# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
My son JJ and I in Hawaii (2021). Own photograph.

# data[].attributes.body
My name is Ashley Allen, and I am currently pursuing a master's in the Curriculum & Instruction, Advanced Instructor program. My future role is to be an Instructional Coach in a Middle School (grades 6-8) setting. As an instructional coach, I will work closely with a diverse blend of middle school teachers to help them improve their knowledge and skills to increase their students' performance.

The topic of my legal and ethical guide is teacher preparation and standards. I chose this topic because there is currently a significant teacher shortage in the United States. Some in education claim that teachers are leaving because they have not been adequately prepared to meet today's students' needs. As an instructional coach, it will be my job to provide teachers with guidance and support to ensure they are as prepared as possible. I will also need to ensure my teachers are up to date on any new standards they must meet to keep their license current.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Link to Angela Westmoreland's bio on FTCC Instructional Coach website.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #2- Interview with Angela Westmoreland

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #2- Interview with Angela Westmoreland

# data[].attributes.body
1. Angela Westmoreland is an instructional coach at Fayetteville Technical Community College in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Before starting this position in March 2022, she was the school-based instructional coach for almost four years at the largest middle school in Cumberland County, serving over 80 teachers in all content areas and providing training in various technology tools such as the Canvas LMS.

2. Due to the ongoing teacher shortages, more teachers who do not meet the basic certification requirements are being hired. Increasingly, the task of providing support and on-the-job training for these teachers is falling on instructional coaches. "School-based instructional coaches are expected to work one-on-one with initially licensed and lateral entry teachers to acclimate them to the school, specific evaluation standards, writing lesson plans, technology, curriculum standards, classroom management, and more" (A. Westmoreland, personal communication, September 25, 2022). It is becoming apparent that instructional coaches will not only aid experienced teachers with understanding new technologies and standards but will also need to guide new teachers in basic pedagogy.

3. Mrs. Westmoreland's best practice recommendations (A. Westmoreland, personal communication, September 25, 2022):

1. Provide differentiated Professional Development utilizing teacher choice. Differentiated instruction allows teachers to learn at the level they feel the most comfortable.

2. Follow up Professional Development with real-world, classroom application. Of course, understanding a theory is significant, but practical application is frequently "more important" to teachers than the history of a framework or idea.

3. Build capacity in teacher leaders. Allow teachers to present Professional Development and training. Peer-to-peer instruction is highly effective.

4. It is often the responsibility of the instructional coach to work with initially licensed and lateral entry teachers, monitoring their progress toward established goals and required standards. Instructional coaches must keep specific documentation acknowledging that progress, and official paperwork must be submitted to the state each year. Some of this documentation includes meeting attendance, coaching sessions, mentoring sessions, and Professional Development requirements. In North Carolina, a teacher must complete three full years of classroom teaching to transition from a "temporary" license to a full teaching license (A. Westmoreland, personal communication, September 25, 2022). An issue may emerge if a school has such a large number of new teachers that the instructional coach can not keep up with all of the required paperwork. All involved in education should keep an eye on this due to the many underqualified teachers being hired.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Instructional Coaching - Fayetteville Technical Community College

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Link to NSBA article, Teacher Retention: A Growing Problem

# data[].attributes.body
In this 2019 article from the National School Boards Association, Veronica Gerald details how schools facing teacher shortages have turned to less than capable or ill-prepared teachers to fill vacancies. As a result, these teachers have become overwhelmed and disheartened, causing them to consider leaving the profession. Gerald explains that an instructional coach can provide support, mentorship, resources, and one-on-one guidance that may lead to better-prepared teachers who remain in the teaching profession.

Gerald, V. (2019, October 1). Teacher retention: A growing problem. National School Boards Association. https://nsba.org/ASBJ/2019/October/Teacher-Retention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In recent years, schools have been hiring significantly more teachers than in the past. However, there is still a shortage of educators throughout school districts across the nation. How can a teaching population that has increased at more than three times the rate of its student population still appear depleted?

One of the greatest concerns in education today is not the ability to obtain teachers, but the ability to keep them. So, the question for boards and superintendents is, what is your district's retention rate? And, is your district doing enough to retain and grow effective teachers?

Teacher Hiring is Up

The number of teachers in the United States has increased since 1989. Specifically, schools have been hiring more teachers in Math, Science, Reading, Special Education, and English as a Second Language. Overall increase in population created a need to reduce classroom size due to overcrowding, as well as fill achievement and equity gaps in teaching. Schools are also hiring more teachers of various racial backgrounds to increase diversity in schools.

Retention: The Real Problem

Despite this influx of new teachers, Professor Richard Ingersoll of the University of Pennsylvania states that 44% leave the occupation within the first five years and 10% leave in year one. Today, an average teacher has just 1-3 years of classroom experience compared to an average of 15 years of experience just 30 years ago. In 2015-16, Ingersoll found that less than half of new teachers were over 29 years of age and just 19% were older than 40.

Inevitably, this has led to an increase in the number of under-qualified teachers in schools. A recent survey of 31 participating states found that 82,000 teachers are under-qualified, and 5,000 positions remain unfilled. These issues are exacerbated in districts with low-income and high-minority populations. According to Ingersoll, low-income students, both rural and urban, are more likely to be taught by an under-qualified teacher than a similar student in an affluent area. His studies also show that despite the significant increase in nonwhite public school teachers, attrition is higher for minority teachers.

The cause of teacher retention struggles is far from one-dimensional. It sprouts from a variety of factors including inadequate preparation, a lack of mentoring or effective mentoring, pressures of test-based accountability, low salaries, and poor teaching conditions. Considering these factors, it comes as no surprise that teachers have become as displeased, discouraged and overwhelmed as ever before. According to the MetLife Survey of American Teachers, teacher job satisfaction has dropped 15% over the past decade and the percentage of teachers who say they are likely to leave the profession has increased by 12%.

Rising Costs of Losing Teachers

Hiring new teachers is not a minor expense for many schools. Investments in professional development and curriculum improvements are costly necessities associated with this process. Ingersoll estimates that replacing former teachers costs between $10,000 per teacher for small and rural districts and $20,000 per teacher for urban districts. These investments do not often pay their full dividend due to the rising number of first- and second-year teachers leaving the field.

Monetary losses are not the only costs associated with attrition. Student achievement also takes a significant hit within schools that struggle to retain teachers. A recent study conducted by the University of the Michigan's Matthew Ronfeldt, Stanford University's Susanna Loeb, and the University of Virginia's Jim Wyckoff shows that high teacher turnover is correlated to low test scores within schools. In fact, an increase in teacher turnover by just 1% resulted in lower math scores by 2%. Test scores in all subjects were 6-10% lower in schools with high turnover rates.

Solutions

The most effective answer to the teacher retention issue seems to lie in increasing support for new teachers. This includes teacher development, mentoring, and adequate administrative support. While many districts employ mentoring programs, many are not as effective as they could be. However, programs in which new teachers are able to receive one-on-one guided counsel from more experienced personnel have proven to increase teacher retention and provide teachers with a greater perception of success within the profession. A study of California schools' that worked to retain teachers found that "high quality induction and mentoring programs reduced attrition by 26% in just two years." Multiple studies show that beginning teachers who participate in mentoring and induction activities are less likely to change schools and less likely leave the occupation within the first year.

So, with many school districts already having professional development and mentoring programs in place, why is overall teacher retention still so low? Despite their efforts to create a positive and supportive growth environment for new teachers, many educational leaders are already overwhelmed with a plethora of responsibilities. Additionally, many of these expectations are met with deficiencies in both time and resources.

One viable way to increase support for new teachers may be to include a third-party instructional coach. This practice allows teachers to receive the instruction they need to develop early in their careers, at their specific pace and at their convenience, while relieving much of the pressure from administrators and experienced teachers. This also allows administrators to receive targeted feedback from one common source as opposed to receiving requests from numerous angles. This will likely increase their ability to effectively address each teacher's needs. Instructional coaches, both in-person and virtual, are able to provide objective and targeted one-on-one assistance within a supportive environment and with a flexible schedule. This method of teacher development, particularly a virtual approach, is growing rapidly and will likely shift the plummeting trend of teacher retention in the coming years.

Again, the question for boards and superintendents is, what is your district's retention rate? And, is your district doing enough to retain and grow effective teachers?

