News-Record.com

A local board of education has the authority to assign students to year-round schools without their parents' permission, the N.C. Supreme Court rules today in a 4-3 decision that includes two dissenting opinions and a concurring opinion that advises the losers on remedies they can seek.

More in a minute ...

The case comes from Wake County, which has experienced rapid enrollment growth in its public school system. In addition to building many new schools, the school board also has put multi-track year-round scheduled in place at a number of schools. These schools divided the student body into four groups, only three of which are actually in school at any one time. Through this scheduling, the school can accommodate one-third more children than otherwise. It's a strictly cost-saving measure.

It's also not popular with parents because of the effect on family schedules. Their children don't get a normal summer vacation but can be on break at various other times during the year. They argued the school board did not have the authority to impose this schedule on them.

(At a time when the legislature has imposed a specified summer break on all school systems, the Wake system seems legally untenable, but the legislature made an exception for year-round schools.)

Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson wrote for the court's majority, which also included Chief Justice Sarah Parker, Justice Robin Hudson and Justice Bob Edmunds.

The majority's conclusion: "e hold that the Board is statutorily authorized to compel attendance at year-round calendar schools. The Board's action in converting traditional calendar schools to year-round calendar schools comports with its statutory duty to provide a school system adequate to the needs of increasing student enrollment while assuring appropriate class sizes in its schools. Moreover, the more efficient use by year-round calendar schools of existing school facilities complies with the public policy of the state to create a public school system 'n the most cost-effective manner'while ensuring a sound basic education for all North Carolina children."

Timmons-Goodson added this note, which reveals the personal feelings of the justices: "e recognize the emotional nature of this case, but we must emphasize that our duty goes no further than to determine the legal authority for implementing mandatory year-round schools, not the wisdom of such a decision. This Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Board."

Edmunds, a Greensboro resident, went another step in his concurring opinion:

"Nevertheless, plaintiffs are not without recourse. The record includes affidavits from individual plaintiffs establishing that mandatory year-round schools will be inordinately disruptive in their family lives. Under section 115C-369, parents or guardians of any student assigned to a year-round school may seek reassignment and apply for a mandatory hearing if the request is denied. At such a hearing, one of the factors that 'hall'be considered is 'he best interest of the child.' I cannot believe that best interest does not include at least some of the factors raised by plaintiffs, such as sibling placement, family schedules, and the like.

"Moreover, plaintiffs have the ultimate remedy of the ballot box. While boards of education must make difficult choices as to how to allocate scarce resources, those boards are responsible to the voters, who have the power both to elect candidates of their choice and to unseat incumbents."

Justice Mark Martin wrote a lengthy dissent, joined by Justices Ed Brady and Paul Newby.

Here's one key conclusion in Martin's dissent:

"The legislature has not authorized any local school board to mandate year-round schooling for public school students. It is unreasonable to suggest that the legislature's 2004 amendment to the school calendar statute, which was enacted to preserve summer vacation, was actually intended to grant local school boards the authority to impose on public school students a schedule that requires them to attend school throughout the summer months. A careful reading of the applicable statutes reveals that they prohibit a local school board from mandating that students attend a year-round calendar."

In answer to the remedy of the ballot box, he notes:

"The vast majority of Wake County students are not affected by the compulsory year-round policy, and the students who are affected all reside in a particular area within the county. Together, these factors mean that year-round students and their families are unlikely to muster the political strength necessary to avoid selective imposition of mandatory year-round schooling."

Brady added a passionate dissent with a different slant:

"The majority opinion evinces a dramatic shift from the traditional maxim that 'mother knows best' to the 'progressive' idea that 'bureaucrat and elected official knows best.' I cannot sit silently and watch as this Court removes the ultimate responsibility of education from the hands of parents to the hands of the education establishment. While I concur fully in Justice Martin's well-reasoned dissenting opinion, I write separately to emphasize both the importance that family plays in the education of our young citizenry and how the majority opinion fails to consider the harmful effect of its decision on the family."

This case does stir the emotions. I'll have more to say about it later.