Former Chief Justice Mitchell: After the Leandro loss, bring a new case | Opinion

As chief justice of North Carolina I wrote the 1997 Leandro opinion for the state Supreme Court. There we declared for the first time that all the state’s children have the right under the state constitution to be provided the “opportunity to obtain a sound basic education.”

The Court then defined the meaning of a “sound basic education” in very specific detail. The Court did NOT find that the state or the defendant districts were denying any children in the districts that right. Instead, we remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether the children were being denied the right we had defined.

As chief justice, I then assigned Superior Court Judge Howard Manning, Jr. to preside over the case on remand. Manning held extensive hearings, took voluminous evidence, made lengthy findings and concluded that the plaintiff children had been denied the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education in violation of our state constitution. The state Supreme Court affirmed that conclusion in an opinion by then Associate Justice Robert Orr.

For the next 29 years the case bounced back and forth between no less than 10 Superior Court judges, Court of Appeals judges, and our state Supreme Court. Over the years new plaintiffs intervened and raised many claims not raised in the original complaint. Others voluntarily dismissed their claims and withdrew from the case.

Further, during the 29 years since Manning’s decision was filed and affirmed in part by the state Supreme Court, the laws relating to school funding have totally changed, and the state has adopted a series of new comprehensive state education plans to replace the “Basic Education Plan” that was in effect when Manning wrote his decision finding the state was not meeting its constitutional obligation under Leandro. Therefore, the funding and comprehensive education plans that Judge Manning’s decision was based on no longer exist and that decision is no longer relevant.

On April 2, our state Supreme Court dismissed the entire case. In her dissent, Justice Allison Riggs succinctly described the case as having become “a mess” and former Justice Orr has since called it “a train wreck.” Both the majority and the dissenters agreed, however, that the constitutional right to the opportunity for a sound basic education announced and defined in the1 997 Leandro opinion of the Supreme Court is still binding precedent.

The court’s April 2 decision also made it clear that the right can still be enforced in a proper case brought by affected plaintiffs against all necessary defendants. The court suggested the case could be brought as a class action on behalf of all the state’s children, not only those of a few counties. I think that is correct and that such an action not only could but should be brought by supporters of our public schools. If such a class action is brought, I suggest it not be designated a “school funding case” but instead be brought as an “educational adequacy case.”

Certainly, funding of our state school system is vital. As just one example, our schools are losing competent teachers to the schools of surrounding states who pay them more. But school funding is not the only, or probably even the best, measure of whether the state is meeting its constitutional responsibility under Leandro. As the State Supreme Court noted in 1997, “output” measurements such as “the level of student performance on standard achievement tests” may be more reliable than measurements of “input such as per-pupil funding or general educational funding provided by the state.”

We have shown that we can achieve that goal. Although our schools are now ranked 43 in the nation, during the administration of the late Gov. James Hunt our schools were tied for first place with the schools of Texas under then Gov. George W. Bush.

Education must not be a partisan matter. It is my fervent hope that the “great and progressive” 11 million people of this state can encourage and inspire the legislative and executive branches of our government to rise to the challenge providing all the children of the state the opportunity to achieve a sound basic education as guaranteed by Leandro.

I am now 85 years old, and my prayer is that the state will provide my new great-grandchild the same outstanding basic education it provided me.

Burley Mitchell served as an associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court from 1982 to 1994 and as chief justice from 1995 to 1999.

This story was originally published April 9, 2026 at 12:11 PM.