For more information about in-person or virtual instructional coaching services, please visit https://newteachersupport.com and contact us today.

By Veronica Gerald
Founder & CEO
New Teacher Support Center
866-622-8314
https://newteachersupport.com

References

Fuller, B., Waite, A., & Irribarra, D. T. (2016). Explaining Teacher Turnover: School Cohesion and Intrinsic Motivation in Los Angeles. American Journal of Education, 122(4), 537-567. doi: 10.1086/687272
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534. doi: 10.3102/00028312038003499
Love, A. R. (2010). Collaborating for Student Success: Perspectives from the MetLife Survey of the American Teacher. National Civic Review, 99(2), 10-14. doi: 10.1002/ncr.20012
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36. doi: 10.3102/0002831212463813
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What Are the Effects of Induction and Mentoring on Beginning Teacher Turnover? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 681-714. doi: 10.3102/01623737026003681

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of teachers hired by schools in the U.S. has grown significantly in recent years, but an increasingly challenging problem facing schools and school districts is teacher attrition. One solution to helping schools retain and grow effective teachers in a supportive and efficient manner may be the use of a third-party instructional coach.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Link to EdWeek article, States Relax Teacher Certification Rules to Combat Shortages

# data[].attributes.body
Education Week

Approximately 12 states have recently changed the criteria that potential teachers must meet to become certified.

Changes include:

Lowering exam score requirements,

Dropping exam requirements altogether,

Placing prospective teachers who do not meet requirements in classes while teaching.

These changes are happening because of a troubling trend toward extreme teacher shortages, not only from teachers leaving the classroom but also from fewer going to school to become teachers.

Some worry that these changes could potentially harm students because the teachers who will benefit from these changes will be underqualified.

Most agree the solution is to better prepare prospective teachers with improved teacher preparation programs.

Will, M. (2022, June 30). States relax teacher certification rules to combat shortages. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/states-relax-teacher-certification-rules-to-combat-shortages/2022/06

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Across the country, policymakers are taking steps to relax their states' certification requirements to get more teachers in the classroom and circumvent shortages.

Reviews by Education Week and the Education Commission of the States found about a dozen states that have recently amended-or are considering amending-teacher certification rules. Some are changing the criteria for licensure, others are expanding the qualifying score on state licensing tests, and some are dropping licensure tests altogether.

Those changes reflect a teacher pipeline in flux.

Administrators are bracing for what could be increasingly severe teacher shortages, particularly in hard-to-fill subject areas or locales. Last fall, nearly half of district and school leaders said they struggled to hire enough full-time teachers, according to a national EdWeek Research Center survey, and the problem could get worse.

"There are many hurdles in our state that have continued to deepen the teacher shortage-[this exam] was one of those," said Joy Hofmeister, the state superintendent of public instruction, in a statement. "This legislation will open doors to expand the teacher pool, ultimately making our schools better."

"The potential of thousands of Missouri students to have a well-prepared, appropriately certified teacher considerably outweighs the minimal risk that would come from alternating the qualifying score for all initial teacher-certification exams," said Paul Katnik, the department's assistant commissioner, according to Fox2Now.

In Alabama, state board of education members are also considering certifying prospective teachers who don't reach the qualifying score on the Praxis. Nearly 1,200 teachers in the state scored one standard error measure below the passing score between September 2019 and August 2021.

The state's education department has proposed that candidates who score within one standard error of measurement on the Praxis can still be certified if they have a higher GPA in their teacher-preparation program or if they complete 100 hours of state-approved training. Board members are expected to vote on the department's proposal at their July 12 meeting.

Education department officials told board members earlier this month that while this solution is not a silver bullet for teacher shortages, it will offer districts some relief.

Meanwhile, New Jersey has implemented a five-year pilot program where prospective teachers can still get limited certification if they either don't meet the minimum GPA requirement, or earn the minimum passing score on a state licensing test of subject matter knowledge. Districts that want to hire these teachers must first apply to the state to enroll in the program.

Concerns about lowering the 'standard of entry'

About a decade ago, states were strengthening entry requirements to the field. Now, some critics warn against lowering the bar at a time when effective teachers are needed more than ever to help make up learning that was disrupted during the pandemic.

"I don't understand why our response to concern about shortages is to have a major policy reaction that lowers the standard of entry," said Heather Peske, the president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, a Washington-based think tank that calls for more-rigorous teacher preparation. "Endorsing an option that asks less of teachers in terms of their content knowledge [means] you shift the burden onto students."

And less-experienced teachers are more likely to teach in classrooms with more students of color and children from low-income families, she noted.

Peske said a time-limited pilot program, like the one in New Jersey, is a good compromise, since it allows time to research the impact of the changes and to determine the extent to which there is a teacher shortage in the state.

"To combat teacher shortages, states need better data," she said. "We can't fix what we can't see."

Instead of "blunt" policy responses, Peske said she'd rather see more support given to aspiring teachers so they can pass the state exams. NCTQ has highlighted several teacher-preparation programs that have shored up support for test-takers and now see higher-than-average pass rates on licensing exams, including among candidates of color.

In general, aspiring teachers of color are more likely to fail licensing tests than white candidates.

Experts point to several reasons why that might be: Some of the questions on the tests might be culturally biased, candidates of color may have more test anxiety, the fees to take and retake exams can be prohibitive, and systemic educational inequities mean that candidates of color might be less prepared than white candidates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
States Relax Teacher Certification Rules to Combat Shortages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Faced with an uneven supply of teaching talent, states are lowering the bar on some licensing hoops.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Link to article, Education Department to Award 22 Grants for Teacher Shortage and Support Teacher Pipeline and Development Programs

# data[].attributes.body
Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

The U.S. Department of Education announced new awards to better prepare teachers long-term and address the ongoing teacher shortages.

U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said the ability to "recruit, prepare, and retain" diverse educators was an urgent priority (Kyaw, 2022, para. 2).

The money awarded will support programs that provide relevant and evidence-based approaches to teacher preparation.

Hopefully, these programs will better prepare teachers to meet the challenges they face post-pandemic. This will, in turn, keep teachers from leaving the profession, which has been a concerning trend for the past two years.

Kyaw, A. (2022, September 27). Education department to award 22 grants for teacher shortage and support teacher pipeline and development programs. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. https://www.diverseeducation.com/leadership-policy/article/15297236/education-department-to-award-22-grants-for-teacher-shortage-and-support-teacher-pipeline-and-development-programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is awarding 22 grants to address the nationwide teacher shortage and support teacher pipeline and development programs.

Through the Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) program, three-year grants - totaling more than $60 million - will be given out.

"We are treating our efforts to recruit, prepare, and retain a talented and diverse educator workforce with the same level of urgency we brought to reopening our schools during the height of the pandemic," said U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. Miguel A. Cardona. "Now more than ever, we are supporting teacher preparation and development programs that provide educators with meaningful, relevant, and evidence-based strategies for promoting student success and social and emotional well-being. Today's investment of over $60 million will support high-quality programs across the country that are truly raising the bar for professional development and embracing evidence-based and innovative and promising approaches, like Grow-Your-Own programs, to strengthen the teacher pipeline today, and in the years ahead."

For this year's SEED competition, ED prioritized projects involving comprehensive teacher preparation and projects for inclusive, equitable learning to meet student needs.

Recipients include WestEd; Center for Civic Education; Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc.; University of Kansas; University of Maryland College Park; and East Tennessee State University, among others.

ED is also taking applications through Oct. 7, for the Augustus F. Hawkins grant program for teacher prep programs at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), and minority serving institutions (MSIs).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education Department to Award 22 Grants for Teacher Shortage and Support Teacher Pipeline and Development Programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is awarding 22 grants to address the nationwide teacher shortage and support teacher pipeline and development programs. Through the Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) program, three-year grants - totaling more than $60 million - will be given out.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal Constitutional Law

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. X) states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states, including education.

The interpretation of this amendment means that laws regarding education and teacher certification are primarily created at the state and local levels.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/

North Carolina Constitutional Law

According to Article IX, Section Five of the North Carolina Constitution (CITE), the State Board of Education has the authority to create all rules and regulations necessary to ensure the proper function of schools.

