Court Decision Will Impact SC High Schools

[kayell]

http://clemson.theinsiders.com/2/253877.html

Part 2 of 3

The very essence of this educational finance case being tried in Manning centers on the term “minimally adequate”. The South Carolina State Legislature, who ultimately is in charge of the educational system in this state, has defined their role as providing the opportunity for a “minimally adequate” education to every student in the state.

The eight school districts (Allendale, Dillon 2, Florence 4, Hampton 2, Jasper, Lee, Marion 7, and Orangeburg 3) are alleging that the South Carolina Legislature is not properly funding their rural school districts at a level that will provide a quality education for their students. The argument the eight South Carolina school districts are currently making is that educating children “minimally” in rural and poor communities requires a great deal more money and resources than that of the wealthier districts.

In the state of South Carolina, funding is provided by federal, state, and local governments for each municipality under the Education Finance Act (EFA) and the Education Improvement Act (EIA). The EFA distributes its monies by using a wealth-sensitive formula where the appellants receive proportionally more state money than wealthier districts. The EIA distributes funds without regard to the school district’s tax base, allocating all SC school districts the same amount of money per pupil. The appellants allege that the state’s system of funding districts is biased and violates the state constitution’s education clause under the state and federal guarantees on equal protection.

The rural districts admit they receive more money than those of the urban districts under the EFA. However, the districts claim that they need even more money because of the lack of revenue they acquire through their traditional tax base.


more