A Reflection of Minimally Adequate Education In South Carolina More Than Fifty Years Later

IDL - International Digital Library Of
Education & Research
Volume 1, Issue 4,April 2017 Available at: www.dbpublications.org
International e-Journal For Education And Research-2017
IDL - International Digital Library 1 | P a g e Copyright@IDL-2017
A Reflection of Minimally Adequate Education
In South Carolina More Than Fifty Years
Later
Frederick M. G. Evans, Ed. D.
Dean, College of Graduate & Professional Studies
Chair, Department of Educational Leadership
South Carolina State University
Abstract
This academic professional reflection is
primarily focused on inadequate funding of
public education in selected school districts
in the State of South Carolina, USA. It
examines, in summary, several Supreme
Court cases from a historical prospective
and its present day implications. The
research based reflection focuses on the
inequality of minimum adequate education
and funding in public education. The
analysis of Supreme Court cases shall
demonstrate how inadequate funding of
public education impacts the lives of
innocent children. The reader will find
themselves questioning the educational and
financial disparities within the arena of
public education and resting upon multiple
conclusions of personal thought or may
embrace the author’s points of view.
Keywords: minimum adequate education,
equal education.
Introduction
The 1896 Plessey v. Ferguson (separate
but equal doctrine) Supreme Court case was
overturned by the Brown v. The Board of
Education Supreme Court case in the 1954
ruling “separate but equal was
unconstitutional.” The Brown’s case
included the Briggs case and four other
cases, stemmed from a 1949 petition by the
parents of African American children
attending schools in Clarendon County,
South Carolina, seeking adequate funding.
A few years later, Lyndon Johnson signed
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The State of

South Carolina struggled with the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as did many southern
states. The federal legislation led to
integration, forced integration, busing, and
“white flight.” Opposition quickly led to
demonstrations and violence among blacks
and whites. The State of South Carolina is
located on the eastern seaboard of the
Atlantic coast in North America with an
ethnic profile of approximately 29.80%
Black, 69.10% White, and 2.60% other. The
student ethnicity profile consists of 42 %
Black, 54.80% White, and 3.10% Other
(South Carolina Education Profiles, 2001).
While the ethnic profile data are derived
from 2001 for the purpose of this personal
reflection, the percentages may vary slightly
+/- 0.9% in 2017.
The “footprints” and evidence of the
slave trade are still visible in Beaufort, SC
and Charleston, SC. The old slave market in
Charleston, SC is open to the public, as well
as, the Penn Center in Beaufort, SC. The
relevance of the “footprints” is parallel to
Interstate 95 (known as the Corridor of
shame) with respect to public schools that
are still operating in the same areas that have
not received equal funding from the State of
South Carolina. This reflection of the Civil
Rights Act and adequate education in the
State of South Carolina is addressed with a
specific focus on “the parallel of little
change fifty years later and many variables
in the Abbeville Supreme Court case.”
Abbeville Court Case in Context
In 2004, the State of South Carolina still
failed to provide adequate and equal
education to all children in the state. As a
direct result, thirty-six (36) school districts
filed a lawsuit against the State of South
Carolina, which became known as the
Abbeville case. Eight (8) of the thirty-six
(36) school districts were identified as
plaintiffs during the trail. The trail was held
in the Clarendon County Courthouse, which
is the same county of the Briggs case. The
site of the trail was only forty-five minutes
away from many colleges and universities
and approximately one hour away from the
State Capitol of South Carolina.
The Abbeville case focused primarily on
“minimally adequate education,” which the
Supreme Court outlined as (1) the ability to
read, write, and speak the English language,
and knowledge of mathematics and physical
science; (2) a fundamental knowledge of
economic, social, and political systems, and

of history and governmental processes; and
(3) academic and vocational skills.
However, the Court had to determine
whether the State of South Carolina was
offering educational opportunities to
children in the plaintiff districts. The Court
then examined both State inputs and student
outcomes. The “inputs” were defined as an
educational opportunity. The “outcomes”
were measured as student achievement. The
plaintiffs augured that the State failed to
fund their school districts equally to ensure
adequate education. The state augured that
the children in the Plaintiff districts choose
not to learn and 40% of the students in the
plaintiff’s district are minimally qualified to
advance to the next grade level proves that
opportunity exists for all. The State further
augured that 60% of 9-13 year old children
refuse to learn. Many of the same schools
were considered failing schools in 2014. In
this regard, the debate continues and
financial issues must be addressed.
Funding Issues
All of the available, accessible research
data revealed the fact that schools in the
Plaintiff districts have low financial
resources and high student needs. The said
school districts have low fiscal capacity to
include low per capita incomes and low tax
bases, as well as, higher minority
populations than the State averages. The
demographics are in concert with very high
percentages of impoverished, disadvantaged
students, and unsatisfactory achievement
levels across all performance measures.
Regardless of the geographical
considerations, the State of South Carolina
is mandated through the Education Finance
Act of 1977 (EFA) “to guarantee to each
student in the public schools of South
Carolina the availability of at least minimum
education programs and services appropriate
to his needs, and which are substantially
equal to those available to other students
with similar needs and reasonably
comparable from a program standpoint to
those students with similar needs and
reasonably comparable from a program
standpoint to those students of all
classifications, notwithstanding
geographical differences and varying local
economic factors” (Education Finance Act
of 1977, 59-20-10, et seq.). Just one
example of this flawed Act (EFA) required
the State to pay all school transportation
cost, but school districts pay approximately

