The trial to determine whether the state has failed to uphold a 1999 South Carolina Supreme Court ruling to provide students a "minimally adequate education" will resume at 9:30 a.m. Jan. 5 -- more than 10 years after the original suit was filed.

The South Carolina Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs in 1999 and set a new baseline standard for the state's constitution. The court maintains that the constitution broadly outlines the parameters of a "minimally adequate education" in South Carolina.

The case was remanded to the trial level to determine the issue of adequacy as it relates to the 36 plaintiff districts.

On July 28, eight rural impoverished school districts ,on behalf of 36 districts with similar shortcomings, filed a lawsuit against the state for the way it funds education.

The districts claim their students are not receiving an equitable education based on where they reside in the state.

The case is being heard by Third Circuit Judge Thomas A. Cooper Jr., who originally heard the school funding lawsuit 10 years earlier.

The eight trial plaintiff districts are Florence 4, Dillon 2, Lee County, Marion 7, Allendale County, Hampton 2, Jasper County and Orangeburg 3. Attorneys for the plaintiff rural districts are Carl B. Epps III, Laura Hart and Steve Morrison, all of Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough.

The state's attorneys are Robert E. Stepp, Betsy Gray and Jack Barnes of Sowell, Gray, Stepp & Laffitte.

Emory Smith is working with the state's attorneys and represents the governor.

Originally thought to be only about a two-month ordeal, attorneys for both sides said they don't expect the trial to end anytime soon.

In the first part of the trial, plaintiff attorneys called their local superintendents to the stand to discuss facility, technology and other needs of their districts.

The state is a long way from calling its witnesses, but when it does, they are expected to rebut the needs of these districts as they've done during the cross examination of the districts.

When the state's witnesses do take the stand, their expected defense will be that the state provides a building, teachers and content far beyond minimal adequacy as required by the constitution.

The state contends that the students in the plaintiff districts have a sufficient number of classrooms and related facilities that are at least minimally adequate and are exposed to a curriculum that far exceeds the requirements of the constitution.

Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said the whole issue is a reminder of how far South Carolina has yet to go in the realm of education.

"Why are we appropriating another $2 million to give, that is the state now, to fight that lawsuit over in Clarendon County," he said in a previous interview with the Morning News. "Something is wrong with that.

"We're getting ready to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education next year. May 17, 2004, will be 50 years, yet in that same court room where it all started, we are today fighting not to adequately fund education."