This section indicates that the State Board can establish rules regulating which certifications teachers must meet to be hired and work with students.

https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Constitution/Article9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NC Constitution - Article 9 - North Carolina General Assembly

# data[].attributes.body
United States Code

U.S. Code 20, Section 6301, also known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (20 U.S.C. § 6301), requires that all teachers and paraprofessionals be certified in their teaching areas.

https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf

North Carolina General Statutes

Educator Preparation Program Requirements

North Carolina General Statute 115C, Section 269.20 establishes the minimum content and pedagogy requirements that educator preparation programs must meet (N.C.G.S. § 115C-269.20).

These requirements include training in the skills and responsibilities of a teacher, classroom management, literacy intervention, and identifying students with special needs.

For an educator preparation program to be approved or renewed, it must meet the minimum requirements outlined in the general statute.

https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_115C/GS_115C-269.20.pdf

Educator Licensure Requirements

North Carolina General Statute 115C, Section 270.20 allows the State Board of Education to create rules and requirements that educators must meet to be issued a license (N.C.G.S. § 115C-270.20).

The statute also outlines the various levels of teacher licensure and the provisions to be met to be issued a license at that level.

Teachers who do not meet the requirements will legally not be allowed to receive a license.

If the requirements are too strict, this could help perpetuate the teacher shortage.

https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_115C/GS_115C-270.20.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
North Carolina Administrative Code

The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Educator Preparation Office outlines requirements for educator preparation programs (EPP) in addition to those listed in the general statutes.

N.C. Administrative Code Title 16, Chapter 6, Section .0397 requires EPPs to provide instruction on classroom management, identifying and teaching diverse students, and all evidence-based practices outlined in the Every Student Succeeds Act.

Failure to adhere to these requirements can cause an EPP not to receive certification.

http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2016%20-%20education/chapter%2006%20-%20elementary%20and%20secondary%20education/subchapter%20c/16%20ncac%2006c%20.0397.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Judicial Law

The Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled in Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997), that North Carolina is responsible for ensuring that all students receive a sound and basic education.

The case's main focus was on funding in the five poorest school districts, but it also requires schools to provide highly qualified and appropriately qualified teachers for all students.

This Supreme Court of North Carolina is currently deliberating this case again to decide whether the court has the authority to require the state to provide funds to lower-income districts.

https://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/supreme-court/1997/179pa96-0.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MITCHELL, Chief Justice.

Plaintiffs originally brought this action in Halifax County. Defendants moved for a transfer of venue to Wake County contending that under N.C.G.S. § 1-77(2), Wake County was the only proper venue for this action against public officers. Judge E. Maurice Braswell entered an order on 19 January 1995 transferring venue to Wake County and directing that all papers relating to this suit be forwarded to the Clerk of Superior Court for Wake County.

Plaintiffs in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief are students and their parents or guardians from the relatively poor school systems in Cumberland, Halifax, Hoke, Robeson, and Vance Counties and the boards of education for those counties. Plaintiff-intervenors are students and their parents or guardians from the relatively large and wealthy school systems of the City of Asheville and of Buncombe, Wake, Forsyth, Mecklenburg, and Durham Counties and the boards of education for those systems. Both plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors (hereinafter "plaintiff-parties" when referred to collectively) allege in their complaints in the case resulting in this appeal that they have a right to adequate educational opportunities which is being denied them by defendants under the current school funding system. Plaintiff-parties also allege that the North Carolina Constitution not only creates a fundamental right to an education, but it also guarantees that every child, no matter where he or she resides, is entitled to equal educational opportunities. Plaintiff-parties allege that defendants have denied them this right.

Plaintiffs allege that children in their poor school districts are not receiving a sufficient education to meet the minimal standard for a constitutionally adequate education. Plaintiffs further allege that children in their districts are denied an equal education because there is a great disparity between the educational opportunities available to children in their districts and those offered in more wealthy districts of our state. Plaintiffs allege that their districts lack the necessary resources to provide fundamental educational opportunities for their children due to the nature of the state's system of financing education and the burden it places on local governments. They allege that the state leaves the funding of capital expenses, as well as twenty-five percent of current school expenses, to local governments. They further allege that although their poor districts are the beneficiaries of higher local tax rates than many wealthy school districts, those higher rates cannot make up for their lack of resources or for the disparities between systems. Plaintiffs also allege that students in their poor school districts are not receiving the education called for by the Basic Education Program, part of the statutory framework for providing education to the children of this state.

Plaintiffs complain of inadequate school facilities with insufficient space, poor lighting, leaking roofs, erratic heating and air conditioning, peeling paint, cracked plaster, and rusting exposed pipes. They allege that their poor districts' media centers have sparse and outdated book collections and lack the technology present in the wealthier school districts. They complain that they are unable to compete for high quality teachers because local salary supplements in their poor districts are well below those provided in wealthy districts. Plaintiffs allege that this relative inability to hire teachers causes the number of students per teacher to be higher in their poor districts than in wealthy districts.

Plaintiffs allege that college admission test scores and yearly aptitude test scores reflect both the inadequacy and the disparity in education received by children in their poor districts. Plaintiffs allege that end-of-grade tests show that the great majority of students in plaintiffs' districts are failing in basic subjects.

Plaintiff-intervenors allege that the current state educational funding system does not sufficiently take into consideration the burdens faced by their urban school districts, which must educate a large number of students with extraordinary educational needs. In particular, plaintiff-intervenors claim that their school districts have a large number of students who require special education services, special English instruction, and academically gifted programs. They allege that providing these services requires plaintiff-intervenor school boards to divert substantial resources from their regular education programs.

Plaintiff-intervenors contend that defendants, the State of North Carolina and the State Board of Education, have violated the North Carolina Constitution and chapter 115C of the North Carolina General Statutes by failing to ensure that their relatively wealthy school districts have sufficient resources to provide all of their students with adequate and equal educational opportunities. In addition, plaintiff-intervenors claim that the state's singling out of certain poor rural districts to receive supplemental state funds, while failing to recognize comparable if not greater needs in the urban school districts, is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the North Carolina Constitution and state law. Plaintiff-intervenors allege that deficiencies in physical facilities and educational materials are particularly significant in their systems because most of the growth in North Carolina's student population is taking place in urban areas such as those served by plaintiff-intervenor school boards. They claim that their urban districts must serve a disproportionate number of children who due to poverty, language barriers, or other handicaps, require special resources. They allege that because urban counties have high levels of poverty, homelessness, crime, unmet health care needs, and unemployment which drain their fiscal resources, they cannot allocate as large a portion of their local tax revenues to public education as can the more rural poor districts.

In response to plaintiffs' and plaintiff-intervenors' complaints seeking declaratory and other relief, defendants filed a motion to dismiss under N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(1), (2), and (6), asserting that the trial court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction and that plaintiff-parties had failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted. After a hearing, Judge Braswell denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order denying their motion to dismiss. Following denial of a joint petition of the parties for discretionary review by this Court prior to determination by the Court of Appeals, defendants filed an alternative petition for writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The petition was allowed, and the matter was heard 24 January 1996 in the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals concluded that the right to education guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution is limited to one of equal access to the existing system of education and does not embrace a qualitative standard. Leandro v. North Carolina, 122 N.C. App. 1, 11, 468 S.E.2d 543, 550 (1996). The Court of Appeals found plaintiff-parties' claims to be indistinguishable from the plaintiffs' claims in Britt v. N.C. State Bd. of Educ., 86 N.C. App. 282, 357 S.E.2d 432, disc. rev. denied and appeal dismissed, 320 N.C. 790, 361 S.E.2d 71 (1987), which the Court of Appeals had found without merit. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff-parties' claims were foreclosed.

Plaintiff-parties petitioned this Court for discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31. We allowed those petitions. Plaintiffs also gave notice of appeal as a matter of right on the basis that their claims presented substantial constitutional questions.

Defendants argued in the Court of Appeals that the trial court had erred by denying their motion to dismiss plaintiff-parties' educational adequacy claims as being "nonjusticiable political questions." Defendants did not raise this defense as to plaintiff-parties' other claims. The Court of Appeals based its decision on other grounds and did not reach the "political question" issue, but defendants maintain that the "political question" issue is a threshold question that must be addressed. We address it now.

