show increased
student growth and pro?ciency each year. Research indicates that only with strong, talented
leadership are these schools able to make the fundamental shifts in practice needed to increase
positive outcomes for all students. [WestEd Report, p. 70 (Grissorn, 2011)].

Resources and School Funding

North Carolina does not presently provide adequate resources and funding to ensure that
all students, especially those at-risk, have the opportunity to receive a sound basic education.
[WestEd Report, p. 41]. There is inadequate funding to meet student needs, especially among
economically?disadvantaged students and students in high-poverty schools. [WestEd Report, pp.
35-49]. 

Educating today?s students to meet high standards and to be successful in this century
requires new investments in, among other things, infrastructure, instructional tools, technology,
and the educator workforce. [WestEd Report, p. 20].

In the last two decades, North Carolina?s public school student population has grown by
approximately 25% overall, and the number of children with higher needs, who require additional
supports to meet high standards, has increased signi?cantly. [WestEd Report, p. 20].

The number of economically?disadvantaged students (those eligible for free or reduced-
price lunch programs) in public schools has grown from 470,316 in 2000?01 to 885,934 in 2015?

22

 

16, an 88% increase over 15 years. [WestEd Report, p. 20]. The increase of economically-
disadvantaged students by more than 400,000 is the result of the overall growth in the student
population, combined with the signi?cant increase in the proportion of students who are
economically disadvantaged, from 39% in 2000?01 to 57% in 2015-16. [WestEd Report, p. 20
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2018)].

-T he proportion of economically disadvantaged students is especially high in many of the
economically-distressed rural districts, followed by urban districts. The high per-pupil costs
associated with serving high concentrations of economically disadvantaged students affects a
substantial proportion of North Carolina schools; approximately 31% of schools in the State are
serving student populations in which more than 90% of students are economically disadvantaged.
[WestEd Report, p. 36].

State funding for education has not kept pace with this growth, and the State does not
currently provide adequate resources to ensure that all students have the opportunity to obtain a
sound basic education. As of ?scal year (FY) 2017, the most recent year for which national
rankings are available, North Carolina?s per-pupil spending was the sixth lowest in the nation (US.
Census Bureau, 2019). When adjusted to 2018 dollars, per-pupil Spending in North Carolina has
declined about 6% since 2009?40. [WestEd Report, pp. 21, 35].

Compared with the nationwide average and with neighboring states, North Carolina?s
public education system receives a signi?cantly higher proportion of its funding from state-level
appropriations. [WestEd Report, p. 34 (Ex. Consequently, the State plays the most critical
role in determining the level and distribution of funding for education, and the State must
implement the funding structures that attend to adequacy, equity, and alignment.

Exhibit 22 (WestEd Report): Public Education Funding by Source, FY 2016
Federal State Local

North Carolina 12% 62% 26%
South Carolina 10% 48% 43%
Tennessee 12% 46% 42%
Georgia 10% 46% 45%
US. Average 8% 47% 45%

[WestEd Report, p. 34].

In North Carolina, the need and opportunity .2 to address inequity is particularly
signi?cant because the State has an above-average proportion of high?need students. As of ?scal
year (FY) 2017, the most recent year for which national data are available, 53.1% of North
Carolina?s enrolled students were eligible for free lunch, which is a federal de?nition for the
most economically?disadvantaged student population. Compared with other states with reportable
data, North Carolina has the ninth-highest proportion of this student population in the country.
[WestEd Study, Study of Cost Adequacy, Distribution, and Alignment of Funding for North
Carolina Public Education System? (Willis, ., Krausen, K., Berg-Jacobson, A., Taylor, L.,
Caparas, R., Lewis, R., Jaquet, K. (2019) (?WestEd Cost Study?)), p. Moreover, these
students are frequently, though not always, concentrated in communities with less ability to

23

 

provide local supplemental funding. [WestEd Cost Study (citing Public School Forum of North
Carolina, 2018)]. Even in better resourced and urban districts these students are also concentrated
in high poverty schools, and face the same challenges.

Higher levels of funding are required to meet the needs of at-risk student populations,
including English learners, economically-disadvantaged students, and exceptional children. Many
school districts, including many rural districts, lack the funding necessary to meet the educational
needs of historically underserved student populations and economically-disadvantaged students.
[WestEd Report, pp. 35-49]. 

