• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Youth Advocacy & Policy Lab (Y-Lab)

Youth Advocacy & Policy Lab (Y-Lab)

Harvard Law School

  • About
    • Y-Lab History
    • Mission and Overview
    • Faculty and Staff
    • Y-Lab News
    • About Our Photographs
    • Contact Us
  • Academics
    • Overview
    • Youth Advocacy & Policy Fellows Program
    • 2026-2027 Courses
    • 2025-2026 Courses
    • Art of Social Change
    • Y-Lab Writing Group
    • Student Opportunities
  • TLPI
  • Students Speak
  • Clinics
    • Child Advocacy Clinic
    • Individual Representation Clinic
    • Strategic Litigation
    • Movement Lawyering
  • Events
    • Events
    • 2026 Youth Advocacy Writing Group Working Paper Lunch Series
    • 2025 Youth Advocacy Writing Group Working Paper Lunch Series
    • “Preserving Public Education” Speaker Series
  • Support Y-Lab

West Virginia

December 1, 2025 by Julie Vakoc

Historical Background

Several parents in West Virginia brought suit in 1975, arguing that their children were receiving an inadequate education in violation of the state constitution’s education and equal protection clauses. In 1979, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in Pauley v. Kelly, 255 S.E.2d 859, held that education was a fundamental right and remanded the case for trial. The court also defined the constitutional standard for education as one that “develops, as best the state of education expertise allows, the minds, bodies and social morality of its charges to prepare them for useful and happy occupations, recreation and citizenship, and does so economically.”

In 1982, the trial court found the school finance system unconstitutional and, with the help of the state superintendent of schools, developed a 356 page master plan for reform. Delays in implementation of the plan led plaintiffs back to court where they obtained a ruling from the Supreme Court that the state has “a specific duty to implement and enforce the policies and standards of the Master Plan.” Pauley v. Bailey, 324 S.E.2d 128, 135 (1984). Although the legislature subsequently adopted a number of reforms, the main equity reforms and educational innovations promised by the Pauley decision were not implemented, primarily because of resistance to increased funding.

In 1995, plaintiffs returned to court and, a year later, the trial court in Tomblin v. Gainer, found that the state had ignored many of the reforms the court had ordered. The court held that the state still did not provide a “thorough and efficient” system of education. In 1998, the legislature established a state office to perform school reviews and, under a 2000 court order, the state must evaluate and report on individual schools’ specific needs, including personnel, curriculum, and facilities.

Recent Events

In January 2003, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ remaining motion for an order to change specific aspects of the state’s funding calculations. In this decision, Tomblin v. State Board of Education, the court declared the system enacted in 1998 constitutional and ended its jurisdiction. In December 2003, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside, vacate, or amend the January ruling.

Related

Category iconStates Tag iconLegal Right Recognized and Applied

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Author Grace Spurlock ’08: Storytelling As Advocacy
  • Youth Advocacy Writing Group Working Paper Lunch – Monday, March 30
  • Youth Advocacy Writing Group Working Paper Lunch – Wednesday, April 8
  • Youth Advocacy Writing Group Working Paper Lunch – Thursday, April 16
  • Youth Advocacy Writing Group Working Paper Lunch – Monday, March 23

Tags

Art of Social Change Blockquotes Children's Rights Clinic Custody Education events format Headlines Images Centered Images Left Images Right International Adoption Justice Legally Enforceable Right Denied Legal Right Recognized and Applied Legal Right Recognized but Not Yet Applied Mental Health New Cases Currently Pending No Decision Yet on Existence of a Right Ordered Lists post Prison Substance Abuse Tables Threaded Comments Unordered Lists welfare Working Paper Lunch Series

Footer

Contact Us

Youth Advocacy and Policy Lab
Harvard Law School
23 Everett Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-496-1684
[email protected]

Accessibility Resources

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy »
© 2020 The President and Fellows of Harvard College
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 SEO Themes. All rights reserved. Return to top