It has long been understood that it is the duty of the courts to determine the meaning of the requirements of our Constitution. See, e.g., Mitchell v. N.C. Indus. Dev. Fin. Auth., 273 N.C. 137, 144, 159 S.E.2d 745, 750 (1968); Ex parte Schenck, 65 N.C. 353, 367 (1871); Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 5, 6-7 (1787). When a government action is challenged as unconstitutional, the courts have a duty to determine whether that action exceeds constitutional limits. See Maready v. City of Winston-Salem, 342 N.C. 708, 716, 467 S.E.2d 615, 620 (1996) ("It is the duty of this Court to ascertain and declare the intent of the framers of the Constitution and to reject any act in conflict therewith."). Therefore, it is the duty of this Court to address plaintiff-parties' constitutional challenge to the state's public education system. Defendants' argument is without merit.

Plaintiff-parties first argue that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that no right to a qualitatively adequate education arises under the North Carolina Constitution. We agree.

The right to a free public education is explicitly guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution: "The people have a right to the privilege of education, and it is the duty of the State to guard and maintain that right." N.C. Const. art. I, § 15. The Constitution also provides:
The General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools, which shall be maintained at least nine months in every year, and wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students.
Id. art. IX, § 2(1). The principal question presented by this argument is whether the people's constitutional right to education has any qualitative content, that is, whether the state is required to provide children with an education that meets some minimum standard of quality. We answer that question in the affirmative and conclude that the right to education provided in the state constitution is a right to a sound basic education. An education that does not serve the purpose of preparing students to participate and compete in the society in which they live and work is devoid of substance and is constitutionally inadequate.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the right to education guaranteed by the state constitution "is limited to one of equal access to education, and it does not embrace a qualitative standard." Leandro, 122 N.C.App. at 11, 468 S.E.2d at 550. It based its holding on a single sentence from this Court's opinion in Sneed v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ., 299 N.C. 609, 264 S.E.2d 106 (1980): "`It is clear, then, that equal access to participation in our public school system is a fundamental right, guaranteed by our state constitution and protected by considerations of procedural due process.'" Leandro, 122 N.C.App. at 11, 468 S.E.2d at 550 (quoting Sneed, 299 N.C. at 618, 264 S.E.2d at 113).

Sneed involved a challenge to the Greensboro City Board of Education's practice of charging public school students with incidental course and instructional fees and of denying enrollment to those who did not pay the fees and failed to get a waiver. This Court concluded that imposing such fees on students and parents who were financially able to pay did not offend the North Carolina Constitution's requirement of a general and uniform system of free public schools. Sneed, 299 N.C. at 617, 264 S.E.2d at 113. We further concluded, however, that the school system's failure to provide poor students and their parents with adequate notice of provisions for waiver of the fees was unconstitutional. Id. at 618-19, 264 S.E.2d at 113-14. It was in the context of this holding protecting the right of poor students to equal access to existing public education opportunities that this Court made the statement relied upon by the Court of Appeals. The present case does not involve issues of equal access to available educational opportunities, and the Court of Appeals' reliance upon Sneed was misplaced.

This Court has long recognized that there is a qualitative standard inherent in the right to education guaranteed by this state's constitution. In Board of Educ. v. Board of Comm'rs of Granville County, 174 N.C. 469, 93 S.E. 1001 (1917), for example, we stated:
[I]t is manifest that these constitutional provisions were intended to establish a system of public education adequate to the needs of a great and progressive people, affording school facilities of recognized and ever-increasing merit to all the children of the State, and to the full extent that our means could afford and intelligent direction accomplish.
Id. at 472, 93 S.E. at 1002 (emphasis added).

The General Assembly also seems to have recognized the constitutional right to a sound basic education and to have embraced that right in chapter 115C of the General Statutes. For example, in a statute governing the use of funds under the control of the State Board of Education, the General Assembly has stated:
(a) It is the policy of the State of North Carolina to create a public school system that graduates good citizens with the skills demanded in the marketplace, and the skills necessary to cope with contemporary society, using State, local and other funds in the most cost-effective manner....(b) To insure a quality education for every child in North Carolina, and to assure that the necessary resources are provided, it is the policy of the State of North Carolina to provide from State revenue sources the instructional expenses for current operations of the public school system as defined in the standard course of study.
N.C.G.S. § 115C-408 (1994) (emphasis added). In addition, the legislature has required local boards of education "to provide adequate school systems within their respective local school administrative units, as directed by law." N.C.G.S. § 115C-47(1) (Supp.1996) (emphasis added).

We conclude that Article I, Section 15 and Article IX, Section 2 of the North Carolina Constitution combine to guarantee every child of this state an opportunity to receive a sound basic education in our public schools. For purposes of our Constitution, a "sound basic education" is one that will provide the student with at least: (1) sufficient ability to read, write, and speak the English language and a sufficient knowledge of fundamental mathematics and physical science to enable the student to function in a complex and rapidly changing society; (2) sufficient fundamental knowledge of geography, history, and basic economic and political systems to enable the student to make informed choices with regard to issues that affect the student personally or affect the student's community, state, and nation; (3) sufficient academic and vocational skills to enable the student to successfully engage in post-secondary education or vocational training; and (4) sufficient academic and vocational skills to enable the student to compete on an equal basis with others in further formal education or gainful employment in contemporary society. See generally Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 212 (Ky.1989); Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 705-06, 255 S.E.2d 859, 877 (1979).

The trial court properly denied defendants' motion to dismiss this claim for relief. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise.

By other arguments, plaintiff-parties contend that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the alleged disparity in the educational opportunities offered by the different school districts in the state does not violate their right to equal opportunities for education. They contend that Article IX, Section 2(1), requiring a "general and uniform system" in which "equal opportunities shall be provided for all students," mandates equality in the educational programs and resources offered the children in all school districts in North Carolina.

Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors make somewhat different arguments in support of their purported rights to equal educational opportunities. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that inequalities in the facilities, equipment, student-teacher ratios, and test results between their poor districts and the wealthy districts compel the conclusion that students in their poor districts are denied equal opportunities for education. Plaintiffs contend that such inequalities arise from great variations in per-pupil expenditures from district to district.

We first look to the North Carolina Constitution itself to determine whether it provides a basis for relief. It places upon the General Assembly the duty of providing for "a general and uniform system of free public schools ... wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students." N.C. Const. art. IX, § 2(1). We conclude that at the time this provision was originally written in 1868 providing for a "general and uniform" system but without the equal opportunities clause, the intent of the framers was that every child have a fundamental right to a sound basic education which would prepare the child to participate fully in society as it existed in his or her lifetime. See, e.g., City of Greensboro v. Hodgin, 106 N.C. 182, 190, 11 S.E. 586, 589 (1890); Lane v. Stanly, 65 N.C. 153, 158 (1871). The 1970 amendment adding the equal opportunities clause ensured that all the children of this state would enjoy this right.

The issue here, however, is plaintiffs' contention that North Carolina's system of school funding, based in part on funding by the county in which the district is located, necessarily denies the students in plaintiffs' relatively poor school districts educational opportunities equal to those available in relatively wealthy districts and thereby violates the equal opportunities clause of Article IX, Section 2(1). Although we have concluded that the North Carolina Constitution requires that access to a sound basic education be provided equally in every school district, we are convinced that the equal opportunities clause of Article IX, Section 2(1) does not require substantially equal funding or educational advantages in all school districts. We have considered the language and history underlying this and other constitutional provisions concerned with education as well as former opinions by this Court. As a result, we conclude that provisions of the current state system for funding schools which require or allow counties to help finance their school systems and result in unequal funding among the school districts of the state do not violate constitutional principles.

Article IX, Section 2(2) of the North Carolina Constitution expressly authorizes the General Assembly to require that local governments bear part of the costs of their local public schools. Further, it expressly provides that local governments may add to or supplement their school programs as much as they wish.
The General Assembly may assign to units of local government such responsibility for the financial support of the free public schools as it may deem appropriate. The governing boards of units of local government with financial responsibility for public education may use local revenues to add to or supplement any public school or post-secondary school program.
N.C. Const. art. IX, § 2(2).

The idea that counties are to participate in funding their local school districts has a long history. In 1890, for example, Chief Justice Merriman wrote for this Court that
the funds necessary for the support of public schools-the public school system- are not derived exclusively from the State. The Constitution plainly contemplates and intends that the several counties, as such, shall bear a material part of the burden of supplying such funds.
Hodgin, 106 N.C. at 187-88, 11 S.E. at 588.

