# data[].attributes.body
After reading chapter 8 and Leandro v. State, I agree with Leandro. As I learned where funding comes from, it is hard to understand how schools can be Leandro compliant without the money for adequate resources. I had to answer yes for the questions “Is the quality of education a student receives correlated to funding?” from our school funding worksheet. When you look at the local school district you can see that low-income counties don’t have the funds to be able to access the resources needed for better quality education. Whereas other counties are able to give significantly more based on their tax base.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading about the case, I feel as though the decision that was made was the right one. I feel as though they were trying to refrain from having schools or school districts having battles about who gets how much or how little funding. I think giving each individual child a sound education and giving them equal funding, was the right thing to do.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree with the Leandro v. State decision. I think explanation of the plaintiff's case is part of the reason as to why. The plaintiff's simply argued that the quality of education received should not depend so much on the wealth of the family or the community. I think the ruling in their favor and thus the agreement with their case is the ethically correct decision. Also, I agree that all students have the constitutional right to a sound basic education. States may not be able to supply equal funding to all school. However, students still have the right to a sound basic education. The case also placed the obligation on the state - not the local school districts - to provide such education. I think that is best because it gives the power to the more authoritative body which would have more access to resources for providing a quality education to all students than local school districts would.

# data[].attributes.body
No I do not agree with the ruling in this case, not wholly anyway. I do of course agree that every child should be granted the Leandro right to receive a sound, basic education regardless of the family's wealth or the county's wealth in which they reside in NC. And I understand that in this case they ultimately left it up to the state to safeguard and ensure the Leandro right to every child. No exceptions. No excuses. However, both the local and state governments already each contribute roughly half of their budget to public education. In addition, while both federal and state revenues have risen over the years, local revenues have fallen drastically by almost 40%. This having been said, I feel like the federal contribution needs to be increased but it likely won't be. Typically when the states need assistance from the federal gov't, the federal gov't starts making cutbacks to programs to which they already contribute. This then forces the states to have to make cutbacks. Often one of the first areas to receive cutbacks is school spending.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree I believe that all children should receive the same amount of education than any other person or where they come from. Either you are from a low income area are higher income area everyone should be considered the same. With the affirmation that every student in their constitutional right to a sound, basic education beginning in early childhood.

# data[].attributes.body
I do support the decision made by the Court in the case Leandro v. State. Though I wish it were possible for all schools to receive the exact amount of funding they require for their students, I understand that this cannot always be the case. State budgets must be prepared to withstand the pressures of a constantly shifting economic landscape. They must do this without overly burdening the people with taxes. The State must provide students with a sound basic education, but must be prepared to do so at a cost that is objectively reasonable for the taxpayer.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I agree with the Leandro v. State ruling. It is in society as a whole's best interest to provide the best education possible for all our children. Children will be the future workers, innovators, etc. and we want them to have the best possible education that we can provide so that our country can continue to prosper and be a great place to live, and so that these children can have a better life. Research indicates that it costs more per-pupil to educate disadvantaged low-income students, and the communities in which they live don't have the availability of funds like wealthier communities do. The North Carolina state constitution says that education is the states responsibility. This means that the ultimate responsibility rests on the state, and not the local area, to ensure that all students are provided with an education, and therefore it is their responsibility to fill in any gaps of funding that the local low-income districts cannot provide. This ruling is just a reaffirmation of the state consitution.

