Leandro vs. the State of North Carolina Essay Example
Leandro vs. The State of North Carolina had a huge impact on the state of North Carolina. It showed that good teachers, a good budget, and spotting early any problems a child may have are very important to the child's learning: In other words, the child's environment is essential. In 1997, the Supreme Court decided that every single kid in North Carolina should have "a sound, basic education," which the Supreme Court pretty much defines as a basic understanding in all fields of academics to compete with other children in the world for a good job.
The Superior Court also decided that the EOGs and EOCs were an "appropriate measure" to see if the kids were meeting the standards set by Leandro. But there were differences in the States and individual school district's viewpoint of the baseline standards for the Leandro case. The state believes that the below grade level tests were adequate while the individual school district, or LEAs, believed that the grade level tests were adequate. When this particular matter was brought to court, the Superior court found the LEA's arguments to be a little bit more convincing.
From here on, the Superior Court's cases were going on to find out who should be blamed for the lack in good test scores. Was it the state's fault, because they didn't give any money? Was it the LEA's fault, because they had incompetent teachers? Or was it a combination of both? Well, the court decided it was all the states fault, because the constitution clearly describes it as the state's job to keep up the schools. This means that the state also gets the blame for the bad teachers because they're supposed to help out the LEAs. When the Superior Court issued this verdict, they also gave a more in depth explanation of the criteria to this "sound, basic education." Now I come to the part which actually affects kids most, when I am on the second page of my one page report . Hehe. Anyway, the criteria are that (1) Each school must have a good principal that
The Superior Court also decided that the EOGs and EOCs were an "appropriate measure" to see if the kids were meeting the standards set by Leandro. But there were differences in the States and individual school district's viewpoint of the baseline standards for the Leandro case. The state believes that the below grade level tests were adequate while the individual school district, or LEAs, believed that the grade level tests were adequate. When this particular matter was brought to court, the Superior court found the LEA's arguments to be a little bit more convincing.
From here on, the Superior Court's cases were going on to find out who should be blamed for the lack in good test scores. Was it the state's fault, because they didn't give any money? Was it the LEA's fault, because they had incompetent teachers? Or was it a combination of both? Well, the court decided it was all the states fault, because the constitution clearly describes it as the state's job to keep up the schools. This means that the state also gets the blame for the bad teachers because they're supposed to help out the LEAs. When the Superior Court issued this verdict, they also gave a more in depth explanation of the criteria to this "sound, basic education." Now I come to the part which actually affects kids most, when I am on the second page of my one page report . Hehe. Anyway, the criteria are that (1) Each school must have a good principal that