# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I agree with the Leandro v. State decision because it ruled the obvious. It's ruling declares that it is unacceptable to have an inadequate education based on where one lives and how poor the district is. I agree with the outcome since it mandated the state to ensure all NC school districts must be able to provide a sound basic education to all.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court’s overall ruling in the Leandro v. State case stated that neither school districts nor counties have any constitutional right to equal funding; that all children residing in NC have a fundamental state constitutional right to the “opportunity to receive a sound basic education;” and that the state of NC, not local school districts, have the ultimate constitutional obligation to actively safeguard and successfully deliver every child’s Leandro right, with no exceptions or excuses. I agree with the court’s ruling. Although, I do not believe this is what is actually happening in many parts of the state. Children should not be disadvantaged because of where they live. According to the plaintiffs, their children are already disadvantaged due to lower tax revenues, while they are paying higher that average tax rates. Why would we want to add to their disadvantaged state? I think funds should be distributed in a way that is equitable, yet provides the necessary funds every student needs to be successful. I agree with the plaintiffs that it costs more to educate disadvantaged children than children in wealthier communities. The state should communicate with the local school districts concerning the needs of their students. Students in lower income areas require more services, such as Special Education and English Language Learner resources and materials, than students from higher income areas. Every student has a right to have to his or her educational needs met. The state should be responsible for seeing that this is happening throughout the entire state, and not just in some areas.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I agree with Leandro v. State. I am beside myself it took someone until 1994 to sue the State for this reason. No child should suffer because of their parent's wealth or income. I also do not think student's education should be based on the district income. I am very happy that the court sided with Leandro. The court graded all NC districts provide sound basic education to all children. The court went onto to identify what sound basic education is defined as. The key factors they defined are amazing and I am happy and proud to live in North Carolina.

# data[].attributes.body
As someone that has grown up and went to schools that required government fund and grants, I am glad that someone finally spoke up for the fact that wealth should not imply a more quality education. Students in low income areas lack additional resources at home and may experience greater needs, therefore, they should gain additional funding to help these schools be the place that these students can get a jump start into the real world. Everyone deserves a basic sound education, and in order to do that, we have to make sure we are not only being equal, but equitable as well.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the decision because it's important that location or economic status is not a factor to the kind of education every child should be awarded freely. It was a way for the state to take responsibility for the entire state and treat everyone living in it equally.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the decision because every child should have the same educational opportunities. Children do not have a say in where they are born or who their families are. I don't understand why that would matter for them to get an education. An education gives people more opportunities for their lives. Why not let everyone be able to have that chance.

# data[].attributes.body
I absolutely agree with the Leandro ruling. Every student deserves to have the same educational opportunities as others in the states. Because is a child is born or lives in a area that is more economically challenged should not prevent them from having the same basic educational needs meet. I did a bit more research on this case, and I found it interesting that one of the items the case pointed out as lacking compared to other school district was a science lab at the High School. Expecting students to have a sound education where they are able to sufficiently understand science without the abilities to practice experiments that their future college peers had is not equitable. I am glad to see the courts ruled in favor of this case.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dana Thomas-Scarito          Yes, I support the Leandro v. State decision. As the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a democratic society requires a fulfilling education with sufficient knowledge of the prerequisites for post-secondary education or vocational training in whatever pursuits will make a citizen successful - quality of “life,” “liberty” from debt, and “happiness” with their position in society.

# data[].attributes.subject
Dana Thomas-Scarito          Yes, I support the Leandro v. State decision. As the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a democratic society requires a fulfilling education with sufficient knowledge of the prerequisites for post-secondary education or vocational training in whatever pursuits will make a citizen successful - quality of “life,” “liberty” from debt, and “happiness” with their position in society.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the decision because children should not be penalized because where they live. Every child should be provided a sound basic education. Students should have access and resources to an equitable education. I feel that this case is about making things right so that students and have an opportunity to be successful in school regardless of the school district they fall under.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I do agree with the Leandro vs. State decision.  Receiving an education is a right for every student in America.  The decision from the case of Leandro vs State placed in writing what should have already been known and acted upon.  Having an equal opportunity go to school and have adequate education should not be based on where a student lives.  Students, regardless of age, that are enrolled in a public school should have the same opportunities no matter what the income of the family or community is.  Leandro vs State was able to allow all students an equal and fair opportunity to receive the education that they deserve.  Requiring states to take responsibility over a student’s right to receive a “sound basic education,” and for all students even students who have been suspended a right to an education; shows that the court cared for the students’ education.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the Leandro vs. state decision. It is not realistic for every district to receive adequate amount of money as other places based on the school and town size. I do agree that every teacher should get paid more, but I think that certain areas should pay teachers based on the location of the school and district they are in. Even though this was passed I highly feel that it is not equal and schools in areas with more money put two to three times more into their school system, than in the poorer areas. The disparities everywhere will always remain prevalent until the district spends money into every school equally. Although that it was ruled all kids have the right to a second bound education, I question whether this is really what is happening in 2020.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I most definitely agree with this court case. In fact, I believe that it basically stating the obvious fact that everyone in America has an equal right to a quality education. This is exactly what I wrote my BTA essay about because this is a topic close to my heart. Even today, America has a long way to go on funding low-income schools.