Lack of spending ?exibility at the district level is an obstacle to aligning funding with
student needs. Restrictions on the allowable uses of allotments, including new restrictions around
the Classroom Teacher allotment, hamper districts? ability to align funding to student needs. When
funds are restricted to a particular use and cannot be transferred, it restricts district leaders? ability
to make decisions about how to allocate resources to make the greatest impact on student outcomes
given their local circumstances. [WestEd Rep01t, pp. 40, 187]. 

For example, recent legislated restrictions on the transfer of funds from the Classroom
Teacher allotment presented a particularly significant challenge, reducing districts? funding
?exibility, creating inequities, and reducing some districts? overall funding. Prior to the 2012?13
school year, districts could transfer Classroom Teacher allotment funds to another area at the
statewide average teacher salary level. Now, districts can only transfer these funds at a starting
teacher salary level, rather than the average salary level. [WestEd Report, p. 40].

Over the past two decades the number of students enrolled in charter schools in North
Carolina has increased, similar to the rate of growth in charter enrollment nationally. [WestEd
Cost Study, p. 8 (citing National Center for Education Statistics, 2018)]. When a student exits a
traditional public school district to enroll in a charter school, the per?pupil funding follows the
student, which district ?nancial of?cers identify as an administrative burden that obstructs
districts? budget forecasting and planning processes. The proportion of North Carolina public
school students attending charter schools has risen from 0.3% in FY 1998 to 6.6% in FY 2018.8
[WestEd Cost Study, p. 

 

3 Data indicate that the growth of charter school enrollment impacts where and how the State?s public schools serve
high~need students. WestEd found that in 2016?17, 807 of the state?s traditional public schools and 36 
of the state?s charter schools quali?ed as high-poverty schools, with 389,204 of traditional public school
students and 15,301 of charter school students attendng these schools. Using the same data, WestEd also found
that only 162 of traditional public schools in North Carolina were low-poverty schools de?ned as having less
than 25% of their students being economically disadvantaged with 10% (147,901) of the state?s traditional public
school students attending these schools. Thus, a much higher percentage of charter schools, 46% (77 schools), qualify
as low poverty, with 55% (51,073) of charter school students attending these schoois. [WestEd Report, p. 96]. Recent
data from the Department of Public Instruction indicate that high?need students students receiving free and
reduced price lunch, English language learners, and students with disabilities) are less?concentrated in North Carolina
charter schools than in traditional public schools:

24

 

Charter schools are exempt from the state?s allotment system requirements and are afforded
a great deal of ?nancial and educational ?exibility. For example, each charter school receives a
single allotment of ?exible ?inds, is not required to use statewide salary schedules to determine
staff compensation, and is not subject to the class size maximums for grades [WestEd Cost
Study, p. 

Assessment and Accountability System

North Carolina continues to revise its core curriculum standards and assessments several
times. The State updated the mathematics standards prior to the 2005?06 school year and the
English language arts standards prior to 2007?08 and then updated both again for 2013?14. Each
of these updates aimed to make the standards more rigorous, to re?ect what is required to prepare
students for success in the increasingly technological and complex society, and to make North
Carolina?s standards more comparable with those of other states and countries whose students
perform well on national and international assessments. As a result, the bar for meeting
pro?ciency has been raised in ways that are necessary and appropriate, but that also increase the
challenges for schools in preparing students to achieve pro?ciency. [WestEd Report, p. 17].

While the State has adopted more rigorous standards, there has not been adequate State
investment in, and leadership for, implementing the standards and providing the professional
learning, instructional materials, and other supports needed to change practice in schools and
classrooms. [WestEd Report, p. 17].

 

Charter School Student Demographics

{68532552 47.9%
'25.2%

256348 173%
128000 8.9%

'3 736.9772 51.4%
i 1596274

 

 
  

12.1.2525
10.3%. .1 73, up

 
     

Free and Reduced-Price Lunch
English Language. Learners
Students with Disabilities

Charter Schools Annual Report to the North Carolina General Assembiy, at 4 (February 15, 2019),

9.pdf/view; see also
WestEd Report, p. 96.