Because the North Carolina Constitution expressly states that units of local governments with financial responsibility for public education may provide additional funding to supplement the educational programs provided by the state, there can be nothing unconstitutional about their doing so or in any inequality of opportunity occurring as a result. We agree with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals in Britt that
the Constitution itself contains provisions that contradict plaintiffs' arguments. The governing boards of units of local government having financial responsibility for public education are expressly authorized to "use local revenues to add to or supplement any public school or post-secondary school program." N.C. Const., Article IX, § 2(2). Clearly then, a county with greater financial resources will be able to supplement its programs to a greater degree than less wealthy counties, resulting in enhanced educational opportunity for its students.... [This] provision[ ] obviously preclude[s] the possibility that exactly equal educational opportunities can be offered throughout the State.
Britt, 86 N.C.App. at 288, 357 S.E.2d at 435-36.

Further, as the North Carolina Constitution so clearly creates the likelihood of unequal funding among the districts as a result of local supplements, we see no reason to suspect that the framers intended that substantially equal educational opportunities beyond the sound basic education mandated by the Constitution must be available in all districts. A constitutional requirement to provide substantial equality of educational opportunities in every one of the various school districts of the state would almost certainly ensure that no matter how much money was spent on the schools of the state, at any given time some of those districts would be out of compliance. If strong local public support in a given district improved the educational opportunities of that district to the point that they were substantially better than those of any other district, the children of all the other school districts by definition would be denied substantially equal educational opportunities. The result would be a steady stream of litigation which would constantly interfere with the running of the schools of the state and unnecessarily deplete their human and fiscal resources as well as the resources of the courts.

Substantial problems have been experienced in those states in which the courts have held that the state constitution guaranteed the right to a sound basic education. See generally Horton v. Meskill, 195 Conn. 24, 486 A.2d 1099 (1985) (describing changes in the Connecticut public schools since the Connecticut Supreme Court had struck down an earlier financing system); Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno, 917 S.W.2d 717 (Tex.1995) (a 5-4 decision upholding the state's school financing plan after the Texas Supreme Court had struck down three state plans for funding public education in Texas); State ex rel. Bds. of Educ. v. Chafin, 180 W.Va. 219, 376 S.E.2d 113 (1988) (describing changes in the public schools since the Supreme Court of West Virginia had struck down the school financing system); William E. Thro, The Third Wave: The Impact of the Montana, Kentucky, and Texas Decisions on the Future of Public School Finance Reform Litigation, 19 J.L. & Legal Educ. 219 (1990) (describing the difficulty in understanding and implementing the mandates of the courts); James S. Liebman, Implementing Brown in the Nineties: Political Reconstruction, Liberal Recollection, and Litigatively Enforced Legislative Reform, 76 Va.L.Rev. 349, 392-93 (1990) (arguing that changes in Connecticut schools after successful litigation had failed to improve student performance); Note, Unfulfilled Promises: School Finance Remedies and State Courts, 104 Harv.L.Rev. 1072, 1075-78 (1991) (describing the lack of an adequate remedy in New Jersey). We believe that even greater problems of protracted litigation resulting in unworkable remedies would occur if we were to recognize the purported right to equal educational opportunities in every one of the state's districts. See generally Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145, 693 A.2d 417 (1997) (decision of a divided Court striking down the most recent efforts of the New Jersey legislature and for the third time declaring the funding system for the schools of that state to be in violation of the state constitution). We conclude that the framers of our Constitution did not intend to set such an impractical or unattainable goal. Instead, their focus was upon ensuring that the children of the state have the opportunity to receive a sound basic education.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Article IX, Section 2(1) of the North Carolina Constitution requires that all children have the opportunity for a sound basic education, but it does not require that equal educational opportunities be afforded students in all of the school districts of the state. The Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the order of the trial court to the extent that order denied defendants' motion to dismiss this claim for relief.

Plaintiff-intervenors make a different argument. They neither allege in their complaint nor argue before this Court that constitutionally mandated educational opportunities require equal funding. Instead, they allege and contend that due to the particular demographics of their urban districts, which include many disadvantaged children, the current state system leaves them unable to provide all of their students a "minimally adequate" basic education. Ironically, if plaintiff-intervenors' argument should prevail, they would be entitled to an unequally large per-pupil allocation of state school funds for their relatively wealthy urban districts. When reduced to its essence, however, this argument by plaintiff-intervenors is merely repetitious of their previous argument that the state must provide all of its children with the opportunity to receive a sound basic education. As we have already concluded that the children of the state enjoy that right and that plaintiff-intervenors may proceed on that claim, we need not and do not address this argument by plaintiff-intervenors.

In another argument, plaintiffs contend that the disparities in the funding provided their poor school districts as compared to the wealthier districts deprive them of equal protection of the laws in violation of Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. Here again, plaintiffs are complaining of the disparities resulting from the local supplements going to the wealthier districts as expressly authorized by Article IX, Section 2(2). Any disparity in school funding among the districts resulting from local subsidies is directly attributable to Article IX, Section 2(2) itself. Plaintiffs are essentially reduced to arguing that one section of the North Carolina Constitution violates another. It is axiomatic that the terms or requirements of a constitution cannot be in violation of the same constitution-a constitution cannot violate itself. This argument is without merit.

In another argument, plaintiff-intervenors contend that their relatively wealthy urban districts have been denied equal protection of the laws because there is no rational nexus between the current allocation of the state's portion of the funding for the school districts and the actual costs of providing students with educational services. This problem is especially acute in plaintiff-intervenors' districts, they contend, because they have greater numbers of students requiring special education programs than other districts. Plaintiff-intervenors complain that the current funding system does not take into consideration the amount of money required to educate particular students with special needs. Plaintiff-intervenors argue, therefore, that the state system providing supplemental state funding to poor and small school districts is arbitrary and denies students in plaintiff-intervenors' wealthy urban districts the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Article I, Section 19.

Plaintiff-intervenors do not argue that the General Assembly may not provide supplemental state funds to some districts and not others. Instead, they contend that the General Assembly has set up the programs for supplementing some but not all districts from purely state funds arbitrarily and without regard for the actual supplemental educational needs of particular school districts throughout the state.

Because we conclude that the General Assembly, under Article IX, Section 2(1), has the duty of providing the children of every school district with access to a sound basic education, we also conclude that it has inherent power to do those things reasonably related to meeting that constitutionally prescribed duty. This power would include the power to create a supplemental state funding program which has as its purpose the provision of additional state funds to poor districts so that they can provide their students access to a sound basic education. However, a funding system that distributed state funds to the districts in an arbitrary and capricious manner unrelated to such educational objectives simply would not be a valid exercise of that constitutional authority and could result in a denial of equal protection or due process.

We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss this claim by plaintiff-intervenors. Plaintiff-intervenors have made sufficient allegations in their complaint to entitle them to proceed to attempt to prove that the state supplemental funding system in question is unrelated to legitimate educational objectives and, therefore, is arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Appeals erred in holding to the contrary and in reversing the trial court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss this claim for relief.

In other arguments, plaintiff-parties contend that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that they had not made sufficient allegations in their complaints to state a claim for the violation of their rights under chapter 115C of the North Carolina General Statutes. We find it unnecessary to dwell at length on these arguments by plaintiff-parties, as even they agree that most of the sections of the statutes they rely upon do little more than codify a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution.

Specifically, plaintiff-parties allege in their complaints that the education system of North Carolina as currently maintained and operated violates the following requirements of chapter 115C: (1) that part of N.C.G.S. § 115C-1 requiring a "general and uniform system of free public schools ... throughout the State, wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students"; (2) that part of N.C.G.S. § 115C-81(a1) requiring that the state provide "every student in the State equal access to a Basic Education Program"; (3) that part of N.C.G.S. § 115C-122(3) requiring the state to "prevent denial of equal educational ... opportunity on the basis of... economic status ... in the provision of services to any child"; and (4) that part of N.C.G.S. § 115C-408(b) requiring that the state "assure that the necessary resources are provided ... from State revenue sources [for] the instructional expenses for current operations of the public school system as defined in the standard course of study." We conclude that none of the statutes relied upon by plaintiff-parties requires that substantially equal educational opportunities be offered in each of the school districts of the state. Instead, those statutes, at most, reiterate the constitutional requirement that every child in the state have equal access to a sound basic education. To the extent that plaintiff-parties can produce evidence tending to show that defendants have committed the violations of chapter 115C alleged in the complaints and that those violations have deprived children of some districts of the opportunity to receive a sound basic education, plaintiff-parties are entitled to do so. The Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion to the contrary.