# data[].attributes.body
While I do in part support the ruling in the Leandro V. State case, about all children being given the right to a quality education, I do not think it takes it far enough.  I think part of a quality education is funding. Right now with the heavy lean on local districts to fund  schools we are only increasing the gaps between urban and rural schools. Are there amazing teachers who do amazing things in lower income schools? Absolutely! Think about what they could do if given the opportunity to have the same resources as more affluent schools. The other issue with this is  schools having things like school counselors and nurses. These are things that many rural counties are severly lacking all due to funding.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the courts ruling in the case of Leandro v. State because all students deserve the right to a quality, sound, and basic education. A students education should not suffer because of where they live of their parents income. All students should have the same equal education. While there are still school districts in NC that have extra funding compared to others, I do believe that all students are receiving a basic and sound education, which is what the court ordered in this court case.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes- I agree with the overall ruling. I believe that the funding should be equal -but based upon the size of the student body/teachers etc. BUT that all schools should have the the ability to meet the Leandro v. State requirements. It is ridiculous to think that NC is at the bottom of the heap as far as funding and therefore educational services.

# data[].attributes.body
I completely agree that there should be equity in school funding. Every child should have the means to obtain an adequate education that allows them to compete with others of various wealth. It is not the child who chose to live in a district where the income level is low, so they should be able to have the same choices, the same chance as those who live i the higher-income level ares.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I side with the Court's ruling on this, as we as a nation feel that the responsibility of education is in the hands of our state [and local] government.  One thing I've come to understand over the last two modules is that just because the state puts into law or mandates that its people provide the "opportunity to receive a sound basic education" for every child, does not mean that the districts within the state will get the support and resources they need to make this happen.  No, it is certainly not fair to any child that they live in a poorer district and therefore will receive a less than stellar education.  This decision aims to adjust for that, but it does not address funding, which is always a concern whether acting on reform or not.  And, just for the sake of argument, the fact that we live in a democratic society means that not everything is going to be equal or equitable.  Consider this: The state government declares that it will spend $13,000 annually per student - regardless of district.  So, we know that schools on the poor side of town are allotted the same amount of funds per student as the schools on the wealthier side of town. The state has provided funds that allow POOR David to receive the same education as RICH Meg.   But, you also have to take into account what those districts decide to spend on education from their own revenues.  You have to consider that those children living on the poor side realistically aren't receiving the same type of pre-school cognitive nurturing. You have to consider families who donate heavily to the school their child attends.  And as we continue to reform special education laws, we provide more funds.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that the decision for all children to have an equal opportunity for an education is exactly what should have been said. It is absolutely not acceptable to think that it should be any other way. No matter where you come from rich or poor that does not indicate the education that you should receive. All children have the ability to learn and all children should have the same opportunity to receive the education that anyone else does. There are too many stories of children overcoming the obstacles and barriers that are placed on them as a child and end up becoming some of the most successful stories told all over the world. A child should never fear that their education is in jeopardy due to where they live or how much money is in the bank account. I stand by the courts ruling in this case and actually think that more could still be done to ensure the children are protected.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I agree with this ruling. Honestly this should never be an issue to begin with. Every child should have the right to get an education no matter what. It should never be about a certain amount of money. I have always felt very strongly about these types of issues in schools. I work closely with children and each and every one of them deserve a sound education. Every child enrolled in a school system is different and special.They all deserve the best. I feel like the court ruling was a good and positive thing. But we still have a long way to go to provide adequate funding for all schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes I agree with this court case! It seems logical that school systems with more need based students would require higher funding compared to the others. I do not believe it is fair for these children to receive anything less than the wealthier students receive from their educational system, all because of their financial situation. I think that their should be some type of better way of funding for their schools that need the extra financial support.

# data[].attributes.body
“A unanimous Court stated that neither school districts nor counties have any constitutional right to equal funding” I do not agree with this ruling because I believe it supports the systemic inequity issues we have present in education today. This means that a child’s birthplace will determine the quality and funding of their education. The ruling tries to make it sound like ‘all’ children are going to have access to the same high quality experience. The issue for some lawmakers in this ruling is that it would imply that all children are equal and deserving of great school funding. They have to admit that their rich kids need less money and redistribute funds away or they shift blame away from themselves. Distributing funds equally among the schools  would require a mindset shift about the differences between our children, an uncomfortable conversation.