25

 

The student achievement goals in North Carolina?s approved plan under the federal Every
Student Succeeds Act provide further reason for concern. As shown in Exhibit 21 to WestEd?s
report, this plan sets goals for the year 2027 in reading and math for grade 3?8 students and for
high school students on the state?s ECG and ECG tests. Even if these goals are met, which would
require an ambitious average annual increase of 2% to 3% in the number of students pro?cient in
each area, more than one third of grade 3?8 students and more than one fourth of high school
students would remain below pro?cient in reading, and more than one fourth of students from
grade 3 through high school would remain below proficient in mathematics. That is, even if the
ESSA plan?s goals for 2027 are all met, North Carolina would continue to leave far too many
students behind and would still be far from achieving success for every student. [WestEd Report,
pp. 30?3 

The State?s accountability system presently does not address all measures necessary to
measure Defendants? progress toward providing all students with access to a sound basic
education, even though North Carolina currently collects data that could be used for that purpose.
[WestEd Report, pp. 119-23]. The State has developed high-quality data systems to track the
progress of students; measure the effectiveness of teachers, schools, and districts; assess staffing
and working conditions within schools; analyze the impact of programs and legislation; and
identify needs that must be addressed. The data systems must be better updated and utilized to
track indicators pertaining to the extent to which the state is meeting its requirement to provide
every student with the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education. [WestEd Rep01t, p. 16].

As presently con?gured, North Carolina?s data system does not produce consolidated
reports that would inform the evaluation and continuous improvement of educational programs.
Revisions to the accountability systems are necessary to provide more robust information to
educators, parents, policymakers, and others about the educational effectiveness of each school
and about the learning and progress of individual children and of subgroups of children. [WestEd
Report, p. 32]. Similarly, data presently available is not fully utilized to inform instructions in
districts and in classrooms. NCDPI should provide stronger guidance and resources to LEAs on
the use of data from the NC Check-Ins, end?of?year assessments, and the Education Value-Added
Assessment System (EVAAS) to inform student and school improvement and close educational
opportunity and achievement gaps. [WestEd Report, p. 111].

Low-Performing and High-Poverty Schools

High-poverty schools are those in which at least 75% of the students are economically
disadvantaged. North Carolina has 807 high-poverty traditional public schools (33% of public
schools) and 36 high?poverty charter schools (21% of charter schools), located in urban, rural, and
suburban communities and in every region in the state. These schools serve higher proportions
than other schools of students with additional risk factors, including students of color, students
who have disabilities, and English learners. [WestEd Report, p. 128].

In 2016?47, 807 of the state?s traditional public schools and 36 of the state?s
charter schools quali?ed as high-poverty schools, with 389,204 of traditional public school
students and 15,301 of charter school students attending these schools. [WestEd Report, p.
96].

26

 

In contrast, only 162 of traditional public schools in North Carolina were low-poverty
schools de?ned as having less than 25% of their students being economically disadvantaged 
with 10% (147,901) of the state?s traditional public school students attending these schools. A
much higher percentage of charter schools, 46% (77 schools), qualify as low poverty, with 55%
(51,073) of charter school students attending these schools. [WestEd Report, p.96].

The highest poverty rates are among African American, Hispanic, and American Indian
families, and larger percentages of students of color attend high-poverty schools. Across all
traditional public schools, enrollment is 52% students of color; in high-poverty schools, enrollment
is 77% students of color. In charter schools overall, enrollment is 44% students of color; in high-
poverty charter schools, enrollment is 93% students of color. A total of 567 of the state?s
high-poverty traditional public schools enroll 75% or more students of color; 694 enroll at
least 50% students of color. [WestEd Report, p. 97].

Data shows that students attending HPSs in North Carolina are far less likely to receive a
sound basic education. These schools serve disproportionate numbers of students with other
academic risk factors, including students who have parents with low education levels, who have
limited proficiency in English, who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group, and who
have families headed by a single parent. [WestEd Report, p. 97].

Students in high-poverty schools have signi?cantly less access to career and technical
education courses, participation in online virtual learning, and participation in sports, music,
theater, academic competitions, community service, business internships, and other activities.
[WestEd Report, pp. 100-01].

North Carolina?s high?poverty schools have fewer fully licensed teachers, fewer teachers
with advanced - degrees, and fewer teachers with National Board of Professional Teaching
Standards certi?cation. High-poverty schools have more lateral?entry teachers and more early-
career teachers (teachers without certi?cation and with fewer than three years of experience,
respectively), who have been shown, on average, to be less effective in improving student
achievement than teachers with more preparation and experience. These schools also have much
higher rates of teacher and principal turnover than other schools, and the constant in?ux of new
teachers contributes to the challenges of improving these schools. In addition, the principals in
high-poverty schools tend to be less-experienced school leaders, and the principal turnover rate is
higher than that of other schools. [WestEd Report, p. 130].