As we have stated in this opinion, we conclude that the North Carolina Constitution does not guarantee a right to equal educational opportunities in each of the various school districts of the state. Therefore, the Court of Appeals was correct in concluding that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiff-parties' claims for relief based upon this purported right.

We have concluded, however, that the North Carolina Constitution does guarantee every child of the state the opportunity to receive a "sound basic education" as we have defined that phrase in this opinion. We have announced that definition with some trepidation. We recognize that judges are not experts in education and are not particularly able to identify in detail those curricula best designed to ensure that a child receives a sound basic education. However, it is the duty of this Court under the North Carolina Constitution to be the final authority in interpreting that constitution, and the definition we have given of a "sound basic education" is that which we conclude is the minimum constitutionally permissible.

We acknowledge that the legislative process provides a better forum than the courts for discussing and determining what educational programs and resources are most likely to ensure that each child of the state receives a sound basic education. The members of the General Assembly are popularly elected to represent the public for the purpose of making just such decisions. The legislature, unlike the courts, is not limited to addressing only cases and controversies brought before it by litigants. The legislature can properly conduct public hearings and committee meetings at which it can hear and consider the views of the general public as well as educational experts and permit the full expression of all points of view as to what curricula will best ensure that every child of the state has the opportunity to receive a sound basic education.

We have concluded that some of the allegations in the complaints of plaintiff-parties state claims upon which relief may be granted if they are supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we must remand this case to the trial court to permit plaintiff-parties to proceed on those claims.

Educational goals and standards adopted by the legislature are factors which may be considered on remand to the trial court for its determination as to whether any of the state's children are being denied their right to a sound basic education. See generally William E. Thro, Judicial Analysis During the Third Wave of School Finance Litigation: The Massachusetts Decision as a Model, 35 B.C.L.Rev. 597 (1994). They will not be determinative on this issue, however.

Another factor which may properly be considered in this determination is the level of performance of the children of the state and its various districts on standard achievement tests. See Molly McUsic, The Use of Education Clauses in School Finance Reform Litigation, 28 Harv.J. on Legis. 307, 332 (1991). In fact, such "output" measurements may be more reliable than measurements of "input" such as per-pupil funding or general educational funding provided by the state. Id. at 329. It must be recognized, however, that the value of standardized tests is the subject of much debate. Therefore, they may not be treated as absolutely authoritative on this issue.

Another relevant factor which may be considered by the trial court on remand of this case is the level of the state's general educational expenditures and per-pupil expenditures. Board of Educ., Levittown Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Nyquist, 57 N.Y.2d 27, 48, 439 N.E.2d 359, 369, 453 N.Y.S.2d 643, 653 (1982), appeal dismissed, 459 U.S. 1139, 103 S.Ct. 775, 74 L.Ed.2d 986 (1983). However, we agree with the observation of the United States Supreme Court that
[t]he very complexity of the problems of financing and managing a statewide public school system suggests that "there will be more than one constitutionally permissible method of solving them," and that within the limits of rationality, "the legislature's efforts to tackle the problems" should be entitled to respect. Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. [535], 546-547 [92 S.Ct. 1724, 1731-1732, 32 L.Ed.2d 285, 296 (1972)]. On even the most basic questions in this area the scholars and educational experts are divided. Indeed, one of the major sources of controversy concerns the extent to which there is a demonstrable correlation between educational expenditures and the quality of education....
San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 42-43, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1301-1302, 36 L.Ed.2d 16, 48-49 (1973) (emphasis added).

More recently, one commentator has concluded that "available evidence suggests that substantial increases in funding produce only modest gains in most schools." William H. Clune, New Answers to Hard Questions Posed by Rodriguez: Ending the Separation of School Finance and Educational Policy by Bridging the Gap Between Wrong and Remedy, 24 Conn.L.Rev. 721, 726 (1992). The Supreme Court of the United States recently found such suggestions to be supported by the actual experience of the Kansas City, Missouri, schools over several decades. The Supreme Court expressly noted that despite massive court-ordered expenditures in the Kansas City schools which had provided students there with school "facilities and opportunities not available anywhere else in the country," the Kansas City students had not come close to reaching their potential, and "learner outcomes" of those students were "at or below national norms at many grade levels." Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 70, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 2040, 132 L.Ed.2d 63, 88-89 (1995).

We note that in every fiscal year since 1969-70, the General Assembly has dedicated more than forty percent of its general fund operating appropriations to the public primary and secondary schools. Marvin K. Dorman, Jr. and Robert L. Powell, N.C. Off. of State Budget & Mgmt., Post-Legislative Budget Summary, 1996-97, app. tbl. 11, at 154 (Oct. 1996); Fiscal Research Div., 1997 N.C. Gen. Assembly, Selected Economic Revenue and Budget Data (Feb. 11, 1997). During each of those same years, more than fifty-nine percent of the general fund operating appropriations were dedicated to overall public education, which includes community colleges and higher education. Id. Additionally, the Excellent Schools Act, which became effective when signed by Governor James B. Hunt, Jr., on 24 June 1997, will require additional large appropriations to the primary and secondary schools of the state. S.B. 272, 1997 N.C. Gen. Assembly (enacted June 24, 1997). Courts, however, should not rely upon the single factor of school funding levels in determining whether a state is failing in its constitutional obligation to provide a sound basic education to its children.

Other factors may be relevant for consideration in appropriate circumstances when determining educational adequacy issues under the North Carolina Constitution. The fact that we have mentioned only a few factors here does not indicate our opinion that only those factors mentioned may properly be considered or even that those mentioned will be relevant in every case.

In conclusion, we reemphasize our recognition of the fact that the administration of the public schools of the state is best left to the legislative and executive branches of government. Therefore, the courts of the state must grant every reasonable deference to the legislative and executive branches when considering whether they have established and are administering a system that provides the children of the various school districts of the state a sound basic education. A clear showing to the contrary must be made before the courts may conclude that they have not. Only such a clear showing will justify a judicial intrusion into an area so clearly the province, initially at least, of the legislative and executive branches as the determination of what course of action will lead to a sound basic education.

But like the other branches of government, the judicial branch has its duty under the North Carolina Constitution. If on remand of this case to the trial court, that court makes findings and conclusions from competent evidence to the effect that defendants in this case are denying children of the state a sound basic education, a denial of a fundamental right will have been established. It will then become incumbent upon defendants to establish that their actions denying this fundamental right are "necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest." Town of Beech Mountain v. County of Watauga, 324 N.C. 409, 412, 378 S.E.2d 780, 782, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 954, 110 S.Ct. 365, 107 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989). If defendants are unable to do so, it will then be the duty of the court to enter a judgment granting declaratory relief and such other relief as needed to correct the wrong while minimizing the encroachment upon the other branches of government. Corum v. University of N.C., 330 N.C. 761, 784, 413 S.E.2d 276, 291, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 985, 113 S.Ct. 493, 121 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992).

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part and affirmed in part. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Wake County, for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

ORR, Justice, dissenting in part and concurring in part.

I dissent from the portion of the majority opinion that holds that the alleged disparity in the educational opportunities offered by different school districts in this state does not violate Article IX, Section 2(1) of the North Carolina Constitution. I believe, for the reasons stated below, that if the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint are proven at trial, then the state's funding plan for public education would violate the "equal opportunities" clause set forth in our Constitution.

The majority advances two arguments in support of its ruling upholding the current method of state funding for the public school system. The first is that "Article IX, Section 2(2) of our Constitution expressly authorizes the General Assembly to require that local governments bear part of the costs of their local public schools." Second, the majority points out that, historically, local governments have played a significant role in funding our public school system. All of this is true.

