1. Equity Trial Abbeville County School District, et al vs. The State of South Carolina

2. History of the Trial November 1, 1993 forty school districts, together with certain students and taxpayers filed suit challenging the State’s statutory scheme for funding its public schools Through consolidation the number of districts involved was reduced to 36 Prior to trial the plaintiff’s attorneys selected 8 districts as trial plaintiffs

3. History (continued) Original complaint was dismissed citing SC Constitution is devoid of any standard upon which to adjudicate the claim In 1996 the Plaintiffs appealed the Order for dismissal The SC Supreme Court overturned the dismissal and required Judge Cooper to bring the case to trial

4. History (continued) In overturning the dismissal, the Supreme Court interpreted (The Abbeville County Decision) the “education clause” of the Constitution to require the General Assembly “to provide the opportunity for each child to receive a minimally adequate education”

5. History (continued) The Court defined minimally adequate to include providing students adequate and safe facilities in which they have the opportunity to acquire: 1)the ability to read, write, and speak the English language, and the knowledge of mathematics and physical science; 2) a fundamental knowledge of economic, social, and political science and of history and governmental processes; and 3) academic and vocational skills

6. History (continued) The Supreme Court then remanded the case to Judge Cooper’s Court for a determination of whether the requisite opportunity is present in the Plaintiff districts The Court emphasized the “the constitutional duty to ensure the provision of a minimally adequate education to each student in South Carolina rests on the legislative branch of government”

7. Question Presented Are the students in the Plaintiff Districts being provided the opportunity to acquire a minimally adequate education in adequate and safe facilities as defined by the South Carolina Supreme court?

8. Burden of Proof The Burden of Proof is by preponderance of the evidence. Stated succinctly for the purposes of this case, have the Plaintiffs introduced evidence that proves, more likely than not, that the defendants have failed to provide an opportunity for a minimally adequate education to the children within the Plaintiff Districts.

9. The Abbeville Standard The Abbeville standard is one of opportunity This standard is materially different from the requirements in other states, which tend to focus more on achievement than opportunity The Abbeville decision does not require all children in SC acquire a minimally adequate education, just the “opportunity”

10. “Minimally” “the least quantity assignable, admissible or possible” “the only way to logically discuss ‘reaching’ a ‘minimum’ is to ask whether any less can be provided”

11. Conclusions of the Order Instructional facilities are safe and adequate Curriculum Standards are adequate Teacher licensure is adequate Inputs into the system, except early childhood education, are adequate Early childhood intervention programs not adequately funded by Defendants Judgment for Plaintiffs