Policies related to charter schools and opportunity scholarships contribute to the effects of
cumulative disadvantage in high?poverty schools because these policies attract more-advantaged
students and fewer students with disabilities to charter schools than those left behind. [WestEd
Report, p. 254 (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2018)]. Students enrolling in
charters take with them the average cost per student in the district where the charter is located, but
the loss of a student to a charter does not diminish districts? and schools? ?xed costs, such as costs
related to buildings and transportation. In effect, charter schools can reduce the amount of funds
available to HPSs through a loss of per-pupil allocations and district expenses for their operations.

Early Childhood. Learning and PreK

27

 

Judge Manning noted in his October 25, 2000 Order tha . . the most common sense and
practical approach to the problem of providing at?risk children with an equal opportunity to obtain
a sound basic education is for them to begin their opportunity to receive that education earlier than
age (5) ?ve so that those children can reach the end of third grade able to read, do math, or achieve
academic performance at or above grade level Hoke Cty. Bd. Educ. v. State, No. 95 CVS 1158
(Oct. 25, 2000). Too many children in North Carolina are not reaching the end of third grade able
to read or do math at grade level and there are vast differences in outcomes between racial and
socioeconomic groups. A robust early learning continuum from birth through third grade supports
the academic, social-emotional, and physical development essential to the State?s obligation to
provide a sound basic education.

Recent efforts by the State Defendants are encouraging. In 2017, the North Carolina
General Assembly af?rmed the importance of this early learning continuum by establishing a 
Interagency Council shall have as its charge establishing a vision and accountability for a
birth through grade three system of early education [Session Law 2017?57, NC. Gen. Statute
116064.25]. In August 2018, Governor Cooper, through Executive Order 49, directed the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Early Childhood Advisory Council to develop
an Early Childhood Action Plan. The plan, released in February 2019, provides goals, measures,
and strategies to improve outcomes for children from birth through third grade.9 In March 2019,
the State Board endorsed the Early Childhood Action Plan.

The Early Childhood Action Plan includes many components, including goals that by 2025,
all North Carolina young children from birth to age eight will be:

1. Healthy: Children are healthy at birth and thrive in environments that support their
optimal health and well-being.

2. Safe and Nurtured: Children grow confident, resilient, and independent in safe,
stable, and nurturing families, schools, and communities.

3. Learning and Ready to Succeed: Children experience the conditions they need to
build strong brain architecture and skills that support their success in school and life.

NC Early Childhood Action Plan, p.10.

Moreover, a high-quality early foundation for learning is critical for later success in school
and beyond and can significantly improve life outcomes for children from low-income families.
[WestEd Report, p. 87]. Early childhood programs, including Head Start, Smart Start, NC Pre-K,
childcare programs and subsidies for low-income families, and services for preschool children who
have disabilities, support families in preparing young at?risk children to be ready to begin formal
schooling successfully when they enter kindergarten. [WestEd Report, p. 15].

All the record evidence supports the conclusion that high?quality preschool can improve
child health in three ways:

 

9 North Carolina Early Childhood Action Plan, available at 
?pdf

28

 

1. High-quality preschool can directly improve children?s physical and mental health
through the establishment of such positive habits as eating heart?healthy foods, having
balanced diets, and exercising through active play.

2. High-quality preschool has positive effects on parents, including on their mental
health, their parenting skills, and their health knowledge.

3. High-quality preschool can signi?cantly improve children?s socio-emotional skills
and cognitive skills in the short term, particularly for low?income and dual?language
children, which can lead to improved health as adults.

[WestEd Report, pp. 23 6-37 (summarizing studies and data)].

Not only does high?quality preschool improve child health, it results in long-term ?nancial
bene?ts. [WestEd Report, p. 23 The research studies that follow children through adolescence
demonstrate that preschool participation can positively impact grade retention and special
education placement, which not only bene?t children, but also can produce cost savings for
schools. [Id at 237]. In addition, skill development at an early age is critical. [1611, citing
Heckman, Pinto, Savelyev, 2013]. Children who enter school without the skills learned in early
education settings get tracked into lower-quality classes and skills and may receive fewer learning
resources, contributing to their falling further behind. [Id citing Bel?eld, 2019].