However, the majority also views the role of local government as somehow reducing or eliminating the state's ultimate responsibility for funding our public schools. Thus, according to the majority logic, the unequal funding brought about by this system must have been anticipated by the framers of our Constitution. Therefore, no equal treatment in educational opportunities was ever intended. I disagree. The framers of our Constitution also provided, "The people have a right to the privilege of education, and it is the duty of the State to guard and maintain that right." N.C. Const. art. I, § 15 (emphasis added). The Constitution further provides that the General Assembly shall "provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools." N.C. Const. art. IX, § 2(1) (emphasis added). It must be noted that in both of these constitutional provisions, the burden and responsibility is placed upon the state and the General Assembly. Nowhere is the constitutional responsibility for public education placed on local governments. In fact, the counties of North Carolina were created by the General Assembly as governmental agencies of the state. N.C. Const. art. VII, § 1. Counties are merely regarded as
"agencies of the State for the convenience of local administration in certain portions of the State's territory, and in the exercise of ordinary governmental functions they are subject to almost unlimited legislative control, except when restricted by constitutional provision"....
Town of Saluda v. Polk County, 207 N.C. 180, 183, 176 S.E. 298, 300 (1934) (quoting Jones v. Madison County Commissioners, 137 N.C. 579, 596, 50 S.E. 291, 297 (1905)).

The reliance by the majority on the language in Article IX, Section 2(2) of our Constitution that declares the General Assembly " may assign to units of local government such responsibility for the financial support of the free public schools as they may deem appropriate" (emphasis added) can in no way reduce the state's ultimate responsibility. Nor can the simple fact that local governments may use local revenue to "add or supplement" public school programs allow the state to avoid its constitutionally mandated obligation to "provide for a general and uniform system of free public schools." N.C. Const. art. IX, § 2(1).

Moreover, the majority contends that because local funding has been utilized throughout our state's history, any disparities in funding must have been anticipated by the framers of our Constitution. This argument cannot be maintained. I agree with the Tennessee Supreme Court's characterization of this reasoning as a "`cruel illusion.'" See Tennessee Small Sch. Sys. v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139, 155 (Tenn.1993) (quoting Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728, 761, 557 P.2d 929, 948, 135 Cal.Rptr. 345, 364 (1976), cert. denied, 432 U.S. 907, 97 S.Ct. 2951, 53 L.Ed.2d 1079 (1977)). Local education funds are primarily generated through property taxes. If a county has a relatively low total assessed value of property, it has a barrier beyond which it cannot go in funding its educational system(s). Although these counties might impose a higher tax rate than their wealthier counterparts, their efforts cannot substitute for a lack of resources. The poorer counties simply cannot tax themselves to a level of educational quality that its tax base cannot supply. In those circumstances, the argument for local funding is a "cruel illusion" for those officials and citizens who are interested in a quality education for their children.

Although the majority opinion acknowledges the 1970 constitutional amendment to Article IX, Section 2(1) that added the phrase "wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students," the majority apparently gives no significance to its meaning. Defendants, in their brief, contend that the phrase was adopted for the sole purpose of addressing racial segregation. Britt v. N.C. State Bd. of Educ., 86 N.C. App. 282, 357 S.E.2d 432, disc. rev. denied and appeal dismissed, 320 N.C. 790, 361 S.E.2d 71 (1987). I disagree and believe that the majority fails to give this constitutional mandate the full scope of its meaning.

Contrary to the rationale presented in Britt, the 1971 constitutional framers removed existing language from the 1877 Constitution which mandated that "the children of the white race and the children of the colored race shall be taught in separate public schools; but there shall be no discrimination in favor of, or to the prejudice of, either race." N.C. Const. of 1877, art. IX, § 2 (1969). The framers did not choose simply to remove the initial racially discriminatory language, but instead rewrote the constitutional language to provide for " equal opportunities... for all students." N.C. Const. art. IX, § 2(1) (emphasis added).

In arguing the phrase applies only to racial issues, the Britt court essentially violated a rule of statutory interpretation: "`[W]here the meaning is clear from the words used,'" courts should not search for a meaning elsewhere but rather should give meaning to the plain language of the constitution. Martin v. North Carolina, 330 N.C. 412, 416, 410 S.E.2d 474, 476 (1991) (quoting State ex rel. Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 449, 385 S.E.2d 473, 478 (1989)). To interpret the phrase "equal opportunities ... for all students" as equal opportunities for only minority students creates a restrictive definition that the framers could not have intended. Indeed, in regard to education, our Constitution displays a deep concern for "`ensur[ing] every child a fair and full opportunity to reach his full potential.'" Sneed v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ., 299 N.C. 609, 618, 264 S.E.2d 106, 113 (1980) (quoting N.C.G.S. § 115-1.1 (1978)) (recodified as N.C.G.S. § 115C-106 (1994)) (explaining the force of N.C. Const. art. IX, § 2(1) and N.C. Const. art. I, § 15). The Constitution, by its literal reading, means all students. It does not discriminate as to race, gender, handicap, economic status, or geography. Thus, students residing in a poorer district are still entitled to substantially equal educational opportunities as students in wealthier districts.

The majority also advances the rationale that plaintiffs' argument for equal educational programs and resources is not practical. This justification is based on the notion that identical funding and programs are unattainable. However, I believe that the phrase "equal educational opportunities," as advanced by plaintiffs, encompasses more than identical programs and funding for all the school districts in our state. The concept also addresses access to new textbooks, adequate facilities, other educational resources, and quality teachers with competitive salaries. The majority primarily focuses on the word "equal," interpreting this to mean "identical," and rejects the concept because of the fear of never-ending litigation. However, plaintiffs, in their brief, characterize equality as follows:
[T]he concept of equality is never absolute. When used in the context of human relations, the notion of equality must take [into] account the fact that no two people and no two situations are in all respects exactly alike. We use the word equality to express a range within which things can and should be similar.
See Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 652, 376 A.2d 359, 375 (1977). Plaintiffs are essentially arguing that while perfect equality can never be achieved, much can be done to provide substantially equal opportunities. This description is consistent with Black's Law Dictionary, which defines "equality" as "[t]he condition of possessing substantially the same rights, privileges, and immunities." Black's Law Dictionary 536 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added). Thus, the phrase "equal opportunities," in practical terms, means substantially equal opportunities.

Therefore, the equality plaintiffs seek is not necessarily absolute and identical but, rather, is substantial equality. Although the concept of substantial equality is difficult to define, it is clear that a gross disparity in resources does not fall within its definition. For example, plaintiffs allege that many of their schools lack adequate classroom space and that they are forced to hold classes in hallways, cafeterias, libraries, and closets. Plaintiffs also argue that students in Wake County have science laboratories to conduct biology experiments; however, children in Hoke County must watch videos of others conducting the experiment because of lack of resources. Plaintiffs also point to several less obvious disparities: lack of sewer connections and problematic waste water disposal, leaking roofs that cause extensive damage and sometimes require classrooms to be closed during heavy rains, and lighting systems and acoustics that are often poor and inadequate. Plaintiffs also allege that higher teacher pay supplements in the wealthier counties make it more difficult for them to attract the best teachers to their schools. The result of the above inadequacies is that in basic courses such as math, history, and English, more than 80% of the students in plaintiffs' counties are failing. If these allegations are true, these students may not even be receiving the sound basic education that the majority mandates. It also reflects the fact that there is a wide disparity between the wealthier and poorer counties. Can it be rationally argued that students from economically disadvantaged school districts with outdated texts, aging buildings, limited resources, and teachers at the lower end of the wage scale are receiving substantially equal educational opportunities with those students from well-financed school districts with state-of-the-art facilities? The answer is as obvious as is the constitutional mandate that there be "equal opportunities... for all students." N.C. Const. art. IX, § 2(1).

The notion of substantial equality in educational opportunities for all students is not a novel concept. See, e.g., McDuffy v. Secretary of Exec. Office of Educ., 415 Mass. 545, 615 N.E.2d 516 (1993); Tennessee Small Sch. Sys. v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139. Even our constitutional framers addressed this issue. They commented that the Constitution was designed to " level upwards, to every child, as far as the State can, an opportunity to develop to the fullest extent, all his intellectual gifts. So noble an effort, needs no vindication." Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the State of North Carolina 487 (1868) (emphasis added). Three years later, this Court pronounced in Lane v. Stanly, 65 N.C. 153 (1871), that Article IX provides that the state public school system
will be observed as a "system"; it is to be "general," and it is to be "uniform." It is not subject to the caprice of localities, but every locality, yea every child, is to have the same advantage........[Otherwise,] [i]n some townships there would be no schools, in others inferior ones, and in others extravagant ones, to the oppression of the taxpayers. There would be no "uniformity" and but little usefulness, and the great aim of the government in giving all of its citizens a good education would be defeated.
Id. at 157-58 (emphasis added). In essence, I believe that our constitutional framers intended for all students to have equal access to public schools and substantially equal educational opportunities. To conclude otherwise would create arbitrary boundaries on educational opportunities based on geographical lines and local funding circumstances.

