What the Supreme Court did not know

Friday, November 4^th, 2022 the Supreme Court of North Carolina decided 4-3 that the Courts may tell the General Assembly how much to spend on K-12 public education.

This comment addresses matters discussed by none of the parties or the Court, but helps explain why this type of decision is particularly inappropriate for resolution by an appellate court bound by a record on appeal.

The Comprehensive Remedial Plan written by California’s West Ed was dated June 18, 2019. It was agreed to by the parties that funded it on January 21, 2020. It was not substantially changed thereafter. But the facts on the ground changed after June 28, 2019.

The courts have taken into account what has been appropriated since then, but have not taken cognizance of these relevant additional facts.

  1.) In 2019 the census of 2020 had not yet been taken. That census taken in 2020 and published in 2021 showed an increase of population over ten years for North Carolina of 903,905. This entitled North Carolina to an additional Representative. That census also showed a significantly declining portion of school age population. In ten years there was an increase of less than 3,000 from birth to age 17. Now that cohort is 21.8% of the population, down from 23.6% in 2010. That percentage is down 1.8% from 2010. For several years after 2020, we can expect a much smaller K-12 school enrollment than would have been anticipated by West Ed in 2019.

2.) Since 2019 the share of school age population in public schools has dropped from 80.39% in 2019 to 77.61% in fall 2022. This is a continuing downward trend.

 3.) As a result of the pandemic hundreds of billions of dollars of federal money have been appropriated by Congress and disbursed directly to 115 LEAs (Local Education Authorities). Much of this money is only loosely tied to pandemic consequences. As of Fall 2022 the 115 LEAs are sitting on $2,812,154,344, much of which can be legally used until the end of fiscal year 2024 for objects within the Comprehensive Renewal Plan. Since LEAs are creatures of the State, those funds that can be used for the objects of the Comprehensive Remedial Plan should be included in the calculation of what is done this fiscal year and the future.

Why is the expenditure of these funds not accounted for in the Court’s order?

These three factors are hard for an appellate court to take into account. But the legislature can do so in real time, based on up to the minute information.

For more information see www.paulstam.info.