Further, preschool participation generates cost savings for society as a whole due to
increased graduation rates and educational attainment. [WestEd Report, p. 237 (Meloy, Gardner,
Darling-Hammond, 2019)]. Economic studies conducted over the past 12 years ?nd that the
economic bene?ts of investing in early childhood education are at least double the economic costs.
[161, citing Barnett Masse, 2.007; Karoly, 2016]. Results from these studies have shown
speci?cally that providing early childhood education for disadvantaged students has even higher
economic returns than doing so for the general population. [WestEd Report, p. 237].

High?quality pre?kindergarten programs have a sustainable positive impact on learning and
can close the learning gaps among young children from economically advantaged and
disadvantaged backgrounds.

The NC Early Action Plan echoes elements of Judge Manning?s October 2000 Order and
seeks to address many of the challenges WestEd identi?ed in its research regarding early learning
and PreK. By adopting the Early Childhood Action Plan, the State and the State Board of Education
have acknowledged and admitted the centrality of services for children from birth through age
eight for the provision of the Leandra mandate and the opportunity for a sound basic education as
children progress through the state?s public education system.

Indeed, the State Defendants have explicitly recognized that:

The ?rst years of a child?s life are a critical period. During this time, children
undergo tremendous brain growth that impacts multiple areas of cognitive,
physical, social, emotional, and behavioral development. This brain growth and
development is signi?cantly impacted by the interplay between children?s
relationships with the people and environments around them. Early positive
relationships with caring adults allow children to feel safe to explore and interact

29

 

with their surrounding world and can have a lasting impact positive or negative 
on later outcomes in school and life. Early experiences in a child?s life can impact
brain structure and development down to the cellular level. As a child?s brain
architecture is being built in those early years, positive experience support healthy
growth and development, while Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES), such as
experiences of abuse and neglect, can have a detrimental long-term impact.

NC Early Action Plan, p. 4 (citations omitted). Further, the State Defendants recognize the value
of early childhood interventions to improve outcomes. See id. (noting that investments in early
childhood programs and interventions ?produce long-lasting impacts,? result in a $2 to $4 return
for every $1 invested, and improve academic scores).

However, access to early childhood education remains out of reach for many low-income
families in North Carolina. There is a shortage of available Pre?K slots across North Carolina, and
only about half of eligible children are served. [WestEd Report, p. 89].

Two statewide early childhood education programs, NC Pre-K and Smart Start, provide
high-quality programs that have been shown to have a strong positive impact on participating
children?s readiness for and future success in school. [WestEd Report, p. 87].

NC Pre?K is the state?s pie?kindergarten program that serves 4-year-olds, primarily from
low-income families. This state?supported part?day program currently enrolls just over 29,500
children during the traditional school year in a mixed?delivery system of public schools, private
centers, and Head Start centers. The NC Pre?K program has consistently had high standards, a
strong record of quality, and extensive evidence of effectiveness. It has been found to have
produced both short? and long-term benefits through grade 8. [WestEd Report, p. 88].

There is a shortage, however, of available Pre-K slots across North Carolina, and only
about half of eligible children are served. Approximately 25 out of North Carolina?s 100 counties
are reaching the target participation rate of 75% or more of eligible children in their county. The
limited participation is most severe for children from low-income families and for students of
color. This pattern in lack of participation holds in both urban and rural areas; however, rural
counties have the most inconsistency regarding percentage of eligible children served by NC Pre-
compared with urban or suburban counties. [WestEd Report, p. 89].

Access to the high-quality early childhood education programs in the state varies
dramatically, with lower-wealth counties lacking an adequate supply of high-quality early
childhood programs. Based on estimates of the total number of children eligible for NC Pre~K,
the unmet need is almost 33,000 children per year across North Carolina. [WestEd Report, p. 89].

There are funding barriers to the expansion of high?quality early childhood education that
need to be addressed. [WestEd Report, p. 89-90]. The overriding, systemic barrier to expanding
NC Pre-K is that revenues and other resources available to NC Pre?K providers are too often
inadequate to cover the costs of expansion. [WestEd Report, pp. 89?90].