# data[].attributes.body
I support the decision in the Leandro v. State case. I think that schools deserve more funding in order to provide all students across the state with the same education. There shouldn’t be schools that can’t teach students certain topics because they can’t afford to get the necessary materials for the students. In order for schools to provide an equal opportunity for each student the materials and the curriculum need to be universal for all schools across the state.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with the decision at a certain point. The court decided that school districts nor counties have any constitutional right to equal funding. I believe all schools funding should have equity funding. I say this because some schools require more resources than others which would make things unequal funding but equity. The part I disagree with is that no school is granted equal funding but the children deserve an equal education? How is that possible if schools are not reviving the appropriate benefits to grant an equal education. I grew up in a low income town with schools that lacked resources so I understand the negative impact that not having enough resources can have on students. When I came to ECU I was learning curriculum that was suppose to have been taught to me in my adolescent years and I was behind a some point because of my low-income school. Teachers can only teach students with the resources they have and if it’s limited or not fulfilled students lack the academic knowledge needed.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the Leandro v State court ruling. I think it is our responsibility to ensure a sound basic education to all children. We are raising up the future generations, and in doing that we should desire that they be as successful as possible. I have enjoyed learning about this case, as it has opened my eyes to all that it takes to provide an equitable education to all children.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I support the Leandro v. State case decision. I believe that all children have a right to "the opportunity" to receive a basic education. I believe the state should help fund counties /districts that do not have the funding to offer this type of education to their students. As stated by the plaintiff a child's education should not depend on the wealth of the family or the community. The area I do not fully agree with is the percentage the Federal government pays towards education. I also believe that schools should be given the funding they need to offer their students the same opportunities as every other student in the state.

# data[].attributes.body
I would say I would have to support Leandro's family because every child should have an equal education. Just because some children need more support through school doesn't mean they're less important than other students. I've been told that teaching is a benefit of a heart, not a pocketbook because teachers are underpaid for what they do for their students and the stress they go through in the year.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I support the Leandro v. State decision in which the Supreme Court ruling protects all students living in North Carolina to have an opportunity for "sound basic education " provided with state funding. I love how the Supreme Court held the state responsible for providing state funds to ensure the basics of a good education. A child's education should not be based on the zip code they reside in.US communities are structured with a railroad track dividing "the good side of town " from "the bad side of town". Another topography that defines neighborhoods and school district division is the side of an overpass or interstate someone lives on. We live in a divisive America with the "haves and the have-nots". The state funds are greatly needed for schools located in impoverished districts. I am looking forward to advocating for reforming for more federal involvement in funding for schools.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not fully agree with the Leandro v. State decision. I like how the court outlined what a sound basic education was, so there could be no debate about what kind of education students deserve. However, I felt like the court was little to no help in finding a way to fund the sound basic education. The courts shifted the responsibility to the state, but a big part of school funding comes from the local level. I feel like this court shifted the blame instead of fixing the problem.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree with Leandro V. State because of the compelling argument that was made by the plaintiff. Schools should have the right to quality education and I do believe school funding has a lot to do with that. There is a need for teachers to have pay, special assistance, and materials. All which are affected if schools are receiving a lower budget. Wealth should have nothing to with the quality of education. I agree that students have a constitutional right to a sound, basic education.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Leandro in the aspect that all students and youth are entitled to a sound education.  However, I do not agree with the decision that all schools are to receive equal amounts of funding.  School districts even within Pitt County, vary widely in levels of income within the community.  There has to be a balancing put into the equation that gives the right to a basic education, but if the funding is not equalized based on the wealth on the particular school district, then we are failing to provide an equal education to all.
I am a substitute teacher within Pitt County Schools and I see this often. The wealthier areas of the county every child has a laptop, however, in the lower income schools, often students had to share laptops. Yes, this was remedied in the past 2 years due to COVID grants, but prior to this the availability of the technology in the classroom varied widely based on the income of the local community.

# data[].attributes.body
I do support the Leandro vs. State of NC decision. It is very apparent that not every school in each county individually and every county when compared has the same resources as the other. They were right to sue and take action to get their students the help and support that they saw that they needed. No matter where a student lives, it is the state's duty to give each child the same basic education. At the end of the suit, the Executive Order 27 states that we will have qualified principals, teachers and the adequate resources for our schools and students. If anything this suit holds our school board and state accountable.

# data[].attributes.body
I have mixed feelings about the Leandro decision, though most of my opinions are in favor of it.
Defining a 'basic sound education' seeks to ensure, or should ensure, every child in the state the fulfillment of their state constitutional right to a fundamental education.
Clarifying that monetary disbursements of state school districts and counties are not entitled to equal funding, regardless of higher tax rates or lower than average tax revenues dispels the argument for more monies.  The state should be willing to use Title I funds and any other federal funds to compensate.
Accountability for the safeguarding and successful delivery of tools, books, materials,etc. for the educating of NC learners falls on the state.
These decisions read and sound top notch.  However, in the real world, it may take decades before these decisions are realized.
Laurna Malone's response