sixty percent of the cost. To this regard, the
base student cost of the EFA has been fully
funded for only eight years of the twenty-six
years since its passage. The poorer school
districts must redirect funding to cover such
expenses thus shifting costs from possible
instructional services to support
transportation. These practices are still being
implemented in 2017 as school districts
continue to struggle with inadequate funding
issues. In other words, when EFA funds are
cut, the budget reductions disproportionately
affect poorer districts because of this
dependence on EFA funds. The State of
South Carolina funded 70.9 percent of
education in 1960, 41.89 percent in 2002,
and the percentage continues to decrease
year after year. The State of South Carolina,
contrary to other states, has required districts
to assume more of the cost of education over
time.
The school districts represented in the
Abbeville case lacked funds to meet their
students’ remedial and compensatory
programs. No local or state money was
available for after-hour programs or summer
school leading to reliance on federal grants
in order to serve a portion of the students
who needed such programs. This practice
received limited funding to implement
targeted programs as a “stop gap measure”
and to adhere to the mandates, temporarily.
The augments today still reflect the
assumption that South Carolina has never
attempted to determine what it costs to
educate children and fund adequate facilities
in South Carolina, including the children in
the Abbeville districts (I 95 corridor).
Inadequate Facilities
The school facilities in the school
districts represented in the Abbeville case
showed through studies distressingly high
facilities’ deficiencies with an estimated cost
of approximately over four billion dollars
for capital needs improvements. It is so
unfortunate that the same issues remain fifty
years later facing the same disparities. The
relationship between facilities and student
performance is an expected understanding.
The South Carolina Education Oversight
Committee (EOC) reported in its 2001
Report to the South Carolina General
Assembly the following:
“One out of every five schools in this
state is rated by the principal as
having a direct negative impact on
school productivity. Among facilities

factors adversely affecting the
educational process are
overcrowding, poor physical
condition of the structure, portables,
lack of storage, inadequate
laboratory space. Because (1) this
study affirms previous research
indicating that school facilities affect
student outcomes; (2) one of every
five schools in this state is rated as
making a negative impact on the
educational process; and (3) the
average school facilities is 70%
through its expected life cycle, it is
recommended that a comprehensive
and adequate system of funding
school construction in South
Carolina be developed and
implemented” (EOC, 2001).
Citizens within and out of the school
districts represented in the Abbeville case
verbalized their opinions through local
media stating, “the State is not providing
adequate facilities to students in South
Carolina.” The referenced South Carolina
Education Oversight Committee Report to
the South Carolina General Assembly in
2001 is extremely important because very
little change has occurred regarding special
allocated funding for new school facilities
equipped with modern technology, top rated
teachers, and after school remedial programs
supported with bus transportation to ensure
that children are able to participate in such.
Conclusion
The Legislature in the State of South
Carolina does a good job of enacting laws
intended to promote education, but does a
poor job of supporting the laws financially,
respectfully. Fifty years later, some school
districts in South Carolina still lack qualified
teachers, instructional materials, usable
technology, effective leaders, labs, bus
transportation to support after school
programs, compensatory and remedial
programs, professional development for all
teachers, and sufficient library and media
centers. Other concerns and issues that rests
on the” backdrop” of the Civil Rights Act
through this academic reflection include but
are not limited to (1) recruiting and retaining
effective teachers for every classroom; (2)
need for services for all students to reach
high expectations and performance criteria;
(3) services for disable, migrant, low-
performing students; (4) instructional needs

to reflect equal and adequate education; (5)
resources to meet federal requirements; (7)
lack of funds for construction and
maintenance of School facilities. The above
observations directly contribute to the
academic achievement gap in many school
districts in the State of South Carolina.
Many school districts have “self
segregated by personal income bracket”
through real estate developments; thus,
establishing higher tax brackets for school
zones. Education in the State of South
Carolina is adequate in some school districts
but not in others. Other self-segregated
measures include, but not limited to, charter
schools and home schooling. Parents that
can financially afford to daily transport their
children to charter and private schools are
academically removed, but still are taxed for
the basic financial support of public
education. The Landmark Abbeville case is
still pending in 2017 and as a result is
becoming parallel with the Brown v. The
Board of Education decision, which many
believe that justice, has been denied to many
generations of predominantly black and
impoverished children and the effects are
still being felt more than fifty years later.
References
Education Finance Act of 1977, 59-20-10, et
seq.
South Carolina Education Oversight
Committee. The South Carolina General
Assembly Report. March 1, 2001.
South Carolina State Department of
Education. Education Profiles and
Demographics Data Report. 2001.

A Reflection of Minimally Adequate Education In South Carolina More Than Fifty Years Later

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to A Reflection of Minimally Adequate Education In South Carolina More Than Fifty Years Later (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Reflection of Minimally Adequate Education In South Carolina More Than Fifty Years Later