Lower-resourced counties need greater support to expand early childhood services, beyond
just funding. Despite state attempts to expand ?nancial support for NC Pre-K in the 2017?2019
budget, 44 out of 100 counties declined the NC Pre-K expansion funding. Speci?cally, 17 counties
declined expansion funds in both 2017 and 2018 that are also not meeting the target of 75% of

30

 

eligible children enrolled in the county. [WestEd Report, pp. 89-90]. A number of barriers slowed
or prevented expansion of early childhood services in lower wealth counties, including: 
obtaining the necessary number of quali?ed teachers to ?ll teaching slots, (ii) having'access to
eligible/high-quality private programs to meet the need, having the ability to meet local
funding match requirements, and (iv) providing transportation to enable families and program staff
to get to centers. [WestEd Report, p. 89?90]

The State only covers about 60% of the cost for an NC Pre-K slot, leaving individual
counties to cover the remaining 40%. The State?s current NC Pre?K contribution is $5,200 per
child. The North Carolina Pre?Kindergarten Cost Study conducted by North Carolina State
University found that the average cost per child for those already in the program is approximately
$9,100. [WestEd Report, p. 89].

Smart Start is a network of 75 nonpro?t agencies that offer a ?one?stop shop? of
coordination for early education services for families with children from birth to age 5 including
parenting classes, child care program consulting, and case management or referral services for
families as well as ensuring early childhood programs are high?quality, child-focused, and family
friendly. Research studies have found that children who participated in Smart Start?supported
programs entered elementary school with better math and language skills, as well as fewer with
behavioral problems compared with their peers. Both Smart Start and NC Pre?K programs have
been found to significantly reduce the likelihood of special education placement in third grade.
[WestEd Report, p. 88].

As of 2017?18, the Smart Start program supports 1,974 centers serving approximately
79,292 children and their families. The program was designed to meet 25% of the de?ned need
for children aged 0?5. In 2018?19, Smart Start local partnerships spent $147 million to meet
approximately just 5% of the defined need in early childhood learning. Smart Start is a signi?cant
funding source for NC Pre-K. Income-eligible families receive a child care subsidy, an average
payment of about $6,200 a year. [WestEd Report, p. 88].

In 201 1, the state legislature imposed a 20% budget cut on Smart Start, bringing the annual
funding levels to less than $150 million, which is the lowest amount of funding for the program
since the 1998 fiscal year. [WestEd Report, p. 89].

In addition, the volume and quality of the early childhood educator pipeline in North
Carolina is insufficient. As of 2015, 64% of lead child care teachers in North Carolina did not
have an associate?s or bachelor?s degree in early childhood education. In fact, 38% of lead child
care teachers did not have an associate?s or bachelor?s degree at all. [WestEd Report, p. 90].

Most early childhood education services in North Carolina have limited education
requirements for teachers; however, NC Pre-K has been shown to have the most stringent policies
related to teacher qualification. [WestEd Report, p. 90]. Turnover in the early childhood
workforce is quite high. [WestEd Report, p. 91].

Elementary school environments are often not equipped to support the developmental
transition of young children into environments, including through appropriate and
proportional staf?ng of school support staff such as nurses, social workers, and counselors. Better
alignment is needed between the early childhood programs and the schools that children from these
programs will attend. [WestEd Report, p. 91].

31

 

Alignment and Preparation for Post?Secondary Opportunities

Systemic efforts at all levels of the education system are necessary to create the conditions
for all of North Carolina?s students to achieve a sound basic education, which includes preparation
for some level of post-secondary success. Likewise, the State?s goal and obligation to provide all
students with a sound basic education that prepares them for future success necessitates a systemic 
approach to education improvement.

The recent ca11 to action issued by the MYFUTURENC COMMISSION (2019) further
highlights the ways that the State?s talent supply is not keeping pace with current changes in the
job market. For example, the State has experienced signi?cant declines in blue collar work and
an increased need for employees to ?ll skilled-service jobs. However, the State is not producing
suf?cient talent with the technical skills and education to fill these skilled roles. Further,
educational opportunities are not equitably distributed across the State, as far fewer students from
more economically-disadvantaged backgrounds are earning postsecondary credentials than are
their more economically-advantaged peers. [WestEd Report, p. 12 (myF'utureNC Commission,
2019)]. The commission?s ambitious goal, to enable two million 25? through 44-year-olds to
obtain a high-quality postsecondary credential or degree by 2030, will not be possible without
systemic efforts at all levels of the public education system. Likewise, the State?s goal and
obligation to provide all students with a sound basic education that prepares them for future success
also necessitates a systemic approach to education improvement. [WestEd Report, p. 12].