In evaluating plaintiffs' claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the facts alleged are to be taken as true, Embree Const. Group, Inc. v. Rafcor, Inc., 330 N.C. 487, 490, 411 S.E.2d 916, 919-20 (1992), and a complaint should not be dismissed "unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim," Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 103, 176 S.E.2d 161, 166 (1970). In our case, statistics employed by both plaintiffs and the state show, for example, that for the 1990-91 fiscal year, the funding for operation of the state's public school system came from the following sources: state funds (66.1%), local funds (24.5%), federal funds (6.6%), and private funds (2.8%). National Ctr. for Educ. Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Educ., Digest of Education Statistics, tbl. 157, at 152 (1993). For capital outlay expenditures, the allocation was as follows: state funds (9%), local funds (90%), and federal funds (1%). Public Schools of N.C., State Bd. of Educ., N.C. Public Schools Statistical Profile, tbl. 30, at 58 (1993) (citing 1991-92 fiscal year statistics). These statistics show without question that a sizeable portion of funding, particularly in the area of capital outlays, falls upon local governments. Consequently, wealthier counties are more capable of meeting their educational needs than are economically disadvantaged counties. These allegations, if true, are more than adequate to state a claim under both the right to a sound basic education and the right to a substantially equal opportunity to get the best education possible.

By the above discussion, I do not contend that the state must necessarily assume complete control over educational allocations. The General Assembly still has the discretion to allocate this responsibility between the state and local governments. Yet it must be reemphasized that the inability or indifference of local governments to provide funds does not excuse the General Assembly from a duty specifically imposed on it by the Constitution.

In closing, we should reflect upon the history of education in North Carolina. The control over education has often been fraught with political overtones of class, race, and gender. In the early 1900s, the New South movement led a classroom revolution to reform the existing education system. Since that turning point, reformers have espoused a platform of simple justice and equality in an effort to ensure a quality education for all children. See generally James L. LeLoudis, Schooling the New South (1996). This process has been long and arduous. As Robert Ogden, a leading reformer in the early 1900s, explained: "[T]he work must be thorough-going, because we wish gradually to change ... an outworn system of society." Id. at 146.

The essential issue in this debate concerns substantial equality of educational opportunities. The issue is not, as the majority argues, simply equality of funding. It is the sole responsibility of the General Assembly to formulate and implement the North Carolina public education system. The state's ultimate responsibility for education under the Constitution cannot be delegated. The specific duties implementing the responsibility are assignable, but the responsibility per se is not. Therefore, any assignment of authority to local governments fails to relieve the state of its responsibility to provide substantially equal educational opportunities to all students. I believe the majority erred in holding that the North Carolina Constitution does not entitle students in all school districts to substantially equal educational opportunities. In this case, plaintiffs have alleged substantial disparities in educational opportunities between wealthier and poorer counties based upon the state's funding system. These are sufficient allegations to state a claim and, if proven true, would entitle plaintiffs to relief.

Because I am unable to join the majority's decision regarding the issue of equal opportunities, I respectfully dissent in part as to this and related issues. I concur, however, with the analysis and results reached by the majority in the remainder of the opinion that does not deal with substantially equal educational opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MITCHELL, Chief Justice. Plaintiffs originally brought this action in Halifax County. Defendants moved for a transfer of venue to Wake County contending that under N.C.G.S. § 1-77(2), Wake County was the only proper venue for this action against public officers. Judge E.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Link to Granville County School Board Policy Manual

# data[].attributes.body
Granville County School Board Policy

In accordance with N.C.G.S. § 115C-300.1, which requires all public schools to create a beginning teacher support program, the Granville County School Board enacted policy code 7130(c).

This policy creates a program that requires all teachers with less than three years of experience to attend orientation, work with a mentor, and complete several formal observations per year.

I chose this policy because it shows how Granville County attempts to ensure new teachers are prepared to teach their students.

Granville County School Board. (2022, July 22). Beginning teacher support program, Policy code 7130(c). https://boardpolicyonline.com/?b=granville

N.C.G.S. § 115C-300.1 https://ncdpi.instructure.com/courses/4041/pages/policy-tced-016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Use the Table of Contents to the left to view all policies and related procedures within each section. Click on the closed book or open book icons beside each section heading to expand or collapse an item and view its subparts. Individual policies, exhibits and regulations are identified in the Table of Contents by the paper icon . You may also use the Next and Back buttons at top right to browse the policies .

You may search for policies by policy number or specific words by using the search box at top left.

Click here to view recent modifications to board policies.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this manual, please contact the local district office.

The online manual provides the district's board of education policies, regulations, and related documents in a fully searchable, easy-to-use format.

Access the Table of Contents (TOC) using the main menu at top left.

Search the manual using the Quick Search box at the top of the page.

Print, download, or get direct links to individual policies using the menu at the top right.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this manual, please contact the local district office.

# data[].attributes.body
North Carolina Teacher Code of Ethics

In the Code of Ethics, teachers in North Carolina are required to be honest in regards to their qualifications to teach and when recommending promotion or licensure for a colleague (16 NCAC 6C § .0602(b) 3(a)(b)).

An ethical dilemma could arise with the current teacher shortage and the relaxing standards required to teach.

It is vital that the schools check the qualifications of those applying to teach and that the candidates are open and honest when completing their application.

https://files.nc.gov/dpi/code-of-ethics.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Link to NCACTE Recommendations for Roundtable-Pathways to Excellence Licensure Proposal-August 8 2022 Final.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #12- Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #12- Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.body
Having attended North Carolina Public Schools from 1989 to 2002, I was fortunate to be taught primarily by teachers who graduated from accredited educator preparation programs and taught in the same schools for most of their careers. I was afforded a high-quality education taught by an accredited teacher without the fear of not having a teacher in one of my classes.

With growing teacher shortages across the country, most states are relaxing requirements for those wanting to teach. Those seeking alternative routes to teacher enrollment have increased by 114% in North Carolina since 2015 (North Carolina Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2022). I worry that we are doing our students a disservice by not holding those teaching our children to higher standards. Our goal should be to have the most qualified people in charge of our children's education, no matter the cost.

As a future instructional coach, I will work with those teachers who have entered the profession through alternate routes. My goal will be to help them be as prepared as possible to handle the many duties of their jobs. I hope they will feel capable and want to stay in the profession for the duration of their career, so our students have stability in the classrooms.

North Carolina Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2022, August 8). Position Statement – Recommendations for NC Licensure Proposal. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ne8wurFMeLA45FJauh4gxI_ZR3WZbfGJ/view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCACTE Recommendations for Roundtable-Pathways to Excellence Licensure Proposal-August 8 2022 Final.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #13- Recommendations and Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #13- Recommendations and Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
1. Stay up to date! It is essential to keep a repository of knowledge and resources at hand. Westmoreland (personal communication, September 25, 2022) recommends following topics related to teacher preparation on Twitter and experts on the subject on LinkedIn. These could be the first places you could learn about changes to policies related to teacher preparation.

2. Build relationships first! Instructional coaches have no administrative authority, but they have influence with leadership and teachers, making them a powerful ally for both sides. When tough conversations need to be had, the relationship built will help you overcome any negativity.

3. Know the laws! Understand the requirements of the Beginning Teacher Program (BTP) and other laws related to educator preparation. Ensure the professional development you provide will help the teachers meet the needs of the BTP.

4. Collaborate! Contact a local community college or university to understand what their educator preparation program is teaching. Include these topics in your professional development to ensure underqualified teachers are better prepared.

5. Digital is not always better! Do not assume that just because something is digital, it is automatically "better"! Balance traditional instructional methods with digital and 21st-century frameworks for learning to create a blended learning environment.

6. Be organized! With more new teachers entering the profession, more will need to participate in the BTP. The instructional coach may be required to complete paperwork that needs to be turned in to the state to prove the teachers met their requirements. If a teacher fails to satisfy the requirements, they risk not receiving credit for their employment, which could result in repeating a year.