Basic NC education rights extend beyond classroom

When we discuss North Carolinians’ education rights, we tend to emphasize classroom instruction.

After all, the North Carolina Supreme Court highlighted the “constitutional right to the opportunity for a sound basic education” in its 1997 Leandro decision. That case focused on the type of instruction the state needed to provide its students.

But the same court recently addressed constitutionally guaranteed education rights in a different context.

In KH v. Dixon, the high court ruled on Aug. 14 that a student could pursue a lawsuit against the Alamance-Burlington school board. The suit contends that the board violated the student’s education rights after an alleged assault by a teacher.

A trial judge had dismissed the suit, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld that decision. But the state Supreme Court revived the complaint from the student identified as KH or Katherine.

The ruling allows the student to pursue legal action that extends beyond the teacher.

Katherine’s suit against the school board took the form of a Corum claim. It’s a type of lawsuit against a government agency based on alleged violations of fundamental state constitutional rights.

“We agree with Katherine that her complaint against the Board states a colorable constitutional claim and that she lacks an adequate other state remedy for the Board’s actions,” wrote Justice Anita Earls. “Although the ‘fundamental right’ to ‘equal access to participation in our public school system’ does not generally hold school districts liable for the intentional torts of their teachers, it does make local authorities responsible for responding reasonably to such incidents once they occur. Failing to do so may constitute ‘deliberate indifferen[ce] to conduct that prevent[s schoolchildren] from accessing their constitutionally guaranteed right to a sound basic education.’”

The majority decision united both of the state Supreme Court’s Democrats with three Republican justices. Meanwhile, four Republicans endorsed a concurring opinion. It focused on the unique circumstances of KH’s claims.

“The complaint alleges that a teacher brutally — and unjustifiably — assaulted plaintiff K.H. at school and that school officials in the Alamance-Burlington School System responded by suspending plaintiff and then moving her to an alternative school against her will,” Justice Trey Allen wrote. “I agree with the majority that, if these allegations are true, the school district’s reaction to the attack violated plaintiff’s educational rights under the North Carolina Constitution.”

“If a student’s right to access the public school system on equal terms with other students means anything, surely it means that a school district may not suspend and then involuntarily reassign an innocent student for being severely beaten by an out-of-control teacher,” Allen added.

Yet the concurrence labeled allegations in KH’s case “extreme.”

“[O]ne would expect that school officials in general are highly unlikely to respond to a teacher’s brutal and unprovoked assault on a student by punishing the student,” Allen wrote. “Given that this case involves such an improbable set of alleged facts, the majority’s opinion should not be interpreted to expose ordinary student discipline decisions to Deminski-style challenges.”

In the 2021 case Deminski v. State Board of Education, the state Supreme Court explored the impact of ongoing bullying and sexual harassment on students’ constitutional education rights.

“So long as school officials act in good faith and in accordance with procedural safeguards, they are not prohibited from disciplining students for misconduct merely because the students deny wrongdoing,” Allen wrote. “To hold otherwise would deprive school officials of the disciplinary tools necessary to preserve a safe and orderly school environment. Because I do not understand today’s decision to hamstring school officials in this way, I join the majority’s opinion.”

Though four of the court’s five Republicans backed Allen’s opinion, Justice Phil Berger Jr. demurred. His dissent expressed concerns about the potential long-term impact of a ruling favoring KH.

“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege a colorable constitutional violation, and with minimal analysis and no support from precedent, the majority’s far-reaching opinion creates grounds for constitutional claims out of routine disciplinary actions taken by schools,” Berger wrote. “The narrow ‘deliberate indifference’ standard articulated in Deminski, which required a pattern of misconduct, is no more because the majority has abandoned restraint to reach an isolated incident of misconduct at the hands of a teacher.”

It remains to be seen whether KH v. Dixon will prompt more constitutional lawsuits challenging schools’ disciplinary actions. But the decision makes clear that the state Supreme Court does not confine the right to a “sound basic education” solely to learning that takes place inside North Carolina’s classrooms.

Mitch Kokai is senior political analyst for the John Locke Foundation.