The State established 125 Early College High Schools and other Cooperative Innovative
High Schools that provide small schools on college campuses that enable students to complete
high school and earn college credits, with no tuition or other costs. [WestEd Report, p. 16].

The Career and College Promise legislation enables high school students throughout North
Carolina to attend college courses and obtain both high school and college credits, with the state
providing funding for college tuition. [WestEd Report, p. 16].

This program is widely used: In 201647, 61% of high school students earned college
credit prior to their high school graduation, with 86% earning a grade of or higher. [WestEd
Report, p. 101 (Coltrane Eads, 2018)]. However, barriers exist that prevent some students
participating in and benefiting from the program. Many economically?disadvantaged students
cannot afford the cost of college textbooks, lab fees, and other college fees, and they also struggle
to find transportation to and from the college. In addition, high school schedules are often not
aligned with schedules at the local community college. Misaligned schedules present barriers for
students who must work after school and for those who depend on school busing for transportation
and on food lunch programs for meals. [WestEd Report, p. 101].

Career and technical education (CTE) programs provide many high school students with
professional skills and credentials that lead to opportunities in the workplace. [WestEd Report, p.
16]. Unfortunately, many students across North Carolina, especially those at-risk, are not prepared
for postsecondary success. [WestEd Report, pp. 21~30].

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:

32

 

A. The ?ndings and conclusions set forth herein are hereby entered by this Court and
incorporated into the record of this case;

B. The time has come for the State Defendants to work expeditiously and without
delay to take all necessary actions to create and fully implement the following:

1.

A system of teacher development and recruitment that ensures each
classroom is staffed with a high-quality teacher who is supported with early
and ongoing professional learning and provided competitive pay;

A system of principal development and recruitment that ensures each school
is led by a high-quality principal who is supported with early and ongoing
professional learning and provided competitive pay;

A ?nance system that provides adequate, equitable, and predictable funding
to school districts and, importantly, adequate resources to address the needs
of all North Carolina schools and students, especially at-risk students as
defined by the Leandra decisions;

An assessment and accountability system that reliably assesses multiple
measures of student performance against the Leandra standard and provides
accountability consistent with the Leandra standard;

An assistance and turnaround function that provides necessary support to
low-performing schools and districts;

A system of early education that provides access to high-quality
prekindergarten and other early childhood learning opportunities to ensure
that all students at?risk of educational failure, regardless of where they live
in the State, enter kindergarten on track for school success; and

An alignment of high school to postsecondary and career expectations, as
well as the provision of early postsecondary and workforce learning
opportunities, to ensure student readiness to all students in the State.

A C. To keep the Court fully informed as to the remedial progress, the Parties are hereby
ordered to submit a status report to the Court (a joint report if all Parties agree, and individual
reports if the Parties do not) no later than 60 days from the date of this Order setting out the

following:

1.

Speci?c actions that the State Defendants must implement in 2020 to begin
to address the issues identified by WestEd and described herein and the
seven components set forth above;

33

 

2. A date by which the State Defendants, in consultation with each other and
the Plaintiffs, will submit to the Court additional, mid-range actions that
should be implemented, including speci?c actions that must be taken, a
timeframe for implementation, and an estimate of resources in addition to
current funding, if any, necessary to complete those actions.

3. date by which the State Defendants, in consultation with each other and
the Plaintiffs, will submit to the Court a comprehensive remedial plan (?the
Plan?) to provide all public school children the opportunity for a sound
basic education, including specific long?term actions that must be taken, a
timeframe for implementation, an estimate of resources in addition to
current funding, if any, necessary to complete those actions, and a proposal
for monitoring implementation and assessing the outcomes of the plan.

D. The State Defendants shall identify the State actors and institutions responsible for
implementing speci?c actions and components of the proposed Plan.

B. The Parties may consult with WestEd and each other in the development of the
short and longer-term remedial measures, as may be needed.

F. This Order may not be modi?ed except by further Order of this Court.

G. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter and the Parties.

    


This the@ I "Ei'ay of 20%

vr. 
The T?Ionorable W. David Lee
North Carolina Superior Court Judge

 

34